DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Will do 'everything possible' to stop Iran deal: U.S. House speaker

Man if they block this, and continue their usual beating the drums of war, I'm going to feel really bad for some of the guys that i deployed with, as they'll be going for their 5th, 6th, some even 7th deployment.....and for what?

http://news.yahoo.com/everything-possible-stop-iran-deal-u-house-speaker-154243406.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner on Wednesday said he and others in Congress would do "everything possible" to stop a new nuclear deal with Iran from moving forward.

Related Stories

White House courts Congress on Iran, Democrats skeptical AFP
Could Congress try to block Iran nuclear deal? CBS News
McConnell: Iran deal will be 'hard sell' in Congress Associated Press
Congress promises rough ride for any nuclear deal with Iran Reuters
Key U.S. senator 'very happy' Iran nuclear talks will go on Reuters
"Members of Congress will ask much tougher questions this afternoon when we meet with the president's team, and because a bad deal threatens the security of the American people, we're going to do everything possible to stop it," Boehner told reporters.

Later on Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz were scheduled to hold classified briefings for lawmakers in the U.S. Capitol.

Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and House of Representatives are expected to press the Obama administration officials on details of the deal, which is aimed at easing economic sanctions on Tehran in return for guarantees that it will not pursue the development of nuclear weapons.

Kerry, Lew and Moniz are also due to testify on Thursday to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The government of Israel continued on Wednesday to press lawmakers to block the deal, with Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer meeting privately with a group of about 40 House conservatives.

A spokesman for the group of lawmakers known as the Conservative Opportunity Society said Dermer discussed "paths forward" in Congress' oversight of the deal. The Israeli government opposes the agreement.

Full House and Senate debates and votes to approve or reject the nuclear agreement are expected in September, after Congress returns from an August recess.

"It's always the administration, not Congress, that carries the burden of proof in a debate of this nature. And it seems the administration today has a long way to go with Democrats and Republicans alike," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, said on Wednesday.

(Reporting by Richard Cowan; Editing by Emily Stephenson)

Ever notice when it's not their kids fighting wars or there's no draft instated they're so much quicker to beat the drums of war?

This is a done deal. They don't have the votes to override a veto, so whether they approve or not is pointless.

I'm curious: Aside from Swish's comment, I see nothing in the article that says "war" is even an option.

My take on the article is the senate and the house don't like the deal, and basically want answers to questions they have - answers from the White House.

"Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and House of Representatives are expected to press the Obama administration officials on details of the deal, which is aimed at easing economic sanctions on Tehran in return for guarantees that it will not pursue the development of nuclear weapons"

I don't even see a "threat" to Iran. What am I missing?

What you're missing is the fact that republicans are saying they don't like the deal and that is all swish needs. Even though democrats don't like it either (which was plainly stated in the article).

This deal is basically the president turning around, dropping his drawers, saying do with me what you willl, here's a bunch of my peoples money while you're at it and you can keep those four Americans that you're holding for bs reasons.

Sorry, sore topic with me.

I think there are two factors you may be overlooking.

The first one is.... Many in the GOP have said well before even seeing the deal that they planned to oppose it. When you threaten to kill diplomatic plan without even first seeing it, your mind is already made up. That bothers me a great deal.

Secondly... Without a deal to help curtail Irans current nuclear weapons program, they will soon have a nuclear bomb. That is one question of which there is no doubt. So in essence, you either have to believe that Israel and the U.S. will sit idly by and allow that to happen, or that war will break out to prevent it.

What specifically besides the lack of hostage negotiations leads you to feel that way?

Correct me if I'm wrong here.

Iran is CURRENTLY working on it's nukes (power, and bombs), right? WITH this deal, or without it.

So, what do we gain with the deal? We get their word they won't make bombs. Is that correct? And in return, we reduce economic sanctions.

How do you like those odds? A country that, despite sanctions, has continued with bomb making - is now getting reduced sanctions for saying "hey, trust us."


Regardless - the issue isn't between congress and Iran - it's between congress and the White House. (congress: the senat, and the house. Dem. and Rep).

Congress can't just up and order a war. Can they? Doesn't that have to go through the White House?

And that's really the reason I even mentioned, in my first post, that "war as an option" wasn't even mentioned.

You missed #3!!!

When Iran shakes your hand as you get on the plane to leave, and proceeds to hold a big meeting and everyone is still yelling "Death to America"! You better think twice about a Diplomatic deal with them.

Actually from what I understand from hearing about the agreement, Iran would lack the uranium needed to even build a bomb.

I ask again, do you believe that Israel and the U.S. will stand idly by and allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon? So you either postpone them acquiring a nuclear weapon through a diplomatic agreement, you allow them to go full steam ahead with building a nuclear bomb. There's really only the two options.

Who, from Iran, said they'd postpone getting a bomb?

Look, I haven't seen the agreement. Neither have you.

But, CONGRESS - both houses, and both parties, are wanting to question the White House.

Neither branch of congress, and neither party, has put "war" out there. Swish did that.

Oh but it's such a great deal.

Link

Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) and Congressmen Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) issued a press release yesterday on a startling discovery they made during a July 17 meeting with International Atomic Energy Agency officials in Vienna: There are two secret side deals to the nuclear agreement with Iran that will not be shared with other nations, with Congress, or with the U.S. public. One of these side deals concerns inspection of the Parchin military base, where Iran reportedly has conducted explosive testing related to nuclear-warhead development. The Iranian government has refused to allow the IAEA to visit this site. Over the last several years, Iran has taken steps to clean up evidence of weapons-related activity at Parchin. The other secret side deal concerns how the IAEA and Iran will resolve outstanding issues on possible military dimensions (PMDs) of Iran’s nuclear program. In late 2013, Iran agreed to resolve IAEA questions about nuclear weapons-related work in twelve areas. Iran only answered questions in one of these areas and rejected the rest as based on forgeries and fabrications. Former Department of Energy official William Tobey explained in a July 15 Wall Street Journal op-ed why it is crucial that Iran resolve the PMD issue. According to Tobey, “for inspections to be meaningful, Iran would have to completely and correctly declare all its relevant nuclear activities and procurement, past and present.” According to the Cotton/Pompeo press release, there will be a secret, opaque procedure to verify Iran’s compliance with these side agreements. The press release says: According to the IAEA, the Iran agreement negotiators, including the Obama administration, agreed that the IAEA and Iran would forge separate arrangements to govern the inspection of the Parchin military complex — one of the most secretive military facilities in Iran — and how Iran would satisfy the IAEA’s outstanding questions regarding past weaponization work. Both arrangements will not be vetted by any organization other than Iran and the IAEA, and will not be released even to the nations that negotiated the JCPOA [Iran nuclear agreement]. This means that the secret arrangements have not been released for public scrutiny and have not been submitted to Congress as part of its legislatively mandated review of the Iran deal. This means that two crucial measures of Iranian compliance with the nuclear agreement will not be disclosed to Congress despite the requirements of the Corker-Cardin bill (the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act), which requires the Obama administration to provide the U.S. Congress with all documents associated with the agreement, including all “annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements [emphasis added], implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical, or other understandings and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421461/congressmen-discover-secret-deals-iran-agreement

Here is the agreement for anyone interested: https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentclou...uclear-deal.pdf

The deal would remove so much uranium from Iran, they wouldn't have the material left to build a bomb.





Of course they are. Who wouldn't want to take a good look at the agreement and ask questions? We don't want to end up with another Iraq war or Patriot Act on our hands.



I'm going to ask you this for the third time now and would appreciate a direct response to this question if you would.....

Do you honestly believe that Israel and the U'S. will stand idly by and allow Iran to have a nuclear bomb?

If we can't find a diplomatic solution, can you think of any other viable solution to this problem than a war with Iran?

I'm not concerned with who brought it up. This question has been all over the news and they are logical questions that need an answer.

That's a funny thing. First I never said it was a great deal. Secondly I think the alternatives to such a deal must be strongly considered in the grand scheme of things.

That's almost all you needed to say. And, in fact, that was what the original article was saying.


Why not? They have so far. Guess I can't speak for Israel though.

Now, how about YOU answer this question, for the second time I'll ask it: Do YOU believe Iran will quit working on a nuclear bomb? They didn't under sanctions, so why would they now?

Follow up question: It's neat the "deal" has limits in it. Iran didn't follow the limits under sanctions, so what do you think is different this time? What makes you think they'll follow any agreement? I mean, it's not like Iran is in need of power as they have quite a bit of oil.



Sit back, like we have, like the world has. North Korea is working on a bomb - we haven't attacked them, have we?


You're not concerned with who brought up "war" - because, no one has. Other than Swish.

It's a crap deal. The leading sponsor of terror in the world will get billions of dollars back, and they will invest in more terror. Even Neville Chamberlin would disapprove.

Then what do you suggest? The alternative to any deal is, Iran will get their nuk in a year or so.

And if this deal goes through, they will probably have one in a year and a half.

This deal is so bad that Saudi Arabia and Israel are working together.

Think about that for a minute.

So your suggestion would be?

There is another alternative if only our leader would negotiate from a position of strength like America always had in the past...

"Iran, no nukes for you, period...Right?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18YTf0Rn1ec

But, but, but........how can that be? We have a "deal".

Well, the White House has a deal.




Geez - you just admitted what I've been saying: Can't trust Iran. Have a nuke in a year, or a year and a half. Hmmm........Hey, let's go with year and half because they'll take most sanctions off of us.

My suggestion would be a "no nukes" policy, and if Iran chooses not to follow that kind of agreement, then they get no help, and no removal of sanctions. They also agree that if they are caught financially supporting global terrorism, then the door slams shut on them again.

A bad deal is worse than no deal at all.

I'll be glad to answer. There were no "limits set under sanctions". That's why the sanctions were in place. The sanctions are what's helped cripple their economy to the point of negotiations. That was the intent of the sanctions.

And on the subject of oil. You do realize that they have a stockpile of oil because they can't sell it under the sanctions, right?



North Korea has a bomb, not working on it. It seems some have learned from that mistake. You seem to be dismissing where Iraq is located. For some reason you are refusing to look at the threat to Israel and the way we prop them up and always will. This isn't North Korea.



It's been all over the news arch. This question has been asked everywhere with no real answer in reply. Swish is only the first to bring it up on this board.

http://www.niacinsight.com/2015/07/09/war-is-only-alternative-to-iran-deal-warns-top-lawmaker/

http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/saudis-hedging-bet-if-iran-nuke-deal-fails/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-if-iran-nuclear-negotiations-fail/

I could go on arch, but this isn't some idea cooked up by Swish.

Well, what did they want that they didn't get? What concession did we get?

I don't know, I haven't finished reading it yet. I still have a ways to go. But nothing I've seen on paper thus far indicates a proverbial raping. I was just wondering what specifically made MrTed think that.

The problem with this republican outrage Swish is this.. (and it's very similar to what the democrats did with the war in Iraq)...

See, normally to pass a treaty, the administration negotiates it and then sends it to congress where it needs 2/3 vote to approve it. Not too long ago, a bill was passed allowing the President to negotiate this treaty with Iran... so now, congress needs 2/3 vote to DEFEAT it.

the bar to defeat this treaty would have been much lower if they had not passed the first bill... and almost all of the republicans now whining, voted for that original bill giving the President authority to negotiate this treaty.

So it is, in fact, very much like the democrats who voted to give President Bush the right to go to war, then bitched when he did it.

I don't honestly know if this is a good treaty or not, I know that Iran has been painted as the new boogey man to be feared... are they a f'ed up state with some whacked out laws and rules? Hell yes.. are they a threat to us? I don't honestly know.

J/C

I don't see the big deal with Iran getting a nuke. It's not like the ayatollah will go and nuke the region. Israel, one of the only friendlies, hasn't signed the nonproliferation treaty, but they get a free pass despite imposing apartheid over the Palestinians.

Iran just wants a seat at the nuclear weapon table. What's wrong with that? They haven't declared a holy war with their army against other nations. The islamaphobia runs deep among many.

the usual suspects with their typical responses.

lets get down to it.


Arch: have you not been paying attention to ANY of the GOP comments about Iran? not only do they not want a deal, a number of them want to go in and bomb Iran.

here's GOP candidate Graham:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-l...article/2536040

here's Tom Cotton in Texas( cause ofcourse):

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/politics/tom-cotton-bombing-iran-several-days/

and here's the rest of the circus condemning the deal, but in true GOP fashion, offering no alternatives:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/14/politics/2016-candidates-iran-deal/

So you can say whatever you want, i actually provide proof in my statements. Yes, it's all about poor Israel, and the republicans wanting military action against Iran.

which is dumb because this deal PROTECTS Israel.

you don't get it Arch, Iran can NOT work on any nukes with this deal. stop saying stuff that isn't true.

MrTed. the democrats that oppose this are stupid as well. but yes the GOP opposing it is all i need.

they lift the economic sanction on Iran with the compromise that they get rid of their nuclear program in a nutshell.

i'm wondering why they couldn't get the 4 americans out as well, but 4 americans vs millions potentially getting nuked? sorry...

Erik: once again proving your knowledge about the middle east is severely lacking. Saudi's have cause more american bloodshed in the middle east than Iran. I can't tell you how MANY insurgents we detained speaking with a Saudi Dialect. they sponsor just as much terrorism as Iran. funny cause i never see you oppose them are want to keep sanctions and go to war with Saudi, cause they hate Israel too.

ignorance is bliss i guess.

YTown: it ever cross your mind that the only reason Saudi and Israel are working together is because they benefit financially as well as military aid?

This isn't a bad deal. the no nuke policy was ALREADY in place with regards to sanctions, but tell the world YTown, how was the working out?

DC, its a wait and see approach.

don't take this the wrong way DC, but bro, your son is about to/already joined the Navy, right? it doesn't matter if he volunteered and knew what he was getting into, the point of our government is to search for diplomatic solutions first before potentially send your son off to war.

and for what? Thats the problem bro. Everybody else hasn't offered ANY other solution, except lip service or going to war with Iran. You don't make diplomacy with your friends, you make diplomacy with your Enemies.

The people opposing this wants to go to War man. except its not THEM, or their SONS thats got to get their hands dirty. it's yours. and then, its not even a noble thing, its not protecting american soil, its just being a global bully at that point.

IMO, there's nothing honorable in that. The people that oppose this wants a "my way or the highway". thats NOT how diplomacy works.

That's why i take this so personally, because the people opposing this and wants military action in Iran, and other places, don't have to do anything. if your son deploys, and has PTSD like i do, at least let it be a war that makes sense. Dude i get so embarrassed about Iraq that when people ask me where i deployed at school, i tell them I only been to afghanistan.

and thats the problem, going to war with Iran will be just another Iraq. with a bunch of kids like your son and his friends fighting somebody that isn't even a threat to America. while the people who authorize it don't have to get their hands or their kids hands dirty.

example: Chris Christie wants to go in and bomb ISIS and flex military might at other things. when has his fat ass ever joined? never, but i bet you he has a buy one get one free coupon a chipotle though.


anyway, here's Obama last night with Jon stewart, he explained a bit about the Iranian deal. starts at 5:50

Just whom is beating the Drum for an all out war ?

i just posted the link

In the end, this is happening and will happen because China wants it.

They are ready to dump tons of cash into an Iran that plans to double its oil exports. Given how dependent China is on external energy (very similar to us), this will make for a great boon to the Chinese economy.

Expect gas prices to hit close to $2/gallon probably by the end of the year. This will, unfortunately, make shale oil & fracking not financially viable, so you can expect lots of the North American oil industry to shutter their doors and mothball equipment until prices go back up somewhere down the line.

First, my son has decided against joining the Navy, at least for now. He changes his mind about every 4 days so we shall see. But I don't want anybody elses son or daughter to die either... not for this.

Second, I see no good reason to go to war with Iran, none... not a single one. I am all for diplomacy, I'm also not all that concerned about Iran getting a nuclear weapon.. Right now there are nine countries with nuclear weapons and about 16,000 nuclear warheads around the world.. and we control almost half of them, Russia controls almost all of the other half with the other 7 countries having about 10% of them... but that 10% is enough.

As for what this deal really says, what it means, I'll have to look into it..

But like I said above, if it really is a bad deal, then blame Obama's administration for negotiating it and blame the Republicans for putting themselves in a position where they can't stop it.

My biggest problem with the whole debate is that the vast majority of people (citizens) who are talking about it have one of two opinions...

1. Obama negotiated it, must be a good thing.
2. Obama negotiated it, must be a bad thing.

I believe John Kerry negotiated. Obviously, it's under the umbrella of the Obama administration, but I don't believe Obama took part in the actual negotiations. I could be wrong, though.

I'm sure you are right. I referred to it as "the Obama administration" at one point but that's too much to type each time.. either way, if it's a success or a failure, it will have Obama's name on it, not John Kerrys.

Hey if this this doesn't work. Obama has all the blame coming to him.

But it just a double edge sword when it comes to republicans.

Obama doesn't deal with iran: lack of leadership
Obama deals with iran: bad deal should've been no deal, without even reading it yet.

i mean.....wth.

The one thing I'd say that bothers me most, is that so many in the GOP said they would try to stop the deal before it was ever agreed to or read. That troubles me.

Not at all. Iran will get nuclear weapons no matter what. Unfortunately. And while I have major questions about the deal, especially the 24 day notice.

However, long term, this is a very workable deal for us. We need to establish trust with Iran. This gives us a very good chance for opening real, diplomatic alliances with Iran.

I already answered that...



Like I've said.. or at least implied.. I'm open to being convinced that this is a good thing (or a bad thing)... but somebody, or some party, needs to give me reasons, not scare tactics like "the only other option to this deal was war".. bullcrap. We could have gone another 20 years without this deal and without going to war.. we've done it for the last 20.

my bad.

but yea, i mean, people act all scared about Iran....but we deal with Saudi all the time, and they have been directly responsible for American bloodshed.

so why can't we benefit from Iran like we do Saudi?

I just don't understand why people complain about dealing with Iran as if we don't already deal with some of the most disgusting trashes of countries on this planet already.