Cheney and his minions are still at work calling for more war.... Is there anybody with a lick of common sense who trusts Dick and his rabble's judgement?Obama's diplomatic course is correct and America retains the power and the moral high ground to whack Iran if it reneges on the deal.
Obama is blaming Bush and Cheney for Obama's concessions to Iran, for Obama's squandering of the success of the sanctions, for Obama's RUNNING to Iran instead of waiting and squeezing to get something actually helpful?
And everyone here thinks Bush and Chaney are a good excuse for this terrible deal?
And everyone here thinks Bush and Chaney are a good excuse for this terrible deal?
I never did understand the logic of people in the military.
Why in the world - if you were in the military - would you ever vote for a republican, knowing that they're the ones who will send you off to war to die?
Why in the world - if you were in the military - would you not vote for a democrat, knowing that they won't send you off to war to die?
I guess that says a lot about the intelligence level of people in the military...
Why in the world - if you were in the military - would you ever vote for a republican, knowing that they're the ones who will send you off to war to die?
Why in the world - if you were in the military - would you not vote for a democrat, knowing that they won't send you off to war to die?
I guess that says a lot about the intelligence level of people in the military...
1
To Lippity Ohmer who wonders why military people could ever vote for a Republican who will send them off to war: former Senator Bob Dole, a presidential candidate in 1996, was roundly criticized for talking about "Democrat wars". I presume he meant WW2, the Korean War and the Viet-Nam war begun under Democrat presidents and not the Iraq war begun by George W. Bush. My point is simply that some wars are needed (WW2), some are not (Iraq) but making war is not something I associate with either party but with the judgment of the President at the time.
A commenter assures the faint-hearted among us:
"Iran is not Iraq. ... Iran does have weapons of mass destruction..."
I think I understand. We THOUGHT Iraq had WMD but it turns out Iraq didn't. But when it comes to Iran, we're sure -- right?
Makes sense to me, I guess. If we were wrong last time, you must be right this time -- the odds are with us. I say "Nuke first, ask questions later."
"Iran is not Iraq. ... Iran does have weapons of mass destruction..."
I think I understand. We THOUGHT Iraq had WMD but it turns out Iraq didn't. But when it comes to Iran, we're sure -- right?
Makes sense to me, I guess. If we were wrong last time, you must be right this time -- the odds are with us. I say "Nuke first, ask questions later."
2
"Obama indicated that there would be “Anytime/ Anywhere” - “Intrusive Inspections” – Instead, we find that it may be as long as 24 Days before Inspectors are given access to suspect sites."
Obama never said that. He said we WANTED that. Iran didn't. They struck a compromise. The US can't just say "Oh, we're suspicious. We'd like the IAEA to check out that military base -- in 15 minutes." Even the US' allies are politely but firmly telling us: "Evidence, please -- no more shoot-from-the-hip evidence-free allegations."
The US wouldn't allow "anytime, anywhere" inspections of its military bases (indeed, the US wouldn't allow ANY inspection of a US military base, even on three years' advance notice). Nor would any self-respecting country. The agreement puts in place a procedure that allows -- and requires -- the US to "put up or shut up." That's all.
You'll read all sorts of allegations about what "cheaters" the Iranians are. I'd suggest reading the actual IAEA reports on its thorough inspections of Iran. They're all available at IAEA.org. You'll discover that the last time the IAEA found Iran to have violated its Safeguards Agreement was 2006, and that the violation described there had ended -- according to the IAEA itself -- in 2003. You'll also learn that that violation was a disclosure violation (of which Iran was, in my opinion, guilty as charged). The IAEA has never -- never -- reported finding that Iran has ever used any nuclear material for a non-peaceful purpose.
Obama never said that. He said we WANTED that. Iran didn't. They struck a compromise. The US can't just say "Oh, we're suspicious. We'd like the IAEA to check out that military base -- in 15 minutes." Even the US' allies are politely but firmly telling us: "Evidence, please -- no more shoot-from-the-hip evidence-free allegations."
The US wouldn't allow "anytime, anywhere" inspections of its military bases (indeed, the US wouldn't allow ANY inspection of a US military base, even on three years' advance notice). Nor would any self-respecting country. The agreement puts in place a procedure that allows -- and requires -- the US to "put up or shut up." That's all.
You'll read all sorts of allegations about what "cheaters" the Iranians are. I'd suggest reading the actual IAEA reports on its thorough inspections of Iran. They're all available at IAEA.org. You'll discover that the last time the IAEA found Iran to have violated its Safeguards Agreement was 2006, and that the violation described there had ended -- according to the IAEA itself -- in 2003. You'll also learn that that violation was a disclosure violation (of which Iran was, in my opinion, guilty as charged). The IAEA has never -- never -- reported finding that Iran has ever used any nuclear material for a non-peaceful purpose.
1
"Republicans--despite all the evidence to the contrary--insist on defending the disaster that was the invasion of Iraq."
I wouldn't say it's just Republicans, and I'd add that the best time to oppose the invasion of Iraq was BEFORE it occurred. Living as I do in non-Republican San Francisco, I can assure you that there weren't a lot of San Franciscans – Republican, Democrat, or other -- who opposed the US invasion of Iraq before it happened. One would never know that now, of course – finding someone who will admit to supporting the US invasion of Iraq is like finding someone who will admit to having smoked pot in college.
Whoever stil supports the US invasion of Iraq always makes at least this argument:
"At least we got rid of Saddam. Would you prefer that he still be there?"
The expected answer, of course, is: "No, I'm glad Saddam is gone."
Well, I'll go on record as saying I wish Saddam were still there. According to Dexter Filkins (a former NYT writer), in a long New Yorker article on ISIS last fall, all or nearly all of the top ISIS commanders are former officers in Saddam's army -- which the US viceroy, Paul Bremer, summarily disbanded shortly after the US conquered Iran in 2003. If Saddam were still there, ISIS wouldn't be here. Saddam probably would have brutally suppressed ISIS -- I could live with that.
I wouldn't say it's just Republicans, and I'd add that the best time to oppose the invasion of Iraq was BEFORE it occurred. Living as I do in non-Republican San Francisco, I can assure you that there weren't a lot of San Franciscans – Republican, Democrat, or other -- who opposed the US invasion of Iraq before it happened. One would never know that now, of course – finding someone who will admit to supporting the US invasion of Iraq is like finding someone who will admit to having smoked pot in college.
Whoever stil supports the US invasion of Iraq always makes at least this argument:
"At least we got rid of Saddam. Would you prefer that he still be there?"
The expected answer, of course, is: "No, I'm glad Saddam is gone."
Well, I'll go on record as saying I wish Saddam were still there. According to Dexter Filkins (a former NYT writer), in a long New Yorker article on ISIS last fall, all or nearly all of the top ISIS commanders are former officers in Saddam's army -- which the US viceroy, Paul Bremer, summarily disbanded shortly after the US conquered Iran in 2003. If Saddam were still there, ISIS wouldn't be here. Saddam probably would have brutally suppressed ISIS -- I could live with that.
1
Another NYT article on Iran mentions the Washington Post's petition to the UN to have Iran release Jason Rezaian (whose trial for espionage reportedly is about to end).
No fair-minded person could condone a foreign country detaining an innocent person. At the very least, however, Iran would insist that the deal be reciprocal (my understanding is that we're holding several Iranians without charge or trial). I doubt our government would agree to that. Even if it did, I doubt it would renounce its right to charge an Iranian with spying on the US; nor will Iran.
Rezaian's trial might well be unfair. But it might also be fair -- he indeed might be a spy. After all, there's no dispute that the US is spying on Iran, and Congress appropriated many millions of extra dollars for that effort just a few years back. Simply performing a journalist's duties is not spying, of course, but that doesn't mean that no journalist is a spy. As anyone who's read spy memoirs knows, journalists are very often recruited as spies -- they're the #2 source of spies (diplomats being #1).
We'd prefer that Rezaian's trial be public, of course. But I doubt espionage trials are public in the US either -- or anywhere, for that matter.
In short, Rezaian may well be innocent, but he may not be. Either way, at the very least, Iran will insist that the US reciprocate by releasing Iranians held in US custody and renounce its right to charge Iranians with espionage. That isn't going to happen, nor should it.
No fair-minded person could condone a foreign country detaining an innocent person. At the very least, however, Iran would insist that the deal be reciprocal (my understanding is that we're holding several Iranians without charge or trial). I doubt our government would agree to that. Even if it did, I doubt it would renounce its right to charge an Iranian with spying on the US; nor will Iran.
Rezaian's trial might well be unfair. But it might also be fair -- he indeed might be a spy. After all, there's no dispute that the US is spying on Iran, and Congress appropriated many millions of extra dollars for that effort just a few years back. Simply performing a journalist's duties is not spying, of course, but that doesn't mean that no journalist is a spy. As anyone who's read spy memoirs knows, journalists are very often recruited as spies -- they're the #2 source of spies (diplomats being #1).
We'd prefer that Rezaian's trial be public, of course. But I doubt espionage trials are public in the US either -- or anywhere, for that matter.
In short, Rezaian may well be innocent, but he may not be. Either way, at the very least, Iran will insist that the US reciprocate by releasing Iranians held in US custody and renounce its right to charge Iranians with espionage. That isn't going to happen, nor should it.
I constantly get the sense that most politicians, particularly those from the GOP, see global issues from the perspective of a Hollywoood movie. They seek simple minded solutions that make great bumper stickers, but ignore reality.
Worse, they ignore tragic precedent of past blowhards. We have had numerous wars whose goal was to "liberate" populations, all of which have spread nothing but misery.
The volunteer army has hidden true cost of war. If the draft were still used and the lives of the sons and daughters of the bloodthirsty were at stake, war would no longer be the first option.
Worse, they ignore tragic precedent of past blowhards. We have had numerous wars whose goal was to "liberate" populations, all of which have spread nothing but misery.
The volunteer army has hidden true cost of war. If the draft were still used and the lives of the sons and daughters of the bloodthirsty were at stake, war would no longer be the first option.
1
the key to President Obama success and being elected for two terms is what he always believed in "American voters are all stupid".
Some you win some you lose.
In this case, the US could not win so they had to take a way out without losing their face.
The issue was never about the Iranian nuclear arms program, that did not exist since at least 2003, but a way to open markets and retain power and an ally in the region.
An ally that will fight the IS on the ground on behalf of the rest of the world.
And not to lose face for Obama.
The sanctions have not been half as bad as the US would like to have the world understood.
So the only way out was to end the sanctions and try to sell it as a victory of US diplomacy while Iran has won the day.
Iran does not need nuclear weapons to regain power and influence in the region, they have thousands of years of history and culture to back hem.
just like China a few kilometres further east.
In this case, the US could not win so they had to take a way out without losing their face.
The issue was never about the Iranian nuclear arms program, that did not exist since at least 2003, but a way to open markets and retain power and an ally in the region.
An ally that will fight the IS on the ground on behalf of the rest of the world.
And not to lose face for Obama.
The sanctions have not been half as bad as the US would like to have the world understood.
So the only way out was to end the sanctions and try to sell it as a victory of US diplomacy while Iran has won the day.
Iran does not need nuclear weapons to regain power and influence in the region, they have thousands of years of history and culture to back hem.
just like China a few kilometres further east.
Well, it was not necessary for Obama to choose to conclude this deal or not, he could have not deal with this issue, he could insist on "good" conditions, but he insisted on the deal, despite the fact that Iran, for its part, did not insist on conclusion of this deal.
It was a good idea that Obama told the veterans that the Iran deal was a wiser move to resolving the nuclear dispute, than opting for a military solution.
A military action aimed to destroy or degrade Iran's nuclear programme would have unforeseeable ramifications.
Not it's time for Iran to convince its regional neighbours that its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes, to assuage the fear of the Sunni Arabs. Iran has to show that it can be a great country, without engaging in clandestine activities.
A military action aimed to destroy or degrade Iran's nuclear programme would have unforeseeable ramifications.
Not it's time for Iran to convince its regional neighbours that its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes, to assuage the fear of the Sunni Arabs. Iran has to show that it can be a great country, without engaging in clandestine activities.
2
please read: NOW it's time for Iran.......
Iran is not Iraq. Even Alan Jackson knows the difference by now. Iran does have weapons of mass destruction and is a threat to peace in the region. Obama's deal with Iran is appeasement in the name of peace at the price of regional hegemony. But then Obama believes that America is a power too great, an impediment to sharing of wealth like dandelion seeds in the wind. I, for one, prefer to maintain such financial security as I may have.
Yes, Iran is far more powerful than Iraq and any war of aggression directed against it would lead to far greater losses in blood and treasure than even what the US has suffered from the Iraq disaster.
3
How do you know Iran has WMD? Besides...China has begun direct oil development in Southern Iranian oil fields, for domestic use. Therefore, any attack against Iran will be construed as an attack against China. As Shanghai Cooperation Organization or SCO members, the Chinese and Russian military have already announced that should Iran be attacked, they will go to its aid militarily.
The Iranian agreement should be debated on its supposed merits and allegations of flaws and deficiencies not on assertions that the oppositions comes from those who supported the Iraq war. That list includes Hillary Clinton incidentally. George W. Bush is silent on his ranch in Texas and Dick Cheney is quoted by few of the opponents although he continues to make unhelpful remarks from time to time. The opposition to this treaty comes from some former UN inspectors and members of the United States Congress, many if not most of whom were not serving in 2003. It is an attempt by the President to divert attention from the real questions raised about the risks of an arms race in the Middle East, conventional arms race now and nuclear arms race before long.
I opposed the rush to war with Iraq, and the conduct of the war itself. I therefore resent President Obama's linking of support for the Iraq invasion with principled reservations about his negotiations with Iran. I am extremely offended.
Mr. Obama has stooped to demagogic techniques and name-calling in attempts to quell criticism. The President of this great democracy should be ashamed. If his nuclear deal is defensible, Mr. Obama, Secretary Kerry, and their supporters should be able to defend it rationally and logically. Their behavior makes one wonder whether they believe the deal can stand up to legitimate scrutiny and critiques.
President Obama's actions are a grave disappointment.
Mr. Obama has stooped to demagogic techniques and name-calling in attempts to quell criticism. The President of this great democracy should be ashamed. If his nuclear deal is defensible, Mr. Obama, Secretary Kerry, and their supporters should be able to defend it rationally and logically. Their behavior makes one wonder whether they believe the deal can stand up to legitimate scrutiny and critiques.
President Obama's actions are a grave disappointment.
3
The reason why Obama, like other proponents of this Agreement, are resorting to using innuendos like - “Iraq War Hawks” – against their opponents is because they are unable to counter the critic’s criticism of the Agreement.
Obama indicated that there would be “Anytime/ Anywhere” - “Intrusive Inspections” – Instead, we find that it may be as long as 24 Days before Inspectors are given access to suspect sites; - (If Iran has nothing to hide, why should it be able to “stonewall” the Inspectors for 24 Days ? )
Obama indicated that this Agreement would prevent Iran from obtaining Nuclear Weapons - We now find that with its Nuclear Infrastructure in place, Iran will be able ‘breakout” nuclear weapons production in about 10 Years.-
In addition, a key clause in the main body of the deal ******* (Part 10 on page 142) includes a promise by the US (et al) “to safeguard Iran's nuclear plants and facilities against terrorist attacks, outside disruption, or sabotage.” ******* In other words the US becomes a Guarantor of Iran’s Nuclear Infrastructure – That same infrastructure that in the future may provide Iran the ability to manufacture Nuclear Weapons.
As logic is concerned - - If Iran's mantra - "Death to America" is true... then why would America want to enter such an Agreement with Iran ? / If one were not to say that Iran does not mean it when it says - "Death to America" then why are they still saying it ? and how could you believe Iran will carry out the Agreement ?
Obama indicated that there would be “Anytime/ Anywhere” - “Intrusive Inspections” – Instead, we find that it may be as long as 24 Days before Inspectors are given access to suspect sites; - (If Iran has nothing to hide, why should it be able to “stonewall” the Inspectors for 24 Days ? )
Obama indicated that this Agreement would prevent Iran from obtaining Nuclear Weapons - We now find that with its Nuclear Infrastructure in place, Iran will be able ‘breakout” nuclear weapons production in about 10 Years.-
In addition, a key clause in the main body of the deal ******* (Part 10 on page 142) includes a promise by the US (et al) “to safeguard Iran's nuclear plants and facilities against terrorist attacks, outside disruption, or sabotage.” ******* In other words the US becomes a Guarantor of Iran’s Nuclear Infrastructure – That same infrastructure that in the future may provide Iran the ability to manufacture Nuclear Weapons.
As logic is concerned - - If Iran's mantra - "Death to America" is true... then why would America want to enter such an Agreement with Iran ? / If one were not to say that Iran does not mean it when it says - "Death to America" then why are they still saying it ? and how could you believe Iran will carry out the Agreement ?
3
The fact that our Republican Congressional representatives and Israel are aligned with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard - those folks supporting the terrorists that are attacking Israel and us - tells us what opposing the deal is all about - wanting war.
5
President Obama made two big mistakes early in his presidency. First, he should have forced Wall Street to take a haircut rather than supporting the bailout Bush pushed through Congress in the last days of his presidency; and he should not have put Wall Street people, lead by Timothy Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury, in charge of TARP.
Second, he should have invited the Hague to bring charges of war crimes against Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice and other lesser neocons who started the Iraq war under false pretenses. He should have put them on a plane to the Hague.
Second, he should have invited the Hague to bring charges of war crimes against Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice and other lesser neocons who started the Iraq war under false pretenses. He should have put them on a plane to the Hague.
2
Mayne the Hague should bring war crimes action against Obama for his use of drones.
JH: Read these two documents and see if you still feel the same way:
http://www.cfr.org/counterterrorism/targeted-killings/p9627
https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule156
Most violations of Geneva Conventions (i.e., war crimes) are against individuals, such as use of torture or humiliating prisoners
http://www.cfr.org/counterterrorism/targeted-killings/p9627
https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule156
Most violations of Geneva Conventions (i.e., war crimes) are against individuals, such as use of torture or humiliating prisoners
Yeah, when has Dick Cheney ever been wrong about anything?
Obama is absolutely spot on.
It comes as no surprise that the same discredited politicians who were responsible for the monumental folly of armed intervention in Iraq on lies and pretense are again at fear mongering "of sanctioning the Iranian government’s acquisition of nuclear weapons in the future". Bush and Cheney combine by their Iraq misadventure have only managed to blunder America in the creation of Frankenstein ISIS. With these as friends the country needs no enemies.
In the unlikely event of the neocons forcing the US out of the deal it may not make much difference. France, China and EU who are now facing the prospect of mutually-beneficial trade with Iran, will be hardly enthusiastic about going back to the days of a trade embargo. No sensible nation will support an attack on an Iran that has proven to be an important trading partner and has also proven reasonable in allowing intrusive inspections of its nuclear energy program.
Ron Paul was at his devastating best writing in his book Swords into Plowshares: Our unwise policy with Iran is a perfect example of what the interventionists have given us—60 years of needless conflict and fear for no justifiable reason. This obsession with Iran is bewildering. If the people knew the truth, they would strongly favor a different way to interact with Iran.
It comes as no surprise that the same discredited politicians who were responsible for the monumental folly of armed intervention in Iraq on lies and pretense are again at fear mongering "of sanctioning the Iranian government’s acquisition of nuclear weapons in the future". Bush and Cheney combine by their Iraq misadventure have only managed to blunder America in the creation of Frankenstein ISIS. With these as friends the country needs no enemies.
In the unlikely event of the neocons forcing the US out of the deal it may not make much difference. France, China and EU who are now facing the prospect of mutually-beneficial trade with Iran, will be hardly enthusiastic about going back to the days of a trade embargo. No sensible nation will support an attack on an Iran that has proven to be an important trading partner and has also proven reasonable in allowing intrusive inspections of its nuclear energy program.
Ron Paul was at his devastating best writing in his book Swords into Plowshares: Our unwise policy with Iran is a perfect example of what the interventionists have given us—60 years of needless conflict and fear for no justifiable reason. This obsession with Iran is bewildering. If the people knew the truth, they would strongly favor a different way to interact with Iran.
10
Please. The war hawks who brought us the Iraq catastrophe have no credibility in this argument. You failed us. Retire now. Retire early. Retire quietly. Be quiet. Be still your voices. Shut up. From Dick Cheney to Bill Kristol, Wolfowitz, etc. and a host of other neoconservatives, you created a disaster for American foreign diplomacy. American diplomacy is weaker because of YOU. Look in the mirror. There is no escaping your legacy. You did it. Now live with it. And be quiet.
6
Diplomacy will work ...for both deterring the future use of nuclear weapons and Iran acquiring the capabilities to build them...(though eventually they will have that)
A response to Mr.Cheney: I think most world powers know the destructive force of a nuclear war...they do not want one and neither do we.We are just as well stocked in our defense and aresonal of weapons.However you and others had no problem creating a war for something out of the 1980's and the Reagan Years and the opportunity came.Did you use diplomacy to not enter a war that now still rages?
Nuclear arms are all around the globe today and yet know one has or is using them other than as a check and balance against each other.Nobody wants to annihilate each other.Soon we will laser each other and moving and conquering space.Hopefully we will use diplomacy in the future too.
A response to Mr.Cheney: I think most world powers know the destructive force of a nuclear war...they do not want one and neither do we.We are just as well stocked in our defense and aresonal of weapons.However you and others had no problem creating a war for something out of the 1980's and the Reagan Years and the opportunity came.Did you use diplomacy to not enter a war that now still rages?
Nuclear arms are all around the globe today and yet know one has or is using them other than as a check and balance against each other.Nobody wants to annihilate each other.Soon we will laser each other and moving and conquering space.Hopefully we will use diplomacy in the future too.
The president is right. The usual war mongers did not even wait to read the agreement before opposing it vociferously. Neocons and chicken hawks want war: they do not care about the military personnel, the cost of war, or the civilian casualties and other terrible outcomes. We will continue to pay the cost of the disastrous Iraq War for many years -- wounded troops, war debt, damaged relationships, and putting American needs secondary to those of the military industrial complex.
The V.A. does need to be fixed. Veterans should be helped with employment and other issues. Their health concerns - both physical and mental - should be paramount.
Before rushing into another war with Iran, the United States needs to deal with terrorists from Daesh to AL-Qaeda and Boko Haram. George W. Bush missed an opportunity in 2003 to negotiate with Iran when it had fewer than 200 centrifuges; now it has 19,000 centrifuges.
Diplomacy obviously works better than sanctions, and the other world powers are ending sanctions. The snapback provision, and the option of war, will remain. But avoiding it is far preferable. Gen. MacArthur said, "... the soldier above all other people prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war."
The V.A. does need to be fixed. Veterans should be helped with employment and other issues. Their health concerns - both physical and mental - should be paramount.
Before rushing into another war with Iran, the United States needs to deal with terrorists from Daesh to AL-Qaeda and Boko Haram. George W. Bush missed an opportunity in 2003 to negotiate with Iran when it had fewer than 200 centrifuges; now it has 19,000 centrifuges.
Diplomacy obviously works better than sanctions, and the other world powers are ending sanctions. The snapback provision, and the option of war, will remain. But avoiding it is far preferable. Gen. MacArthur said, "... the soldier above all other people prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war."
6
We and Russia each have somewhere around 7700 atomic bombs at our disposals. These are obscene numbers, since dropping even two atomic bombs on moscow would make it uninhabitable for many, many years to come, and vice-versa if dropped on Los Angeles. We are trying hard to stop Iran and North Korea from producing even ONE atomic bomb, but we have 7700 such bombs. What kind of role-models are we?
I am an old man, and I hope that I am dead before an atomic weapon is set off in one of NYC's subway tunnels, but, as a trained engineer, I believe that it is very possible (especially during rush hours).
We need to start talking about things that are really possible in this country, not just whether a man with a wig can become president.
I am an old man, and I hope that I am dead before an atomic weapon is set off in one of NYC's subway tunnels, but, as a trained engineer, I believe that it is very possible (especially during rush hours).
We need to start talking about things that are really possible in this country, not just whether a man with a wig can become president.
1
Why are you quoting, and why would anyone be listening to, a person like Dick Cheney, who has said repeatedly that torture is O.K? And if torturing suspected terrorists, or people who might know them, is just fine, what separates us from the totalitarian regimes we abhor? To quote him as if he's a respected authority is to go along with what he has done.
7
Regardless of the merits of the deal it seems Obama has thrown out internal diplomacy to push through the benefits of diplomacy. From afar this sounds disingenuous and hypocritical.
1
Internal diplomacy ... Lol.... The way the war hawks and the GOP leadership, including FOX ' news' has treated Obama I'd say his slamming these jokers is long overdue!
Arggh. Obama claimed it was either this deal or war. Furthermore, this deal has already started an arms race between Iran and their regional foes, so that is just a gift to democratic war profiteers. To top it all off, this deal allowed Iran to buy icbms to use for nuclear weapon delivery. Until now they were denied this. Plus, At this time the uranium issue is merely a distraction. The detonation mechanism is much harder to build and is more rare than enriched uranium which is readily available, especially from Russia, that is if Iran has not already procured it. The detonation mechanism is not even addressed by this agreement. Obama has provided three of the legs needed for the stool.
Obama could have kept sanctions in place and just not signed the papers and things would have been the same as the day before, unless that is, Obama was going to have a hissy fit and do something stupid as has been the usual response.
Obama could have kept sanctions in place and just not signed the papers and things would have been the same as the day before, unless that is, Obama was going to have a hissy fit and do something stupid as has been the usual response.
1
That settles it. If Bill Kristol thinks its not a good fdeal you know it is a monumental breakthrough winner.
3
If only we cared this much about arms control in general, think of how much suffering and death we could prevent.
4
Albert Einstein said it best: “The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.” The Republican Party platform requires that we never use diplomacy, never negotiate and rewrite history to prevent change. Republicans had all the proof they needed for the rush to war in Iraq, ""the aluminum tubes" that were solid evidence that Saddam was making nuclear weapons. All the while Saddam was lucky to have slingshots. But this time Republicans are CERTAIN that Iran will cheat and build nuclear weapons, so we should forget diplomacy and plan for war...again. Republicans need to flip the 45 record over and play the "B" side for a while, because this tune is getting old.
Obama has done his best to TRY another way. Will it succeed, in Cuba and Iran? It looks pretty good so far. Iran is a huge country and could make a great trading partner, if we improve relations. Besides, despite all the sturm und drang from Republicans, armed or not, Iran is no threat to the United States. No matter how AIPAC and Bibi would try to persuade us otherwise.
Obama has done his best to TRY another way. Will it succeed, in Cuba and Iran? It looks pretty good so far. Iran is a huge country and could make a great trading partner, if we improve relations. Besides, despite all the sturm und drang from Republicans, armed or not, Iran is no threat to the United States. No matter how AIPAC and Bibi would try to persuade us otherwise.
6
Making friends out of foes is the best path to peace. Thank you President Obama. I know this is only the first baby step.
3
It's worth remembering that in Poppy Bush's memoir he said that overthrowing Saddam Hussein could well result in a regional civil war. Yup, isn't that what we'd call ISIS?
I'd say Obama is right on this. Fer Pete's sake, don't listen to the Neocons!
I'd say Obama is right on this. Fer Pete's sake, don't listen to the Neocons!
9
Hey Obama why aren't any Americans inspectors allowed to verify Iran's Weapons? Why does this treaty allow for 24 days to investigate a suspected weapons site? Why aren't Iran's military bases allowed for inspection? Yeah this is a good deal....for Iran..
4
Why, after all he has put us through, does anyone in this country listen to Dick Cheney? Crazy.
5
I remember reading, in the early part of the Iraq war, an estimate that it would take half a century for the US to regain international credibility. President Obama's approach to Iran, by trying to bring them into the fold, contain the threat, avoid futile warfare, destruction and suffering, and using a real international approach (Coalition of the Willing notwithstanding!) should go far in repairing the fallout the GWB Cabinet caused.
3
Ain't it amazing! The Party that gave us the leadership to help open-up Mao's China in the 1960's as well as the leadership wise enough (and strong enough) to help negotiate the fall of the Evil Empire in the 80's without firing a shot,is now is ready to impeach a fellow who wants to reach an agreement with the Mulahs that could avoid a 2nd mindless and fruitless Middle East conflict and even eventually open up trade with Iran. Talk about insisting on a short and narrow vision . Imagine if George Bush Jr had had the wisdom and self confidence to stand up to his own Right Wing and side step the mad hatter notion of WMDs, and actually pulled off an agreement with Sadam to corral Al Quida in the Middle East, rather then marching into the Iraqi desert guns blazing? Jr would have went down in history as one of the most effective and far sighted Presidents in US history, instead of ending up a laughing stock and having had presided over the biggest failed Administration in US history. Yes, just imagine.
2
Is there any issue that the "party of no" actually has an alternative workable solution for?
4
Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) ran on a campaign of attack ads against incumbent Senator Kay Hagan, one of which criticized her for missing a committee meeting about ISIS or some such…
So the other day Senator Tillis missed a meeting about ISIS. His excuse: He was meeting with (war criminal) Dick Cheney.
Do not be fooled: Neocon founding father Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, and others, as you outline here, are meeting and planning and scheming for war.
So the other day Senator Tillis missed a meeting about ISIS. His excuse: He was meeting with (war criminal) Dick Cheney.
Do not be fooled: Neocon founding father Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, and others, as you outline here, are meeting and planning and scheming for war.
5
President Obama has this one all wrong. He advocates for the Iran deal because of the rhetoric of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. But he can't demonstrate that the substance of the deal actually achieves this goal. In fact, most estimates say at best it delays an Iranian bomb while it allows a huge cash infusion to their other terrorist efforts. While the Iranian leader Khamanei said yesterday that “Even after this deal our policy towards the arrogant U.S. will not change,” John Kerry said ,"If (this) is the policy, it’s very disturbing, it’s very troubling." So why go through with it?
4
Can politicians please stop comparing everything to World War II? It demeans the scale of that war, and diminishes the players involved.
Also, the comparisons are groundless and without merit. The countries concerned aren't event the same, much less the governments, the arguments, the (obviously) politicians, the goals... it just makes absolutely no sense to make this comparison.
One more thing... American politicians fear another country will use a nuclear weapon? Remind me - what is the only country that has ever used a weapon of mass destruction against another?
Also, the comparisons are groundless and without merit. The countries concerned aren't event the same, much less the governments, the arguments, the (obviously) politicians, the goals... it just makes absolutely no sense to make this comparison.
One more thing... American politicians fear another country will use a nuclear weapon? Remind me - what is the only country that has ever used a weapon of mass destruction against another?
3
The response of so many of our politicians to the Iran deal and the UN response to it is absolutely shameful . Their response follow the whole line of Netanyahu and AIPAC. Will we ever get Cheney, Kristol etal to concern themselves with US national interests???
4
The wiki documents and Obama's words and actions validate those who argue that Obama wants to promote Islamic control over the entire Middle East. However, it takes a leap in logic to argue that Obama is also seeking to destroy Israel. As he has stated, he is only seeking to return Jerusalem to its historical owners, the Muslims. Obama believes that Muslims predate the Jewish people in their historical occupancy of Israel notwithanding that Islam was established rather recently, 600 years after the death of Jesus. I believe Jesus was also a Jew who lived in what is now claimed to be a Muslim territory. However, we must disregard facts in order to appease those prone to violence and terrorism.
1
There is no real question that the president is right in pointing out that many of the Republican critics of the Iran deal were either cheerleaders for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which has done more than anything else to enhance Iran's regional power and influence, or were in the administration that ordered it. That's simply a matter of fact.
As for the Iran nuclear agreement itself, William Kristol is, as usual, completely wrong about it being a terrible deal. Certainly that is not the view of most non-partisan arms control experts who, almost without exception, extol it as a better agreement than anyone could have hoped for given where the parties were at the beginning of negotiations.
Certainly a decade ago, a better agreement was almost certainly to be had if the Bush/Cheney administration had seized the moment. But, being Republicans, they didn't and Iran's nuclear program grew and developed.
As for the Iran nuclear agreement itself, William Kristol is, as usual, completely wrong about it being a terrible deal. Certainly that is not the view of most non-partisan arms control experts who, almost without exception, extol it as a better agreement than anyone could have hoped for given where the parties were at the beginning of negotiations.
Certainly a decade ago, a better agreement was almost certainly to be had if the Bush/Cheney administration had seized the moment. But, being Republicans, they didn't and Iran's nuclear program grew and developed.
5
Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz had their opportunity to bomb Iran. Right after 9/11. They were faced with the choice to lie us into war with Iraq, or lie us into war with Iran. They decided Iraq was the softer target with easier oil resources to take control of, so they settled on Iraq.
Once billions of dollars a year in tribute from Iraq was flowing freely into their war coffers, a convincing pretext to bomb Iran would have been fabricated. Alas their neocon fantasy didn't pan out. Yet they still insist on disregarding the reality-based community on their way to colonizing Iran.
Can they really think the American citizens no longer remember the lies and costs associated with their Iraq fiasco? Do they really think we are ready to be lied into another war with Iran? We can't be _that_ stupid? Tell me we can't!
Once billions of dollars a year in tribute from Iraq was flowing freely into their war coffers, a convincing pretext to bomb Iran would have been fabricated. Alas their neocon fantasy didn't pan out. Yet they still insist on disregarding the reality-based community on their way to colonizing Iran.
Can they really think the American citizens no longer remember the lies and costs associated with their Iraq fiasco? Do they really think we are ready to be lied into another war with Iran? We can't be _that_ stupid? Tell me we can't!
13
President Obama -please get us to the finish line. No more wars and we would rather invest those dollars at home fixing schools. infrastructure and keeping America busy at work. We can for a change, take care of ourselves.
PS: Israel is not our 51st state. If Netanyahu can keep on expanding settlements, poke the President in the eye, I guess he cam figure out what if any he wants to do with Iran.
PS: Israel is not our 51st state. If Netanyahu can keep on expanding settlements, poke the President in the eye, I guess he cam figure out what if any he wants to do with Iran.
9
There are pluses and minuses to this deal for the U.S. but it seems to keep us out of still another middle east war, much to the consternation of the right wing in Israel.
4
This Congress vs. Obama Iran fight continues their dysfunctional family feud. Obama and Kerry, intent on being recorded for posterity as Great Men (Obama failing to realize that just by his extraordinary achievement of being elected, and then reelected, he already made his mark on history), eagerly pursue Iran for an Age of Aquarius/Peace in Our Time deal. Iran plays hard to get. The enthused Obama/Kerry suitors press on undeterred. Iran strings the Kerry along while setting one nation against another in the discordant coalition Kerry organized as negotiating partners. The Iranians are no fools. They knew they have the upper hand and they end up with a pretty terrific deal (for Iran). And now, thanks to the consensus-at-all-costs coalition Kerry formed, the accord is a fait accompli after being ratified by the Security Council. Russia and China can hardly wait to openly sell arms to the Iranians and the Chinese will have easy access to Iranian oil. The other Security Council nations don't very much care. The US is boxed in (after all, this was all Kerry's idea) and has to vote yes. Which leaves Obama with a decent argument vis a vis Congress - namely, that by trying to reject the deal, Congress risks making the US irrelevant. Because that's how Kerry set the deal up in the first place. It truly resembles the worst of family arguments, where everyone is right and wrong at the same time.
1
All those who are saying that America was ruled by "Warmongers" in the early 2000's, I guess that they have never heard of "9/11"... you know that "incident" where the Twin Towers of the WTC in the heart of NYC was demolished and "only" about 3,000 Americans were Killed...
Now if Obama were President at that time what we should have done is stretch out our Hand to Al Queda and say if you are willing to " unclench your fist" we would be willing to grasp your Hand...
Lets all sit together and love each other...
Now if Obama were President at that time what we should have done is stretch out our Hand to Al Queda and say if you are willing to " unclench your fist" we would be willing to grasp your Hand...
Lets all sit together and love each other...
3
Well he sure wouldn't have gone after a country that had nothing to do with it.
Well, maybe a more nuanced approach would have been more effective and less inhumane. Do you believe that the appropriate response to a handful of fanatical murders is to wage war on a completely unrelated and unconnected state? If so, maybe you should join isis - that is the kind of rationale they like to use.
I can't believe the neo-con Republican Party still exists. Their's is a stone age politics that has been consistently proven wrong...militarily, economically, socially,....and yet people are frankly still ignorant enough to believe in their outdated ideas and conspiracies. It's just mind-boggling.
5
If the Black man is for it, the GOP is against it. What else would you expect from a party that is 96% white and strongest in the Jim Crow South. Plus Mr. Adelson wants a war and the GOP wants his money.
6
"Compares" critics of Iran deal to Iraq War hawks? Duh. They're the same misguided, warmongering chickenhawks, with a few new recruits.
4
Seems that the potential for mutually assured destruction keeps nuclear war from happening. As long as that's the underlying, or overarching, idea, we ought to be saying "Thank God for the bomb." It's a risky business, of course. Some would say mad. But, since that's where we're at, and since proliferation (of any technology) is inevitable, instead of focusing on trying to keep Iran nuclear-free, perhaps we should focus on building the kind of relationship with the people and government of Iran that would lead to the potential for mutually assured destruction ... for the sake of peace. What would that look like?
An even more revolutionary idea - we honor the NPT! Maybe, just maybe, other states would honor their agreement if we also did.
Every once in a while, Obama could be right. It's never been completely clear to me if George W. Bush knew the difference between Iraq and Iran; they're similar funny-sounding Arab names. And now, fifteen years later, after the Middle East has been destabilized by conservative military adventures, maybe it was really Iran that America should have invaded, not its next-door neighbor.
1
Oy vay. Let's say maybe not.
Dear American military veterans.
I am opposed to all wars except one which might actually protect the territory of America. I suggest you all start going after the politicians who get you killed for stupid reasons and lies, legally of course, but go get em'.
I am opposed to all wars except one which might actually protect the territory of America. I suggest you all start going after the politicians who get you killed for stupid reasons and lies, legally of course, but go get em'.
5
Many American friends of mine with connections to Israel also oppose peace yet not a single one of them has attempted to serve in the U.S. or Israeli military. It must be very convenient to wage war with someone else's blood.
Kudos to Obama for standing up to Netanyahu.
Kudos to Obama for standing up to Netanyahu.
13
I wonder if Cheney or Bush ever think that instead of lying to the American people about WMD in Iraq ,going to war and destabilizing Iraq and giving rise to ISIS and inadvertently arming them, that they would have done better to focus on Iran and applied effective international sanctions to arrest their burgeoning nuclear program.
In fact they sat on their hands and watched Iran build up its arsenal of centrifuges.
This deal is the best we are going to get in the circumstances and although we all regret the rhetoric of some Iranian leaders ,our leaders are also guilty of destructive and unhelpful comments.The most notable Senator Mcain singing
"Bomb ,bomb bomb Iran"
I agree we have a responsibility to defend Israel and they possess a nuclear capability they can blow all of the Middle East apart if need be.
However we also have a global responsibility to give peace a chance, embrace and bring 80 million Iranians into the world economy , knowing that Israel and the USA still have the ultimate say if all else fails
In fact they sat on their hands and watched Iran build up its arsenal of centrifuges.
This deal is the best we are going to get in the circumstances and although we all regret the rhetoric of some Iranian leaders ,our leaders are also guilty of destructive and unhelpful comments.The most notable Senator Mcain singing
"Bomb ,bomb bomb Iran"
I agree we have a responsibility to defend Israel and they possess a nuclear capability they can blow all of the Middle East apart if need be.
However we also have a global responsibility to give peace a chance, embrace and bring 80 million Iranians into the world economy , knowing that Israel and the USA still have the ultimate say if all else fails
4
Finally! It's about time someone has called out the chickenhawks on the Iran issue. There are people who simply do not believe in diplomacy philosophically, and see a giant military-industrial complex as the only solution to dealing with international relations.
The American people have finally dug their way out of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and extricated our sons and daughters from two battlefields. Let's not plunge ourselves into another trillion-dollar war and sacrifice additional thousands of American sons and daughters in the Middle East, just to uphold the interests of Big Oil and the military-industrial complex, and regional interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
The American people have finally dug their way out of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and extricated our sons and daughters from two battlefields. Let's not plunge ourselves into another trillion-dollar war and sacrifice additional thousands of American sons and daughters in the Middle East, just to uphold the interests of Big Oil and the military-industrial complex, and regional interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
7
The dream of invading and democratizing the rest of the Middle East, starting in Iran and continuing on to Syria, still isn't dead. It only awaits a dyed-in-the-wool conservative president to carry it out.
2
Call me naive or out of touch, but who remembers the rationale propagated in the U.S. and the Soviet Union for stockpiling enormous numbers of nuclear weapons during the Cold War? Answer: mutually assured destruction works as a deterrent. As horrifying as that sounds, I believe it is relevant to this day. Imagine what would happen if Iran developed and used a bomb against Israel. The unwritten and obvious is that Iran is not going to take the chance, because Israel first, and likely then the U.S. will respond in kind and then some. Can anyone sketch a scenario in which this would not happen, or in which Iran would not be aware of this?
2
Unfortunately Patricia that is exactly the scenario israel doesn't want - you can't be the big bully when the other kid on the block has the same big stick you have. This isn't about existential threats to israel - iran is not north korea - they are not going to use their nuclear weapons in aggression - this is about israel maintaining its nuclear supremacy in the region.
There are business interests besides weapons makers that may like to prevent Iran from selling more of its oil. More oil production puts more downward pressure on oil prices. Wall Street has lent US shale oil drillers billions; a further drop in oil prices due to increased supply will make those loans more and more risky.
Follow the money.
Follow the money.
7
This is nearly an impossible situation. The Iranians don't need nuclear energy, they aren't capable of creating a safe, working nuclear energy sector and they have wasted untold billions over the last 20 years on second rate scientific research. Imagine if they had spent that money upgrading their oil fields and oil refinery capabilities. They want a bomb---a ridiculous, rudimentary nuclear bomb or missile that is probably more likely to blow up while in storage than to hit any intended target. And if they ever did strike another nuclear armed nation they would end up as toast. Literally. So what's the deal? National pride? Nukes before a decent, functioning economy? Seems a bit irrational but everyone wants Obama to approach nations like Iran as if they were rational actors when they are not. So we do what we can.
2
What else would you expect from the same obstinate fools who have learned nothing over the last decade + of hapless war.
“Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” ~ MARTIN LUTHER
“Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” ~ MARTIN LUTHER
3
Obama's foreign policy re-direction -- as opposed to his fairly solid domestic record, when all is said and done, of having restored the nation's economic growth and stability from a hideous starting point -- will eventually be widely adjudged as disastrous. Witness today's calamitous pronouncement, in which the President simultaneously both (1) fulfills the dire prophecy so many of us divined shortly after the Iraq war debacle, that any needed future US action in the mideast would be forestalled by that ill-conveived and costly (in blood and treasure) foray; and (2) tries through clever realpolitik to smear opponents of his Iran grand deal (which annoints a re-energized, terrorism-supporting Islamist theocracy as regional power now and acknowledges its eventual coronation as regional super-power, and insures its transformation into nuclear weapons power in a few short years) as Bush-era neoconservatives all.
Hence, Obama's politics are not just dirty, in context they are far dirtier than anything Netanyahu, representing quite literally ground zero vis-a-vis Iran's nuclear ambitions, per the mullahs' words and deeds, could ever machinate.
Our children and grandchildren will inherit this foregin policy debacle and pay a steeper price for it than we can easily imagine.
Hence, Obama's politics are not just dirty, in context they are far dirtier than anything Netanyahu, representing quite literally ground zero vis-a-vis Iran's nuclear ambitions, per the mullahs' words and deeds, could ever machinate.
Our children and grandchildren will inherit this foregin policy debacle and pay a steeper price for it than we can easily imagine.
4
Dennis - very little of what you said is grounded in reality - and i bet you know that.
President Obama is correct to identify the opponents of the nuclear deal with Iran, negotiated by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany and recently unanimously approved by that body, as many of the "same folks" who mis-led us into the Iraq War. Even those who find fault with the deal, which by all accounts contains the most rigorous inspection requirements ever negotiated, must seriously consider the consequences of rejecting it. First, the sanctions are effectively now ended for all nations except the U.S. which means Iran will have access to most of its money that has previously been frozen. Second, they are universally considered to be just a few months away from completing a nuclear weapon. So, a rejection to the deal by Congress would mean that we'd now have Iran with no sanctions and nuclear weapons, and Saudi Arabia rushing to build its own atomic bomb. The question each member of Congress who opposes the deal must answer now is: How does that improve the security of Israel and the entire Middle East? In a region in the midst of a major sectarian conflict with wars already raging in three countries---Iraq, Syria and Yemen, the introduction of nuclear weapons would be an unimaginable catastrophe, especially for Israel, but also for the U.S. which would inevitably be drawn into this new Armageddon.
5
Jeb Bush was a charter member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the same chicken-hawk cabal who lied this country into the Iraq war.
That fact alone should immediately disqualify him as a candidate for president.
That fact alone should immediately disqualify him as a candidate for president.
12
I believe Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war as well.
That fact alone should immediately disqualify her as a candidate for
president.
That fact alone should immediately disqualify her as a candidate for
president.
What exactly do the people who are against the Iran negotiation propsing that we should do when the deal is turned down (presuming that it were actually to fail)?
What choices do they suggest we will face, and what would they choose?
Mealy-mouthed comments like those of Senator Tom Cotton that he would negotiate a tougher agreement are nonsense. How would the senator do to get the Iranians agree, threaten them with a "time-out"? Go ahead togh guy, tell us how you demand a better agreement. What do you do if there is no agreement at all? Curious minds want to know.
At that point, with no agreement, there is no control over what Iran does at all. How is that "better"?
What choices do they suggest we will face, and what would they choose?
Mealy-mouthed comments like those of Senator Tom Cotton that he would negotiate a tougher agreement are nonsense. How would the senator do to get the Iranians agree, threaten them with a "time-out"? Go ahead togh guy, tell us how you demand a better agreement. What do you do if there is no agreement at all? Curious minds want to know.
At that point, with no agreement, there is no control over what Iran does at all. How is that "better"?
12
Some familiar quotes:
"Administration officials said today that they are on the verge of a "significant breakthrough"...that would permanently freeze its threatening nuclear weapons project and provide for a resumption of international inspections."
"This is a good deal for the United States."
"The United States and international inspectors will carefully monitor... to make sure it keeps its commitments."
"The agreement does not require that we merely trust...but insures compliance through intensive monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency"
And the Republican reaction:
"I don't support the Administration's concessions, which I find totally unacceptable," ..."We have given away the store. I don't know what we've gotten in return other than promises."
All above quotes are from the North Korean Clinton deal. We know how that ended. Why make the same mistake twice?
Quotes all from this papers archives. President Clinton and top senators.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/22/world/excerpts-from-president-clinton-...
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/27/world/republicans-oppose-deal-with-kor...
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/09/opinion/l-korea-nuclear-pact-doesn-t-r...
"Administration officials said today that they are on the verge of a "significant breakthrough"...that would permanently freeze its threatening nuclear weapons project and provide for a resumption of international inspections."
"This is a good deal for the United States."
"The United States and international inspectors will carefully monitor... to make sure it keeps its commitments."
"The agreement does not require that we merely trust...but insures compliance through intensive monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency"
And the Republican reaction:
"I don't support the Administration's concessions, which I find totally unacceptable," ..."We have given away the store. I don't know what we've gotten in return other than promises."
All above quotes are from the North Korean Clinton deal. We know how that ended. Why make the same mistake twice?
Quotes all from this papers archives. President Clinton and top senators.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/22/world/excerpts-from-president-clinton-...
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/27/world/republicans-oppose-deal-with-kor...
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/09/opinion/l-korea-nuclear-pact-doesn-t-r...
4
Hmm, so north korea is iran? And why not apply that logic to israel? Are you really that obtuse?
Iran and the whole Middle East situation is a complex and organic system of problems and opportunities. No one can "get it right" because there is no such thing under such deep uncertainty with so many moving players and parts. This will take continuous engagement and focus on big central goals--like slowing down Iran's march to nuclear weapons. The President is on target in light of a tough situation and this agreement will certainly leave future Presidents with one less big problem and some opportunities (like ten years of engagement) to change the course for the better.
There are no "good guys" in the Middle East. It is full of corrupt regimes, a huge demographic problem, masses of under-educated and miss-educated people and religious fanatics. We need to face the unpleasant facts that these problems will take decades to get on anything approaching a positive track from a U.S. perspective. This agreement is just one piece of a complex puzzle and maybe not even a big piece.
There are no "good guys" in the Middle East. It is full of corrupt regimes, a huge demographic problem, masses of under-educated and miss-educated people and religious fanatics. We need to face the unpleasant facts that these problems will take decades to get on anything approaching a positive track from a U.S. perspective. This agreement is just one piece of a complex puzzle and maybe not even a big piece.
3
Always remember: The Bush administration assured us. Weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's Iraq were a "slam-dunk."
4
Obama rather soft pedals this one. Republicans will oppose everything he does because their base thinks of Obama is illegitimate, foreign, terrorist-loving, African unworthy of anything. And why would these Republican congressmen and women bite the hand that feeds them now, now when they can trumpet their fake piety and devotion to Israel as their conscientious objection to Obama's deal.
Whether this deal is perfect or not, we may want to think about how we precipitated (or rather the Brits and the brothers Dulles) the entire fiasco of Mossadegh, and the installation of the dreaded Shah - creating conditions for a disastrous regime of terrorism loving mullahs. Any step that takes us toward peace is a good one.
If Obama says he likes apple pie, republicans would force Washington- on account of their apple production -to secede. I am fed up of a party devoted to the interests of the top 1% what has unrelentingly used racial hatred to keep their party in power. Obama cannot, but I am glad to say this to the republicans and their knee jerk opposition, their fake piety, their covert anti-Semitism, their anti-intellectualism: "Practice saying, 'Madam President, Hillary Clinton.'"
Kalidan
Whether this deal is perfect or not, we may want to think about how we precipitated (or rather the Brits and the brothers Dulles) the entire fiasco of Mossadegh, and the installation of the dreaded Shah - creating conditions for a disastrous regime of terrorism loving mullahs. Any step that takes us toward peace is a good one.
If Obama says he likes apple pie, republicans would force Washington- on account of their apple production -to secede. I am fed up of a party devoted to the interests of the top 1% what has unrelentingly used racial hatred to keep their party in power. Obama cannot, but I am glad to say this to the republicans and their knee jerk opposition, their fake piety, their covert anti-Semitism, their anti-intellectualism: "Practice saying, 'Madam President, Hillary Clinton.'"
Kalidan
20
I would rather practice saying Mr President, Jim Webb or even Lindsey Graham, but never, and I mean never, Hillary Clinton.
I am a moderate Independent and a woman and I wouldn't vote for her under any circumstance.
I am a moderate Independent and a woman and I wouldn't vote for her under any circumstance.
DIPLOMACY versus brute force, describes the difference between the Obama team and Dubya's. By definition, diplomacy is a more advanced and method of conducting foreign policy and is, ultimately, indispensable. Even after the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the total surrender of Japan was achieved through diplomatic channels. After WW II, we did not require proof positive of the elimination of the mindset that brought Nazism to power. Rather, we worked via the Marshall plan to rehabilitate those Germans who wished to contribute to a constructive society. Of course, our agreement with Iran has been won through hard diplomacy, not after overwhelming military defeat. Still, what can Cheyney, for example, point to as proof positive that his chest thumping about total submission worked at all in Iraq, which is in a shambles. What Cheyney did achieve, however, was the submission of the US taxpayer to billions of dollars of inflated costs billed by Halliburton, of which the past VP had been the CEO. There is no detectable movement toward any sort of stable government in Iraq. But we can point to piles of treasure given to Halliburton. My bottom line in all of this is that Obama achieved his goals. Cheyney-Dubya and the necons made things far worse in the Mideast.
15
Diplomacy in the absence of the possibility of force is useless. Make no mistake, the rest of the world views Mr. Obama as the weakest American president in decades - and the Iran agreement only exacerbates the perception.
at all in Iraq, which is in a shambles.
----------------------------
When Obama took office, Iraq was in fine shape. It was calm from 2007 to 2011. Look it up.
----------------------------
When Obama took office, Iraq was in fine shape. It was calm from 2007 to 2011. Look it up.
It's highly unusual that several days after the agreement was announced, we still don't have many polls, perhaps to give AIPAC a chance to do their lobbying before polls hits the press. But here is one:
"Poll: Majority of Americans Support Iran Deal Despite Skepticism
Jul 20, 2015 7:35 PM EDT (Bloomberg)
When it comes to the Obama administration's deal with Iran that attempts to keep Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, Americans seem to be taking a pragmatic view.
Fifty-six percent of U.S. adults surveyed in a new Washington Post/ABC News poll say they support the Iran nuclear deal while 37 percent say they oppose it. Seven percent said that they had no opinion of the deal."
"Poll: Majority of Americans Support Iran Deal Despite Skepticism
Jul 20, 2015 7:35 PM EDT (Bloomberg)
When it comes to the Obama administration's deal with Iran that attempts to keep Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, Americans seem to be taking a pragmatic view.
Fifty-six percent of U.S. adults surveyed in a new Washington Post/ABC News poll say they support the Iran nuclear deal while 37 percent say they oppose it. Seven percent said that they had no opinion of the deal."
11
I'm a retired academic. In my profession making serious mistakes has a downside. You don't get tenure if you're just starting out, and if you already have it you don't get your articles published, you don't get research grants, you don't attract graduate students, and you don't get pay raises. Things are different in politics. Everything Dick Cheney and William Kristol told us when they were promoting their splendid little war in Iraq was wrong. Yet they still have the gall to continue their bombast, and there are still people stupid enough to believe what they say. How can this be? The world wonders.
34
The world has been wondering for a long time how such a powerful
, and influential, country can be ran by such an ignorant people.
, and influential, country can be ran by such an ignorant people.
Sounds so much like Jimmy Carters "Shuttle Diplomacy" and like Carter (except for the Camp David Accord) everything he did with Iran was a total failure. They like all Barbarians smell weakness 1,000 miles away and will capitalize on it every time. The latest news, videos, photographs, radio and TV reports from ALL over Iran not just Tehran shows Exactly the same thing as was expected. The whole country shouting "Death to America, Death to Israel" and "We will defeat America" "They are Nothing again" "How can they fight with their Caitlyn's" We will hear Kerry and Obama as well as supporters claim as so many like them have in the past that Diplomacy trumps Evil or They don't really mean it But one look at the past few thousand years will tell you the truth if you prefer to not pay attention to the last century. Just post the agreement in the NY Times, If the UN gets to see it, WHY NOT AMERICANS!! This circumvention of Congress is beyond belief.
6
The NYT actually ran an excellent article ( yes,they occasionally get it right),
last year on how Iranians celebrated their own anniversary...
Cries of ‘Death to America’ as Iranians Celebrate 35th Anniversary of Revolution
Mixing exhortations of death to America with admonishments to children about healthy teeth and gums, Iran celebrated the 35th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution on Tuesday, and the state news media said millions had exuberantly participated...."
“We are eager for all options on the table,” many of the placards read, cheerfully hoisted by Iranian parents pushing baby strollers while shouting, “Death to America!” Other posters read, “We are ready for the great battle.”
In the distance, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps band played songs from the 1979 revolution, as one cleric, Mohammad Moshabarati, 28, marched by, holding a long pole bearing an Islamic flag. “Everything you see here is the achievement of our supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,” he said. “Our slogan is, ‘Death to U.S.,’ and it will be so forever, no matter what President Rouhani agrees with the Americans.”
last year on how Iranians celebrated their own anniversary...
Cries of ‘Death to America’ as Iranians Celebrate 35th Anniversary of Revolution
Mixing exhortations of death to America with admonishments to children about healthy teeth and gums, Iran celebrated the 35th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution on Tuesday, and the state news media said millions had exuberantly participated...."
“We are eager for all options on the table,” many of the placards read, cheerfully hoisted by Iranian parents pushing baby strollers while shouting, “Death to America!” Other posters read, “We are ready for the great battle.”
In the distance, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps band played songs from the 1979 revolution, as one cleric, Mohammad Moshabarati, 28, marched by, holding a long pole bearing an Islamic flag. “Everything you see here is the achievement of our supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,” he said. “Our slogan is, ‘Death to U.S.,’ and it will be so forever, no matter what President Rouhani agrees with the Americans.”
"Mr. Obama, in his remarks promoting the Iran deal, said the agreement would not stop the United States from fighting Iran’s support for terrorism and its other destabilizing actions across the region. And he angrily called for Iran to release Americans who are being held prisoner there."
Contrary to fighting Iran's support for terrorism, this deal will help Iran support terror like never before, fight it's proxy wars, and at the end of the day still give Iran the bomb and make it easier for it to use nuclear material as a weapon of terror. We gave them a license and the Ayatollah and the 'hardliners' pay lip service to how this deal is not good enough, how it's beneath them, but that's just for Obama and all us other hell-bound infidels. After all, lying to the infidel is recommended in the constitution they live by.
Obama angrily calling for release of hostages? Seriously? What are we going to do? Have another round of negotiations and give them some F16s in return for our prisoners? What is the alternative?
Contrary to fighting Iran's support for terrorism, this deal will help Iran support terror like never before, fight it's proxy wars, and at the end of the day still give Iran the bomb and make it easier for it to use nuclear material as a weapon of terror. We gave them a license and the Ayatollah and the 'hardliners' pay lip service to how this deal is not good enough, how it's beneath them, but that's just for Obama and all us other hell-bound infidels. After all, lying to the infidel is recommended in the constitution they live by.
Obama angrily calling for release of hostages? Seriously? What are we going to do? Have another round of negotiations and give them some F16s in return for our prisoners? What is the alternative?
8
let us stop fighting wars desired by neo cons. Their loyalty to the better interests of the United States is dubious at best
21
The president makes exactly the right point. The usual suspects are indeed again lining up against a plan for peace over war.
13
Peace? Where? Syria? Yemon? Hezbolah? Not sure what you mean by "peace over war"?
1
The truth is many are saying Obama's deal increases the chances of war, will spur a nuclear arms race, and rewards Iran, which has a horrific human rights record. And yet, the MSM joined Obama in his victory lap. Fearful of opposing Obama, the GOP remains impotent in regards to stopping Obama's arrogant unprecedented unlawful overreaches and actions against the best interest of the American people. However, we cannot let this insane nuke deal sail through as narcissistic Obama-bad-boy-politics as usual. The stakes are far too high. Obama basically giving Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism, a nuclear weapon is catastrophically dangerous. It is one of the most important policy acts of our lifetime, making the world a more dangerous place. In 60 days, the U.S. Congress will vote whether or not to reject Obama's crazy deal. Will morality or partisanship reign supreme? As never before, it is vital that we hold our congressional representative's feet to the fire.
7
"Fearful of opposing Obama?' The GOP? Are you kidding me?
1
How refreshing it is to see a wise president leverage diplomacy rather than rattle sabers; could have used him in '03 for sure.
36
And Lincoln should have used diplomacy and let the South keep the slaves to prevent the Civil War? Or do you think that no war is just?
2
Progress does not equate to having a lack of intelligence in both agency kind as well as the individual. Obama often times called the 'smartest guy in the room' (albeit a very tiny one) is too obsessed with his press clippings similar to claims of others meditating about their belly buttons; its not healthy nor productive. Obamas concern, and those of his Minions -most of whom are yellow, are interested in cementing the residents legacy and not on securing national security. Name calling and rhetoric are typical liberal attacks going back to dissident Noam Chomsky and antihistorian Howard Zinn, zingers maybe factual not too often to be statistically relevant. Obama will sign his name to anything similar to aging ball players signing sports memorabilia. Political correctness should come to an end and the king needs to be declared as not wearing clothes. For better Obama be naked to history and histrionics then the country be naked without national security armor from either stricter deals that make sense for us (we are not in the everybody wins game) or by way of military options be they offensive or defensive ones. Obama is not a wartime president like Lyndon Baines barack is concerned with one Johnson and that's his.
And yet, when the GWB-era hawks look at the unmitigated disasters and massive graveyards that are Iraq and Afghanistan, they seem oblivious to the ugly, painful reality in front of everyone: despite the massive casualties, those countries are not going to be western-style democracies and the world is not one iota safer from the war efforts. People like Cheney and McCain even have the nerve to blame President Obama! The US has to drawdown sometime and there is no reason to believe that greater loss of life would have changed the ultimate outcome. Thank heavens President Obama used diplomacy and stopped more bloodshed and destruction from happening.
24
President Obama is exactly right. I remember being a young teenager when the media and the government were pounding the war drums leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Never in my life had I been so filled with dread, because I knew it meant my father (a United States soldier) would be going to war. I knew a few soldiers who died in Iraq and many more families and children who had lost family members. My own father broke his neck while in Iraq, he has since recovered but I've never seen my mother so upset in my life. It is easy for these Congressman to ignore peace because ultimately they are not the ones who suffer the consequences when it is not achieved.
68
"It is easy for these Congressman to ignore peace because ultimately they are not the ones who suffer the consequences "
It is the Israel Lobby that controls Congress. The American people have no voice in the decision. eg. A 2014 NYT`s article quoted B.Baird a Dem. congressman: “The difficult reality is this: in order to get elected to Congress, if you’re not independently wealthy, you have to raise a lot of money &you learn pretty quickly that, if AIPAC is on your side, you can do that.” It also quoted J. Yarmuth, a congressman from Kentucky, on upholding the interests of the United States: “We all took an oath of office & AIPAC is asking us to ignore it.”
It is the Israel Lobby that controls Congress. The American people have no voice in the decision. eg. A 2014 NYT`s article quoted B.Baird a Dem. congressman: “The difficult reality is this: in order to get elected to Congress, if you’re not independently wealthy, you have to raise a lot of money &you learn pretty quickly that, if AIPAC is on your side, you can do that.” It also quoted J. Yarmuth, a congressman from Kentucky, on upholding the interests of the United States: “We all took an oath of office & AIPAC is asking us to ignore it.”
1
Our fearless leader in deed gave up the farm. The sanctions were the only bargaining chip we had. In the 7 years we have endured subpar foreign policy, Iran has pretty much completed their work.
They only wanted to have the sanctions lifted. Iran +1 US strikes out.
We don't even have the ability to do spot inspections. Seriously?
Doesn't mean we start a war. We should not accept the one sided agreement and leave the sanctions in place. After all. Who are we kidding?
They only wanted to have the sanctions lifted. Iran +1 US strikes out.
We don't even have the ability to do spot inspections. Seriously?
Doesn't mean we start a war. We should not accept the one sided agreement and leave the sanctions in place. After all. Who are we kidding?
6
You're WRONG, Seabiscuit. Stop writing and educate yourself.
2
We don't even have the ability to inspect what Iran designate as military bases. So, Oak Ridge would have qualified as a military base.
2
Do you really think that the Russians and Chinese would just continue to uphold the sanctions indefinitely? You're dreaming if you do.
Do you really think that Iran wouldn't achieve the production of a nuclear weapon under the status quo? Those centrifuges have been spinning for years and would continue to spin - and at some point they would have a nuke.
Sanctions status quo = an Iranian nuke.
This is the best deal that could be achieved. For those who insist otherwise, you're simply saying they'd get a nuke anyway.
Do you really think that Iran wouldn't achieve the production of a nuclear weapon under the status quo? Those centrifuges have been spinning for years and would continue to spin - and at some point they would have a nuke.
Sanctions status quo = an Iranian nuke.
This is the best deal that could be achieved. For those who insist otherwise, you're simply saying they'd get a nuke anyway.
1
The Iranian deal will go into effect. The only unknown is whether or not Obama will have to use the veto.There will be no override.Will Republicans of substance have the political courage to ignore the usual demonizers and distorters, and support this deal?.
The triumvirate of Obama,Kerry,and Moniz will use the focused glare of hard data to melt away any credible opposition.The Republican dogmatists will continue their rants.They will be "full of sound and fury signifying nothing", because they will present no alternative. "Negotiating a better deal"is not a plan, it was an impossibility.
Obama outsmarted the Republicans.By giving Congress a vote he eliminated another potentially damaging issue.He understood that opponents would never be able to muster the 2/3 vote needed override a Presidential veto. Obama negotiated, as part of the deal, Monday's U.N. Security Council vote which further increased pressure on Congress to support the deal.
The arrogance, hyperbole, and wrong predictions of Bibi Netanyahu have greatly diminished his influence.The I.R.G.C.in Iran opposes the deal because "death to America" is its signal mantra and ending the sanctions will greatly reduce its ability to profit financially.They have used the lack of foreign access to amass significant wealth.
In the end game will the Republicans join in "a ménage a trois"with Bibi and the I.R.G.C.? Who said "all is irony".
The triumvirate of Obama,Kerry,and Moniz will use the focused glare of hard data to melt away any credible opposition.The Republican dogmatists will continue their rants.They will be "full of sound and fury signifying nothing", because they will present no alternative. "Negotiating a better deal"is not a plan, it was an impossibility.
Obama outsmarted the Republicans.By giving Congress a vote he eliminated another potentially damaging issue.He understood that opponents would never be able to muster the 2/3 vote needed override a Presidential veto. Obama negotiated, as part of the deal, Monday's U.N. Security Council vote which further increased pressure on Congress to support the deal.
The arrogance, hyperbole, and wrong predictions of Bibi Netanyahu have greatly diminished his influence.The I.R.G.C.in Iran opposes the deal because "death to America" is its signal mantra and ending the sanctions will greatly reduce its ability to profit financially.They have used the lack of foreign access to amass significant wealth.
In the end game will the Republicans join in "a ménage a trois"with Bibi and the I.R.G.C.? Who said "all is irony".
13
After all the sturm n drang the main question is will this keep Iran from developing atomic weapons? We shall see. Also regarding the question of whether Israel really opposes the agreement or not. If Israel publicly endorsed it then Iran would reject it out of hand. Therefore the Israeli government has to publicly rail against it regardless of their true views. Hopefully the hard liners in Tehran are really opposed to this nuclear accord and not posturing to please their mad mullah masters. At the end of the day if Israel believes Iran is on the verge of building an atom bomb they will undoubtedly send the planes up.
6
One of the terrible costs of the Iraq war are the large number of American soldiers facing life long physical and mental disabilities. I read that this care was projected to cost 1 trillion dollars.
At the very least, the Republicans now in control of both Houses (the party that brought us this war) should cover the current budget shortfall at the VA rather than demonize the VA. I hope they will then work with the administration to increase funding and accountability so that these veterans get the best care possible and also the needed monetary support for their families. Yes, the agency is not perfect. No agency is. But there are not enough doctors, nurses, therapists, and other professionals to see all the people in need. And it is hard to retain medical personnel because they are overworked and not compensated sufficiently well.
At the very least, the Republicans now in control of both Houses (the party that brought us this war) should cover the current budget shortfall at the VA rather than demonize the VA. I hope they will then work with the administration to increase funding and accountability so that these veterans get the best care possible and also the needed monetary support for their families. Yes, the agency is not perfect. No agency is. But there are not enough doctors, nurses, therapists, and other professionals to see all the people in need. And it is hard to retain medical personnel because they are overworked and not compensated sufficiently well.
8
Obama makes a good point with this analogy. The Republicans are against everything that equals progress in any form. The agreement with Iran was a hard-won victory for diplomacy.
56
Actually it was a victory for Russia and China.
3
I love one-liners. it's so easy to understand them.
Why pray tell does USA need to fight Iran over creating one bomb when USA's stockpile is in excess of seven-thousand, and second only to Russia that we manage to live and let live.
As a supporter of Israel; I think they are pushing for a mighty fall by enlisting Congressional support to put USA in position or choosing between war or peace.
As a supporter of Israel; I think they are pushing for a mighty fall by enlisting Congressional support to put USA in position or choosing between war or peace.
10
Any eighth grader who wasn't socially promoted can tell you that answer. It only takes one bomb. It takes an option off our table under the MAD doctrine. The fissionable material is for one missile launched bomb imagine if that good stuff was divided into a bunch of suitcase sized dirty bombs and smuggled in to the US say by way of mexico and taken to cities and then selected sites in them before being blown up. Suprize suprize suprize.
Obama's reflexive tendency to point to W the boogeyman when his own foreign adventures are as disasterous as this agreement(they all too often are) is laughable.
6
Which adventures of Obama do you mean? Obama has been cautious, some say too cautious.
. . . Criticizing the administration of George W. Bush for its foreign policy is appropriate, because failures in foreign policy have consequences far in the future, in Bush's case the strengthening of Iran and the sectarian war in Iraq. I think Obama stopped blaming Bush's domestic policies after reelection, about the same time Reagan stopped blaming Carter.
. . . Criticizing the administration of George W. Bush for its foreign policy is appropriate, because failures in foreign policy have consequences far in the future, in Bush's case the strengthening of Iran and the sectarian war in Iraq. I think Obama stopped blaming Bush's domestic policies after reelection, about the same time Reagan stopped blaming Carter.
1
Maybe, but invading Iraq on trumped up charges for no real need whatsoever and then lying about "mission accomplished," while getting 4400 Americans and over 100, 000 Iraquis killed, and spending north of two trillion bucks as the Mideast collapsed, THAT was comedy genius.
The neocons and other warmongers were never held accountable for their disastrous policies.
They have no credibility.
They have no credibility.
45
The 3 biggest neocon Bush policies that Candidate Obama promised to end?
President Obama expanded and continued all three.
USA Patriot Act abuses (spying on Americans)
Bush tax cuts
Secret prisons, renditions and drone strikes on civilians
Neocons have no credibility?
Hey, I agree with you.
President Obama expanded and continued all three.
USA Patriot Act abuses (spying on Americans)
Bush tax cuts
Secret prisons, renditions and drone strikes on civilians
Neocons have no credibility?
Hey, I agree with you.
2
Sigh.
1. The secret prisons and renditions--and torture, of which you've approved in the past--were stopped years ago. Guantanamo? Cingress passed legislation requiring it be kept open.
2. The Patriot Act got changed, years ago. No enough, in my view, but it did.
3. The tax cuts expired for everybody except the wealthy. Boo-hoo.
Cinservatives usedta get their facts pretty much straight. What happened?
1. The secret prisons and renditions--and torture, of which you've approved in the past--were stopped years ago. Guantanamo? Cingress passed legislation requiring it be kept open.
2. The Patriot Act got changed, years ago. No enough, in my view, but it did.
3. The tax cuts expired for everybody except the wealthy. Boo-hoo.
Cinservatives usedta get their facts pretty much straight. What happened?
3
And Obama has not expanded America's wars? How many American soldiers have died under Obama's watch?
Let's have a Constitutional Amendment that requires each and every legislator and otherwise war hawk who insists on solving every problem using bombs as the cure, be required to enlist in the armed services themselves and/or have one of their children serve for a minimum of one year at the location of the conflict. I think is this Amendment were to become the law of the land, we would hear quite a different tune from these chicken hawks.
20
I am really getting tired of defenders of this weak deal to claim that anyone how opposes it is a war hawk. Ironically, it is not a valid defense. Calling your opponent names is not the same as offering a reasonable argument. Well, if you can't make a good argument then make a loud one.
The people with the best perspective on the proposed treaty are the former secretaries of state of both Republican and Democratic administrations, who have lined up in support of it. The option of the US simply continuing economic sanctions forever, as suggested by some comments, was not on the table. The economic sanctions were imposed by the entire international community, including Russia. As a group, all of the sanctioning nations decided they want this deal. The US has no effective power continuing sanctions alone. Correcting another misconception -- yes, the US does make deals with "evil regimes." Reagan and Nixon made deals with China and Russia, which everyone agrees were good deals with "bad" regimes.
72
What a loaded comparison. I'm as liberal as they come -- pro gay marriage, anti school vouchers, pro gal marijuana, pro wealth and stock transfer taxes, anti Citizens United -- and thought the Iraq adventure was astonishingly stupid in its execution.
This Iran deal is just as ill-conceived. Sure, you negotiate with your enemies and not your friends, but even when we signed the START treaties with Russia we weren't sending them $150 billion to finance their expansionist and terrorist plans. "Trust but verify" meant that there were Americans on the teams that verified Russian compliance, instead of this deal which says there are no Americans on those teams. The Iranians have a record of cheating. Do we really think that without an anytime-anywhere inspection regime, but with a 24-day delay, we can do the verification that's needed even if were on the inspection team? I think not.
This is not a liberal or conservative issue. This is a world security issue and ally-security issue. The comparison of the critics of the deal to the Iraq chickenhawks is inapposite. The better comparison is the proponents of the deal to the proponents of the 1994 deal with North Korea about the same subject. We saw how that worked out.
This Iran deal is just as ill-conceived. Sure, you negotiate with your enemies and not your friends, but even when we signed the START treaties with Russia we weren't sending them $150 billion to finance their expansionist and terrorist plans. "Trust but verify" meant that there were Americans on the teams that verified Russian compliance, instead of this deal which says there are no Americans on those teams. The Iranians have a record of cheating. Do we really think that without an anytime-anywhere inspection regime, but with a 24-day delay, we can do the verification that's needed even if were on the inspection team? I think not.
This is not a liberal or conservative issue. This is a world security issue and ally-security issue. The comparison of the critics of the deal to the Iraq chickenhawks is inapposite. The better comparison is the proponents of the deal to the proponents of the 1994 deal with North Korea about the same subject. We saw how that worked out.
13
This deal is a recognition of America's position between a rock and a hard place.
Do we really want to lift sanctions on Iran? No. Our allies, however, are not going to accept them for long, however, because the cost of America is negligible, whereas the cost to India, Germany, France, and Japan amongst others are far, far greater. Let's not even discuss China and Russia, whose support is critical for any sanctions to have teeth (whether we like it or not).
Whereas once nuclear technology was extremely inaccessible and cutting edge, now it's far more readily available. Stopping the knowledge is virtually impossible, and we have been reduced to subterfuge and preventing shipments of materials and equipment. Realistically, we can't (and have not been able to) entirely stop Iran's progress. This is simply the reality of the situation, and the fact that we've been able to slow down the Iranians thus far is a sign of our brilliance rather than a failure.
Anyhow, what is the alternative? This at least slows Iran down. It should be noteworthy that a country like North Korea can not only acquire and develop nuclear weapons despite the whole world being virtually against it, but it has also not forced its leaders out of power.
It's time for us to get real and face the facts. A world in which we would apply more sanctions is not reality; it's fantasy. A world where these sanctions would stop Iran altogether is also a fantasy.
You play the hand you've been dealt.
Do we really want to lift sanctions on Iran? No. Our allies, however, are not going to accept them for long, however, because the cost of America is negligible, whereas the cost to India, Germany, France, and Japan amongst others are far, far greater. Let's not even discuss China and Russia, whose support is critical for any sanctions to have teeth (whether we like it or not).
Whereas once nuclear technology was extremely inaccessible and cutting edge, now it's far more readily available. Stopping the knowledge is virtually impossible, and we have been reduced to subterfuge and preventing shipments of materials and equipment. Realistically, we can't (and have not been able to) entirely stop Iran's progress. This is simply the reality of the situation, and the fact that we've been able to slow down the Iranians thus far is a sign of our brilliance rather than a failure.
Anyhow, what is the alternative? This at least slows Iran down. It should be noteworthy that a country like North Korea can not only acquire and develop nuclear weapons despite the whole world being virtually against it, but it has also not forced its leaders out of power.
It's time for us to get real and face the facts. A world in which we would apply more sanctions is not reality; it's fantasy. A world where these sanctions would stop Iran altogether is also a fantasy.
You play the hand you've been dealt.
9
Uh, minor technical detail: that $150 bil is oil money that they earned years ago, which we held onto because sanctions.
Other details include: any negotiation means you give something to get something, and we actually bargained with about six other countries too.
Other details include: any negotiation means you give something to get something, and we actually bargained with about six other countries too.
13
We don't "send" them $150 billion; it is THEIR money that is now released from frozen accounts.
. . . Your comparison to our previous arms control agreements with Russia made it sound as if the Iranians will only be controlled themselves - this deal is a deal with the world, and there are plenty independent expert that will inspect Iran.
. . . Your comparison to our previous arms control agreements with Russia made it sound as if the Iranians will only be controlled themselves - this deal is a deal with the world, and there are plenty independent expert that will inspect Iran.
11
A good rule of thumb on foreign affairs is, "Whatever Dick Cheney likes, do the opposite!"
I can't remember anything the former vice-president did that was good for the country and not Haliburton.
I can't remember anything the former vice-president did that was good for the country and not Haliburton.
8
Senator McCain is another individual who was both a proponent of the Iraq war and a critic of the Iran accords. McCain was a signatory of the open letter to Iran and had once turned "bomb, bomb Iran" into a Beach Boys-esque song. Some people, it seems, never learn that the American military cannot will other nations to fit politicians' wishes. The best we can do is use diplomacy.
4
Just another inane comment from our Commander and Chief ? His absurd analysis of events, leads one to wonder how he thinks or who is advising him. His legacy of success will be a footnote in history.
4
Bush Administration members used to start their war meetings with this little saying: "Men go to Iraq, but real men go to Tehran."
I paraphrase only slightly, but those beating the drums against this Agreement are indeed the same "American Century" signatories that pushed for an Iraq invasion the day after 9 11!
Among those signatories who wanted to assert that America could do anything it wanted in this world as the reigning superpower, was none other than Jeb Bush, the presumtive candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination.
Let us lay aside for a moment that misguided hubris, when the US was lured into the black hole of blood and treasure called the Iraq invasion, and let's ask the Dick Cheney's and the Jeb Bush's exactly what is their alternative plan for dealing with Iran.
They don't have one, apart from more "get tough" talk e.g. more saber rattling. Rand Paul sputtered something about "making sanctions tougher", but that's ridiculous given the circumstances.
All the members of the Security Council of the UN have agreed to this treaty and the likelihood of them adding or continuing sanctions if Congress rejects the agreement, is about zero. Or maybe when it comes to this we are in that land of Less than Zero. "Impossible and isn't going to happen" comes to mind.
This is the first opportunity we have seen a ray of light called potential peace in the Mideast in years... and they want to throw it away just to deny Obama an achievement?
That's wrong.
I paraphrase only slightly, but those beating the drums against this Agreement are indeed the same "American Century" signatories that pushed for an Iraq invasion the day after 9 11!
Among those signatories who wanted to assert that America could do anything it wanted in this world as the reigning superpower, was none other than Jeb Bush, the presumtive candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination.
Let us lay aside for a moment that misguided hubris, when the US was lured into the black hole of blood and treasure called the Iraq invasion, and let's ask the Dick Cheney's and the Jeb Bush's exactly what is their alternative plan for dealing with Iran.
They don't have one, apart from more "get tough" talk e.g. more saber rattling. Rand Paul sputtered something about "making sanctions tougher", but that's ridiculous given the circumstances.
All the members of the Security Council of the UN have agreed to this treaty and the likelihood of them adding or continuing sanctions if Congress rejects the agreement, is about zero. Or maybe when it comes to this we are in that land of Less than Zero. "Impossible and isn't going to happen" comes to mind.
This is the first opportunity we have seen a ray of light called potential peace in the Mideast in years... and they want to throw it away just to deny Obama an achievement?
That's wrong.
13
Since being a Senator, Obama made clear that he opposes "stupid wars," the Iraq war being a good example. As a Presidential candidate, Obama offered Iran his hand to an unclenched fist. Most American citizens would consider going into Iran to be a "stupid war." Offering a seat at the table and move away from outlier status are good ways to stay out of "stupid wars."
8
Way to go, Mr. President. Tell it like it is. These criminals should be brought to justice. Our vets deserve way better than what is meted out to them. Please keep at it President Obama.
26
It's obvious that much of the domestic opposition is inspired from Mr. Netanyahu, who said he would do his best to produce a Congressional defeat of the agreement. Mr. Netanyahu may have valid concerns about Iranian hostility toward Israel, but he seems to be forgetting that if there were no nuclear program in Iran and no sanctions, Iran would anyhow be spending its money to arm itself and its proxies. No nuclear agreement means Iran would continue developing its nuclear capability, while finding ways around sanctions that allow it to still arm itself and its proxies. So one way or another the world is better off with the agreement, and one way or another Israel is still three steps ahead of Iran because it has nuclear retaliation capability that Iran lacks. Israel has always been able to deal with the proxies Iran is said to be financing and this will likely continue. Hence it's hard to see how this agreement in any way degrades Israeli security and gives the domestic opposition a legitimate complaint against it. The world is a safer place with Iran's nuclear program under strict surveillance, and it will make Israel no worse off.
12
I believe Mr. Netanyahu takes the the leaders of Iran at their word they say their aim is to destroy Israel.
Israel knows it cannot count on anyone but itself and will act, as all nations do, in what ti believes to be its best interests.
Oh, and yes, America has nuclear weapons, but unlike Iran, has not promised to destroy any of its neighbors. The analogy is misplaced.
Israel knows it cannot count on anyone but itself and will act, as all nations do, in what ti believes to be its best interests.
Oh, and yes, America has nuclear weapons, but unlike Iran, has not promised to destroy any of its neighbors. The analogy is misplaced.
Republicans--despite all the evidence to the contrary--insist on defending the disaster that was the invasion of Iraq. Until there is an actual indictment of those who deserve to be prosecuted as "war criminals", until there is a "Truth and Reconciliation Process" in place or, I fear, until the mainstays of the rush to invade Iraq have passed to the judgment of a higher power, the Iraq invasion will continue to be defended by the deluded, the ignorant and the deceived.
The Iran nuclear weapon negotiation has produced what many experts are calling "a better than expected" agreement. The UN Security Council has accepted this agreement. The other world powers involved have accepted this agreement. Only those willfully set on using military power to settle every disagreement between the US and other nations are refusing to accept the results of diplomacy.
The insane comments of GOP candidate Scott Walker that war with Iran will start the day he is sworn into office as President should certainly be sufficient to warn voters against putting him or his fellow Republicans in a position of power.
The Iran nuclear weapon negotiation has produced what many experts are calling "a better than expected" agreement. The UN Security Council has accepted this agreement. The other world powers involved have accepted this agreement. Only those willfully set on using military power to settle every disagreement between the US and other nations are refusing to accept the results of diplomacy.
The insane comments of GOP candidate Scott Walker that war with Iran will start the day he is sworn into office as President should certainly be sufficient to warn voters against putting him or his fellow Republicans in a position of power.
50
How many Democrats voted for the Iraq war not blame the Republicans.? They made me do it!
Obama is exactly right. In 2003. the neocons including Kristol, Wolfowitz, Feith, Cheney and his sycophants, etc., along with netanyahu and his supporters, all said Saddam was Israel's worst enemy, and helped push the US into a disastrous war which killed and maimed many americans (most of whom, of course, were not jewish, since very few jews serve in the US military, and if they do serve, serve only in Israel's military), and a war which allowed Iran, the US's avowed enemy, to gain regional influence it never would have otherwise had. Netanyahu, Dermer and their supporters in Israel and int he Republican party here (inlsuding Tom cotton) have tried to scuttle this agreement before any of its terms were established, calling for the bombing of Iran instead. Loyal, patriotic americans must resist the warmongers and their call to bomb iran and resort to war in the first instance, rather than as a last resort, because Netanyahu and Dermer want us to bomb iran. OBama must continually call out the warmongers; it is his patriotic duty to do so. The american people do not want another was only because Israel and many of its supporters want the US to go to war against Iran. Let us not be fooled again.
9
>>>... americans must resist the warmongers and their call to bomb iran and resort to war in the first instance, rather than as a last resort, because Netanyahu and Dermer want us to bomb iran.
Absolutely, and why this easily discerned rationale is not discussed more often is beyond me. Netanyahu was also jumping up and down months ago about Palestinian recognition by the UN. While he claims that the Arab world is out to get Israel, the opposite is also an obvious fair claim, and he would definitely like to scuttle Iran, he just wants the U.S. to be his proxy so their isn't as much direct backlash against Israel.
>>>“It’s a matter of months until we’re going to see a situation where other people feel they have to defend themselves by acquiring their own capability,” Mr. Cheney said last week on Fox News.
The only way such a situation will develop is if Cheney makes that happen through his connections and backchannels, just to prove his prediction. Let's not forget how the former administration went on and on about "yellow cake" and Saddam having access to fissionable material. It was never true... even Colin Powell came to understand that he had been flim-flammed in making that announcement.
Absolutely, and why this easily discerned rationale is not discussed more often is beyond me. Netanyahu was also jumping up and down months ago about Palestinian recognition by the UN. While he claims that the Arab world is out to get Israel, the opposite is also an obvious fair claim, and he would definitely like to scuttle Iran, he just wants the U.S. to be his proxy so their isn't as much direct backlash against Israel.
>>>“It’s a matter of months until we’re going to see a situation where other people feel they have to defend themselves by acquiring their own capability,” Mr. Cheney said last week on Fox News.
The only way such a situation will develop is if Cheney makes that happen through his connections and backchannels, just to prove his prediction. Let's not forget how the former administration went on and on about "yellow cake" and Saddam having access to fissionable material. It was never true... even Colin Powell came to understand that he had been flim-flammed in making that announcement.
Benjamin Netanyahu is another prominent cheerleader of the Iraq war and outspoken critic of the Iran deal. The Prime Minister's solution is military first, no matter how futile the efforts are. Netanyahu does not understand that tanks and bombers cannot break the will of a people to resist, whether in Iraq, Gaza, or Iran. His chosen aggressive course, however politically expedient, is also never-ending, by definition. President Obama stays above quagmires and needless bloodshed. Our Congress should follow him, not Netanyahu.
9
Staying above the quagmires is like "cut and run". But tell us why he has had to send thousands back to Iraq.
Netanyahu's country was being bombed by Iraq on a daily basis.
Is he including the Democrats that voted to go to war?
7
After all the lies Obama has told the American people, I wouldn't believe anything he says. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. The $800 billion stimulus would create millions of shovel ready jobs. The attack on US interests in Benghazi was caused by reaction to an anti-Muslim video.
8
Millions of jobs [9.2m to be precise] were created because of the stimulus program which set the economy on a sound growth footing in contrast to Europeans which opted for austerity which as a result are struggling.
Yes, there are millions who still do not have jobs and do hope the nation continues to prosper so that everyone can get a slice of the American Dream, but denying these hard facts is just ridiculous.
Benghazi, what about it? Our mission was attacked by terrorists which claimed the lives our diplomats. I am not sure what else to add to it.
Yes, there are millions who still do not have jobs and do hope the nation continues to prosper so that everyone can get a slice of the American Dream, but denying these hard facts is just ridiculous.
Benghazi, what about it? Our mission was attacked by terrorists which claimed the lives our diplomats. I am not sure what else to add to it.
WHILE I fully support Mr. Obama's policy on the Iran Deal, he should let Experts such as Dr. Ernest Moniz, The Secretary of Energy, who is a Leading Authority on ALL Matters Nuclear, to beat sense into the Naysayers and avoid Shouting Matches with Tone-Deaf Neocons.
ANOTHER Valuable Asset for the P5+1 would be Dr. Hans Blix, Retired General Director of the IAEA who opined: "Iran deal is remarkably far-reaching".
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/qa-hans-blix-iran-deal-remarkably-far-reaching
ANOTHER Valuable Asset for the P5+1 would be Dr. Hans Blix, Retired General Director of the IAEA who opined: "Iran deal is remarkably far-reaching".
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/qa-hans-blix-iran-deal-remarkably-far-reaching
11
So you got to read it or do you support what you have not read?
1
While Moniz should speak in the senate, Obama has the important role to remind Democratic senators that their voters want a deal, even if their donors don't.
2
If memory serves me, Kerry, Biden, and Hillary all voted yes on the Iraq war. Now Obama wants the Senate is to vote yes again. What is he talking about?
6
They voted yes to take the proposition to the United Nations to get their support. Because the Bush Admin. knew it would not get U.N. support for this invasion, they simply ignored the U.N. and went to war. Kerry, Biden, and Hillary made the mistake of believing in the integrity of an admin. who systematically misled them and all the rest of us.
9
Pardon me Christy, but your explanation does not hold water. None of those three expressed any reservations about the war leading up to their vote. They did not qualify it in any way. Both Biden and Kerry voted NO in 1991 and looked weak. This time it was YES. None of them retracted their votes or admitted a mistake. When Kerry ran for President in 2004, it was as the stealth Peace candidate. He still would not admit an error nor did the so-called Peace group call him out. Today, people are once again being asked to trust the administration and vote YES. Personally, I would vote YES. But this President is no more honest than the last one, and probably less.
There seems to be an obvious point that keeps getting missed, the Iran deal is a choice between, making road to nuclear weapon tougher but allowing Iran to strengthen itself overall vs continuing to try to weaken Iran but giving it room to run to bomb. You can critique the deal if you want to try to restrict Iran from regional supremacy and I understand thats the view of Sunni regional countries and Israel but you can't also claim concern about Iran getting a bomb. Its a dishonest argument, we had several dishonest arguments during the lead up to Iraq War and those also came from the right.
11
Gosh what a bunch of exaggerates! 50 years ago I landed in Chu Lai a young Marine hearing how we're fighting another bunch of "bad guys'. Ha look at Vietnam today! Meanwhile my old platoon, those who didn't leave their souls in the red dirt, have dropped off like flies around paper. Cancer, heart, stress, old wounds... 2 left. Don't repeat mistakes, try new ways, don't pay any attention to self-serving men. Protect your sons & daughters from them. BTW thanks VA you've done a good job; always polite, respectful and doing more them anyone else.
37
As a Vietnam Era Vet, I recognize a voice of wisdom and moderation, with an eye to not being fooled again. You name some of them, the same arguments, and familiar tropes: "Fight them over there, or fight them here." "Protect our freedoms at home by...." see first quote for appropriate rejoinder. The Domino theory, that you'd think had long ago lost its credibility, was in great form once again.
Instead, the only thing we learned from Vietnam was "support the troops?" "Tie a yellow ribbon," and so forth? And largely because of a movie with Sylvester Stallone called 'Rambo', the idea of soldiers spit on while returning home gained traction. Though it never happened. Soldiers were "accountable," but that was a different time of the "Universal Soldier" and "burn your draft card" and the emphasis on Thoreau and "Civil Disobedience" by the individual that has lost its cachet, for better or worse, we can't say here in a few words.
But...to listen to the voice of experience? To place in context the "War on Terror" based on other adventurisms we've been subjected to in the past? To learn from our history and hold our leaders accountable?
It never happened, and as a Vietnam Era Vet, it is my most profound disappointment of growing older in America: the lack of learning from history and even the recent past.
I hope a few will read and gain some understanding from your post. Or at least, begin to ask questions and get some context for the issues we're asked to endorse.
Instead, the only thing we learned from Vietnam was "support the troops?" "Tie a yellow ribbon," and so forth? And largely because of a movie with Sylvester Stallone called 'Rambo', the idea of soldiers spit on while returning home gained traction. Though it never happened. Soldiers were "accountable," but that was a different time of the "Universal Soldier" and "burn your draft card" and the emphasis on Thoreau and "Civil Disobedience" by the individual that has lost its cachet, for better or worse, we can't say here in a few words.
But...to listen to the voice of experience? To place in context the "War on Terror" based on other adventurisms we've been subjected to in the past? To learn from our history and hold our leaders accountable?
It never happened, and as a Vietnam Era Vet, it is my most profound disappointment of growing older in America: the lack of learning from history and even the recent past.
I hope a few will read and gain some understanding from your post. Or at least, begin to ask questions and get some context for the issues we're asked to endorse.
1
Amen to your compliments to the VA. I have had a similar experience.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Once again Obama nails it. Dick Cheney should be doing his saber rattling from a war crimes prison cell. Yellowcake all around, eh Tricky Dick II?
18
No comparison needed. They are indeed the same folks that turned ME into a disaster zone by conning Bush. They are responsible for thousands of dead Americans, trillions of losses to taxpayers and 100s of thousands of dead people in ME.
You would think they would learn to hide under a rock, but these folks are not normal people. They are messianic loonies with loyalty to a foreign government.
You would think they would learn to hide under a rock, but these folks are not normal people. They are messianic loonies with loyalty to a foreign government.
16
Reminder Obama - your last 2 SOS, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war. So did Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid.
Just thought I would remind everyone.
Just thought I would remind everyone.
2
Kerry, Hillary, Chuck, and Harry say that they were misled. Had they known that they had intentional or unintentional faulty intelligence, they would have voted against.
Others have noted the reality that the U.S. has engaged in many wars in the 21st century. Almost all have been failures and none have created a path to peace or stability anywhere in the world. Instead, these wars have resulted in the loss of many lives both foreign and American. Second, there is broad-based world support of what Obama has negotiated with Iran. Third, the "Iran Deal" has no better alternative like maintaining multi-nation sanctions (Israel's main argument) or just bomb-bomb-bomb Iran.
We need to give peace a chance. No statesman, no political party and no nation has proposed a credible alternative plan, just bellicose rhetoric.
We need to give peace a chance. No statesman, no political party and no nation has proposed a credible alternative plan, just bellicose rhetoric.
17
The sanctions regime no longer has the support of the EU or China or Russia. Thus there is no chance that the US could keep up the present state by itself. The UNSC voted unanimously to endorse the deal. Smart people negotiated it. At the very least it will increase the scrutiny on Iran.
Some of you hawks might consider that the international inspections done in IRAQ prior to the Cheney/Bush fiasco were spot on: there were NO WMD to be found. So, there is evidence of the effectiveness of intrusive inspection. I suspect you don't want to hear that though...
Some of you hawks might consider that the international inspections done in IRAQ prior to the Cheney/Bush fiasco were spot on: there were NO WMD to be found. So, there is evidence of the effectiveness of intrusive inspection. I suspect you don't want to hear that though...
30
The comparison is not fair. If the President wants to convince me, he best not compare me to Dick Cheney, and instead show me some facts. Many Obama supporters like me questioned the eagerness with which the U.S. negotiated, the delays the agreement allows in certain inspections, and the good faith of the Iran regime given contradictory pronouncements from elected officials and leaders of the religious/military complex. Those are legitimate questions, and I am not yet satisfied with the answers.
5
The war in Iraq was based on a lie that Iraq had WMDs that were an imminent threat to the US. Now, with Iran, Obama and his team are actively working to reduce the nuclear threat and the adversarial tone between nations. This cabinet understands that military actions should be the last resort, not the first political impulse.
18
"The war in Iraq was based on a lie that Iraq had WMDs"......Wrong lie. Everyone believed Iraq had WMDs. The lie was that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were connected to Al Qaeda and 9/11.
1
Hi W. A. Spitzer,
Well, I could have specified the made-up "nucular" weapons vrom those WMDs we had the receipt for, along with our blessings to use them against Iran. Which made it doubly baffling that GWB's "Axis of Evil" contained the enemy nations of Iran and Iraq. Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. Best regards.
Well, I could have specified the made-up "nucular" weapons vrom those WMDs we had the receipt for, along with our blessings to use them against Iran. Which made it doubly baffling that GWB's "Axis of Evil" contained the enemy nations of Iran and Iraq. Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. Best regards.
Original poster:
"a lie that Iraq had WMDs that were an imminent threat to the US"
. . . That statement is correct: the WMD that Saddam had, chemical gases, and that he used against Kurds were no imminent threat to the US, because Saddam wouldn't have dared to use those weapons against the US if he still had a bit of hope to survive in power. The US reaction would have been swift and deadly, negating any advantage of using those WMD. Iraq had not and was not close to having a nuclear weapon.
"a lie that Iraq had WMDs that were an imminent threat to the US"
. . . That statement is correct: the WMD that Saddam had, chemical gases, and that he used against Kurds were no imminent threat to the US, because Saddam wouldn't have dared to use those weapons against the US if he still had a bit of hope to survive in power. The US reaction would have been swift and deadly, negating any advantage of using those WMD. Iraq had not and was not close to having a nuclear weapon.
1
Criticizing the giveaway of the store to Iran is not tantamount to advocating war. That's a disingenuous dichotomy.
8
Criticize Kerry as lousy negotiator if you feel like it. Kerry got the job from the president who the constitution says conducts our foreign policy. Voting against the deal is still voting against peace.
We didn't give away the store, we got scrutiny of their nuclear program. Which we wouldn't have without the deal, thereby leaving us with one alternative. Can you guess what that is?
... In addition, ...
a very disturbing element concerning the Iran Agreement which came to my attention - today...
According to the DebkaFile website : "... a key clause in the main body of the deal ******* (Part 10 on page 142) includes a promise by the US (et al) “to safeguard Iran's nuclear plants and facilities against terrorist attacks, outside disruption, or sabotage.” *******
This clause is tantamount to providing Iran with a US Safeguard of its Nuclear facilities... So, not only does this Agreement NOT prevent Iran from obtaining Nuclear Weapons in about 10 Years ( if not sooner... ), this Agreement Guarantees Iran's ability to do so...
(Note: Even the infamous Munich (Chamberlain) Agreement of 1938 didn't provide Hitler with a guarantee of its industrial and military infrastructure)
Not only will the United States become the Guarantor of a State sponsor of Terrorism, while that same State shouts " Death to America" - but in doing so, the Obama Administration may facilitate an Enemy of the Allies of the US,... as well as facilitate an Enemy of The United States, itself.
a very disturbing element concerning the Iran Agreement which came to my attention - today...
According to the DebkaFile website : "... a key clause in the main body of the deal ******* (Part 10 on page 142) includes a promise by the US (et al) “to safeguard Iran's nuclear plants and facilities against terrorist attacks, outside disruption, or sabotage.” *******
This clause is tantamount to providing Iran with a US Safeguard of its Nuclear facilities... So, not only does this Agreement NOT prevent Iran from obtaining Nuclear Weapons in about 10 Years ( if not sooner... ), this Agreement Guarantees Iran's ability to do so...
(Note: Even the infamous Munich (Chamberlain) Agreement of 1938 didn't provide Hitler with a guarantee of its industrial and military infrastructure)
Not only will the United States become the Guarantor of a State sponsor of Terrorism, while that same State shouts " Death to America" - but in doing so, the Obama Administration may facilitate an Enemy of the Allies of the US,... as well as facilitate an Enemy of The United States, itself.
5
If you think this way maybe the Jews need to find a new champion and leave the US alone. We've already suffered abuse from Israel and they have given us nothing in return except lies and insults.
4
Ah yes, the Jews... And how do you feel about the 20% of non-Jewish, loyal Israeli citizens many of whom are also IDF soldiers? Ready to throw them under the bus too?
1
In other words, if Netanyahu treatens to bomb Iran as Israel did 2 years ago, Iran wants a US commitment not to permit this. That does not limit the US' superpower status to use military option.
After our president sold us out with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, I'm skeptical of whatever he has to say. Using John Grisham's books as models, he'll be long gone to his Hawaiian paradise - paid for by the corporate bigwigs who goaded him into the TPP, by the time any effects of this pact are fully felt.
5
This is a shoddy piece of reasoning. Obviously, President Obama thinks that the Iraq war was a misadventure. But its only relevance to the current situation was the claim that Saddam Hussein was engaged in a project to make nuclear weapons. It turns out that this, while widely believed, was mistaken. Is President Obama claiming that it is a mistake to suppose that Iran was embarked on a project to secure nuclear weapons? If he thinks that, there is no need for any deal whatsoever.
It is worth keeping in mind, on the other hand, a different antecedent event that seems highly relevant, namely, President Clinton's deal with North Korea. President Clinton's talking points and President Obama's are almost identical. How did that turn out for us?
It is worth keeping in mind, on the other hand, a different antecedent event that seems highly relevant, namely, President Clinton's deal with North Korea. President Clinton's talking points and President Obama's are almost identical. How did that turn out for us?
6
The reason the North Korea agreement failed was that the Bsh administration broke it. North Korea shut down its reactor, but we did not deliver the agreed upon oil . Then we failed to stop economic sanctions as agreed.
So what did you expect?
So what did you expect?
3
What a ridiculous comparison. Its unbelievable.
6
The GOP has become the GALLOPING OMNICIDE PARTY!
Omnicide: The total extinction of humans as a result of human action.
Every man, woman and child is in trouble.
Advocates of war are accelerating in their ignorance an end to humanity.
Earth faces human extinction within 5 to 15 years as a result of a spreading atmospheric Arctic Methane heat wave and Global Warming. We need to reduce the use of fossil fuels by 80% in 5 years (Lester R. Brown).
This is extremely difficult, but just might be possible. It requires rapid acceptance and production of hard to believe, revolutionary, new science and technologies. See aesopinstitute.org for the challenge and a few examples.
As this unrecognized reality penetrates global consciousness, it will force all of us to rethink our options. They certainly will not include another war!
We are moving into an era of Black Swan events - which could make possible better alternatives - if we are wise enough to move toward positive outcomes.
All human lives now depend on rapid verification of unrecognized realities - coupled with intelligence rarely demonstrated in human affairs.
Wake up folks, the lives you save may include your own and everyone you care about.
And we had best create better alternatives than those of the Galloping Omnicide Party!
Omnicide: The total extinction of humans as a result of human action.
Every man, woman and child is in trouble.
Advocates of war are accelerating in their ignorance an end to humanity.
Earth faces human extinction within 5 to 15 years as a result of a spreading atmospheric Arctic Methane heat wave and Global Warming. We need to reduce the use of fossil fuels by 80% in 5 years (Lester R. Brown).
This is extremely difficult, but just might be possible. It requires rapid acceptance and production of hard to believe, revolutionary, new science and technologies. See aesopinstitute.org for the challenge and a few examples.
As this unrecognized reality penetrates global consciousness, it will force all of us to rethink our options. They certainly will not include another war!
We are moving into an era of Black Swan events - which could make possible better alternatives - if we are wise enough to move toward positive outcomes.
All human lives now depend on rapid verification of unrecognized realities - coupled with intelligence rarely demonstrated in human affairs.
Wake up folks, the lives you save may include your own and everyone you care about.
And we had best create better alternatives than those of the Galloping Omnicide Party!
19
I really wish Obama wouldn't scold people who disagree with him. It gets in the way of having meaningful conversations about important issues.
14
It's Obama's way or the highway. Obama does not want any intelligent conversation, he doesn't want any conversation.
1
It has nothing o do witjh scolding. Don't be offended by the truth. The truth should be told. This is a life or death issue for americans, many of whom died or were maimed the last time Israel and its supporters pushed america towards war in 2003, and we must not let the warmongers here and in Israel prevail, who would again have us act in fealty to Israel's policies to the detriment of America. Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons and can defend itself.
5
Considering how the president has been scolded and derided by the opposition, I'm not surprised he feels entitled to respond in kind. Or would you prefer that he just goes directly to the woodshed?
What President Obama said couldn't be any truer. The only way to try to slow Iran's nuclear program is to bomb the sh*** out of it, but does that sound like a reality? Is this what we are supposed to do? Another endless war in the middle east? This is the best option available at this time.
Everyone against this deal, be it Israel or the Arab countries against it are preaching for something none of them would ever do but they want America to do their dirty work, and we keep falling for it. Let them take some responsibility for this mess because they are all part of this mess, they've all contributed to it.
Republicans on the other hand and some Democrats offer nothing more but dirty politics to appease their donors and no viable alternative.
During the most stringent sanctions in history, Iran went from a couple hundred centrifuges to almost 20,000!!! Does this look like sanctions worked?
Wake up America and vote out these incompetent politicians that are running Congress and are playing with our future.
Everyone against this deal, be it Israel or the Arab countries against it are preaching for something none of them would ever do but they want America to do their dirty work, and we keep falling for it. Let them take some responsibility for this mess because they are all part of this mess, they've all contributed to it.
Republicans on the other hand and some Democrats offer nothing more but dirty politics to appease their donors and no viable alternative.
During the most stringent sanctions in history, Iran went from a couple hundred centrifuges to almost 20,000!!! Does this look like sanctions worked?
Wake up America and vote out these incompetent politicians that are running Congress and are playing with our future.
71
That's incorrect. The Pentagon has made clear that simply bombing the nuclear sites is not an option. The Iranians built them far too deep underground for exactly that reason. The only way to destroy the sites would be to have troops on the ground.
2
Pathetic is the only word that comes to mind characterizing chickenhawks Cheney, Kristol and Wolfowitz: it demeans the young men and women who served this country; that this crowd would be given the opportunity to say anything other than begging for forgiveness is unfathomable.
117
In the argument of diplomacy versus war, here's some points:
Diplomacy didn't work with the Nazis - we went to war anyway, but:
Texas cowboy Pres Johnson opposed global communism with war - result? - a counterproductive catastrophe in Vietnam & Cambodia.
California cowboy Reagan opposed global communism primarily economically & diplomatically, with defense but no full scale war - result? - success - the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War & effectively the end of the spread of global communist tyranny.
A military invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs – result? A counterproductive disaster. A measured defensive & diplomatic approach to the Cuban missile crisis – result? – success. And now we’re renewing diplomatic relations & trade with Cuba.
Carter got Egypt & Israel together diplomatically - result? - decades of peace between them.
Pres Bush SENIOR conducts a limited, defensive, military action in the Persian Gulf – result? - success - a short, well-executed conflict with minimal American casualties that quickly, thoroughly & lastingly accomplishes its mission.
Texas cowboy G W Bush starts an unnecessary war in Iraq with an all-out invasion based on dubious pretexts - result? - an endless counterproductive catastrophe.
Obama deals with Iran diplomatically - well, we see - there is some precedent for hope.
Diplomacy didn't work with the Nazis - we went to war anyway, but:
Texas cowboy Pres Johnson opposed global communism with war - result? - a counterproductive catastrophe in Vietnam & Cambodia.
California cowboy Reagan opposed global communism primarily economically & diplomatically, with defense but no full scale war - result? - success - the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War & effectively the end of the spread of global communist tyranny.
A military invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs – result? A counterproductive disaster. A measured defensive & diplomatic approach to the Cuban missile crisis – result? – success. And now we’re renewing diplomatic relations & trade with Cuba.
Carter got Egypt & Israel together diplomatically - result? - decades of peace between them.
Pres Bush SENIOR conducts a limited, defensive, military action in the Persian Gulf – result? - success - a short, well-executed conflict with minimal American casualties that quickly, thoroughly & lastingly accomplishes its mission.
Texas cowboy G W Bush starts an unnecessary war in Iraq with an all-out invasion based on dubious pretexts - result? - an endless counterproductive catastrophe.
Obama deals with Iran diplomatically - well, we see - there is some precedent for hope.
41
So, HIlary, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi ets must also be war hawks since they also voted to invade Iraq.
6
Perhaps. Certainly hope they regret those votes now.
4
Their voted was based on lies supplied by the Bush administration as they have since admitted.
9
Democrats voted tot he presidency the one who did not mindlessly support war in 2003. Yes, those you name also are guilty.
1
Didn't Dick Cheney take 4 deferments on Vietnam. Had better things to do (for himself).
Sorta like Trump.
Sorta like Trump.
105
5 deferment, war profiteer, shot his friend it the face while drunk Cheney is his full name.
1
Kristol? Cheney? Enough said.
91
Obama, Kerry, Ayatollah Khameini ? ... Enough said
1
Eleazor 53, Henry 0. Enough said.
All they are saying is "give war a chance!"
The analogy between the "shoot first and *never* as questions" crowd following 9/11 and the "bomb Iran" worthies of today has occurred to me several times. Certainly, parallels exist. But where the analogy crumbles is that in the case of Iraq, the rush to an incredibly costly war, at least, followed a horrendously provocative attack on US soil.
Today, the "war firsters" are agitating for military action against another nation *after* it has just concluded a peaceful agreement, not only with the United States but also with the other major powers of the world. This is far more despicable than reacting erroneously and deceitfully; it is promoting proactively for perceived political gain in the endlessly cynical quest for destroying anything achieved by President Obama, whatever the merits.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
The analogy between the "shoot first and *never* as questions" crowd following 9/11 and the "bomb Iran" worthies of today has occurred to me several times. Certainly, parallels exist. But where the analogy crumbles is that in the case of Iraq, the rush to an incredibly costly war, at least, followed a horrendously provocative attack on US soil.
Today, the "war firsters" are agitating for military action against another nation *after* it has just concluded a peaceful agreement, not only with the United States but also with the other major powers of the world. This is far more despicable than reacting erroneously and deceitfully; it is promoting proactively for perceived political gain in the endlessly cynical quest for destroying anything achieved by President Obama, whatever the merits.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
49
It is indeed disheartening that our President thinks any person opposed to this negotiated agreement thinks war is the automatic alternative. To be sure, almost all opponents of the deal were pushing for a firmer negotiating stance and tougher sanctions. If it was the sanctions which brought Iran to the table, why did we remove so many of them at the start of the talks?
Sadly, the preemptive move by Obama to first secure a UN Security Council approval over a largely bipartisan Congressional majority against the deal shows the true weakness of his position with the American people. Obama does not have the authority to let the UN dictate to America's elected Representatives.
Sadly, the preemptive move by Obama to first secure a UN Security Council approval over a largely bipartisan Congressional majority against the deal shows the true weakness of his position with the American people. Obama does not have the authority to let the UN dictate to America's elected Representatives.
6
"It is indeed disheartening that our President thinks any person opposed to this negotiated agreement thinks war is the automatic alternative".......Think about it for awhile, and then tell us what the alternative is.
22
Right, the UN and all its member nations must bend to the will of the US congress ... or else! You seem to have it all backwards Steve.
7
We have not traded much with Iran, The sanctions were cheap for us. Other countries who have traded a lot with Iran such as Russia, China, Germany etc, have made it clear that failure to support this agreement with result in NO sanctions.
4
Mr. Kristol called the agreement “a deal worse than even we imagined possible,” adding that “this deal cannot stand.”
I don't understand why this man, slimy grin and all, is even worth a quote.
I don't understand why this man, slimy grin and all, is even worth a quote.
156
You'd think Kristol would be on an apology tour, for the rest of his life, for being a part of the Neo-Cons that drove us into war with Iraq, and for wanting war with Iran.
3
We should remember that after WW-II (during which U.S. forces occupied parts of Iran), the U.S. was directly involved in Iranian political affairs, helping to restore the Shah to the throne. I cannot remember the last time the Iranian government intervened in our electoral politics. I served as a diplomat in Iran shortly before the Shah left the country. I had friends who were held hostage there. Still, no one lost their lives, despite a failed U.S. recue attempt.
The either-or mindset among different political circles in Washington - either we implement the nuclear ban agreement or the next step is war - ignores international participants and the more global aspects of Iran's relations with other countries. We are not the only country that stands to benefit from the agreement the P5+1 negotiated with Iran. If our government chooses not to approve it, we will have confirmed in the minds of Iran's hardliners that we cannot negotiate in good faith. Our allies and other governments will be disheartened by such an action. Iran stands to gain much if the agreement is implemented, but so, too, do other nations including the United States. It's not an either-or situation. There are positive incentives for Iran not to pursue a nuclear weapons program. We have to convince the hardliners there that these outweigh the negative repercussions of failing to abide by the agreement.
The either-or mindset among different political circles in Washington - either we implement the nuclear ban agreement or the next step is war - ignores international participants and the more global aspects of Iran's relations with other countries. We are not the only country that stands to benefit from the agreement the P5+1 negotiated with Iran. If our government chooses not to approve it, we will have confirmed in the minds of Iran's hardliners that we cannot negotiate in good faith. Our allies and other governments will be disheartened by such an action. Iran stands to gain much if the agreement is implemented, but so, too, do other nations including the United States. It's not an either-or situation. There are positive incentives for Iran not to pursue a nuclear weapons program. We have to convince the hardliners there that these outweigh the negative repercussions of failing to abide by the agreement.
67
Not going to argue your main point but several US servicemen did die in that (stupid) rescue attempt. Furthermore Iran certainly played with our political system in '80 by keeping the hostages until after Reagan was elected.
Convincing hardliners? You must be joking. This has nothing to do with convincing. These people just don't get it and never will.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. I've heard that those Iranian students seized the embassy because they feared another US-supported coup. Was that the case?
Cheney on Fox News using scare tactics about how in a matter of MONTHS we will be as close to A bombs dropping as 1945? I don't know why I am surprised a pulpit keeps being given to this evil, bombastic, and proven wrong menace.
105
Why is he being given a pulpit? I still don't understand why he's not in jail for treason (outing Valerie Plame) or war crimes (instituting torture as an interrogation technique).
5
If the Times is going to quote Cheny and Kristol. it needs to tell how many times they have been correct in their prophecies during the past 15 years.
4
Ummm...Richard Armitage outed Plame. He should have gone to prison, instead of making Scooter Libby take the rap.
Really... Mr. Obama,
At least those individuals who "pushed for war" were trying to protect America from its enemies, as opposed to those trying to appease America's enemies... all the while the Enemy shouts "Death to America"
At least those individuals who "pushed for war" were trying to protect America from its enemies, as opposed to those trying to appease America's enemies... all the while the Enemy shouts "Death to America"
4
Chest thumping may make you feel good, but it takes diplomacy to produce results. Your choice.
29
You are joking. Their protection was minimal and criminally negligent, as witness the Bush administration's astounding and criminal incompetence in the spring and summer of 2001, when they turned a blind eye to multitudinous reports that Al qaeda was planning to attack the US. They they screwed up Afghanistan, letting Osama bin Laden escape, along with most of the Taliban leadership, which they knew was being airlifted out of Afghanistan by the Pakistanis and didn't lift a finger. Then they lied, tying saddam hussein to 9/11. No, this was not a group of patriots, but of nincompoops, profiteers and outright criminals. Obama is absolutely right to make peace with Iran. It will balance our relationship with Saudi Arabia. The saudi leadership doesn't say death to america, but just quietly pays for young jihadists to make careers for themselves outside of Saudi Arabia. Hmm, how many of the hijackers were Iranian? and how many were from our great ally, the Saudis?
4
In reality, it takes good diplomacy to produce good results. Bad diplomacy, which I think this was, produces bad results.
Yes, Cheney is absolutely correct in that “It’s a matter of months until we’re going to see a situation where other people feel they have to defend themselves by acquiring their own capability.” According to the Wall Street Journal today, the deal has inspired North Korea to rule out talks of denuclearizaton.
And, yes, Obama is correct in that the deal would not stop the US from fighting against Iran’s support for terrorism and its other destabilizing actions across the region. But the Obama administration has hardly been doing any such fighting. It relies strictly on diplomacy to curb Iranian aggression - a policy which Iran's mullahs find laughable.
And, yes, Obama is correct in that the deal would not stop the US from fighting against Iran’s support for terrorism and its other destabilizing actions across the region. But the Obama administration has hardly been doing any such fighting. It relies strictly on diplomacy to curb Iranian aggression - a policy which Iran's mullahs find laughable.
5
Are you for or against ISIS in Syria? Is Iran for or against ISIS in Syria? Sometimes the world is a complicated place and thinking things through carefully is a good idea.
10
Today's GOP is totally against "thinking things through carefully." If you want to look at the formerly Grand Old Party's current mindset, just look at a 1950 sociological study by a team headed by two refugees from Hitler, "The Authoritarian Personality." If you listen to the fecal matter streaming from the GOP presidential wannabes' mouths, it fits the "f-scale" perfectly: we want to tell you what to do. Your duty is to obey orders without thinking.
A good education and an ability to think critically, weighing facts, are the duties of citizens in a Constitutional democracy such as ours. If you look carefully, the GOP has been turning education into indoctrination.
A good education and an ability to think critically, weighing facts, are the duties of citizens in a Constitutional democracy such as ours. If you look carefully, the GOP has been turning education into indoctrination.
3
Carl: the Texas Republican party's 2012 Platform actually officially opposes the teaching of critical thinking.
I'm very much for peace but can you use diplomacy with an evil regime? Would Mr. Obama have used diplomacy with Hitler?
9
Ridiculous comparison. In no way has Iran behaved the way Nazi Germany has. Hyperbole gets us nowhere.
43
Hitler was an egomaniac following a course of self glorification. Who is the Hitler equivalent in Iran?
10
Didn't Reagan call the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire" and then proceed to spend years negotiating with them? What's the difference between that and Obama?
17
Looking at this from a different view, the president is taking the same approach as those that he's calling out: you're either with us, or you're with them.
The Iraq war and the Iran deal are two separate events. Sure, some of the same people that supported the former are against the latter...but that's based on their political agenda, not because the two are intrinsically the same.
If this is a good deal for America, let it be evaluated for what it is rather than (yet again) rehashing the same old arguments that Iraq was the wrong decision and everyone who supported it is forever on the wrong side of an argument.
The whole "us against them" way to frame our policy (when both "us" and "them" are Americans) has become the norm practiced by both the left and the right...and it's wrong.
Present the facts as they are. If enough people write or call their Congressmen and Senators calling for the deal to be nixed, then they will. If it's a good solution, then they won't.
Trying to "sell" the people on the treaty by somehow tying it to actions of a decade ago which (in hindsight) was a mistake makes the president no better than those that he's calling out.
The Iraq war and the Iran deal are two separate events. Sure, some of the same people that supported the former are against the latter...but that's based on their political agenda, not because the two are intrinsically the same.
If this is a good deal for America, let it be evaluated for what it is rather than (yet again) rehashing the same old arguments that Iraq was the wrong decision and everyone who supported it is forever on the wrong side of an argument.
The whole "us against them" way to frame our policy (when both "us" and "them" are Americans) has become the norm practiced by both the left and the right...and it's wrong.
Present the facts as they are. If enough people write or call their Congressmen and Senators calling for the deal to be nixed, then they will. If it's a good solution, then they won't.
Trying to "sell" the people on the treaty by somehow tying it to actions of a decade ago which (in hindsight) was a mistake makes the president no better than those that he's calling out.
10
Sorry, but Iraq is very relevant. It is the same people, with the same arguments (lies and distortions) who are trying to undermine the deal. Giving them credence, once again, only leads us to warped decisions with disastrous consequences (such as ISIS).
Well, he could have should have gone on to say that nothing hastened Iran's efforts toward a nuclear deterrent faster than our foolish invasion of Iraq. Cheney, Kristol, and half of Jeb's foreign policy coterie know this and want to invade Iran in vain hopes of having our young soldiers clean up their mess!
128
Indeed, the net beneficiary of the Cheney, Rumsfeld, Kristol, and Jeb! policy enunciated in the Project for the New American Century, made real during the CheneyW presidency, was IRAN.
NOBODY in the media ever questioned fiscal ties for the Project for the New American Century, nor how much money Cheney stood to make in rising value to his Halliburton stock if the United States got control of Iraq's oil.
Diplomacy and peace, with knowledge of precedents and the region you're dealing with, are always better than war.
NOBODY in the media ever questioned fiscal ties for the Project for the New American Century, nor how much money Cheney stood to make in rising value to his Halliburton stock if the United States got control of Iraq's oil.
Diplomacy and peace, with knowledge of precedents and the region you're dealing with, are always better than war.
25
It pains me to say, having proudly voted for Pres. Obama twice, but it is the opposite of what he says. No deal and greater economic sanctions will weaken Iran and convince them that war and nuclear arms are not good more effectively than freeing up hundreds of millions of dollars for these ideological crazies, giving them more resources to wage war, as they already do around the world.
16
BUt it is sheer fantasy to think there will be greater economic sanctions if this deal fails. We never played a serious role in sanctions as we never traded much with Iran. Those countries have which did, Russia, China, Germany, etc. have made it clear that they will not support ANY sanctions if we fail to support this agreement.
Get real Marc.
Get real Marc.
7
"No deal and greater economic sanctions will weaken Iran.".....What a great idea, but maybe you didn't notice that the only reason sanctions worked was because they were supported by Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China, plus a whole bunch of other countries. Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China were partners to the negotiations. The only sanctions option we have left would have to be unilateral, and that certainly won't work. So your "alternative" isn't even a remotely viable option.
7
You say that ignoring the fact that even with strong sanctions hurting its economy the last decade, Iran spent that time massively increasing its nuclear capability. If sanctions work so well, how do you explain that?
4