Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This keeps popping up in these threads. Where is anyone getting the idea that an agreement allows Iran to get a nuclear weapon? The entire point of an agreement between Iran and the Nuclear Five plus Germany explicitly keeps them from doing that in return for dropping the sanctions and some normalization of relations.
Walking away from the table or threats of military intervention would drive them to build a nuclear deterrent.
Nobody is proposing walking away from the table. Nobody is opposed to a deal with Iran, as long as it is an effective deal and a good deal. However, just having an agreement on a piece of paper does not result in Iran actually not developing nuclear weapons or continuing to develop its missile program. Just like passing an immigration law does not automatically cause our countries immigration issues to become fixed.
In both cases, these agreements would need to be enforced. And it appears that many of the provisions in the deal that Obama is negotiating are not clearly sufficient to assure that a stop to Iran's nuclear program would be, in fact and on the ground, actually stopped.
Especially from Israel's point of view, this is an existential issue that cannot be left to Obama's typical foreign affairs nativity and bungling. Israel has to make sure that Iran does not develop this capacity, and unless we are fools, we need to do that also.
Sometimes the diplomacy crowd puts decorum ahead of major, real life concerns in the real world. The goal is not to get a piece of paper signed, or at least it shouldn't be. The goal is to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons by Iran and their terrorist network. Unfortunately, it appears that Barack Obama is only in it to help himself.
This is a from Washington Post op-ed today written by Conservative Michael Gerson:
Quote:
This was a foreign policy maneuver, in the middle of a high-stakes negotiation, with all the gravity and deliberation of a blog posting. In timing, tone and substance, it raises questions about the Republican majority’s capacity to govern.
Gerson goes on to call the move "half-baked," and resulted not in weakening the President, but in weakening the Republican's hand in long run. Republican Senator Bob Corker has been working with Democrat Bob Menendez to craft legislation that would require Senate approval for any deal with Iran. Before Cotton's letter, Corker was two votes shy of a veto-proof bipartisan majority. The obvious attempt at undermining the president has the Democratic leadership backing away from this deal now, as they see the Republicans as only being interested in partisan games.
Quote:
Peeling even a few Democrats off the Corker/Menendez approach could prove decisive. If the Corker bill fails narrowly, Obama might have Cotton’s missive to thank.
Many of the senators who signed this letter say they did so in a rush while trying to get out of town ahead of a snowstorm, and didn't think through all the ramifications. It sounded like a fun idea to slap down the president on the world stage, and that was good enough for them. In their glee, they may have shot themselves in the foot. Idiots.
Here is another example of the many precedents established for this by Democrats:
In 2002, in the heat of the congressional debate over the authorization of the Iraq war, the second-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, David Bonior, traveled to Baghdad with two fellow Democrats to oppose the imminent invasion. Democratic congressman Jim McDermott appeared on ABC’s This Week from Baghdad to denounce President George W. Bush and propagandize for Saddam Hussein. Shakir al-Khafaji, a well-known fixer for the Iraqi regime and a longtime supporter of Bonior, arranged the visit. The Democrats vigorously denied that they had accepted Iraqi regime funding for the trip. Documents uncovered in postwar Iraq demonstrated that their claim was untrue.
Here is another example of the many precedents established for this by Democrats:
In 2002, in the heat of the congressional debate over the authorization of the Iraq war, the second-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, David Bonior, traveled to Baghdad with two fellow Democrats to oppose the imminent invasion. Democratic congressman Jim McDermott appeared on ABC’s This Week from Baghdad to denounce President George W. Bush and propagandize for Saddam Hussein. Shakir al-Khafaji, a well-known fixer for the Iraqi regime and a longtime supporter of Bonior, arranged the visit. The Democrats vigorously denied that they had accepted Iraqi regime funding for the trip. Documents uncovered in postwar Iraq demonstrated that their claim was untrue.
So which 47 Dems wrote a letter to Saddam Hussein? Not even close.
This keeps popping up in these threads. Where is anyone getting the idea that an agreement allows Iran to get a nuclear weapon? The entire point of an agreement between Iran and the Nuclear Five plus Germany explicitly keeps them from doing that in return for dropping the sanctions and some normalization of relations.
Walking away from the table or threats of military intervention would drive them to build a nuclear deterrent.
After 10 years of constant development of its nuclear weapons program, they are not going to shake hands western style and ditch their accomplishments.
Liberals are such hypocrites. Where was their outrage when Bahgdad Jim was being paid by Saddam to visit? When Pelosi went to Syria to undermine Bush? When Rockefeller went to Syria and Saudi Arabia? When John Kerry went to Nicaragua? Of course since they were all democrats undermining a Republican president that's Ok in the lefts mind - the ends justify any means.
Partisan tactics have always been and always will be a blight on this country's political system. Personally, I'm in the center - moderate, even - so both sides doing this is not going to make things any better in the long run.
But it does not appear to a great many people that he is negotiating "peace," but rather an effort to get an "agreement," any agreement, regardless of what it is, so that he can say that he did. It is all about Obama and his "legacy". So, what we are seeing here is the narcissist in chief at it again. He and his supporters apparently are most concerned about this from the perspective that it is all about Barack Obama.
And here the end game is the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran and its terrorist network, a matter of grave national and international importance. This is not some trivial agreement that Obama can just approve on his own. This is very possibly the most important agreement our country has tried to negotiate in the last 20 years at least. And Obama appears to be in appeasement mode, making commitments without adequate concern for verifiability, and with a view almost entirely to his "legacy". What an awful man and an awful President Barack Obama is.
This needs to be considered and ratified by the Senate, and if Barack Obama refuses to submit it for ratification, as he as already indicated is his intention, that will serve as a confirmation that he is not really serious about peace or respecting our constitutional establishment of separation of powers, but rather only about himself and what he wants.
I will leave the agreement up to the knowledgeable experts from 7 countries that are negotiating the agreement as to it's value, not a novice congressman like Tom Cotton that served in the military. There are several ways this negotiation could fall apart with countries like China and Russia involved, the y don't need help from the GOP. I have not heard of representatives from other countries taking the extra step of sending a letter to Iran, this is just one more attempt to embarrass the president and destroy any progress.
The attempt is to prevent Iran from having nuclear capability is it perfect probably not but it sure is a step in the right direction. The alternative does not seem promising and will more likely lead to either war or Iran getting nuclear weapons on their own. If a vote was required by congress do you honestly expect them to approve anything that this administration generates, the last 6 years there focus has been to make this white house fail at any cost.
If the republicans were serious about peace they wouldn't have taken the action but it looks like the right wing hawks have hijacked the party. They think our intervention has worked well the last 10 years and military force is always the answer they even got Rand Paul to jump on the wagon, hopeless.
Tom Cotton is a patriot. He put his life on the line for this country and he has a real diploma from Harvard, not some community organizer baloney certificate. People are going to realize what he did was right and just how inept Obama is and how he is selling this country out.
The Senators who signed the letter should be brought up on treason charges. If they don't stand with the United States then they shouldn't be allowed to speak for it.
Really?
How about other times this exact same thing happened?
Was the GOP's Iran letter really unprecedented?
From Reagan to Clinton, both Democrats and Republicans have tried to sabotage the other party’s foreign policy.
By Michael Crowley
3/10/15 1:27 PM EDT
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Republican Senators Directly Contact Iranian Leadership
