I guess I feel like I voted Bad-sold us out cause I was considerably more conservative when I voted. Now as some of my viewpoints have changed, I still kind of like he's sold out his liberal constituency as well.

How are you supposed to win a national election when you can't quit fighting amongst yourselves?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/28/politi...ows/index.html

I think Republicans/conservatives have tried since 2013 to remove Boehner from this Speakership, don't think this will work either. But by all means keep trying!

Yet, they continue to build emergency rooms like crazy in my area, and some have even started advertising their ER wait times, as like a selling point. Some could argue that the marketing of these ER's to well-off patients is actually causing a major increase in costs instead of the burden of treating the poor who can't pay.

So, this is the free market system taking advantage of the health care insurance industry by building these mini-ERs in neighborhoods across the country so that they can keep their affluent clients happy while charging the exorbitant ER rates to the insurance companies.

Not sure how to fix that beyond really getting a handle on allowable ER costs, which if you start saying "cost control" portends socialism, so we can't have that.

oh it needs fixing.

Better a war that is controlled by someone else rather than the inevitable one that comes after Iran has more nuclear capability.

But with ol' Neville at the helm, we can just sit back now & wait for them to finish up & attack instead.

You know, sacrifice millions of lives so that ... hell, I don't know WHAT this moron was trying to do. Not even Obie can be dumb enough to believe anything that comes from Iran.

By all means let's return to our previous policy of strong stares and threatening growls. That worked so well for North Korea after all.

I don't understand what is stopping Iran from currently developing nukes? I admittedly don't read everything, but what is stopping them from doing it themselves anyway or just buying one from Pakistan or Russia or something. I know there are "crippling" sanctions but it does not seem to stop them from building up their military, fighting proxy wars, and other things. Why is it suddenly Obama's fault if they get a nuke?

Because he's a black Democrat in the White House.

Or we could return to our previous previous policy of making up evidence and military invasion. No lingering issues stem from that at all.

Or maybe he's just a bad president. It's an interesting strategy to cry racism every time someone doesn't agree with you.

It's a good deflection, though. Better than addressing the question of why we're making deals to give money to people who have promised to use it to try and eradicate another country. People who openly fund terrorist groups.

Better to cry racism than to admit that it's looking fairly likely that these "side-deals" that not even the Democrats in the Senate have read are, indeed, what Khomeini claims they are.

It's also interesting that someone apparently isn't allowed to think Obama is a terrible president and, at the same time, think Bush was a terrible president and mishandled the Middle East as well.

Sanctions were a lot better than nothing. Appeasement has led to a worse situation than ever before. No one in the Middle East has a clue what Obama is going to do.

Sanctions and clear statements and actions work. Nation-building and empty words don't work. Bush and Obama created ISIS together, through extraordinary incompetence. If war results, that's the reason.

Ah, America in 2015, when trying to actually fix a problem through diplomacy is seen as worse than killing a bunch of brown people, providing oodles of propaganda for terrorist groups, and screwing up even more a region of the world which was already screwed up...

When did we decide that this deal lets them get nukes? It takes away much of their capability for the length of the deal and even then it's not like we have to allow them to build nukes at that point.

There are other issues, loosening sanctions so they have more money for terrorist activities and such, but I don't see how this makes Iran's obtaining a nuclear weapon more likely. Maybe they try to pursue nuclear weapons outside the deal but that's not something they can easily hide or they would have done so before and this wouldn't matter.

We've been sanctioning them for a decade and they are far closer now than when we started. Try making a deal and if it doesn't work out, military action is just as much available as it has been.

You also did not answer my question, since you seem to believe the blood of the Jews is on Obama's hands...

It doesn't affect their capability at all. It doesn't take anything away. Since the military sites are off-limits (and some of them are quite large) they can continue enrichment and weapons development.

The original goal of the talks and what was agreed to in the end are vastly different sets of parameters. Iran doesn't have to disclose what it has (Obama has admitted this already) and Iran doesn't even have to get rid of what it has already enriched.

The agreement causes harm in three ways.

1. It gives them access to a lot of money. They are continuing to assemble a considerable force in Lebanon (remember, Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy). The money will help them continue with their rocket attacks on Israel and the buildup for the eventual invasion.

2. It eliminates the risk of US force when they get closer to deploying their nuclear weapons. That's why it was so important to get a deal in place that left the military sites off-limits. You can't find a violation if you're not allowed to inspect anything. And you can't attack if you have an agreement and there's no proof it was violated.

3. It allows open dealing with Russia. Since sanctions are gone, Russia can make arms deals. Already, we're seeing Russian and Iranian forces in Syria to bolster Assad. That part of it may be a good thing, because Iran and ISIS are enemies. But Iranian forces on Israel's border with Russian weapons and bases behind them is not a good thing. Russia won't attack Israel or participate in an invasion, but Russia doesn't have any qualms about Iran's promises to eradicate Israel, either.

Hezbollah invading Israel?

Come on.

It takes away their highly enriched uranium and a large percentage of their centrifuges and enriched uranium stockpile.

The money is a valid point.

If we know that they are getting closer, which is a violation of the agreement, we can and will still hit them. The agreement won't stop that if we know they have violated it.

And also a valid concern but nothing to do with Iran going nuclear.

No doubt the deal is far from perfect but that can be said about any solution to this mess.

Bump for Nobody Here, since he must not know this thread exists.

Diplomacy with rattlesnakes works sooooo well.

Well you got your wish as my posts got removed.

Fuch y'all. I'm outta here.

Bye.

Not to mention they agree to give up all of their plutonium and dismantle their plutonium reactor. It bans Iran from building a plutonium reactor for 15 years.

Politifact has a good rundown of the deal.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...iran-nuclear-/

So do we trust the administration spin on the deal (as Politifact does) or the ayatollah spin on the deal?

The promise to destroy Israel and actions in Syria and Lebanon seem proof of the latter.

I'm pretty sure whoever has been the Grand Ayatollah since 1979 has been promising the destruction of Israel.

You could just read it yourself

Full text of the Iran nuclear deal - The Washington Post

There are no facts and everyone's spin is of equal validity.

The Iran deal is concentrated postmodernism.

Yes, we've all read that. But there were side-deals related to the implementation which the administration won't reveal. Iran claims they prevent any direct inspection of military sites.

It's hardly the "anywhere, anytime" promise that Obama started with, and the material we're concerned about no longer has to actually leave Iran.

And, yes, Khomeini has often promised to eliminate Israel. But now Iran is doing a better job arming Hezbollah, getting missiles into position in Lebanon, working with Russia to have a stronger defense in Syria, and the rhetoric is becoming more specific.

So it sounds like all Obama has accomplished is to give Iran a lot of money, open access to deals with other countries (this was immediate) and hasn't really stopped their progress toward nuclear weapons while eliminating the opportunity to use force. In other words, if Iran was really interested in using nuclear weapons in the first place, Obama just made it a whole lot easier.

But, if you trust Rouhani, who may be just a figurehead, then this delays, by ten years, something they don't really care about anyway.

Either way, negotiations have resulted in an agreement that offers the United States no gain in return for enormous gain by Iran.

And that's enough time wasted on this argument.

Small quibble, you are only a letter off but Khomeini has been dead since 1989. It's Khameini now.

It sounds like you are saying this is a massive secret conspiracy, yes?

No. Just a president who doesn't want the people of America to know what he agreed to do.

I've seen three or four different spellings of Khomenei. Like Khaddfy. It's hard to work between different alphabets and I don't speak a word of Arabic or Farsi so I don't have an opinion as to which is correct.

The IAEA has agreements with 180 countries, including the U.S. and all of them are secret. No country is going to allow those details to be public. Argue that the Iran deal shouldn't follow international protocol if you like, but stop acting like this is anything out of the ordinary.

That's an easy argument to make in this case. And why Congress voted to require the president to disclose this information. There could have been a private briefing, but there wasn't.

When this was brought up in the FRC, Kerry didn't say a word. He didn't contradict the Iranian claims that Iran will provide all samples when it comes to military sites. Which effectively means that the deal does not do anything to stop Iran from continuing to develop nuclear weapons.

We don't *know* this is in the side-deal, but every indication is that it is in the side-deal.

How do you feel about that?

Actually Congress had a list of documents that didn't include the IAEA agreement. They are arguing now that they didn't know it would exist, but again the IAEA has agreements with 180 countries. Everybody that understands the IAEA knew there would be an agreement.

I trust the great volume of arms control experts that say this is a solid deal.

I'm troubled that so many people have that trust. It's a lot to ask when so much is at stake.

There's nothing wrong with trusting the experts who look at things logically and lawfully. Then when you are done, remember who the leader of Iran is and ask yourself if he is willing to do the same.



http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/middle...ars/index.html

He said this this week.

Of course I'm sure his predecessors have said similar things since Israel's creation how many years ago now?

Don't we hope the Iranian regime doesn't exist in 25 years?

Then be honest and admit there's no deal that would satisfy you. It's Bush strong talk or war.

First off, it seems Jim is a bit confused about the soil samples talking point. The "side deal" doesn't deal with the soil samples at "military bases", it just deals with Parchin. There are suspicions that Iran conducted nuclear experiments at Parchin for the purposes of developing a bomb. That is why Parchin is getting special attention, and why the IAEA wants to conduct an investigation at the site. The soil samples that everyone is talking about are specifically to test if there's any evidence that Iran conducted those experiments in the past.

This "side deal" does not, at least as far as the IAEA has said, but they are the ones who called it "a separate arrangement regarding the issue of Parchin", deal with how inspections and investigations will be conducted in accordance with the Iran deal at nuclear facilities or other military bases. I mean, it could. I don't know. But the IAEA are the ones saying it deals with Parchin. The rest might be covered under the first "side deal" that the IAEA calls "Road-map for the Clarification of Past & Present Outstanding Issues regarding Iran's Nuclear Program"

Here's the statement from the IAEA about the first "side deal": IAEA Director General's Statement and Road-map for the Clarification of Past & Present Outstanding Issues regarding Iran's Nuclear Program | International Atomic Energy Agency

And secondly, according to this Reuters article citing two unnamed western diplomats (who could very well be blowing smoke up Reuters' ass), the IAEA will be present when the soil samples are taken.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0RB2D420150911

Isn't that a little like me saying, "then be honest and admit that you would only be satisfied if Israel were destroyed?" Iran has supplied Hezbollah with around 100,000 rockets, and it's generally assumed that the next time they launch a full attack, their strategy will involve large numbers of rockets and a land invasion.

I've already written many times that Bush should never have invaded Iraq. So if you're going to put words in my mouth, at least get it partially right.

As for the exact nature of the side-deals, we have Obama backing away from "anywhere, anytime" and the ayatollahs saying no inspections at all. Obama's reactions - forcing Democrats to support it without reading it (sounds familiar) - lead a lot of people to think that it's probably a lot worse than we've been led to believe.

I don't know, when you say 'we', I guess that means you too....so do you hope Iran's regime is gone in 25 years? Are you willing to nuke them to make it disappear? Have you considered the genocide of the Persian people? If you don't want it to go away, is it because you support the genocide of the Israeli people?

You didn't address my point, which is that there doesn't seem to be a realistic deal that you would support. Given that, your choices are tough talk or war.

And Hezbollah invading Israel isn't anything to worry about. The Israelis would crush them in very short order. If you're going to bring up scary what ifs, Iran building a nuke is still the right play.

You haven't addressed my point, which is what should be done about a leadership which calls for the complete extermination of Israel - every man, woman and child.

Of course Hezbollah is a worry. Iran has armed them and trained them, and they could use the rockets and their numbers to take significant territory in the north. Enough to cause chaos.

Remember that Israel is about the size of New Jersey. Hezbollah can't take Tel Aviv, but they could cause significant problems with the same strategies ISIS is using.

I would support a deal that eliminated Iran's nuclear weapons capacity and included a statement that Israel has the right to exist as a sovereign nation. Now that would be worth a Nobel prize.

But this deal does neither. It gives Iran the ability to continue to develop nuclear weapons without any threat of intervention.

We shouldn't be dealing with a government that has declared war on one of our allies.

The world would be better off without religious fanatics of all varieties.

Right, but just like Global Warming, all the liberals want to start in America and all the conservatives want to start outside of America. Or so the game seems to go.

Isn't it easier to change yourself instead of someone else?

The IDF has around three million people available with considerable armor, artillery and air assets. An invasion would indeed cause initial chaos, but soon Hezbollah would be wiped out as a fighting force.

I'm no fan of Iran or its leaders, but if the goal is to reduce the likelihood of a nuke, the choices are diplomacy or war. The sanctions aren't going to hold forever and were only agreed to internationally as a way to force an agreement. In that sense, they worked, but without an agreement U.S. sanctions and tough talk won't do much of anything (see 2000-2008). Actual arms control experts say the deal is solid and provides a good inspections regime. I'm willing to trust them, especially given the other real world alternative.

Even Israeli military experts think a military strike would be disastrous for Israel and largely ineffective. I read somewhere that a best case scenario is a pushback of six months. In exchange for that you'd get all sorts of problems all over the Middle East from an attack on Israel to the closing of the Straits of Hormuz. We would further stretch our military by asking them to attack Iran and maintain operations from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean.

You say we shouldn't be dealing with a government that has declared war on one of our allies, but the other options make Iran more dangerous. We've tried tough talk and the costs of war for us and Israel are going to be very high.

If I'm not mistaken, you aren't changing *yourself*...you are asking others in America to change. Correct?

Hezbollah would act as a terrorist force, not as a force that can occupy cities on a long-term basis. This would be done in concert with a daily barrage of rocket fire. I wouldn't dismiss this as insignificant. Imagine if Hezbollah were in New York and tried this type of attack on New Jersey. Imagine how this would affect the lives of New Jerseyites. And this is what Iran is openly planning.


That's a lot of trust. Especially when the leaders of Iran say otherwise and their actions back that up.


Yes. Not a great idea. Though Iran is more isolated than you might think on this. The Saudis certainly won't join them.


This is a war. Ignoring that won't make it go away.

Appeasement is not a good solution, either. Removing the sanctions without requiring that Iran recognize Israel's sovereignty seems like a terrible idea.

Obama just doesn't command respect in the international community. Look at Putin's response to Obama's warning about the Russian support of Assad. Putin's basically giggling like a schoolgirl. He knows Obama will blink every time. And Putin doesn't want war with the US any more than we want war with Russia.

Initially you were talking about wiping Israel off the map. Hezbollah has zero capability to do that.


We're already close to military operations from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean. Iran would be the last link in that chain. Certainly the Sunni countries wouldn't join Iran, but they won't join us and Israel either.

Now you're just playing word games. You know there's a significant difference between the status quo and what would happen after a strike on Iran.


Which, for better or worse, means no deal is possible. What is your alternative plan?