world

Iran nuclear deal survives: Democrats block disapproval vote

103 Comments
By ERICA WERNER and DEB RIECHMANN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

103 Comments
Login to comment

This is good news. Now the U.S. Has one less enemy.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

Not according to the leaders we don't! Israel has a greater threat to boot.

-11 ( +4 / -15 )

we’ll use every tool at our disposal to stop, slow, and delay this agreement.

The party of 'no' has spoken.

And by the way, where's that long-awaited replacement for the ACA?

4 ( +9 / -5 )

This is good news. Now the U.S. Has one less enemy.

If you believe the liberal blogosphere.

-18 ( +7 / -25 )

"Although House Republicans continued to pursue eleventh-hour strategies to derail the international accord and Senate Republicans promised a re-vote,..."

Anticipate endless, pointless votes opposing the deal.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The accord aims to constrain Iran’s nuclear ambitions in exchange for hundreds of billions of dollars in relief from international sanctions.

Meanwhile the iranians hold a defiant posture as this so-called deal goes through. The US flag burnings and "death to america" chants still continue. According to them, isreal will not exist in the near future.

“This vote is a victory for diplomacy, for American national security and for the safety and security of the world,” the president said in a statement.

It's a victory for himself. This guy is so delusional.

-11 ( +5 / -16 )

A great many Republicans believe that the answer to every problem is punishment and bullying, and by those actions, the problems just evaporate eventually and never, ever fester.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

This goes to show you that being against anything and everything eventually costs you a victory. The GOP is incapable of leadership in any capacity

10 ( +14 / -4 )

Meanwhile the iranians hold a defiant posture as this so-called deal goes through. The US flag burnings and "death to america" chants still continue. According to them, isreal will not exist in the near future.

As long as it's all talk - what does it matter?

6 ( +9 / -3 )

It's a victory for himself. This guy is so delusional.

Please tell me again how many countries in the world support this deal?

The US flag burnings and "death to america" chants still continue. According to them, isreal will not exist in the near future.

I encourage you to have a look at the vitriolic comments of these Tea Party attendees at the Trump and Cruz rally. Feel the hatred. And feel how Trump and Cruz just love it.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/video/2015/09/donald_trump_and_the_iran_deal_rally_a_look_inside_the_tea_party_s_big_day.html

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Bad news.

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

I encourage you to have a look at the vitriolic comments of these Tea Party attendees at the Trump and Cruz rally. Feel the hatred. And feel how Trump and Cruz just love it.

Better to listen to vitriolic comments than to pass a wretched deplorable and underhanded deal. But as I said, since when do most Dems and libs care about ethics or morality??

-16 ( +4 / -20 )

The deal is done, there is nothing to unwind it now. It's an international deal so the snap-back sanctions will be heavier than ever for Iran. All the ME has endorsed it. The only ones who haven't are those who would like to see another war without picking up arms themselves

5 ( +7 / -2 )

It's an international deal so the snap-back sanctions will be heavier than ever for Iran

Ha! Only if the russians and chinese agree, in concert, that iran violated any part of the deal in the first place. The ball is in iran's court. Highly doubt snap-sanctions will be reimposed as time goes on.

Meanwhile the russians are enhancing iran's missile capabilities. And the mullahs & supreme leader refuse any other additional dealings / negotiations with the US beyond the nuclear issues. What a slap in the face!

-13 ( +4 / -17 )

I can't see all of this fear mongering. I mean Iran has not invaded or threatened anyone (that wipe Israel off the map stuff means nothing) in hundreds of years. Israel and the US are constantly invading countries and killing people in the thousands and millions. How can Iran be a threat to anyone? It's laughable.

It's like the school bully who rapes and kills other students screaming about some small kid who said he would get back at them with a slingshot one day, and then agreed to sell them the slingshot for a dime... No one takes anything the bully says seriously. They are laughing at people like that.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

(that wipe Israel off the map stuff means nothing)

It does to Bibi and isreali citizens.

How can Iran be a threat to anyone? It's laughable.

You prob think the same of N. Korea too. It's laughable.

No one takes anything the bully says seriously. They are laughing at people like that.

Bill Clinton administration acted that way. Didn't take the USS Cole, Somalia, the initial bombings of the WTC's foundations seriously. After 9/11, they were all laughing alright (iran, iraq, yemen, the palestinians etc).

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

It does to Bibi and isreali citizens.

@Wc626 It sure does, as they invented that utterly contrived and perverted translation from the original Persian. Its basically like saying I threatened to kill you because I said "Please disappear.". In fact, its worse than that because its like saying I threatened to kill you because I reminded you my grandfather once asked you to "Please disappear.". Its fascinating, because since people cannot follow the complexity of the lie, they believe it must be true! People are so very, very stupid.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Okay, let the mullahs talk the talk then. Isrealis, talk the talk but also walk the walk. Isreal will not not exist in 25 years and the US remains the "great satan" in spite of the deal -what a load of crap.

As long as it's all talk - what does it matter?

I wish this holds true too whenever Donald Trump say something stupid next time.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

plasticmonkey: And by the way, where's that long-awaited replacement for the ACA?

Republicans don't look to their leaders for solutions....why should you?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The U.S. Senate voted to uphold the hard-fought nuclear accord with Iran on Thursday, with Democrats overcoming ferocious Republican opposition and delivering President Barack Obama a legacy making victory on his top foreign policy priority.

Thrilled that all the millions of dark money spent by the Koch brothers and others went to waste, as well as all the blow-hard talk from folks like Cheney who got us into the mess in the Middle East in the first place. And three cheers to Colin Powell for taking his usual well-thought-out approach to the issue. Maybe if George W. had listened to him, instead of Cheney and the other neo-cons, when he said about Iraq "If you break it, you own it", the U.S. would be in a much different position in the Middle East.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Republicans don't look to their leaders for solutions....why should you?

And Democrats would throw their own mothers under a bus and follow Obama right or wrong. Lemmings with no coherent thought process. Robotic and myopic all the way.

Thrilled that all the millions of dark money spent by the Koch brothers and others went to waste, as well as all the blow-hard talk from folks like Cheney who got us into the mess in the Middle East in the first place.

Why is it not a problem when George Soros spends his billions on progressive radical causes, but it's a crime if the Koch brothers do the same for conservatives?

Answer: both sides are equally matched when it comes to financial backup from Billionaire donors and supporters of both causes, now I know libs hat that because they want a one party system, but then they should move to Cuba, Russia or China if they hate listening to opposing views.

And three cheers to Colin Powell for taking his usual well-thought-out approach to the issue. Maybe if George W. had listened to him, instead of Cheney and the other neo-cons, when he said about Iraq "If you break it, you own it", the U.S. would be in a much different position in the Middle East.

Yeah, that's one man who voted for Obama based on his skin color alone.... How about Obama and his ability to listen to others, well we all know he gets a straight F for that. Over 200 Generals are against this deal, but why would Obama care? He's out of here (Hallelujah) in 424 days! Before he goes on the bragging road and sits on Jimmy Fallon with that chin in the air bragging he did a good thing for Iran and this horrible deal, as long as he can get applauses and cheers and people come to his book signing, that's the ONLY thing that matters to Obama. At least once he's gone, we can get some peace and this treaty is not binding and the next president can discard it and start over.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

And Democrats would throw their own mothers under a bus

Oh yeah? Well, my daddy's bigger than your daddy!

Why is it not a problem when George Soros spends his billions on progressive radical causes, but it's a crime if the Koch brothers do the same for conservatives?

Because the Koch brothers do it for their own financial gain. Lower taxes for the rich and less regulation mean more money for themselves and their friends. The causes that Soros funds are not tied to making him richer.

Anyway, keep on huffing and puffing. The nuclear deal is done, it will be successful, and the next president will not be a Republican. Enjoy.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

"we’ll use every tool at our disposal to stop, slow, and delay this agreement"

And yet, just a couple of weeks back when the Democrats filibustered a Republican attempt to vote on an attempt to stop this issue Tom Cotton, LITERALLY crying, screamed about how unfair it was, as did Mitch McConnell, who has enjoyed the filibuster for years until now. Hypocrites, plain and simple.

bass4funk: "And Democrats would throw their own mothers under a bus and follow Obama right or wrong. Lemmings with no coherent thought process. Robotic and myopic all the way."

But you're not partisan at all, right, bass? And you never just blindly follow Faux news or anything the Republican party says, and you CERTAINLY never say, "I don't have to state my opinion" when you are dead wrong about something or asked flat out about some example of racism in the right wing, etc. Please! If you want to SERIOUSLY talk about throwing people under the bus, you need only go to your beloved Faux news, where the president throws Meagan under the bus for Trump's favor, then tries to pretend he's been defending her while seeking backroom deals with Trump, or the GOP trying to throw Trump under the bus -- well... half of them. The other half have no idea what's going on. You guys are so busy throwing EACH OTHER under the bus all we have to do is sit back and laugh, and now we get to watch you guys struggle, and squirm, and rant, and rave that you can't pass anything despite having majorities in both the House and Senate, suddenly don't like filibustering but will do it the next day anyway, etc.

This is a victory for the US -- you're just bitter because Obama has won yet again.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

We should remember that US bases surround Iran and the US poses a much greater existential threat to that country than the other way around.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Oh yeah? Well, my daddy's bigger than your daddy

Don't hate the messenger, hate the message.

Because the Koch brothers do it for their own financial gain.

And for conservative causes and principles, the same as Soros does for progressive liberal causes. May the best men win.

Lower taxes for the rich and less regulation mean more money for themselves and their friends. The causes that Soros funds are not tied to making him richer.

Higher taxes for the rich making it more difficult to hire, expand and employ more people, inhibiting financial growth. Spending, spending and more spending. Keeping the corporate tax rate ridiculously high. Soros feels that America needs to be more in line with Europe, if he thinks so, then why he doesn't go back to his native country? That's the reason why this country is a mess, progressive, looney liberal values are destroying this country, practically destroyed California and New York, at least Orange County doesn't have to worry about these loons.

Anyway, keep on huffing and puffing. The nuclear deal is done, it will be successful, and the next president will not be a Republican. Enjoy

Enjoy? Of course, libs think its a victory because they don't think or understand the later ramifications of the deal, as long as Obama looks good, who the heck cares if innocent people are killed, but the one thing I do take comfort in and the only hope we has is Israel and as long as Iran THINKS it can make a bomb, that country will have a giant Bullseye on it and any detection of the Iranians even trying to break the deal, given their history, they will, Israel will blow that country out of the sky and good for them. And if you think the Next president will be a Democrat, then you need to muster all the spiritual beliefs that you libs trust in because as the way it looks, a miracle is not even good enough. ROFL!

But you're not partisan at all, right, bass?

That's right.

And you never just blindly follow Faux news or anything the Republican party says, and you CERTAINLY never say, "I don't have to state my opinion" when you are dead wrong about something or asked flat out about some example of racism in the right wing, etc. Please!

No, I do not.

If you want to SERIOUSLY talk about throwing people under the bus, you need only go to your beloved Faux news, where the president throws Meagan under the bus for Trump's favor, then tries to pretend he's been defending her while seeking backroom deals with Trump, or the GOP trying to throw Trump under the bus -- well... half of them.

Seriously, you've been watching too many TYT shows or Think Progress! LOL Give it a rest, dude. You're not even warm.

The other half have no idea what's going on.

But libs do, that's why most of the msnbc got fired and the constant change and shuffle??? How about the libs, you have 12 that are breaking ranks with Obama on this deal, wow! The Democratic Party is not a collective after all!!

You guys are so busy throwing EACH OTHER under the bus all we have to do is sit back and laugh, and now we get to watch you guys struggle, and squirm, and rant, and rave that you can't pass anything despite having majorities in both the House and Senate, suddenly don't like filibustering but will do it the next day anyway, etc.

Hey, the same goes for Hillary, Obama and Biden. By the way, where is Hillary? Oh, she's crying crocodile tears and apologizing as if she accidentally ate a few cookies from the neighbors kitchen.

This is a victory for the US -- you're just bitter because Obama has won yet again.

I'm not bitter. Because in 424 days Obama will be gone and the next president can always tear up this treaty, since NO republican voted for it, it's not binding, thank God! And for that, I'm definetly NOT bitter at all.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

libs think its a victory because they don't think or understand the later ramifications of the deal, as long as Obama looks good, who the heck cares if innocent people are killed,

Are David Cameron and Angela Merkel libs? They signed on just to make Obama look good?

Look bass, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

bass: Answer: both sides are equally matched when it comes to financial backup from Billionaire donors and supporters of both causes

Actually the Republicans dominate in the larger, $1,000,000+ donations: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/28/434708855/charts-2016-presidential-campaign-finance-fundraising

Leading the charts is your boy, Canadian born, Ivy League educated lawyer, Rafael Cruz. But he's such a grass roots guy, eh?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Are David Cameron and Angela Merkel libs? They signed on just to make Obama look good?

Are they American? Do they have the same problems, the same enemies as we do? Are called the great Satan? If we're ever in a Jam and we need then to come to our rescue, will they come? Also, you want to compare American conservatism to European conservatism, American conservatism? Wow, just wow is all I can say, but I give you libs credit for being liberally loyal even if it doesn't make rational sense.

Look bass, I can see you're really upset about this.

No, we still have Israel.

I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.

My stress will be gone in 424 days when the Tyrant is out of office.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

the Tyrant

So a person who helps find negotiated settlements to issues is a 'tyrant'.

you want to compare American conservatism to European conservatism, American conservatism? Wow, just wow

No, I understand that American conservatism, especially the current kind, is in a world completely its own. That's why the GOP is screwed.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

So a person who helps find negotiated settlements to issues is a 'tyrant'.

Obama is, most definitely.

No, I understand that American conservatism, especially the current kind, is in a world completely its own. That's why the GOP is screwed.

No, the GOP is screwed because of the individual cowards that are occupying the party.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

The GOP is going for the angry white vote and hoping to disenfranchise minorities so they will participate less.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

'Better to listen to vitriolic comments than to pass a wretched deplorable and underhanded deal. But as I said, since when do most Dems and libs care about ethics or morality??'

Ah, Bass. The very man. I like history. As a professional, non-partisan journalist with an keen eye for historical perspective, which would you regard as the most deplorable and underhand in US dealings with Iran - this from the socialist tyrant or the Iran Contra business under the senile, airhead actor?

I was just wondering when the conservatives started caring about ethics and morality. It was clearly also after the WMD pack of lies. As I said, I'm interested in history and I was just wondering if you could put a date on when the ethics and morality kicked in.

Can I ask you just to date it without a "yes, but your mother is even fatter" type response?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Obama = Neville Chambarlain of our times. He will go down as the worst US president ever next to the peanut farmer Jimmy Carter.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Obama = Neville Chambarlain of our times. He will go down as the worst US president ever next to the peanut farmer Jimmy Carter.

That is the most persuasive argument I have ever heard.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

The GOP is going for the angry white vote and hoping to disenfranchise minorities so they will participate less.

But it's ok to get the minority vote and just completely disregard White people as if they're the problem? Typical liberal racism especially when it comes to Whites, but I keep forgetting, it's acceptable.

Ah, Bass. The very man. I like history. As a professional, non-partisan journalist with an keen eye for historical perspective, which would you regard as the most deplorable and underhand in US dealings with Iran - this from the socialist tyrant or the Iran Contra business under the senile, airhead actor?

I'm not even going to debate Reagan with you, Obama first of all doesn't even come anything close to being a halfway decent president and doesn't have the negotiating skills or the savvy as Reagan did. But hey, be nice! I know Obama loves Hollywood and thinks he's as great celebrity, but don't be so hard on the man. Yes, he's douche, but give him at least props for getting OBL. So let's keep it current and with this charlatan. I have 424 more days to talk about him, please don't spoil if for me.

I was just wondering when the conservatives started caring about ethics and morality.

During the Civil war.

It was clearly also after the WMD pack of lies.

So when do the liberals care? Oh, that's right, if it doesn't concern them.

As I said, I'm interested in history and I was just wondering if you could put a date on when the ethics and morality kicked in.

I'd say around 1860

Can I ask you just to date it without a "yes, but your mother is even fatter" type response?

If you libs drop it, sure.

Obama = Neville Chambarlain of our times. He will go down as the worst US president ever next to the peanut farmer Jimmy Carter.

Couldn't have said it better. Spot on.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Remember when Bush/Cheney entered office and Iran had no centrifuges or enriched uranium, and how they had thousands and tons, respectively, at the end of that disgraced administration? (The less said about Cheney on this issue, the better - he has flip-flopped so many times he makes Walker look consistent; that's because it's not palatable to state his mind, which is invasion.)

Remember how angry the GOP gets when the courts decide things they feel politicians should handle? - Might want to remind Boehner about that point as he futilely contemplates suing the Executive Branch.

Impotently stamping feet, resorting to petulant and hypocritical acts of no possible consequence except for delay and taxpayer expense, offering hysteric objections but no substantive alternatives - welcome to the GOP.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

'I was just wondering when the conservatives started caring about ethics and morality.

During the Civil war.'

Can I add Richard Nixon to the Iran Contra and WMD lies to the fine record of ethics and morality conservatives have brought to the US in the last 40-odd years? Also, please read what I posted. I didn't ask for your professional, unbiased and non-partisan comparison of Reagan and Obama, I asked for a specific comparison of dealings with Iran. Given that you are a writer published in the Washington Post ( a paper I respected and read when I lived in the US and still check now and again ), I'd like to hear your ideas on this.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Better to listen to vitriolic comments than to pass a wretched deplorable and underhanded deal. But as I said, since when do most Dems and libs care about ethics or morality??

Well, for example when they make a deal with Iran that is open and above board.

Quite a contrast to the last deal the US made with Iran, to sell them weapons, which was done both illegally and secretly.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Remember when Bush/Cheney entered office and Iran had no centrifuges or enriched uranium, and how they had thousands and tons, respectively, at the end of that disgraced administration?

Disgraced? We didn't 45 million people on food stamps, we didn't have Blacks hovering at over 10% unemployment, welfare wasn't up 39%, we didn't have for the first 6 years stagnant incomes, we didn't have a society that even thought about income redistribution. I'm sorry, continue....

(The less said about Cheney on this issue, the better

Yeah, but he's not going to be quiet and be as vocal as he always was and good for him. So how's Cheney related to this bad treaty?

he has flip-flopped so many times he makes Walker look consistent; that's because it's not palatable to state his mind, which is invasion.)

Obama practically invented the word. But libs are absolutely OK that Iran will be allowed to check itself?!

Remember how angry the GOP gets when the courts decide things they feel politicians should handle? - Might want to remind Boehner about that point as he futilely contemplates suing the Executive Branch.

Kinda like the same way, libs get when they constantly send their Atheist minions to attack Christians and when the courts don't fall in their favor they have a complete cerebral breakdown. What's the point to this discussion?

Impotently stamping feet, resorting to petulant and hypocritical acts of no possible consequence except for delay and taxpayer expense, offering hysteric objections but no substantive alternatives - welcome to the GOP.

You just described the DNC in a nutshell. Now that Hillary is more unpopular than ever, the Dems are really using more Pepto these days.

Can I add Richard Nixon to the Iran Contra and WMD lies to the fine record of ethics and morality conservatives have brought to the US in the last 40-odd years? Also, please read what I posted. I didn't ask for your professional, unbiased and non-partisan comparison of Reagan and Obama, I asked for a specific comparison of dealings with Iran. Given that you are a writer published in the Washington Post ( a paper I respected and read when I lived in the US and still check now and again ), I'd like to hear your ideas on this.

It's amazing when you libs get backed into a corner, you have to always go back in the time machine. Nice try and I'm not going to play that game. Let's stay current, shall we? Or are you itching to get a tap from the Mods, I'm not personally. Stay on topic.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Remember how the GOP could have structured a vote to require congressional approval of the deal- a vote they would have won - but instead worded the legislation to require disapproval with the full knowledge that the Dems could and would filibuster it? Once again, the only way the responsible Repubs are able to allow governance is by pulling the wool over their cohorts (not that that's difficult - they're a simple lot).

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Bass Stay on topic? You were telling us that the conservatives became moral during the civil war a few hours ago. A bit evasive, don't you think? Nixon? WMDs?

I'm sure you'd agree that to understand the situation with Iran it is instructive to look at previous dealings with this country and how they worked out. When reading the Washington Post, I was often impressed by the detailed knowledge of history and context provided by the writers on foreign affairs. I learned a lot. The Iran Contra business was a huge issue and provides very valuable background knowledge. I'm just asking a well-informed journalist published in a highly respected publication for a view on this. Why as a non-partisan, professional writer with a knowledge of this subject, are you so reluctant to deal with this? We could all benefit from your view.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Total victory.

A very good day.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Let this be a democratic victory. In 2 years let's revisit the victory. I hope Iran is just a blowhard, behind the scenes they are aggressive.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Let this be a democratic victory.

Oh, it is. A total Democratic victory. A victory over stupid Republican policies and a complete repudiation of the Iraq war.

We won. You lost.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Whether it's a family with problems and disagreements, a company with issues, or two not-so-friendly countries, diplomacy and dialogue are the way to go. The Dems know this and the Republicans hate it. Obama making the GOP look hopeless yet again. But all they can do is criticize even though they are actually so jealous of how much Obama is getting done. Bin Laden, unemployment, healthcare reform, immigration, Cuba, Iran and the US economy. The biggest of the big issues have been, or are being, tackled. The GOP could only dream about such achievements.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

but instead worded the legislation to require disapproval with the full knowledge that the Dems could and would filibuster it?

Come on, both sides are notorious for doing that, nothing new at all. And you're surprised??? Welcome to the world of politics.

Once again, the only way the responsible Repubs are able to allow governance is by pulling the wool over their cohorts (not that that's difficult - they're a simple lot).

You mean, like the way Obama and Gruber did with Obamacare. "If you like your doctor, you can keep him." Oh, and I can give you a week long list of Democratic or Obama lies, don't go there, please.

I'm sure you'd agree that to understand the situation with Iran it is instructive to look at previous dealings with this country and how they worked out.

Actually, NO. This is a deal that doesn't benefit the region or the US at all, except for Iran and the greedy people that care about lining their pockets, that's all.

When reading the Washington Post, I was often impressed by the detailed knowledge of history and context provided by the writers on foreign affairs. I learned a lot. The Iran Contra business was a huge issue and provides very valuable background knowledge. I'm just asking a well-informed journalist published in a highly respected publication for a view on this.

I have a lot of views on the issue, but it would be too lengthy to elaborate in one short paragraph.

Why as a non-partisan, professional writer with a knowledge of this subject, are you so reluctant to deal with this? We could all benefit from your view.

First thank you for the compliment, means a lot and appreciate it and second, I'm not reluctant at all.

Oh, it is. A total Democratic victory.

No, it's a victory for the the greedy Europeans that don't have a spin, a win for Obama "himself" and for his future legacy and bragging rights for when he goes on Fallon and for Kerry, who has his own presidential ambitions somewhere in the future (good luck with that again)

A victory over stupid Republican policies and a complete repudiation of the Iraq war.

No, as bad and as idiotic as this deal is, one little silver lining in all of this, at least the GOP CAN'T be blamed sooner or later or even historically, because like with Obamacare, their name isn't anywhere near it. So technically, if very small, they actually won.

We won. You lost.

politically, Yes. Internationally and business wise and when you talk about greed, Yes. Publicly, and throughout the Mideast, No, not even close.

diplomacy and dialogue are the way to go.

I agree, but as long as it's done through a position of strength and NOT capitulation or pressure to look good or because some greedy jerk wants and looks forward to making millions. That's not diplomacy, that's making a business decision.

The Dems know this and the Republicans hate it.

And here is the reason why:

The best case scenario is the deal has provided a short-term possible monitoring of Iran's uranium enrichment. However, less than a decade ago, we had a nuclear inspection deal with North Korea, which obstructed inspectors while it built a nuclear arsenal.

This deal with Iran is likely to follow the North Korean model (deceit and nuclear armament). Iran has negotiated access to billions of dollars and likely has no intention of allowing inspectors unfettered access, or stopping weapons-grade uranium production. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has said, "The Iranian nation has been and will be the victor in negotiations." This does not sound like a leader who is changing direction, or ending support for terrorism.

Clearly, the White House is trying to sell this effort as a success, but the best outcome equates to kicking the can down the road. This is most certainly not a good deal.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/07/15/iran-deal-nuclear-program-your-say/30217305/

Obama making the GOP look hopeless yet again.

Really, well, I have bad news...

Iran is not destroying its nuclear weapons infrastructure as Kadafi did. Nor is it giving up ballistic missiles, renouncing terrorism or making restitution for past attacks. It is only freezing its nuclear program, as North Korea did.

There will be continuous monitoring of a few declared nuclear sites, but Iran will be able to delay inspections of disputed facilities for at least 24 days, which would give it time to sanitize a site.

The larger problem is that, like North Korea, Iran is a big country: If the government wants to hide something, it will likely succeed. Compliance depends on voluntary cooperation. Perhaps Iran will cooperate, but so far, it has not come clean with the IAEA about 12 existing "areas of concern" regarding the "possible military dimensions" of its nuclear program.

That is not a good sign. It suggests that Iran, like North Korea (or, for that matter, Iraq during the 1990s), is likely to play a game of cat-and-mouse with inspectors — and that if it does cheat, as North Korea did, the world will again discover it is too late to do anything about it.

But yeah, Obama is so smart...ROFL

The U.S. won't have any more leverage to compel Iranian compliance than it has had with North Korea. Iran will most likely reap the lion's share of economic benefits — gaining access to more than $100 billion in frozen oil funds — in the next six months. That windfall couldn't be revoked. And military action against Iran would become increasingly risky once the embargo on selling conventional weapons and ballistic missiles to Tehran is lifted.

The Iran deal does. Even if Iran fully complies with its terms, the agreement will expire in 10 to 15 years, and Iran will be left a nuclear threshold state. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-boot-is-iran-more-like-north-korea-or-libya-20150721-story.html

And this from the Ueber liberal L.A. Times!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

In a poll from August, congressional Republicans have an approval rating of about 12%. Obama is at 49%.

This is why I hope the GOP will continue to hold on to their positions and never change or compromise. I like them at 12%.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Carefully with polls Super. Selective groups can result in any poll outcome the conductor chooses. Political agenda of whom?

As for the victory, like I said. Own it! Time will tell if it was a victory or not. As far as the deal went, USA got NOTHING! Not a very good deal from that standpoint.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

But all they can do is criticize even though they are actually so jealous of how much Obama is getting done.

Believe me when I tell, you, NO ONE is jealous of Obama, they just want him gone, now if you say, he's a pain in the throat, I'm with you all the way on that.

Bin Laden

That's one.

, unemployment,

45 million people on food stamps for the last 52 months, good job.

healthcare reform,

"Forty-four percent of exchange policyholders in California surveyed said it's somewhat or very difficult to afford their premiums. That's compared with 25% of adults who had employer-based or other private health insurance."

And that's just California.

immigration,

Not closing our borders and trying to allow everyone in at ANY given time, that's good????

Cuba,

We still have 5 serious fugitives that are wanted for murder in the US and this joker did nothing to get them back, but made a deal so that idiot people without a shred or an idea of what or who the Castro brothers are and how they screw their own people by paying them in worthless Pesos and now they will get US dollars and the people will get....still Pesos, so the Castro's win and the people and the families of the ones that were murdered by US citizens protected by the Castro regime, get nothing.

Iran

complete joke.

and the US economy.

What the.....so Blacks must be doing great under Obama 10.4% unemployment...huh, who knew....

The biggest of the big issues have been, or are being, tackled.

Really? Like what?? This is indeed new news.

The GOP could only dream about such achievements.

No, the GOP should be happy that their name isn't on any of this, maybe that's why they got both the House and the Senate and the way things are looking so far, the presidency might not be a far fetched dream, not because the lack of achievements, but because of them NOT being tied in to the Democrats constant failures on virtually everything, except OBL.

In a poll from August, congressional Republicans have an approval rating of about 12%. Obama is at 49%.

You are right about the GOP, but Obama's ratings are not good enough for a stuffed pet animal. Polls move up and down, he's still an unpopular president, at least for most of the middle class and the affluent.

This is why I hope the GOP will continue to hold on to their positions and never change or compromise. I like them at 12%.

Well, bad news for Dems! Trump is polling at 32% and Trump is up 13 percentage points among Republican women in the last month, according to CNN/ORC polls. He's also climbed 12 points among Republicans with college degrees.

So while you are right as far as the popularity of the GOP is concerned, the same can't be said about Trump or Carson. So as long as either of them can win, I could care less how the GOP polls generally speaking.

As Biden said, the other day, be careful what you wish for.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Really, well, I have bad news...

And this from the Ueber liberal L.A. Times!

This is not 'news'. You're pasting an opinion piece by Max Boot, a staunch neocon. A man who thought the invasion of Iraq was a good idea, even long after it became apparent that it was a disaster. We're supposed to take this guy's opinion as a valid argument against the Iran deal?

As a 'journalist', you should know the difference between facts and opinion. (And I know what your response will be: What about Dems/libs/Obama?)

Jimizo: The Iran Contra business was a huge issue and provides very valuable background knowledge. I'm just asking a well-informed journalist published in a highly respected publication for a view on this.

bass: I have a lot of views on the issue, but it would be too lengthy to elaborate in one short paragraph.

No need to limit yourself to one short paragraph.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

This is not 'news'. You're pasting an opinion piece by Max Boot, a staunch neocon.

Ok, so that means, I have to use 99% of one-sided liberal opinion pieces because it makes you feel better? First, you get on me whining for not providing enough sources and now you do the same for cherry picking? Look, most libs in congress could care less about the fallout of this deal, as long as the Sainted one looks good, that's it. Most conservatives know what will happen if this treaty comes to fruition...down the road. You libs are hopeful (I really hate that word) and optimistic about everything, that's why the country is a mess and conservatives are rightfully pessimistic and cautious. The fact is, if you want to disregard the article, go right ahead, but boot is spot on in his overall analysis about this whole botched treaty. But I'm not going to get worked up on this. 423 more days left and hopefully, the next president will have the brains and the strength to nullify this stupid treaty just for the sake of looking good to the Hollywood elite.

A man who thought the invasion of Iraq was a good idea, even long after it became apparent that it was a disaster. We're supposed to take this guy's opinion as a valid argument against the Iran deal?

Oh, but we're supposed to take the word of one of the worst presidents in US history, that's 1000 times worse.

As a 'journalist', you should know the difference between facts and opinion.

But sadly, it seems like Liberals don't.

(And I know what your response will be: What about Dems/libs/Obama?)

No, I was going to say, I just feel very sorry for progressive liberals, they just can't help it. They just have this, kick me in the teeth whenever you want DNA.

No need to limit yourself to one short paragraph.

Gee, how much time do you have? The day just started.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

but bass, what about Republicans and their sham position on voter fraud?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

but bass, what about Republicans and their sham position on voter fraud?

Uh, I think you posted to the wrong thread, Super.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I leave that up to conservatives, bass.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@bass4funk

Ok, so that means, I have to use 99% of one-sided liberal opinion pieces because it makes you feel better?

No, it means don't use derisory sources unless your intention is to be derided.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I leave that up to conservatives, bass.

I think you are quite mistaken on that point, buddy. Mistakes are the liberals mantra.

No, it means don't use derisory sources unless your intention is to be derided.

Hardly, but thanks for the heads up.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

We should remember that US bases surround Iran and the US poses a much greater existential threat to that country than the other way around.

@warispeace And we should also remember Operation Ajax, which explains why Iran went from a democracy, to a brutal murderous dictatorship, to an insane theocracy. All because of America's vampiric lust for oil. What did Iran ever do to US? Hold some diplomats hostage? Hardly compares to decades of state terror across an entire nation. But if you say "Hostage crisis" Americans sure remember that. But if you say "Operation Ajax" they go "What?"

0 ( +2 / -2 )

ーーNo need to limit yourself to one short paragraph.

Gee, how much time do you have? The day just started.

I got lots of time. Please elaborate using all of your journalistic powers.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

I got lots of time.

I don't, I have to work for a living.

Please elaborate using all of your journalistic powers.

Liberals should never use sarcasm, it doesn't suit them.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

bass: I think you are quite mistaken on that point, buddy. Mistakes are the liberals mantra.

Oh, and it's OK when Repubs do it????

Thankfully we still have 36,547,200 seconds of the Obama presidency left.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Oh, and it's OK when Repubs do it????

Work for a living and not spooning off the government??? Absolutely right it is!

Thankfully we still have 36,547,200 seconds of the Obama presidency left.

Sadly, this too, shall pass.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Iran will have $150,000,000,000 to spend on terrorism, which they've said they will do and the Obama administration has admitted they will do. And Leftists still defend this plan?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Iran will have $150,000,000,000 to spend on terrorism

OH MY GOSH! I better build that bunker!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Enrichment. Before the talks began, the Obama administration and the U.N. Security Council insisted for years that Iran stop all uranium enrichment. Now it allows Iran to continue enriching uranium.

From the start, this shouldn't have been allowed. . . . when the administration can't see the angles anymore, you in trouble baby-

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

And Leftists still defend this plan?

Leftists... and

supported by: most Americans, most Jewish Americans, many Israeli analysts including the former head of Shin Bet, Colin Powell, Five former U.S. ambassadors to Israel from administrations of both parties, more than 100 former U.S. ambassadors from both parties, Amb. (ret.) Morton Abramowitz, Former SoS Madeleine Albright, Samuel Berger (U.S. National Security Advisor); Zbigniew Brzezinski (U.S. National Security Advisor); Amb. (ret.) Nicholas Burns,(Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs and Ambassador to Greece); BGen. (ret.) Stephen A. Cheney (U.S. Marine Corps}; Joseph Cirincione (President of the Ploughshares Fund); Amb. (ret.) Chester A Crocker (Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs); Amb. (ret.) Ryan Crocker (Ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Kuwait, and Lebanon); Amb. (ret.) James Dobbins (Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan); Amb. (ret.) Thomas Pickering (Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and Ambassador to Israel, Russia, India, United Nations, El Salvador, Nigeria, and Jordan); Amb. (ret.) William C. Harrop (Ambassador to Israel and Inspector General of the State Department); George J. Mitchell (U.S. Senator and Senate Majority Leader); Amb. (ret.) William G. Miller (Ambassador to Ukraine); Amb. (ret.) Richard W. Murphy (Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs); Vali Nasr (Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan and Dean of Johns Hopkins University SAIS); Richard Nephew (Director for Iran, National Security Council and Deputy Coordinator for Sanctions Policy at the Department of State); Joseph Nye (Assistant Secretary of Defense and Chairman National Intelligence Council); Paul O’Neill (U.S. Secretary of the Treasury); Admiral (ret.) Eric Olson (U.S. Navy and Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command); William Perry (U.S. Secretary of Defense), Gen. (ret.) Brent Scowcroft (U.S. National Security Advisor); Hans Blix (former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency); etc.

opposed by Bass and OldHawk, Benjamin "the cartoon bomb guy at the UN" Netanyahu, Donald Trump, Mike "eye of the tiger" Huckabee.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/the-iran-debate-moves-on/399713/

http://www.scribd.com/doc/271988995/Statement-by-60-National-Security-Leaders-on-the-Announcement-of-a-Joint-Comprehensive-Plan-of-Action

1 ( +2 / -1 )

gcbel: supported by: ... opposed by ...

Your lists seem unbalanced and likely inadequately researched.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Your lists seem unbalanced and likely inadequately researched.

I'm not surprised you didn't get it. Try again. It'll come to you...

Leftists...

3 ( +3 / -0 )

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

So it's sarcasm.

Bingo! I knew you'd get it!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Sorry. It looked at lot like posts leftists put here seriously.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Because it was all primarily leftists. And yes, even Israel has quite a few looney leftists. But nice try.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

The opposition's problem is that they didn't offer a workable alternative. If you are going to stay on the sidelines then the only way you can win is by causing nothing to happen.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

it was all primarily leftists

Thank God for the GOP and the Netanyahu government for saving the world from leftists. They can no longer sit back and allow leftist infiltration, leftist indoctrination, leftist subversion and the international leftist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The opposition's problem is that they didn't offer a workable alternative. If you are going to stay on the sidelines then the only way you can win is by causing nothing to happen.

....Or you can just allow Iran to inspect itself and allow the Russians and the Chinese to verify that Iran complies with all the rules and regulations. What's really insulting is that, this charlatan and Lurch and banging on that the people are just too ignorant to understand the ramifications of this disastrous treaty.

Thank God for the GOP and the Netanyahu government for saving the world from leftists.

Look, just because you have a few loose lefty loons supporting this treaty doesn't make it right.

They can no longer sit back and allow leftist infiltration, leftist indoctrination, leftist subversion and the international leftist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

Correct!

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

charlatan and Lurch

Great title for a movie!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

charlatan and Lurch

Great title for a movie!

I thought you were busy working?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

superlib: The opposition's problem is that they didn't offer a workable alternative. If you are going to stay on the sidelines then the only way you can win is by causing nothing to happen.

bass: Or you can just allow Iran to inspect itself

If it bothers you that much, your party should have come up with an alternative. But you didn't. Not my fault.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Back in 2005, the top Democrat emeritus sang a different tune:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

Israel claims that the attack impeded Iraq's nuclear ambitions by at least ten years.[17] In an interview in 2005, Bill Clinton expressed support for the attack: "everybody talks about what the Israelis did at Osiraq, in 1981, which, I think, in retrospect, was a really good thing. You know, it kept Saddam from developing nuclear power."[88]

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

If it bothers you that much, your party should have come up with an alternative. But you didn't. Not my fault.

They did, but Hussein chose the path of hands up and give in to capitulation. Don't worry, not blaming you. I know you libs would throw yourself on the sword for this Charlatan. But we still have another 422 days before the celebrations of his much needed departure.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

They did

No they didn't.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Sure they did, it was called walking away, No deal, No nothing until Iran can promise and make concessions, and you walk away, that's the solution, but Barack Hussein thought there is nothing in this deal for him, but then again, all we have to do is go back to how the Democrats dealt with North Korea and look how that turned out.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Yeah that's a reaction, not a plan. Demand that GOP leaders start proposing unified policy. That is if you are allowed to talk back.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

it was called walking away, No deal, No nothing until Iran can promise and make concessions,

If you recall, the extremists in the GOP (Tom Cotton in particular) were against 'Obama's' deal before the details were even known and before it was agreed upon. Cotton's letter to Iran promised to undo anything Obama agreed to. What does that tell you? Congressional Republicans would have been against this deal no matter what was in it. Because it had Obama's name on it.

In that spirit, the GOP has never had a plan on Iran except to say no to whatever Obama is part of.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Sure they did, it was called walking away. No deal, No nothing until Iran can promise and make concessions.

Which it wouldn't need to do. Brilliant.

Iran must be quaking at the thought of a Republican presidency returning. They'll well remember 2001-2008, when their program was knocked completely off the rails by tough talk and resolute action.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/09/rice/index.html

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

gcbel:

Leftists... and supported by: most Americans,

Latest (Sept 2015) Pew Research poll shows that only 21% approve, while 49% disapprove, and 30% are undecided. Only in Leftist math is 21% "most".

bass4funk:

Because it was all primarily leftists. And yes, even Israel has quite a few looney leftists. But nice try.

It takes a Leftist to remove sanctions on Iran, capitulate to all of their demands during "negotiations", expect them to obey the deal's restrictions and hand them $150 billion knowing that they'll use at least some of it for funding terrorism.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-admits-iran-deal-could-fund-terror/article/2568354

"Leftist" being a euphemism for... ;)

Superlib:

The opposition's problem is that they didn't offer a workable alternative.

Leaving the sanctions in place and not caving to their every demand is more workable than bringing them to the "negotiation" table and caving to their every demand while lifting sanctions.

"It's the GOP's fault for not coming up with an alternative to Obama's reckless stupidity."

Like Obama would follow a plan laid out by the GOP? The party he completely shut out of the Obamacare writing process? Obama isn't going to listen to the GOP, ever, so blaming the GOP for not giving Obama a workable alternative to his short-sighted stupidity is a ridiculously false argument.

plasticmonkey:

If you recall, the extremists in the GOP (Tom Cotton in particular) were against 'Obama's' deal before the details were even known and before it was agreed upon.

Good. That means they're paying attention. If there's anything Obama can be trusted to do, it's to practice catastrophically bad judgment and blindly, arrogantly, push his disastrous policies past the constitutional processes.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Corporate profits have been at an all time high, and they still aren't hiring that much.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

OldHawk: Leaving the sanctions in place

Is this the part of the plan where you ignore Europe, Russia, and China? Yeah, I said workable plan, not American isolationism.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Leftists...

Yes! da leftists! Except it's pretty clear not only "leftists" defend the agreement - Brent Scowcroft, Colin Powell, Richard Lugar, leftists? The"leftists" thing is basically a fallacious poisoning the well argument - "Leftists" defend the agreement and "leftists" are capitulators, so the agreement must be flawed. A tack you take when you don't have much of an actual argument to put forward.

Why don't you try making your case against the deal on the basis of a reasoned argument?

Leaving the sanctions in place and not caving to their every demand is more workable than bringing them to the "negotiation" table and caving to their every demand while lifting sanctions.

This argument has been rebutted quite a few times now. It's already been established that maintaining the sanctions indefinitely wasn't a realistic option. You can't maintain multilateral sanctions when the other P5+1 aren't keen to maintain them for much longer. And unilateral sanctions, by virtue of the fact they're, well, one-sided has us standing alone, wouldn't work. Unless you're arguing that the P5+1 would've been prepared to maintain the sanctions? Or are you arguing that Iran would've caved to unilateral sanctions when they've faced multilateral sanctions for years?

capitulate to all of their demands [...] Caving to their every demand ;

Again, the kind of eye-roll inducing hyperbole that makes it hard to take any part of a poster's rant seriously.

Here's a suggestion, read the president's speech and see if you can come up with an argument against FCPOA that hasn't already been well rebutted, like the "leaving the sanctions in place.." or "get a better deal" or any other such nonsense.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/05/text-obama-gives-a-speech-about-the-iran-nuclear-deal/

"Moreover, our closest allies in Europe or in Asia, much less China or Russia, certainly are not going to enforce existing sanctions for another five, 10, 15 years according to the dictates of the U.S. Congress because their willingness to support sanctions in the first place was based on Iran ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/272679222/Letter-on-JCPOA-From-Former-Und-Sec-State-and-US-Ambs-to-Israel-to-House-Leadership

"Those who advocate rejection of the JCPOA [the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s Nuclear Program, a.k.a. the deal] should assess carefully the value and feasibility of any alternative strategy. … The consequences of rejection are grave: U.S. responsibility for the collapse of the agreement; the inability to hold the P5+1 together for the essential international sanctions regime and such other action that may be required against Iran; and the real possibility that Iran will decide to build a nuclear weapon under significantly reduced or no inspections."

Hussein chose the path of hands up .... Barack Hussein

What's this? dog-whistle code for muslim?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

http://www.timesofisrael.com/poor-marks-on-iran-deal-drop-obamas-approval-rating-in-poll/

Is this the part of the plan where you ignore Europe, Russia, and China? Yeah, I said workable plan, not American isolationism.

I think it's a great idea.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Then enjoy your great idea from the sidelines.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

For now, but that can and hopefully will change in 420 more days.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

This is good news. Now the U.S. Has one less enemy.

And Russia and China get ones more friend XD In all honesty though, this really is good news compared to other options. Iran has been unfairly treated. The US took their money and held it hostage which punished Iranian people, so that they can force Iran to sign this deal (that Republicans do not even want). Even with the signing of this deal, Iran still got a sort of a bad bargain, it is just that it is the best of the worst. Could you image some country telling you to live the way they want you to live or else they will take your money or possibly invade you?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

This is good news. Now the U.S. Has one less enemy.

Yeah because nothing warms Obama's heart more than hearing Iranians chant of 'Death to America' yet one more time. I mean it is easy to see how friendly the Iranians are as moments after the deal was made the Ayatollah was threatening to destroy the Great Satan and had his army goose stepping over images of the American flag. How much more friendly can you get than that?

Republicans were idiots for making a deal whereby Congress could "approve" of the non-treaty treaty with Iran by NOT getting a majority in Congress to vote for it. Congress and the America people are against giving Iran money for terrorism and for building a nuclear bomb. Yet inexplicably Obama and the Democrats in Congress are for it. Well as Obama said, when Iran gets the bomb it will be on him. But the Republicans sure didn't do anything to keep Obama from making a really stupid mistake. Oh well, just leave it for the next president to deal with.

Only Obama would consider it a victory when he couldn't get Congress and the American people to support him.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Wolfpack: Congress and the America people are against giving Iran money for terrorism and for building a nuclear bomb. Yet inexplicably Obama and the Democrats in Congress are for it.

Pretty much sums up the simplistic rhetoric of today's GOP.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

"This vote is a victory for diplomacy" - article

Let Iran show the fruits of trust in her actions. Let Israel show trust in the fruits of her actions. Shalom. Salam.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Superlib,

Once again, just siding with anything Obama. You`re a witty poster.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

SuperLib Pretty much sums up the simplistic rhetoric of today's GOP.

When there are people like Obama and the Left that are cannot understand the clearly intended meaning of "death to America", it is essential to keep things simple.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Since the GOP is allergic to even producing plans, why should you even be part of the conversation?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

When there are people like Obama and the Left that are cannot understand the clearly intended meaning of "death to America", it is essential to keep things simple.

Yes, to the point of being simplistic. We get it. The point Superlib was making. Thanks for illustrating.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I have been to both Iran and Kuwait and believe this deal will bring only good to the people of not only the United States and Iran but everyone else, especially in that area. Only Netanyahu and his cohorts in the legislatures of Israel and the U.S. dislike a move towards peace in the mid-east.

The majority of those who were/are against this deal have no knowledge of Islam and/or no experience with that religion and the people of Iran who are predominately Shi'a and for the most part at odds with the Sunni.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

gcbel Yes, to the point of being simplistic. We get it. The point Superlib was making. Thanks for illustrating.

Apparently not. The Iranians are telling Obama directly everyday that they have a different interpretation of the deal than he does. Liberals are good at re-defining the clear meaning of words. Like, "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." It irritates people to no end. Well, the Iranians are doing the same thing to Obama now. They are laughing at Obama's stupidity. They got everything they wanted from Obama and will give him nothing in return. He was duped.

No matter what the Iranians do over the next year and four months, Obama will not do anything about it or else admit that he was fooled - something he is incapable of doing. So he will pretend everything is fine. Just as he pretends that the Syrians are no longer using chemical weapons in violation of the agreement he made with Assad and the Russians. As America withdraws from the Middle East, the Russians are moving in and the Iranians are expanding their support for militants in numerous countries in the region. These militants will be bolstered by the billions in funds Obama will soon be pumping into the region through his naïve Iranian non-treaty treaty.

SuperLib Since the GOP is allergic to even producing plans, why should you even be part of the conversation?

Not much the GOP can do when Obama makes foolish deals with the enemy and puts it up for a vote in the UN and will not insist on a vote in the US Congress. Besides the GOP didn't want Obama to do this idiotic deal. Doing nothing was the better course of action. The sanctions were working. Just stick with the policy. Nope, Obama wanted to give the mullah's billions that they will turn around and use to fund terrorism. Not real smart - but that's Obama for you. The worst president in American history.

The majority of those who were/are against this deal have no knowledge of Islam and/or no experience with that religion and the people of Iran who are predominately Shi'a and for the most part at odds with the Sunni.

The Iranians do not want peace. They want to dominant and spread their ideology in the Middle East. The average people in the country are just along for the ride.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Damn Republicans! They are wasting time. To be honest, anyone who says the Iranians do not want peace don't know what they are talking about.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

They got everything they wanted from Obama and will give him nothing in return.

Nonsense. Yes, simply put, nonsense.

Doing nothing was the better course of action. The sanctions were working. Just stick with the policy.

This quote alone tells me you haven't been paying attention. Read up and understand why that wasn't going to lead anywhere except to failure. It's about time GOP supporters stopped being so lazy and started reading more than FOX News soundbites.

Anyway, glad that sanity prevailed.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites