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.
After about a dozen editorials and Op-Ed pieces ALL one-sided praising the Obama "deal" (or capitulation to be more precise), the NY Times for the FIRST time allowed an Op-Ed which exposes the MANY CRITICAL FAULTS in this agreement. It is an excellent expose. First he reviews all of the original requirements that the Obama administration itself said would be necessary to block the Iranian regime's path to the bomb. Then he methodically explains how Obama capitulated on each and every one of them:
He concludes with: "Iran is a fanatical, hegemonic, hate-filled regime. If you think its radicalism is going to be softened by a few global trade opportunities, you really haven’t been paying attention to the Middle East over the past four decades.
Iran will use its $150 billion windfall to spread terror around the region and exert its power. It will incrementally but dangerously cheat on the accord. Armed with money, ballistic weapons and an eventual nuclear breakout, it will become more aggressive. As the end of the nuclear delay comes into view, the 45th or 46th president will decide that action must be taken.
Economic and political defeats can be as bad as military ones. Sometimes when you surrender to a tyranny you lay the groundwork for a more cataclysmic conflict to come."
This deal is a US capitulation which was completely unnecessary. It will fail miserably to halt the Iranian regime's march toward the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Why? Because, as Mr. Brooks points out, the Obama administration abandoned virtually all of it original demands.
The attainment of nuclear bombs, and the nuclear warhead-tipped ballistic missiles needed to deliver them, is the required linchpin to Iranian hegemony over the region and an existential threat to the state of Israel. Saudi Arabia and other Arab states see the paving of the road toward Iranian nuclear weaponization as a threat to them and the result will be a regional nuclear arms race. And the infusion of $150 billion will, as one ME expert put it, “turbo charge the regional wars”.
A nuclear weapon in the hands of this extremist, terrorist regime will change the world. It would be the worst of all possible outcomes. It would absolutely destroy any possibility of an Arab-Israeli peace. It would immeasurably strengthen the anti-peace terror gangs Hamas and Hezbullah as well as the Assad regime. And overwhelming evidence makes it obvious that the regime is hell-bent on obtaining a military nuclear capability.
So what do we do now? Renegotiate the agreement. If Congress fails to override the Obama veto of Congressional objection to the treaty, then it will be absolutely critical that the next president correct the historical mistakes made by Obama.
After about a dozen editorials and Op-Ed pieces ALL one-sided praising the Obama "deal" (or capitulation to be more precise), the NY Times for the FIRST time allowed an Op-Ed which exposes the MANY CRITICAL FAULTS in this agreement. It is an excellent expose. First he reviews all of the original requirements that the Obama administration itself said would be necessary to block the Iranian regime's path to the bomb. Then he methodically explains how Obama capitulated on each and every one of them:
He concludes with: "Iran is a fanatical, hegemonic, hate-filled regime. If you think its radicalism is going to be softened by a few global trade opportunities, you really haven’t been paying attention to the Middle East over the past four decades.
Iran will use its $150 billion windfall to spread terror around the region and exert its power. It will incrementally but dangerously cheat on the accord. Armed with money, ballistic weapons and an eventual nuclear breakout, it will become more aggressive. As the end of the nuclear delay comes into view, the 45th or 46th president will decide that action must be taken.
Economic and political defeats can be as bad as military ones. Sometimes when you surrender to a tyranny you lay the groundwork for a more cataclysmic conflict to come."
This deal is a US capitulation which was completely unnecessary. It will fail miserably to halt the Iranian regime's march toward the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Why? Because, as Mr. Brooks points out, the Obama administration abandoned virtually all of it original demands.
The attainment of nuclear bombs, and the nuclear warhead-tipped ballistic missiles needed to deliver them, is the required linchpin to Iranian hegemony over the region and an existential threat to the state of Israel. Saudi Arabia and other Arab states see the paving of the road toward Iranian nuclear weaponization as a threat to them and the result will be a regional nuclear arms race. And the infusion of $150 billion will, as one ME expert put it, “turbo charge the regional wars”.
A nuclear weapon in the hands of this extremist, terrorist regime will change the world. It would be the worst of all possible outcomes. It would absolutely destroy any possibility of an Arab-Israeli peace. It would immeasurably strengthen the anti-peace terror gangs Hamas and Hezbullah as well as the Assad regime. And overwhelming evidence makes it obvious that the regime is hell-bent on obtaining a military nuclear capability.
So what do we do now? Renegotiate the agreement. If Congress fails to override the Obama veto of Congressional objection to the treaty, then it will be absolutely critical that the next president correct the historical mistakes made by Obama.
Congress must act on overriding this. We've known all along what President Obama's plan is for this nation (and it's not very pretty), so it behooves us to write our representatives and push for anything to stop and block this pathetic treaty. There has to be urgency on the right.
After about a dozen editorials and Op-Ed pieces ALL one-sided praising the Obama "deal" (or capitulation to be more precise), the NY Times for the FIRST time allowed an Op-Ed which exposes the MANY CRITICAL FAULTS in this agreement. It is an excellent expose. First he reviews all of the original requirements that the Obama administration itself said would be necessary to block the Iranian regime's path to the bomb. Then he methodically explains how Obama capitulated on each and every one of them:
He concludes with: "Iran is a fanatical, hegemonic, hate-filled regime. If you think its radicalism is going to be softened by a few global trade opportunities, you really haven’t been paying attention to the Middle East over the past four decades.
Iran will use its $150 billion windfall to spread terror around the region and exert its power. It will incrementally but dangerously cheat on the accord. Armed with money, ballistic weapons and an eventual nuclear breakout, it will become more aggressive. As the end of the nuclear delay comes into view, the 45th or 46th president will decide that action must be taken.
Economic and political defeats can be as bad as military ones. Sometimes when you surrender to a tyranny you lay the groundwork for a more cataclysmic conflict to come."
This deal is a US capitulation which was completely unnecessary. It will fail miserably to halt the Iranian regime's march toward the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Why? Because, as Mr. Brooks points out, the Obama administration abandoned virtually all of it original demands.
The attainment of nuclear bombs, and the nuclear warhead-tipped ballistic missiles needed to deliver them, is the required linchpin to Iranian hegemony over the region and an existential threat to the state of Israel. Saudi Arabia and other Arab states see the paving of the road toward Iranian nuclear weaponization as a threat to them and the result will be a regional nuclear arms race. And the infusion of $150 billion will, as one ME expert put it, “turbo charge the regional wars”.
A nuclear weapon in the hands of this extremist, terrorist regime will change the world. It would be the worst of all possible outcomes. It would absolutely destroy any possibility of an Arab-Israeli peace. It would immeasurably strengthen the anti-peace terror gangs Hamas and Hezbullah as well as the Assad regime. And overwhelming evidence makes it obvious that the regime is hell-bent on obtaining a military nuclear capability.
So what do we do now? Renegotiate the agreement. If Congress fails to override the Obama veto of Congressional objection to the treaty, then it will be absolutely critical that the next president correct the historical mistakes made by Obama.
So the next president tells Russia, China, France, Great Britain and Germany we are out of here, then what?
Did you ever notice how there is so little disagreement by the right wing or anyone for that matter in the other countries, why is the GOP the only one in the world making all the noise.
“I examined this deal in three parts: nuclear restrictions on Iran in the first 10 years, nuclear restrictions on Iran after 10 years, and nonnuclear components and consequences of a deal,” he wrote. “In each case I have asked: Are we better off with the agreement or without it?”
Mr. Schumer said that the inspection regime in the first 10 years of the agreement would be too weak, and that provisions to reimpose sanctions if Iran cheated were too onerous. He said his most serious concerns were with the freedom that Iran would have after 10 years to quickly build a nuclear weapon.
“To me, after 10 years, if Iran is the same nation as it is today, we will be worse off with this agreement than without it,” he said.
“I examined this deal in three parts: nuclear restrictions on Iran in the first 10 years, nuclear restrictions on Iran after 10 years, and nonnuclear components and consequences of a deal,” he wrote. “In each case I have asked: Are we better off with the agreement or without it?”
Mr. Schumer said that the inspection regime in the first 10 years of the agreement would be too weak, and that provisions to reimpose sanctions if Iran cheated were too onerous. He said his most serious concerns were with the freedom that Iran would have after 10 years to quickly build a nuclear weapon.
“To me, after 10 years, if Iran is the same nation as it is today, we will be worse off with this agreement than without it,” he said.
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.
