If the Iranian nuclear deal is so good,

[BoilerMadness]

why are the Senate Democrats filibustering, so there will be no vote? It's so comforting to see the Dems more concerned about protecting Obama's legacy (?), than protecting the nation's security. This will be a worse deal, than the one negotiated with North Korea to keep them from getting nukes....

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

If the Iranian nuclear deal is so bad, then why is a conservative stalwart like Colin Powell supporting it?

It's not a perfect deal, but it's better than nothing. Besides, as Powell noted in his interview, it doesn't really matter if the US doesn't approve it - everyone else has and the US isn't going to be able to stop it.

LINK: An intelligent opinion.

 

[hunkgolden]

You must have a different definition of stalwart than most. CP supported BO in both elections and differs with the Republican Party on a number of major issues.

 

[BoilerMadness]

If the Iranian nuclear deal is so bad, then why is a conservative stalwart like Colin Powell supporting it?

It's not a perfect deal, but it's better than nothing. Besides, as Powell noted in his interview, it doesn't really matter if the US doesn't approve it - everyone else has and the US isn't going to be able to stop it.

LINK: An intelligent opinion.

First, Colin Powell will never be confused with being a Conservative.

Secondly, No matter how the Left tries to spin this deal, it was abysmal. We got nothing out of the deal and the Iranians get $150Billion, a clear path to a nuclear weapon, access to conventional weapons and ICBMs. Then the Iranians said they weren't even going to abide by the terms of the agreement. Obama and Kerry are great negotiators. I'm surprised they didn't throw in Florida and Texas to boot. This deal is actually WORSE, than nothing.

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

So here's my question.

If everyone else has already signed off on the deal and it's going to go into place regardless, what does the US gain from refusing to participate? The US can't continue to have a foreign policy that relies on a "screw you, we'll do whatever we want because we're stronger than all of you." It doesn't work anymore. We need to learn how to work with other countries and how to compromise when necessary.

It seems to me that, even if it is a terrible deal (something only time will tell), it is better for the US to participate. Then, if (more likely when) the Iranians break the deal, the US response to the rest of the world can be, "See, we tried it your way and it didn't work," and the US will have a more solid grounding on which to build support for harsher sanctions or other responses.

On a more philosophical level, I find myself wondering occasionally what gives the US the "right" to dictate to another sovereign nation what they can or cannot do. Hypothetically, if the US were no longer a superpower and, say, China was, would we be okay with China dictating to us whether or not we could do certain things? Of course not. Now, that doesn't mean I think the US should allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It just means that the issue is an interesting one on a variety of levels.

 

[SDBoiler1]

So here's my question.

If everyone else has already signed off on the deal and it's going to go into place regardless, what does the US gain from refusing to participate? The US can't continue to have a foreign policy that relies on a "screw you, we'll do whatever we want because we're stronger than all of you." It doesn't work anymore. We need to learn how to work with other countries and how to compromise when necessary.

It seems to me that, even if it is a terrible deal (something only time will tell), it is better for the US to participate. Then, if (more likely when) the Iranians break the deal, the US response to the rest of the world can be, "See, we tried it your way and it didn't work," and the US will have a more solid grounding on which to build support for harsher sanctions or other responses.

On a more philosophical level, I find myself wondering occasionally what gives the US the "right" to dictate to another sovereign nation what they can or cannot do. Hypothetically, if the US were no longer a superpower and, say, China was, would we be okay with China dictating to us whether or not we could do certain things? Of course not. Now, that doesn't mean I think the US should allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It just means that the issue is an interesting one on a variety of levels.

The lunacy of this deal is that we are giving Iran $150B. Hell, they don't need to develop their own weapons. The Russians will sell nuclear missiles to Iran for $100M apiece. Do the math, they could straight up buy 150 nuclear missiles with the money we are GIVING them as part of this deal. It's absolutely idiotic.

Also, when have the Iranians ever abided by sanctions since the Shah was deposed? So yeah, if they don't abide (which you know they won't), we'll just give them harsher sanctions. They always ignore the sanctions.

What's it going to take for Liberals to wake up? Iran is going to target Israel. It isn't a matter of if, it's a matter of when if this deal goes through.

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

The lunacy of this deal is that we are giving Iran $150B. Hell, they don't need to develop their own weapons. The Russians will sell nuclear missiles to Iran for $100M aoiece. Do the math, they could straight up buy 150 nuclear missiles with the money we are GIVING them as part of this deal. It's absolutely idiotic.

Also, when have the Iranians ever abided by sanctions since the Shah was deposed? So yeah, if they don't abide (which you know they won't), we'll just give them harsher sanctions. They always ignore the sanctions.

What's it going to take for Liberals to wake up? Iran is going to target Israel. It isn't a matter of if, it's a matter of when if this deal goes through.

So what would you do? You're leaving out the reality that many other countries are in support of this deal. Should we just say, "screw you" to all those countries and go to war with Iran? Bomb them into submission? What? It's one thing to complain about the proposed solution, it's another thing to offer an alternative. I have yet to hear a reasonable alternative from the deal's opponents.

And I'm not even going to get into the whole Israel thing - Israel regularly and routinely thumbs its nose at international law and suffers NO consequences.

 

[SDBoiler1]

So what would you do? You're leaving out the reality that many other countries are in support of this deal. Should we just say, "screw you" to all those countries and go to war with Iran? Bomb them into submission? What? It's one thing to complain about the proposed solution, it's another thing to offer an alternative. I have yet to hear a reasonable alternative from the deal's opponents.

And I'm not even going to get into the whole Israel thing - Israel regularly and routinely thumbs its nose at international law and suffers NO consequences.

So you're saying you're ok with Iran nuking Israel?

 

[qazplm]

So you're saying you're ok with Iran nuking Israel?

Of course that's not remotely what he said, nor is there really any evidence that will happen.

1. They've been "one month away" from a nuke for over a year now. If they REALLY DESPERATELY wanted a nuke to use against Israel, they'd have one already.

2. They aren't our friends, but they aren't suicidal. ANY nuke used against Israel is more or less going to be assumed to be from Iran. The response from Isreal alone would be overwhelming. We'd likely join in as well. The Iranian leadership would be signing their death warrant for what? It's not like one or two nukes is going to take out Israel. And it's not like places like Saudi Arabia or Egypt or other Sunni places are going to take Iran's side in such a scenario.

So what evidence is there that they'd use a nuke against Israel, even if they had one?

Right now, we could do what you say, reject the deal, install the harshest possible sanctions, and you know what would change? Nothing.

The rest of the world thinks Iran negotiated reasonably. You can think that foolish or blind or whatever you want, but that's what the rest of the world thinks. So they ain't coming along for the ride. So Russia is still going to sell them weapons, China is still going to trade with them. Europe is still going to trade with them.

And we will be with zero influence on the situation...but we'll be able to say we didn't do a deal!

Or, we can go as we are now. Where we negotiate in good faith, and then if Iran does something to violate the deal, we will have worldwide support to bring the hammer down in a way that actually impacts Iran negatively.

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

So you're saying you're ok with Iran nuking Israel?

Are you incapable of answering the question I posed? Or did you not understand it so you decided to intentionally misread and overstate what I said?

I'll ask again: What. Would. You. Do. Instead. Of. The. Deal.?

 

[SDBoiler1]

Of course that's not remotely what he said, nor is there really any evidence that will happen.

1. They've been "one month away" from a nuke for over a year now. If they REALLY DESPERATELY wanted a nuke to use against Israel, they'd have one already.

2. They aren't our friends, but they aren't suicidal. ANY nuke used against Israel is more or less going to be assumed to be from Iran. The response from Isreal alone would be overwhelming. We'd likely join in as well. The Iranian leadership would be signing their death warrant for what? It's not like one or two nukes is going to take out Israel. And it's not like places like Saudi Arabia or Egypt or other Sunni places are going to take Iran's side in such a scenario.

So what evidence is there that they'd use a nuke against Israel, even if they had one?

Right now, we could do what you say, reject the deal, install the harshest possible sanctions, and you know what would change? Nothing.

The rest of the world thinks Iran negotiated reasonably. You can think that foolish or blind or whatever you want, but that's what the rest of the world thinks. So they ain't coming along for the ride. So Russia is still going to sell them weapons, China is still going to trade with them. Europe is still going to trade with them.

And we will be with zero influence on the situation...but we'll be able to say we didn't do a deal!

Or, we can go as we are now. Where we negotiate in good faith, and then if Iran does something to violate the deal, we will have worldwide support to bring the hammer down in a way that actually impacts Iran negatively.

Come on, when have the EU nations or the UN brought the hammer down on any nation or organization in recent memory? (Not since GHW Bush had the coalition nations go against Sadaam Hussein in the first Gulf War - over 20 years ago.) The UN is like a toothless poodle. Lots of yapping, but no real bite.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Of course that's not remotely what he said, nor is there really any evidence that will happen.

1. They've been "one month away" from a nuke for over a year now. If they REALLY DESPERATELY wanted a nuke to use against Israel, they'd have one already.

2. They aren't our friends, but they aren't suicidal. ANY nuke used against Israel is more or less going to be assumed to be from Iran. The response from Isreal alone would be overwhelming. We'd likely join in as well. The Iranian leadership would be signing their death warrant for what? It's not like one or two nukes is going to take out Israel. And it's not like places like Saudi Arabia or Egypt or other Sunni places are going to take Iran's side in such a scenario.

So what evidence is there that they'd use a nuke against Israel, even if they had one?

Right now, we could do what you say, reject the deal, install the harshest possible sanctions, and you know what would change? Nothing.

The rest of the world thinks Iran negotiated reasonably. You can think that foolish or blind or whatever you want, but that's what the rest of the world thinks. So they ain't coming along for the ride. So Russia is still going to sell them weapons, China is still going to trade with them. Europe is still going to trade with them.

And we will be with zero influence on the situation...but we'll be able to say we didn't do a deal!

Or, we can go as we are now. Where we negotiate in good faith, and then if Iran does something to violate the deal, we will have worldwide support to bring the hammer down in a way that actually impacts Iran negatively.

Come on, when have the EU nations or the UN brought the hammer down on any nation or organization in recent memory? (Not since GHW Bush had the coalition nations go against Sadaam Hussein in the first Gulf War - over 20 years ago.) The UN is like a toothless poodle. Lots of yapping, but no real bite.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Are you incapable of answering the question I posed? Or did you not understand it so you decided to intentionally misread and overstate what I said?

I'll ask again: What. Would. You. Do. Instead. Of. The. Deal.?

As said before, this deal is worse than nothing. We get nothing of strategic, long-term value out of it. Iran gains considerably. They will get a huge economic benefit by relieving sanctions AND they get $150B!

How about negotiate a better deal that didn't force us to have to wait 24 days. Not give Iran $150B of OUR $. Negotiate the release of US prisoners that Iran currently holds. Put some teeth in the inspections process, with tangible penalties if Iran doesn't abide by the negotiate rules.

Iran never intended to negotiate in good faith on this. It's obvious they didn't - they keep saying already that they won't abide by the "deal".

 

[qazplm]

Come on, when have the EU nations or the UN brought the hammer down on any nation or organization in recent memory? (Not since GHW Bush had the coalition nations go against Sadaam Hussein in the first Gulf War - over 20 years ago.) The UN is like a toothless poodle. Lots of yapping, but no real bite.

I didn't say the EU or UN, but this most recent level of sanctions was harsh enough to bring Iran to the negotiating table, so the actual answer to your question is, well, the last time was enough.

But do you honestly think no one would do anything if Iran nuked Israel? That Europe really wouldn't do anything? That they wouldn't support Iran being effectively regime changed? Heck Saudia Arabia and other Sunni nations would turn a blind eye to it, they might even support it, not in support of Israel but because at that point Iran has become a threat to them as well.

The same calculus comes from if inspections show the Iranians are breaching the deal. We will then have a free hand to return to harsh or harsher sanctions then the ones that decimated Iran's economy and forced them to the negotiating table.

Again, what do you think we would have gotten out of it if you were in charge of the deal process?

1. Don't say, i would have gotten a better deal, because you wouldn't have.
2. Don't say, I wouldn't have done a deal at all, because the result of that would have been the rest of the world doing a deal without our input.
3. Don't say, I'd attack them because all that does is ensure that eventually they get a bomb, and it would mean a lot of nations would pretty much side with Iran and start trading/arming them.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Why filibuster? So it can't be spun as Democrats forcing the deal down throats. If it goes to vote, gets turned down, Obama vetos and it goes through anyway, it becomes an election talking point.

The deal is a foregone conclusion, like it or not. Filibustering the bill to overturn the deal is the smart move - the same one Reps would do in the same situation.

The deal isn't perfect for the U.S., but that is the nature of negotiation and compromise. I wholly disagree that nothing is better than the deal, though I thin Iran will do whatever they want anyway and the deal is naive in and of Itself.

What you're missing is that if (when) they renege on the deal, you now gain consensus to DO something about it.

 

[Stairwayto7]

1. Russia
2. Russia
3. Russia

It's all about hurting Russia's influence in the ME. Smart move by Obama, a very Reagan like move.

 

[BoilerMadness]

For the most part, the EU has relied on the US to provide leadership in situations like this, since we've done so historically. Obama has shown NONE. The EU neither likes, trusts nor respects Obama, so he will never be able to build a coalition to accomplish much of anything.

Obama wanted this "deal" as his big legacy item in his second term. Master negotiator, that he is, Obama eased the sanctions to get the Iranians to enter negotiations. Only a fool gives away his leverage BEFORE going into negotiations. If he had a clue and any leadership ability, he would have ratcheted up the sanctions, then told Iran, that we'll ease the sanctions to the previous levels, WHEN we reach a deal. The Israelis, the EU and most of the Arab states would have supported that, since none of them want Iran with a Nuke. Unfortunately, Obama has a reputation as a guy who talks big and carries NO stick. No one fears nor respects the US as long as he's in the WH.

What's disappointing is all the lying and political jockeying, that Obama and the Dems have done to convince us, that this poison pill is good for us. We get absolutely NOTHING out of this deal. We should have gotten, at least, the 4 hostages. What's funny, in an ironic way, is when asked, Obama said that the negotiations were SOLELY about nuclear weapons, nothing else was discussed. That same day, when Kerry was asked about the hostages, he said that he had asked for their return on every day during the negotiations. Apparently, Obama and Kerry weren't talking with each other. Even more ironic is the fact that Iran was able to negotiate the ability to purchase conventional weapons and ICBMs, while we didn't have the guts to ask for the hostages. Pretty impressive negotiating team. I'm sure they could get you a car at four times the list price.

One has to wonder why the Dems were in such a hurry to push this deal through, especially since the Iranian leadership has been very vocal over the last couple weeks about not caring what was in the agreement, since they didn't intend to abide by it anyway. Oh, BTW "DEATH TO AMERICA and DEATH TO ISRAEL". When the negotiations first started, the Senate passed a resolution (98 - 1) to vote on the deal, before it became effective. Somehow, Obama managed to sidestep the vote. Does it ever occur to the Democrats on this board to ask WHY, or do you just blindly accept everything your politicians feed you? Interesting how the Dems are looking out for the "people's interests" by pushing through Obamacare and the Iranian Nuke deal, without a single vote from a Republican, despite the vast majority of the country being opposed to both.

The only thing that makes sense to me regarding the necessity of the deal is that this agreement removes sanctions from Iran, which allows Russia to sell them ICBMs, which will give them the delivery system for the nukes. Having a lot of Nukes laying around, without a means of deploying them, doesn't make you a world power. Having Nukes and ICBMs does. BTW, Iran doesn't need ICBMs to take out Israel, but Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles will work nicely to make our lives miserable. The biggest question, that comes to mind, is why was Obama the one facilitating this process? Perhaps that was what he was discussing with the Russian Prime Minister, when he said he would have more flexibility after the election. Russia couldn't sell the ICBMs to Iran while the sanctions were in effect, or they would have been ostracized by the Global Community. But with a Nuke deal, they are free to openly sell the ICBMs and other weapons. Great deal for them.

For those naive enough to think this deal will keep Iran from getting a Nuke, Clinton brokered a deal with North Korea, that was supposed to keep them from getting a Nuke. How did that work out? Keep in mind Iran is even more fanatical that N. Korea.

 

[BoilerMadness]

1. Russia
2. Russia
3. Russia

It's all about hurting Russia's influence in the ME. Smart move by Obama, a very Reagan like move.

You are clueless. Iran and the Russians are going to be the big winners in this deal. Who do you think had been supplying Iran with the equipment and training to start their nuclear program. They will also make Billions of dollars selling Iran conventional weapons and ICBMs. If anything, Russia's influence will increase dramatically in the ME.

If you haven't noticed, during Obama's tenure, Russian influence has increased significantly throughout the world, while ours has dropped.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Why filibuster? So it can't be spun as Democrats forcing the deal down throats. If it goes to vote, gets turned down, Obama vetos and it goes through anyway, it becomes an election talking point.

The deal is a foregone conclusion, like it or not. Filibustering the bill to overturn the deal is the smart move - the same one Reps would do in the same situation.

The deal isn't perfect for the U.S., but that is the nature of negotiation and compromise. I wholly disagree that nothing is better than the deal, though I thin Iran will do whatever they want anyway and the deal is naive in and of Itself.

What you're missing is that if (when) they renege on the deal, you now gain consensus to DO something about it.

--So it can't be spun as Democrats forcing the deal down throats. One would have to be blind and stupid to NOT see, that this deal has been forced down our throats by the Dems. The fillibuster just gave Dem Senators some level of deniability, if they are in a closely contested election, since their name will not show up on the Role as having supported it. It will still be an election talking point.

-- the same one Reps would do in the same situation. The Reps couldn't get away with it, since the media would eviscerate Reps for pulling such a stunt.


-- I wholly disagree that nothing is better than the deal In a real deal, both parties walk away with something. All we got were a lot of unenforceable promises, with very questionable verification, secret deals and Iran saying they're not going to abide by it anyway. For that we remove the sanctions, restore $150Billion that we were holding and get to hear chants of "Death to America and Death to Israel". We would have been better off tightening sanctions. At least that would have slowed their terrorist activities a little bit.

-- you now gain consensus to DO something about it What do you think Obama would do? Give Iran a red line they can't cross or perhaps put them on double secret probation? Obama doesn't have the will to do anything and Germany, Russia and China will all see major economic benefits from doing business with Iran, so they won't be interested in doing anything. Once the sanctions are removed, it will be a major engineering feat to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Are you aware that most Americans are, in fact, idiots and won't even know that this vote/filibuster happened? Politicians are!

Ah yes... Republicans are ever the victims! Whatever.

Agree to disagree.

Obama won't be in office to enforce it. Whoever is has leverage now.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

You are clueless. Iran and the Russians are going to be the big winners in this deal. Who do you think had been supplying Iran with the equipment and training to start their nuclear program. They will also make Billions of dollars selling Iran conventional weapons and ICBMs. If anything, Russia's influence will increase dramatically in the ME.

If you haven't noticed, during Obama's tenure, Russian influence has increased significantly throughout the world, while ours has dropped.

What stops Russia from selling ICBMs to Iran now? Yeah, those nuclear arms treaties that have nothing to do with this deal...

Tin foil hats and bomb shelters for everyone!

I understand that most Republicans and obviously those with grumpy ventriloquist dummies as their avatars are very much entrenched in the "OBAMA BAD!" mindset. I accept that, acknowledging that there are morons on both sides of the aisle. As long as the party continues to think the only way to govern is by refusing to budge in any way (a la Ted Cruz), it'll continue to struggle when it comes time for important elections.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Are you aware that most Americans are, in fact, idiots and won't even know that this vote/filibuster happened? Politicians are!

Ah yes... Republicans are ever the victims! Whatever.

Agree to disagree.

Obama won't be in office to enforce it. Whoever is has leverage now.

Yes, our public schools have done a great job of creating the next generation of Democrats.

Not playing the victim card, but are you really saying there is no Liberal bias in the media? Really?

XXXX

What leverage? The genie is out of the bottle and the next step in the evolution of this little mess will be a Nuclear Arms Race in the ME. Talk about throwing gasoline in a fire....

 

[BoilerMadness]

What stops Russia from selling ICBMs to Iran now? Yeah, those nuclear arms treaties that have nothing to do with this deal...

Tin foil hats and bomb shelters for everyone!

I understand that most Republicans and obviously those with grumpy ventriloquist dummies as their avatars are very much entrenched in the "OBAMA BAD!" mindset. I accept that, acknowledging that there are morons on both sides of the aisle. As long as the party continues to think the only way to govern is by refusing to budge in any way (a la Ted Cruz), it'll continue to struggle when it comes time for important elections.

The Nuclear Arms Treaty didn't stop the Russians from selling ICBMs to Iran, the sanctions DID. Since they are going away, that clears the field for the Russians to secure a strong, well armed ally in the ME. Iran will have nukes, just like N. Korea. (You do realize you can sell an ICBM without a payload, which means it wouldn't fall under the NAT).

You've got to ask the question, "Why was the authorization for access to ICBMs included in this deal, if Iran was just going to use the centrifuges to generate fuel for nuclear reactors to generate power?" I'm disappointed, that as a Naval Officer, that question never crossed your mind.

Show me one thing I've ever said about Obama, that isn't true? I think he's grossly incompetent and has damaged this country in ways that may not be fully realized for years, economically, militarily, politically and diplomatically. If you can't see that, then you're not as intelligent as I thought you were. I've watched Presidents since Eisenhower and I've never seen a President who has diminished this country to the extent that Obama has. Carter was bad, but Obama is exponentially worse. Race relations are worse. Our military is weaker and demoralized. Our economy is a mess and poised for a meltdown, when interest rates invariably go back up. Our allies don't trust us. Our enemies don't fear us. Very few foreign leaders respect Obama, if any. Our national debt has doubled under Obama, making us susceptible to foreign pressure. I could go on, but hopefully, you get the point.

You say the Republicans have to budge. When is the last time the Democrats budged on anything? Certainly not in my recent memory. Virtually every time the Reps try to make a stand, the media rips them for trying to shut down the government and the Reps capitulate with their tails between their legs. Of course we all know, that there is no media bias. What we need is some Republican leadership with a spine. Boehner and McConnell roll over like a couple trained poodles, when the Dems give them any push back. They both talk tough, but their actions belie their words.

You hear the talking heads in the media say that Republican NEED to come back to the center. You don't hear them telling Dems to come back to the center. To give you a little perspective, when JFK was President, he was considered a Liberal at the time. In today's Democratic Party, he would be considered a hard core Conservative. The center has been drifting Left for years and the "idiots" (as you named them) in this country are oblivious to it.

I'm really disappointed, that you're becoming like qaz. I guess I expected more from you than that.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Gosh, however will I manage to overcome your disappointment?

 

[BoilerMadness]

Gosh, however will I manage to overcome your disappointment?

Obviously, it doesn't matter. I guess you're not the person I thought you were. My mistake....

 

[qazplm]

Obviously, it doesn't matter. I guess you're not the person I thought you were. My mistake....

lol I'm sure he's real cut up over that.