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

Sept. 3, 2013.

Couple of days of bombing. Hardly an all out war, as you asserted earlier.


Did you even watch that? Obama himself said he welcomes congress to scrutinize the deal!!!!!!!

That's exactly what congress wants to do - yet you go all "GOP terrible".

Seriously - watch it, because apparently you haven't. Each one of the republicans say basically "we need to check it out", or, as Coats said "every senator has a responsibility to delve into this, because the consequences will have major results for the world."

Even your boy, Menendez, Democrat, said "this is the best bad deal we could have", after having stated "do you really want them to have access to conventional weapons? (they already have that by the way). Do you really want them to access to greater missile technology?" (like this deal prevents that).


And then you have O saying "I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal."


Wow.

Our president has decided that, no matter what the people's representatives in congress decide, if it's not O's way, it's NO way?

They couldn't work on nukes under the sanctions either. Where'd that get us?

And I didn't hear one person say "let's attack". So, now what? Do you keep making things up?

The one that sticks out in my mind that happened in the war with Afghanistan. We were told we would never have dealings with nations that support terrorism then made a deal with Pakistan for bases and diplomacy soon after.

I understand the logistics, but it was a dumb statement to make if you had every intention of dealing with Pakistan.

Iran and North Korea have been painted as the great common enemies for a number of years now. Almost since Russia stopped being the driving force..

Have you ever noticed how hard our government/media works to link all terrorism and threats of terrorism back to Iran? If there is an article about terrorism, Iran's name will be in it somewhere, even if it has nothing to do with them. It's almost like they don't think we are smart enough to understand the dynamic between the various players in the middle east, those that get along and those that don't... if they explained it to us.. so they have just made Iran the figurehead for all things terror because we can relate to that one common enemy. Terrorism? Oh, must be Iran.

Your initial comment was that you hadn't heard anyone talk about war as the only other option to negotiating a treaty. Links were supplied showing you that others have including news agencies.

Now you've changed it to people saying we should attack?

he wants them to scrutinize the deal because he knows they won't find much to object to anyway, especially since they have NO viable alternatives.

doesn't matter, it was only a few years ago. he agreed. hell Huckabee even agreed with Cotton. talking about the idea of war
you have offered no alternative either in this forum since we're just guys talking.

so just like the GOP, all i hear is a bunch of whining from you and others, with little to no alternatives other than:

Obama bad. deal no good.

yep.

China with their endless amounts of human rights issues. nevermind the pollution and all the other nonsense that goes on.

Turkey....i got some harsh words for my own(well, half part) of my country.

Afghanistan before 9/11.

can go on and on.

Well now let's be fair.. I haven't heard anybody else in this thread promote why this deal is GOOD.. other than it will prevent this alleged war that may or may not have ever happened.

So why would we have had to go to war without this treaty?

What other benefits do the US and the world get out of it?

What benefits does Iran get out of it?

What are the risks/rewards to other countries in the region?

you probably noticed that a lot earlier than i did.

We trash talk Iran like we do Russia.

Huh?

No, I haven't heard anyone saying war was the only other option.

I heard that everything is on the table. As it is with any and every country in the world.

But mostly, what I have gleaned from this conversation is: republicans and democrats alike, from the senate AND the house, want more information on the deal.

That really can't be too hard to understand, can it? It's sure a far cry from "beating the drums of war", isn't it?

sanction weren't stopping Iran from developing nukes. so the only other option to stop them from getting nukes is.....

and remember, we got a senate/house full of war mongers. I shutter thinking what would happen if we have a GOP president.

The sanctions being lifted opens up a lot of trading with Iran from a bunch of other countries. Europe have express interest in trading. China, hell we can too.

Iran gets the benefit of having more money. a bit more economic power.

the risk is the same with any muslim country: they're muslim. now Saudi is pissed cause their damn near monopoly on oil has probably gone out the window.

the rewards is trade, more diversity most likely, some other stuff i haven't considered.

people also need to look at map. Western and southern Iran is surrounded by NATO allies and US bases. we can argue all day about Iran sponsoring terrorism, but the truth of the matter is, at least for the next 10 years, we don't have to worry about them making a nuke.

What the hell are you talking about?

Obama himself said "I want the deal scrutinized", and then you bitch because CONGRESS wants to scrutinize it.

So far, from you, I've heard nothing other than "O is good, republicans are bad."

I will give you credit though, you haven't resorted to calling republicans "tea baggers." (and on a side note, the idiots that do that get no respect from me - calling all republicans "tea baggers" is akin to someone calling all democrats.....well, I won't go there.)

uhh...ok.


my name calling is usually reserved for christians and muslims. and even then its only "nut cases".

but whatever, time to smoke a bowl. had fun arguing with yall like always.

But in a different thread you said you were already "toked". Doubling up?

i just made this thing called an Astral Blunt.

my daughters are at my mom's house, Katja just got off work so we're gonna blaze. you should come over and join in the on the festivities my man.

Thanks for the offer, but I'll decline. I don't smoke pot, but more importantly, you're 2 1/2 hours away.

only if you drive the speed limit.

The OHP used to know me fairly well. As do the local cops here, and in Indiana. (got my first speeding ticket about 8 hours after I got my license.) They (OHP) don't anymore. I'll just keep it that way. (my wife, my daughter, my daughter's friends - they all say I drive "slow" Fine with me.)

No he won't He'll just blame Bush like he has always done. Nothing is Obama's fault according to you guys.

Ah, I did find someone saying that, basically, approve the deal, or war:

"a top House Democratic progressive warned that voting down the pact could lead to war with Iran."

Also "“I clearly prefer diplomacy over warfare, and if we don’t do this deal, I don’t see how we can avoid military conflict,” Ellison said. “Because if [Republicans] do manage to scuttle this deal, clearly Congress is going to increase sanctions and Iran is probably going to be afraid, and so they’ll probably accelerate their production of a nuclear weapon. If we detect [them] doing that, we’re going to issue an ultimatum for them to stop. If they don’t, we’re probably going to bomb them.”

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/killing-iran-pact-could-lead-to-war-rep-keith-124767932951.html

So, it would appear that, while no "republican" has threatened war - a democrat has threatened "if we don't accept it, we'll have war."

Weird.

What are your critical thinking skills like? Iran is currently on its way to get nuclear weapons in the very, near future. They're already facing extreme sanctions and are still proceeding with this force of action. So how would you stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons if not with the threat of military usage or military usage at all?

Wow. What are YOUR critical thinking skills? As you state, they are currently on their way to getting nuclear weapons - despite sanctions. So, what do we do? We reduce the sanctions in order to get their "promise" to not produce nuclear weapons.

Really?

What do I do? I tell Iran - if you're serious about nuclear power, here's how you build a power plant. We'll even help you do it. And we'll have inspectors on site, daily, nightly, and whenever else we want, and they will have unlimited access to your plutonium. Any discrepancy, deal is off.

Then we'll see what happens. If we offer to build the plants, with 100% oversight, and they refuse - well, that tells you a lot.

Just like them going ahead with a nuclear bomb despite the sanctions tells us a lot.


Hey - what did the u.s., and the world, get in response to this deal? Nothing. What did Iran get? Reduced sanctions, based on their word.

Do the math.

The Iran debacle unfolds


The Wall Street Journal reports, “Iran’s parliament approved draft legislation on Sunday that would bar inspections of military sites as part of a nuclear deal with the U.S. and five other world powers. If passed, it would set down in law a red line laid out by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the final authority in most matters of state. That could present an obstacle to a deal, as the six world powers negotiating with Iran are unlikely to accept a blanket prohibition on inspections of military sites.”

Meanwhile, the administration, convinced that there is a fatwa against nuclear weapons, is seeking — I don’t make this up — a face-saving measure for the supreme leader so the possible military dimensions of Iran’s program can be revealed, a necessary component of any deal. Understand how bizarre this is: The administration repeats the propaganda from Iran that there is such a fatwa. But it knows Iran has been working on a nuclear weapons program. So either Iran was lying about the fatwa or the supreme leader is not supreme. So, therefore, the onus is on us to construct a compromise?! (“Reaching a deal may require finding a compromise solution that allows Iran to continue denying that it ran a secret Manhattan Project while granting the IAEA enough information to satisfy the nuclear watchdog agency that it understands the nature of Iran’s past program. ‘It is not necessary, nor do I think it is realistic to expect that Iran will admit that it was conducting nuclear weapons research activity,’ says Kelsey Davenport, director for nonproliferation policy at the nonpartisan Arms Control Association, which has supported Obama’s nuclear diplomacy. A central reason, sources say, is the humiliation such a disclosure would cause for Khamenei, who issued the October 2003 fatwa stating that Islam forbids the production, stockpiling or use of weapons of mass destruction.”) So the administration never took seriously its own demand to reveal PMDs? You cannot make up this diplomatic doubletalk — and Congress should refuse to take it seriously.

As if that were not all bad enough, another report, this from Bloomberg View, makes clear we are closely coordinating with Iran when it comes to Iraq — something the administration assured us would never occur:

The U.S. military and Iranian-backed Shiite militias are getting closer and closer in Iraq, even sharing a base, while Iran uses those militias to expand its influence in Iraq and fight alongside the Bashar al-Assad regime in neighboring Syria. . . . Some inside the Obama administration fear that sharing the base puts U.S. soldiers at risk. The U.S. intelligence community has reported back to Washington that representatives of some of the more extreme militias have been spying on U.S. operations at Taqqadum, one senior administration official told us. That could be calamitous if the fragile relationship between the U.S. military and the Shiite militias comes apart and Iran-backed forces decide to again target U.S. troops.

Moreover, our goal should not be to help oust the Islamic State so Iran’s clients can control the country. This is an egregious example of the administration’s bizarre effort to accommodate Iran’s hegemonic intentions at the expense of Israel and our Sunni allies. This news will no doubt prove unnerving to our Gulf allies, who recently visited Camp David to hear assurances from President Obama that we intend to counter Iranian aggression in the region. So much for that.

Congress should continue hearings on all of these developments but members on both sides should understand fully what the administration is up to. Whatever positions it originally had — drawn from years of international agreements and resolutions — are evaporating, and the administration is now engaged in damage control on its and Iran’s behalf to paper over the Obama team’s diplomatic collapse and avoid rejection of the deal on a large bipartisan basis in Congress. The administration’s credibility on multiple fronts is in tatters, and it will be up to lawmakers to rally to our allies, reject an awful deal and devise sanctions to present Iran with the choice between regime collapse and ending its nuclear program. Wasn’t that the administration’s promise all along?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/06/22/the-iran-debacle-unfolds/

well....

not saying i think like a middle eastern, even though i share blood, but i'm Iran, i'm probably thinking:

the nukes can hold off indefinitely if need be, because now with the economic sanction lifted, the US is off my back, possibly a trade partner, as well as European and Chinese relations that already show mass interest in trading with us. Whats more important, a nuke or economic power which means a stronger Iran over the long run?

you're not looking at this from all perspectives Arch.

Iran's "death to America, death to Israel" is nothing but lip service. It's the equivalent of the republicans version of "Christianity is under attack".

its political propaganda. if they wanted death to Israeli's, they would've BEEN attacked them already. think bro. Iranian's military is stronger than Israel's. even with a NATO response, Israel would've been wiped off the math by the time anybody showed up.

come on bro...think man.

So are you going to answer this question or nah? Have you read the agreement? It's like 90 pages. You probably should. You'd notice that Iran will reduce its enriched uranium stockpile. It won't be able to develop nuclear bombs with the amount they will have.

We still need to watch then extremely close, but it's the best solution so far.

How would Iran get to Israel? Only way would be with help for other countries, wouldn't it?

I guess you'd know more than me, but I thought Israel's military was pretty powerful for the size of the country. Am I wrong?

So, that's what's on paper? And you've read the whole thing of course.

And you'd know that the current sanctions are a direct result of Iran going nuclear, (trying to anyway) and sanctions haven't stopped them yet, right?

So, just cave in and say "even though we've tried to sanction you out of nuclear bombs, we are now going to drop sanctions and just take your word that you won't develop nuke".

the only way would be a nuke...

which as far as right now, we just ended, atleast for the time being. diplomacy. the pen is mightier than the sword.

Israel's military is powerful....against terrorist organizations. They could, in theory, wipe out ISIS all by themselves.

but let Iran the military, Saudi the military, Jordan the military try a full out invasion.

Jordan helped US soldiers a TON in iraq. man those guys are ruthless....

it'll be relatively quick.

Why wouldn't I read it? It's 90 pages mainly. The other stuff doesn't matter as much or it's itemized.

What part of Iran reducing their enriched uranium stockpile means we're giving up?

Even in the loosest possible interpretation, this is entirely inaccurate. I just finished reading it after work. The 24-day notice is problematic for me. But overall, it doesn't anger or please me. I'm glad that sanctions are being lifted. Sanctions punish people, not nations. But the notice does seem to be a capitulation that lacks pragmatism. I see it as a mixed bag. No one "won" (outside of the Iranian people), no one "lost"; no one should be crying victory or calamity. But at no point is Iran being taken at their word in this agreement.

This represents my view points on it as well.

Swish, JMHO...have you looked at a Middle Eastern map ever...Iran's military would wipe Isreal off the map...first thru Iraq, then Jordan, and Saudis won't just watch...then, after being pounded to dust by Isreal AF they might see foot of Isreal...get out of the smoke your banner gives off....JMHO..it astounds me that we developed nukes in 40s, other countries haven't done it yet...AND we/other countries say we can have nukes, but you can't...some Pigs better than other Pigs..Orwell...guess didn't work with N Korea and if you don't thing Isreal has nukes...get real...that is one reason Iran wants them....as a child of 50s, I'm surprised nukes haven't been used...that's a good thing...I like Obama's engagement talking with world and am glad fewer American lives are being lost in the shitholds around the world...hope we pass the compromise...time will tell who's right.

few things you forget to add into your flawed equation.

it doesn't matter if israel drops a nuke on iran or not in this hypothetical war. iran could be nuked and it doesn't matter, Iran still has equal firepower and more troops to invade israel, and as long as israel is conquered nothing else matters.


even if they draw a stalemate and stops iran, israel is vulnerable to Hama's or actual government militaries after that,

which is why a full scale war is frowned upon.

because NATO has to get involved, and happy birthday WW3.

That's a good start, thanks for the info. Now I'm still curious as to how, if sanctions weren't stopping them and they were going to have a nuke unless we went to war..... and they still want a nuke... how is this treaty going to stop them?

It reads kind of like we are welcoming them more into the world economy on a promise that they will stop trying to build a nuke. Isn't part of this treaty that they are allowed to enrich uranium now, they just have to promise that it's not for a weapon? Thought I read that somewhere.

Yep.

Yes. China wants their oil, but can't have it until sanctions are lifted. We have to save face somehow in getting those sanctions lifted, so we make up a bunch of conditions that everybody knows they will never live up to. It's window dressing.

They're allowed a cache, but not large enough to build anything.

It's my understanding that Iran will be allowed to have enriched uranium for their energy program. There is a big difference between enriched uranium for energy and enriched uranium for weapons. Here is a quick primer: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-is-enriched-uranium-17091828/

There's a vast difference in the two. I believe that will all get lost on most people thanks to the talking heads.

I'm not worried about the talking heads.. this is what I'm worried about...

Before the treaty, it was pretty well known that Iran was "secretly" pursuing nuclear weapons, we had sanctions against them but no inspections or anything like that.

Now the sanctions have been lifted, they will make a lot more money, China and the world can buy their oil, and they can pursue nuclear power...

What is in this treaty to prevent them from continuing their pursuit of nuclear weapons? Are we just going on their word?