Iran Nuclear Deal
JudeSilve I'm for it when I read about the positives, and against it when I read about the negatives. :)
It's risky either way.
Okay, I'm FOR going ahead with it.
I hope we're not going to debate centrifuges and the like in this forum!
jd2 I'm definitely in favor of congress rejecting the deal with Iran - how can you establish an agreement with a country that chants "death to America and Israel" and expect all to be well.
The whole agreement is being driven by a drive for a foreign policy legacy for Obama and Kerry. The deals stinks: 24 day notice on physical inspections, 5 years out Iran can acquire missile technology and lifting of sanctions against Iran.
All this for a country that is a active supporter of terrorist groups all over the world, has sworn destruction of Israel the only democracy in the region and that's a good deal?
towniejim It's 8/14 and 200 Israeli protestors yell "Death to Arabs" at an Isreali/Arab wedding.
It's 7/14 and roving Israeli mobs Chanting “Death to Arabs,” attack Arab passers-by with over 40 protesters were arrested.
I can keep going.
So what was the metric for the US partnering with another country?
strangerdanger Perhaps the question should also include - who has actually read the deal?
I haven't yet and would like to understand the details first.
Bonv For those of you who want the deal killed what exactly is your plan okay we voted down the deal now they will have a nuclear weapon probably within a year what are we going to do then oh let's see put boots on the ground get into a nether quagmire that we will spend trillions of dollars in and no way out how many out there really think that the US would attack a nuclear Iran second alternative attack them now before they build one, come on, people what is your alternative you're not going to get a better deal no matter how much you cry about there are a lot of people quick to criticize but I have no answers themselves
oldredWe made successful arms deals with the Soviet Union when they were our enemies.
Iran is a complicated country. Hard to distinguish between the "death to America and Israel" hard-liner chants and what is really going on there. They have hard-liners unhappy with the deal; we have hard-liners unhappy with the deal.
The deal is not just Obama. It is between the US, Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany, and Iran. We need to be able to work with the rest of the world.
Oldred - what we do is keep the sanctions going - it was working, it was crippling their economy. If it wasn't that would not have been their primary request - eliminating the sanctions improves their ability to get these weapons of mass destruction sooner.
I don't care one way or the other. There are A Bombs in India, Pakistan and Israel. Whats is one more. We are still the only one that fired one.
Old Gent Old Gent - One more in the hands of someone that chants "death to America and Israel" is a whole different ball game - not to mention a country that values terrorism. Your attitude and comment is what we don't need - get informed.
Really Old Gent. Your view is frightening. There were 2 side deals made that we have no idea what is in them. That's enough to vote no on this deal. I'm not in the mood to see this deal passed just so the president can add it to his legacy or add another peace prize to the one he didn't deserve in the first place.
Ollie Let's see, it gives Iran $150 billion dollars that have been frozen for years that will enable them to continue to fund their terrorist activities around the region and elsewhere. Russia, Germany, France and China want to start trading with them again. all had major business with Iran prior to the sanctions. Plus they have never lived up on any deals in the past. Bad deal.
kb2755 I will give you it's all about legacy. Just to bad he couldn't at least get the prisoners back.
I think it's kind of like . . . heart surgery. Sure, you know the basics of the procedure, but only the surgeon really knows if the procedure was done right, because he understands the procedure, and because he did the surgery, only he knows the intimate details of the condition of your heart, because he's the only one who actually saw it and worked on it.
Is the Iran agreement a good deal? How can you possibly know? With all of the nations involved, and all of the back-room bargains struck, you'll never really know all of the details. Maybe the US made some side agreement with Nation A, and that agreement will ultimately improve the stability of the American economy? You'll just never know, for sure.
It's a complicated, major deal, with many parties involved. Ultimately, nobody is going to like every aspect of it. If one party did like everything about it, it's probably because they got too much out of it. But if one party was getting too much, most likely, the other parties wouldn't go for it.
Ultimately, I think it comes down to whether you really trust the parties representing you (as a nation). It's like having a real-estate agent. Did he REALLY get you the best deal he possibly could, for the house you're buying--or did he simply give in for a quick sale and an easy commission?
JerseyWolf I wish the prisoners had been part of the deal as well. I'm not exactly sure why it wasn't.
Part of the deal should have included having them come here to fill the potholes in our roads. Because, boy we sure don't know how to do it!
Oh and Yes, reject the deal. The Iranians cannot be trusted. There is alot between the lines that we do not know about. Scary.
Of course it should be passed. Our lone support for Israel on virtually every aspect of what they do has cost us Trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives and even more injured...
iJay The sanctions are not working. Iran will have full nuclear capability within a year if we do nothing. Is the deal perfect no, but no deal is worse. As to the prisoners, they are a US/Iran concern. The "deal" is a 6 country partnership, we wold not allow the other countries to put special side deal in, why would they allow them for us.
With diplomatic relations established, we can now negotiate for them. Without them we have no leverage at all.
Agust "With diplomatic relations established, we can now negotiate for them. Without them we have no leverage at all."
This is a joke. Negotiate with Iran? Because it's worked so well in the past, right? The bottom line is, Iran can't be trusted, PERIOD. They have proven that in the past. Therefore any deal is completely IRRELEVANT to REALITY. Regardless of any deal agreed to, Iran is going to get nukes as soon as they can. Period. Anyone who believes differently, I'd have to say is... too inexperienced in geo-politics to have an informed opinion on the matter.
JeffersonRepub ... or is a hopeless/dreamer/optomist/ "why can't we all just get along" person. lol
Me, I'm a realist. And a bit of a pessimist- developed from decades of closely following politics, both domestic and worldwide. I let history be my teacher, not some utopian dream of possible (IMPOSSIBLE) world peace. It's never going to happen people, get over it. Human nature will NEVER allow it to happen.
joyful Right on JR. The only peace to be found is with, God, The good book.says wars and the poor will be with you always.
yep to JR, joyful and old gent,
sadly i think that we will, in our lifetimes, live to see a war that ends up using nukes, and yes, war is part of man's nature, sadly,
BrotherDog So JR and BD think it's not possible for humans to act rationally and we are all doomed. No efforts should be made to avoid nuclear destruction because it's inevitable. You guys must be loads of fun at the dinner table.
yankeefan I think you're a little too sure of yourself, JR. And I say this as a person who has followed geo-politics longer than you have.
That doesn't mean you are wrong in this case. It's really not possible to know. You don't trust Iran, for good reasons. They don't trust the U.S., for good reasons also. We're not going to be friends, that's for sure.
Iran has adhered to the preliminary agreement we made with them. Adhering to the agreement at hand is in their interest. I say give the agreement a chance, as I don't like the alternatives.
I did not say we should trust Iran any more than we should trust any country we negotiate with. I said we should negotiate, as Regan said we can trust but we still need to verify. We negotiated with Russia, China and a host of other countries whose politics we do not agree with.
The consequences of violating the agreement must be severe. But as I stated with no agreement or treaty we really have no recourse other than boots on the ground. We also have no ability or power to negotiate. The Iranians are not going to suddenly a become passive American loving democracy. I'm pretty sure we do not want them as an ally, but I also think we should avoid having them as another country we are at war with.
Ratify the agreement, and if they violate it make it hurt.
I'm pessimistic, due to Iran's centuries-old hatred of Israel.
I see it's an effort to delay going into a war, to "buy time" (like a quarterback trying to escape the pass rush and get something on a broken play --- like Eli's throw and off-the-helmet catch by David Tyree in that Super Bowl BUT I DIGRESS) --
I've always believed in negotiating before going into a war as a last resort --- maybe Iran really was feeling the pain from the sanctions and was willing to make a deal and live up to it --- we should pray hard that they will. If they break their promises, well, it may lead to that Armageddon that the Bible told us is coming, but I hope that isn't in my lifetime.
There are some 150 pages of technical jargon in the documentation of that deal, and I'm not going to sit here and pretend I read all of it. If that International Atomic Energy Agency verifies Iran is complying, Iran will start getting a flow of money coming in that compares, historically, to America's post-WW II Marshall Plan to rebuild Germany, after they were our enemy in that all-consuming war.
The White House is hoping Iran uses the money to improve their domestic conditions. History teaches that if they don't, they are doomed to fail from within (like the Soviet Union and other militaristic regimes) but it would be a long process that is painful to the entire world.
Yes, this deal risks Iran going into its ages-old direction of bankrolling international terror, so if congress does not approve this deal, I would not be upset with them.
There are enough things with me to be upset with congress about, but I sure hope they do their due diligence and get it right on this one.... don't play politics, just get it right.
Andy Loigu I think it's more likely we will see a suitcase nuke followed by a big question mark as to what happens next.
history: It's just as messy farther back but Iran in 1951 was a progressive secular nation with many advances like social security, rent control, and land reforms. Unfortunately he also nationalized the BP oil, England got pissed, and we jailed him in a CIA coup-d'état in 1953.
Enter the US Shah and then in 1979, revolution, hostage crisis, Khomeini, Iran-Contra scandal, navy shoots down passenger plane, and the current nuclear age.
So don't tell me Iran is the only bad actor on this middle east stage.
Current status: some say they can build a bomb in a year; however to build a missile will take a lot longer and for the US, we will see it happening well before it happens. There's not much risk here for the US. After the deal, these numbers will remain about the same whether they follow the deal or not and, for the US, we will see it coming a long ways off and plenty of time to defend.
Under sanctions, assets frozen, Iran is in a tough place just like we put North Korea, perhaps rightfully so. They may do much regional bad, yet have partnered with us on ISIS perhaps thwarting Iraq's downfall. They yell a lot. Yet it is not sure whether this is a vocal minority. Most Iranians are favorable to the US but not our policies. The question is will the leadership listen to the people or continue to try to exert power over the region through violence.
We can continue to keep them in the sanction box but I would expect they end up looking like North Korea at best and will never capitulate to sanctions. I think sanctions have sent the message and not much more can be done to inflict more pain.
We can make the deal, see what happens, and go back to sanctions at any time, or worse.
The proof will be in the pudding. There is no deal that can stop Iran from creating a bomb; there are no sanctions that can stop them either. To me, if the deal goes through, and it probably will, the freeing of assets of $100B to 150B will probably be the first tests of Iran's legitimacy as a good actor.
We spend about $16B or so per year in defense of terrorism. ISIS may pull in $1M per day or $365M per year. Iran's frozen assets can fund a lot of good or a lot of bad or, frankly, a lot of both. IMHO that's the test, where does this money go.
Iran spends $30B per year on military, $150B could be a lot of military.
Iran needs about $500B to rebuild it's infrastructure and oil industry. We can hope they do the right thing for the people and to return Iran to a strong economy.
The timing of the freeing up of assets, and the monitoring of where the funds are going (however the heck we would do that) will be critical to knowing whether Iran is being a good actor or not. While the deal has some type of release timing TBD; I don't know of any monitoring besides normal intelligence activities.
IMHO, the nuclear dismantling, the testing, all of it can be monitored close enough and we can put sanctions in place if we think it's going South. Certainly not worried about any large scale nuke effort combined with missiles capable enough to harm us. Smaller terrorist efforts are more concern but IMHO are of the same concern with our without the deal.
Hope it works or that we can see bad actor spending before it affects us.
"So JR and BD think it's not possible for humans to act rationally and we are all doomed. No efforts should be made to avoid nuclear destruction because it's inevitable."
Not quite. I would say it's not possible for humans WHO HAVE PROVEN TIME AND AGAIN THEY WILL NOT ACT RATIONALLY to act rationally. It is PRUDENT to follow what history has taught us regarding these particular humans, and not put our hopes in a signature on a piece of paper. THAT is what will doom the situation: willful naiveté.
And again, if you think this deal actually makes it more likely nuclear destruction will be avoided, I've got a bridge to see you.
"Ratify the agreement, and if they violate it make it hurt."
I can go with that- so long as "hurt" means airstrikes on every single nuke site we know of. Or we could just let Israel take care of it, they've done it before. they are quite capable.
Didn't Chamberlain put his and England's hope on a signature on a piece of paper. How'd that work out.
I think you meant a bridge to SELL you.
Anyway, I remember the 1967 Seven-Day War and the jokes that followed...
What's the shortest book in the world? Arab military victories.
How do you stop an Arab tank? You shoot the guy who is pushing it.
I think that was from Johnny Carson, we were still celebrating our high school state Group III basketball championship, so we were feeling good.
But now, the problem is terrorism, the world changed in 2001.
Jeff, when you proof, read EVERYTHING.
In 1978, I was proofing classified ads (in one of those things that used to be called a newspaper - you may have heard of them, you may find one in a time capsule one of these days) ---
I saw an ad for a doctor that included THE RAPIST as one of his services.
Duh, I realized that should have read therapist and I closed the space --- told the chief I saved him a lawsuit (-;
Told him, nice catch, for a sports guy, eh?
JR, You are not being rational and it's a proven fact that you are or are not but at sometime you will be....or not. :<) You are human, aren't you?
I'll see the Chamberlain and raise you one bad analogy that has nothing to do with anything.
Actually Regan didn't originally say "trust but verify" but said "doveryai, no proveryai" quoting an old Russian proverb during negotiations. Wait, we used something from the bad guys to suck up to the bad guys? And now we pretend it was ours all along. Go figure.
Just saying.
YF used a strawman argument to give a response to to a point that was never expressed.
"No efforts should be made to avoid nuclear destruction because it's inevitable."
this was never said by either JR or myself, go back and reread for clarification.f
i think the sanctions were working, and certainly the computer viruses the intelligence community introduced into the centrifuges were working (spun them up so fast they destroyed themselves)
all of that was working, now we got to manage this probelm from a different much weaker perspective. not good imho.
"It is PRUDENT to follow what history has taught us regarding these particular humans,"
It is also just as prudent to remember what history has taught THEM regarding what OUR country did to them to make them hate us in the first place.
Overthrowing a democratically-elected prime minister and installing a dictator, who used a secret police force, that our CIA helped to create, to torture and murder political opponents of the Shah's regime? How long would Americans have tolerated that before an armed revolution occurred? 25 years or so sound about right? The fact that Islam was the impetus to fuel the revolution and resulted in a theocratic dictatorship was unfortunate, but should not have been a complete surprise to anyone.
Funding international terrorism? What would you call a US-funded Saddam using chemical weapons on Iranian civilians? The Iraq/Iran war was a brutal, brutal affair and many Iranians blame us in part for funding it.
The chants of "Death to America" are a little more understandable when seen in that context... but most of America sees ourselves as a nation who has never done anything wrong internationally.
I am not a fan of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. But it's important not to confuse the government with the PEOPLE of Iran, who have the same hopes and dreams for their children that we have for ours.. Also, seeing as America and Shiite Iran now have a common enemy in Sunni extremism... perhaps it is the proper time to extend the olive branch of détente (while holding a gigantic club in the other hand which is still behind our back).
Iran/Persia is a country with a culture far richer and storied than our own. They live under a semi-oppressive dictatorship that can be aggressively oppressive when they want to be. But the PEOPLE... they live their lives, try to get by, same as us. And the government, while oppressive and fundamentalist... they aren't bat-shit crazy like ISIS. They have no delusions of martyrdom and paradise. They love the power they wield on earth way too much. I think their desire to achieve nuclear power status is far more political than military. But obviously, we need to prevent that from happening; maintaining the status quo won't achieve that end.
ianimal "What's the shortest book in the world? Arab military victories."
That would be incorrect, when you look back at Islam's conquest of Europe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo
"It is also just as prudent to remember what history has taught THEM regarding what OUR country did to them to make them hate us in the first place. "
You are absolutely right, Ian. So- unfortunately, it comes down to the biggest stick. We have the biggest stick (if we choose to use it). And by "use it", I could mean making sure Iran doesn't get nukes (and this deal is NOT that), or making sure Iran doesn't get nukes (militarily). Or, like I said- unleash Israel. They took care of it before, they can take care of it again.
I'm all for it! As a direct result GE will now be able to close the 5 year negotiations with Iran to sell them 18 nuke plants. My GE stock will benefit directly and they won't be bombing anyone for at least 5 years. Thank you WH Business Czar and GE CEO Jeff Immelt.
One-Eyed Poacher Good post, ianimal.
I would add George W Bush introducing the concept of the "axis of evil: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea", after which he attacked Iraq. Hmm, what to do if you are Iran?
One of the hopes in the deal is that over its duration, changes could take place in Iran that will make it more of a normal country. Who knows, the Supreme Leader may die and be replaced by someone more moderate. There are definitely people there who strongly disagree with the way things are run. The deal may strengthen the position of those people. :)
Or not. :(
Anyway, to back out now will put the U.S. in quite a bad light. Better to go ahead and let Iran be the one to ruin it and be the bad guy.
Jeff, that was a Johnny Carson joke and I said so.
Lighten up.
Impressed with Ian's post ... real good grasp of history.
They've developed nuclear weapons, so we can't just bully them and say we are the big, bad USA and you'd better not mess with us.
I could quote John Lennon and say, Give peace a chance, and you'd tell me what did that pot head know?
And our presidents (from Democrat LBJ with Vietnam to Bush with Iraq) have done us no favors by trying to shield the American economy from the consequences of war by not asking the citizens to share in the costs. Not raising taxes to pay for them created debt which generations as yet unborn will be asked to pay.
We can't just jump into a war overoptimistic ... a war with Iraq today, on their turf, would take a commitment of vast forces and escalation after escalation.
Much more prudent to work for peace.
"Much more prudent to work for peace"
Which I am all for, but it can't be negotiated for with people who cannot be trusted. Let a serial killer out of jail on the "negotiation" that he says he will never kill again- hey, he even signed a piece of paper- and see where that gets you.
In the meantime, F/A-18s and GPS guided munitions at the ready for airstrikes. Not war. Airstrikes. Surgical penance for proving, once again, they cannot be trusted to keep a deal. I'd love it if I turn out to be wrong- but I won't.
Funny- none of the "trusting liberals" seem to be very trusting of ANY conservative who achieves elected office.... funny how that works, no?
My political science teacher, back in 1969, was right when he said "people who are un-trusting tend to lean conservative, and people who are most trusting, tend to lean liberal."
Jeff, you are the classic case of the un-trusting person who is conservative ... Archie Bunker in real life LOL
If you've ever studied psychology, there are different brain types, certain people just perceive things differently, and when we understand that, then we won't drive each other crazy.
You're that brain type, so it is useless to ever argue with you -- so I won't. Anything I post will be for the general open-minded population. Just go ahead and disregard anything which I post, which you usually do anyway (-;
I don't see being "untrusting" as a bad thing. We as Americans should question everything. Not run around like a bunch of lapdogs. I don't think I need have studied psychology to know there are different brain types. I learned that in the sand pile when I was 5
I can't win, I do in ten words what Iman does in ten paragraphs and he gets the kudos. Poor me. Wah.
With the deal our position is really not changed much with the deal. We are just as safe, we can still see it coming, we still have time, more time with the deal, and we can put them back in the box or worse at any time. Regional countries such as Israel not so much.
As far as who's the worse evil to the region I think our latest blunder in Iraq trumps Iran's meddling to make the region unstable. There we basically opened the box big time and today need Iran to help us close it again. Weird that Iraq may help Iran/US relations.
As far as Iran hating us, not really sure that's true on a popular level but certainly on a power level. But many have hated us over the years and changed their minds and vice-versa. Japan, Germany, Italy, sure got pummeled but still came around. Even in 2013, Russia had less hatred for the US until Putin went off the reservation. Posted is the hate map from 2013 from the Pew Institute and The Washington Post; note Russia and note Turkey; things can change pretty darn fast in this big ole world of ours and the same might be true for Iran. History may be a road map but the future is not pre-ordained based on the past.
Personally I think we should worry about our Canadian love affair ::>)
On FOX, Trump says the deal is disastrous for the world and Iran will get the bomb.
"Why do you think President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry like the deal? Greta asked. "Maybe they're not bright," Trump said. "There's something wrong with them." Earlier in the month showing his global finesse Trump said "Persians are great negotiators," and the negotiations should take a week.
Deep thoughts.
But the funniest thought was "Funny- none of the "trusting liberals" seem to be very trusting of ANY conservative who achieves elected office." I'm sorry, have you been listening to any of the news?
I never want someone in elected office to fail -- when they do, we all suffer.
The trust thing is this basically --- when someone is opposed to programs like unemployment or welfare or Obamacare, they feel it is a waste of money because the benefits go to people who deserve to be poor --- they are lazy, etc. -- their life situation is "their own fault."
Trusting people are not that way.
Certainly, trust needs to be earned --- check out my post on Tom Brady on the football thread --- I certainly don't just automatically trust everybody.
I'm a "moderate" which to today's thinking makes me a wacko liberal, I suppose.
mistergoogle/strangerdanger,
The reason you "can't win" is that you think your some kind of satirical journalist. Almost every post you make is a novella in length and has a tongue-in-cheek attempt at humor/backhanded compliment. You aren't a political satirist, are you? Then stop playing one on HL. Be more like Trump: just say what the hell you feel and mean, instead of crafting these labyrinthian diatribes we all have to try to decipher.
Your posts read like a speech from a professional politician (please don't get any "ideas!!!" )
Caged Animal Good points @Andy. A shame that the moderate voice is being drowned out by the extremists on all sides.
I'd still like to know how many people have actually read the deal ...
It's not like Iran is liaising and workiing side by side with us in Iraq. Their goal as many believe is take over the large area that borders their country. The continuation of sanctions looked to be on trouble as our so called partners in the deal except for Britain were not going to vote to continue them. Trying to get sanctions back on if Iran does not hold up their end of the deal will not be easy. They have also said they will continue to finance the radical groups around the region. Why are the Saudis, Jordanians, Egyptians, UAE and others in the region against the deal? Should they have nothing to fear?
Just for a little perspective:
http://www.hangthebankers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Army-bases-Iran-America.jpg
http://www.ingeniouspress.com/2014/05/08/russia-wants-war-iran-wants-war-china-wants-war/
http://scrap.funsite.cz/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/iran-vs-usa.jpg
I have no idea how accurate the depictions are, but my experience tells me that they are not too far off.
That being said, I think we should have a little less emotion and a little more factual discussion when discussing world politics...
justintime "Why are the Saudis, Jordanians, Egyptians, UAE and others in the region against the deal?"
Because they're primarily Sunni nations that hate Shiites almost as much as they hate the rest of us? I have nothing against people from any of these countries, but sectarianism shouldn't be a consideration, especially when the most problematic radicals from the most problematic Islamic sects are from the nations you mentioned (among others).
Exactly, that is why there will never be peace in the region and may well lead to an arms race. It is very complicated and no easy solution in the foreseeable future.
LOL@ Jeff Rep!!!!! (finally) have been biting my tongue, I'm glad someone feels the same way.
Hot corner What do I get IF I win?
Satirical; hmmmm, never heard that one before. You sure you picked the right 50-cent word?
Another vote heard from for serious, straightforward, simple, serious, short, serious posts.
Boring. But you know there is an easy solution to your lament.
Many of your posts read like a rabid rant from an unprofessional tea partier. Short, fact-less and feckless.
We have winners and losers among the people posting here?
Is that what this is about? Thought we were just discussing an issue, sharing info and points of view.
Well, if this is a "competition," I vote for ianimal, who is very well informed about this very complex subject.
Also, it doesn't hurt that his Pirates helped my Orioles get into the AL wild card race by beating those upstart Twins LOL Way to go, Buccos! Thanks for the help.
Nancy Pelosi called the agreement a "diplomatic masterpiece." Now I'm really frightened. Not sure how she knows considering she usually passes things and then reads them to see what's in it.
Here's the 159 page deal; there will be a test.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1651/
But wait, there's more..... I think the side-deals and parts of the IAEA testing program is a "deal" between Iran and the IAEA and not available for reading.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/07/29/kerry-moniz-we-havent-read-the-side-deals-with-iran-not-sure-if-any-other-us-official-has/
I find it impossible to believe that Kerry and the CIA don't know but if they do, they cant' tell anyone.....
The most transparent administration. Yeah right. It scares me to death to think of the things we don't know.
Susan Rice has read the side deal which was brokered by the UN. Kerry testified before Congress on Tuesday that he was aware of a deal but had not read it or it was not available to him. Your right, it is almost impossible to believe but with this Administration it is clearly believable.
Here is a good write up on the sanctions relief for Iran.
http://www.chadbourne.com/files/Publication/64bf2561-6cd6-48fb-bb7c-bc9b31cb8710/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/dba47710-1980-4981-969e-bf20e0b4e5a4/ClientAlert_IranJointComprehensivePlanAction_150730.pdf
I've spoken with an Iranian American colleague about this and Iran in general on a few occasions, especially after watching a Bourdain 'Parts Unknown' episode that was shot there. It seems, and the colleague confirmed this, that the general population loves America. It's really the people in power that hate us.
It was a great episode. Bourdain was greeted warmly everywhere he went, had dinner with a family, watched them make bread (looked delicious, and they used pebbles to stimple it, similar to naan). There's even a car culture there. They love American V-8's and beer. It's a beautiful country.
The colleague is very optimistic about the deal. He said there's almost no middle class in Iran and that the deal should help the people. Maybe if their economy picks up things will change. We shall see.
MeisterNJ Isn't it amazing MNJ when you actually talk to the people instead of only going by the news? We've become a society of "us against them." It's the cold war rhetoric all over again. I can't wait for Joe McCarthy's ghost to show up.
emaxxman Trouble is the people in power build the bombs. Chuck Schumer voting against is a bad sign that perhaps we should have looked for a few more olive branches. Truth will be in the future and not sure what pulling out unilaterally will do except give the other countries a lead start in doing big business in Iran.
Definitely emaxxman. Completely different perspective. If the parties were reversed and it was a Republican in office, the Dems would be ripping him on the very same deal. It just seems partisanship is on the rise, and getting more contentious by the min.
Note that Javad Zarif, Iran's lead diplomat and negotiator, went to school in the U.S., and has two children born here who are U.S. citizens.
The only reason Chuck Schumer is voting against the deal is because they now have enough votes to make sure the deal is veto proof. Why did he wait until last night to tell everybody. He is a real schmuck. Also, the secret deal between Iran and the IAEA brokered by the UN will not be shown to Congress. How is Congress suppose to vote on the deal without seeing it. The Undersecretary told Congress on Tuesday that it is in the National interest that it not be disclosed. WTF, where is the transparency?
Obama, calling out the evils of AIPAC -- love it, let the truth come out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/08/world/middleeast/fears-of-lasting-rift-as-obama-battles-pro-israel-group-on-iran.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
Commenting is no longer available.