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.
You guys always scream "appeasement" when you don't get the war that you want so badly.
What we are concerned about is the war that this arrangement is almost certainly going to set the stage for in the Middle East.
You can spew baseless aspersions all you like, and obviously, that is what you constantly do, but the fact is that Obama does not care if this leads to war as long as he can take credit for a deal - literally any deal - before he leaves office. Even the Democrats in Congress increasingly see this for what it is, and it is increasingly uncertain for Obama whether he will even have enough support to avoid Congress overriding his inevitable veto of this deal.
You guys talk about republican representation (little "R"), and then you turn around and expect Obama to be supported in whatever he wants to do without question. Republican representation in our republic means the will of Congress and the state legislatures, not the unilateral will of a lawless, tyrannical president.
They don't mind appeasement, so long as its Bibi we are appeasing.
Netanyahu could tell the right to jump off a cliff, and every cliff in America would have mile long lines of nitwits waiting their turn to jump.
I've never seen a foreign leader be the boss of an American political party in this way before. He's the damn Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader, and I don't even remember him being on the ballot.
Appeasement does not equal peace. At least not for very long. History has taught us this lesson, again, and again, and again.
Will you people never learn?
It ain't appeasement. You don't give up something significant to be appeased. Get a clue. Let us try this appeasement with Israel as well... how well do you think that will go?
Those who could use learning are really the ones opposed to this deal. The problem is, if they haven't learned in 50+ years, the problem is with lack of functioning brain cells.
What we are concerned about is the war that this arrangement is almost certainly going to set the stage for in the Middle East.
You can spew baseless aspersions all you like, and obviously, that is what you constantly do, but the fact is that Obama does not care if this leads to war as long as he can take credit for a deal - literally any deal - before he leaves office. Even the Democrats in Congress increasingly see this for what it is, and it is increasingly uncertain for Obama whether he will even have enough support to avoid Congress overriding his inevitable veto of this deal.
You guys talk about republican representation (little "R"), and then you turn around and expect Obama to be supported in whatever he wants to do without question. Republican representation in our republic means the will of Congress and the state legislatures, not the unilateral will of a lawless, tyrannical president.
If this deal leads to war, then you should be happy.
Oh, I get it...it's the wrong president setting the stage for the war you want so badly.
Sorry...took me a minute, but I get what you mean now. My apologies.
What we are concerned about is the war that this arrangement is almost certainly going to set the stage for in the Middle East.
You can spew baseless aspersions all you like, and obviously, that is what you constantly do, but the fact is that Obama does not care if this leads to war as long as he can take credit for a deal - literally any deal - before he leaves office. Even the Democrats in Congress increasingly see this for what it is, and it is increasingly uncertain for Obama whether he will even have enough support to avoid Congress overriding his inevitable veto of this deal.
You guys talk about republican representation (little "R"), and then you turn around and expect Obama to be supported in whatever he wants to do without question. Republican representation in our republic means the will of Congress and the state legislatures, not the unilateral will of a lawless, tyrannical president.
Can you be rational, just for a few minutes? If you think the result of this is that Iran develops a nuclear bomb and starts a war, what exactly do you think is the result WITHOUT a deal, keeping in mind that if they wanted to build a bomb, they probably could, and wouldn't be subject to inspections to prove they are not.
The issue I'm interested in is this: Is this deal with Iran a treaty?
If the answer is yes, then the Senate is the only body in this government that can ratify a treaty and then send it to the President for signature.
If it isn't a treaty, then if isn't worth the paper it is signed on, it just an agreement with no teeth.
Can you be rational, just for a few minutes? If you think the result of this is that Iran develops a nuclear bomb and starts a war, what exactly do you think is the result WITHOUT a deal?
A deal is desirable. What we need is a much better deal. The sanctions were working. We can apply more and put on more pressure.
What is not honest here is to act like this is the best deal available, or that no better deal can be had. We should try to get a deal, a much better deal.
So to frame this as if the only choice were Obama's self-motivated appeasement arrangement, or no deal, is not even close to correct.
A deal is desirable. What we need is a much better deal. The sanctions were working. We can apply more and put on more pressure.
What is not honest here is to act like this is the best deal available, or that no better deal can be had. We should try to get a deal, a much better deal.
So to frame this as if the only choice were Obama's self-motivated appeasement arrangement, or no deal, is not even close to correct.
Your right sanctions were working, which is why they came to the table in the first place. What negotiation is ever perfect for both sides? Each side has to compromise. But the most important thing is they significantly cut their stock and slow down enrichment to a point that they couldn't rush a bomb and there is sturdy verification, all of which were agreed to. How can it reasonably be better?
I don't know about you, but I'd venture that the American public (who have very limited information about the Iran deal as well as the facts and circumstances about Iran's nuclear program) is making a wild-butt guess about what it is about.
Surely, the American public is so much smarter than the leaders of Germany, Russia, China, France and Great Britain, as well as the US, who had nonpublic information.
You do know that the Iran deal arose from a multi-lateral negotiations, right? Obama and Kerry didn't decide everything. I bet the American public has no clue about that, either. There's a reason why more people watch Here Comes Honey Boo Boo than the news.
Mick
A bad deal is a bad deal. As the days move on, more and more information has been exposed about the details of the deal. The negatives out way the positives because their is a sunset clause; The deal will 'expire' and Iran's nuclear program will then be 'legitimized'. It does not take a military analyst to understand that.
But at least American's see the irrational goals of Iran which are now published in a book. These irrational goals are being carried out with rational operations.
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.
