Iran deal, good deal, or bad deal?

[Duchess]

Yes, many Generals in the Iranian army and quite a few Mullahs approve of it.


Time will tell if this was a good or bad deal. Lets roll the dice, what could happen?

You know I was referring to the United States military, mister.

A lot of good or bad could happen but you know that.

I'm not smart enough to debate this subject.

[BlueTiki]

Aww no way. Say it ain't so! You mean some of the world's top scientists, including Nobel laureates know better than the naysayers?

Hmmm . . .

The same article also stated the scientists concluded that Iran was "only weeks away" from developing nuclear fuel for a bomb.

And yet, Kerry just stated to Congress that Iran essentially stopped pursuing a nuclear weapon in 2003.

These fuckers can't keep their stories straight.

I want to know what 4 out of 5 dentists say about Obama's straw-man.

[Jimbone]

What could go wrong with this? Emphasis mine.

AP EXCLUSIVE: UN TO LET IRAN INSPECT ALLEGED NUKE WORK SITE

Iran, in an unusual arrangement, will be allowed to use its own experts to inspect a site it allegedly used to develop nuclear arms under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.

snip snip

Iran will provide agency experts with photos and videos of locations the IAEA says are linked to the alleged weapons work, "taking into account military concerns."

That wording suggests that - beyond being barred from physically visiting the site - the agency won't even get photo or video information from areas Iran says are off-limits because they have military significance.

IAEA experts would normally take environmental samples for evidence of any weapons development work, but the agreement stipulates that Iranian technicians will do the sampling.

The sampling is also limited to only seven samples inside the building where the experiments allegedly took place. Additional ones will be allowed only outside of the Parchin site, in an area still to be determined.


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/I...9-13-06-05

[Blindgreed1]

I also saw on the news today that now that folks have had a chance to read the deal, even some Dems are going to vote against it.

[Jimbone]

I also saw on the news today that now that folks have had a chance to read the deal, even some Dems are going to vote against it.

Schumer and Menendez are already against, but they need a few more before they can stop it.

Probably not going to happen though.

[Blindgreed1]

I also saw on the news today that now that folks have had a chance to read the deal, even some Dems are going to vote against it.

Schumer and Menendez are already against, but they need a few more before they can stop it.

Probably not going to happen though.

I believe the number needed is 14? At least thats what I think I heard. I was a little late getting out the door this morning.

[BlueTiki]

I was wrong . . . or so I was told, last night, by my friend's "Jack Ryan" husband.

I followed the money in the wrong direction.

Iran has the bomb and lifting the sanctions was the promise a "dirty" won't be given to those who wish to harm the negotiating nations.

It was blackmail . . . and it worked.

We really have become a pussy nation.

[HairOfTheDog]

IRAN DEAL IS A DONE DEAL

President Barack Obama has secured the support of 34 Senate Democrats for the P5+1's nuclear non-proliferation deal with Iran.

That means that the White House has secured enough Democratic support to veto a Congressional attempt to block the deal.


Secretary of State John Kerry held a press conference today in Philadelphia in order to dis-spell deal myths, and to highlight details and benefits of the deal. Video here: http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/02/politics/i...tain-veto/

So, the Iran deal is a done deal. Still, it would be better for the Obama administration if it did not require a veto to make it happen.

In order to avoid veto necessity, the White House is working to get at least 41 senators to back the Iran deal. The Democrats would then be able to filibuster legislation opposing it and block the disapproval measure from making it to the Senate floor at all.

[Maggot]

There will be plenty of I told you so to go around for everyone on this one. Praise Allah!

[Jimbone]

You've got that right maggot.

[FAHQTOO]

You've got that right maggot.

Double ditto.
Imagine the blood that will be on the hands of anyone stupid enough to vote for this.

[Donovan]

No there won't. For all the saber rattling, Iran is sick of being destitute and isolated. And since we took care of their little Iraq problem for them they are essentially the main superpower of the region, and we can begin to play them against both Israel and the Saudis. Just good business to deal with the devil now and then, in a keep your enemies closer sort of way. Just remember, at the same time we're getting into bed with them, they have to get in bed with us, and we're worse than they ever thought of being. All the countries with atomic weapons, only one ever used them was us. Twice. Just to drive home a point. Think we wouldn't do that shit again? We're self-indulgent assholes, of course we would. Especially if your boy Donald manages to worm his way into office. He'd do it just to maintain an erection.

[Maggot]

Ya know when a man comes up to me and says "I'm gonna smack you right in the nose" with an aggressive stance I tend to believe him. This administration is chasing rainbows if they truly believe that when Iran blatantly says they will do what they want to destroy Israel and any other nation that stands in its way I tend to believe them. I've never seen a country (ours) make a deal with any country that mocks, curses and threatens before a "peace" agreement.
Its not making me or very many people feel warm and fuzzy and may Allah have mercy on our souls.





As the White House secured their last needed vote to block a veto override in the Senate on the nuclear deal, Iran unleashed a double-pronged attack: vowing to block inspector access to some sites, and vowing to continue preparations to destroy Israel.

Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan said today that the International Atomic Energy Agency — which inked confidential deals with Tehran that Congress has not been able to see — would not be able to see all the facilities it wants to.





“Iran does not plan to issue permission for the IAEA to inspect every site,” Dehqan said in an interview with al-Mayadeen news network on Wednesday, reported the semi-official Fars News Agency.

Back in July, he stressed that “missile-related issues have never been on agenda of the nuclear talks and the Islamic system will resolutely implement its programs in this field.”

“The US officials make boastful remarks and imagine that they can impose anything on the Iranian nation because they lack a proper knowledge of the Iranian nation.”

Also today, a senior commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps said they have work to do.

The IRGC’s top commander in Tehran province, Brigadier General Mohsen Kazzemeini, told operating units undergoing drills in the capital that “they (the US and the Zionists) should know that the Islamic Revolution will continue enhancing its preparedness until it overthrows Israel and liberates Palestine,” according to Fars.

“And we will continue defending not just our own country, but also all the oppressed people of the world, specially those countries that are standing on the forefront of confrontation with the Zionists,” Kazzemeini said.

Iran’s Press TV mused that “questions remain on how far Tel Aviv would really go, with its warmongering premier Benjamin Netanyahu, to disrupt the accord,” rhetoric that’s potentially setting the stage for an attack on Israel that they’d call defensive.

link

[Carsman]

It's all GWB's fault! Sad but true.

[Maggot]

The thing I find comical is that the people that are decrying Christian religious values and the results of laws created in the name of righteousness are the loudest bullhorns for this legislation that identifies with the religious extremists of Islam. Atheists should be the biggest mouthpieces against it.

[HairOfTheDog]

You know Maggot...

I've never accused you of abhorring President Obama for the fact that he's black. Obviously, the former isn't automatically a result of the latter, and I've mocked suggestions to the contrary.

And, I didn't whack you when you suggested that because I disagree with Benjamin Netanyahu (as do many Israelis and others around the world) on certain policies and behaviors, that I must be anti-Semite. That was an ignorant and ironic accusation/correlation coming from you; so clearly so that it didn't even merit response at the time.

But, I don't want to try to defend or ignore what you just posted. I really want to make sure I consider and understand what you're saying here Maggot.

-It sounds like you're insisting that people who understand and support the laws of our secular nation, the U.S.A., MUST be somehow "decrying Christian values" if that includes support of a specific law that some Christians don't like. Do I have that right?

-It sounds like you're insisting that people here and everywhere (Christians and non-Christians alike) -- people who believe that diplomatic multi-national negotiation and a mutually beneficial nuclear non-proliferation deal with Iran (or any other country) is a better first option for the people of the world than going to war -- MUST be "identifying with Islamic extremists." Do I have that right?

Please correct me if I've misunderstood you. If I have understood you correctly, you are the religious extremist Maggot. Your insistence that people who don't share YOUR specific Christian-driven views and interpretations must be Atheists and Islamic Extremist/terrorist-sympathizers is what's comical, and nutty as hell.

[Maggot]

I know this because all the unicorns were left in the rain during the last storm. I really could care less what anyone else would do in any given situation I'm just an observer in an insane plane heading off the runway, along with everyone else. My opinions well accepted or not does not meet the criteria of everyone and that's reasonable and acceptable enough for me.
You too have injected your own personal opinion into your questions believe it or not.

[HairOfTheDog]

Okay, you don't want to answer the direct questions posted in response to your direct statements/observations.

No problem Maggot -- I think you're nutty as hell.

I have no problem acknowledging and owning my opinions, whether they're inserted within questions or stated directly -- I not only believe that, my friend; I know it to be a fact.

[Maggot]

You know Maggot...

I've never accused you of abhorring President Obama for the fact that he's black. Obviously, the former isn't automatically a result of the latter, and I've mocked suggestions to the contrary.

And, I didn't whack you when you suggested that because I disagree with Benjamin Netanyahu (as do many Israelis and others around the world) on certain policies and behaviors, that I must be anti-Semite. That was an ignorant and ironic accusation/correlation coming from you; so clearly so that it didn't even merit response at the time.

But, I don't want to try to defend or ignore what you just posted. I really want to make sure I consider and understand what you're saying here Maggot.

-It sounds like you're insisting that people who understand and support the laws of our secular nation, the U.S.A., MUST be somehow "decrying Christian values" if that includes support of a specific law that some Christians don't like. Do I have that right?
Athiests are like other religions sometimes worse when trying to downplay God many Athiests are saying hooray for the Iran accord even though Iran is a nation that funds, accepts and backs terrorist organizations that are themselves many time more violent than any Christian organization that I've ever heard of.



-It sounds like you're insisting that people here and everywhere (Christians and non-Christians alike) -- people who believe that diplomatic multi-national negotiation and a mutually beneficial nuclear non-proliferation deal with Iran (or any other country) is a better first option for the people of the world than going to war -- MUST be "identifying with Islamic extremists." Do I have that right?

-It sounds like you're insisting that people here and everywhere (Christians and non-Christians alike) -- people who believe that diplomatic multi-national negotiation and a mutually beneficial nuclear non-proliferation deal with Iran (or any other country) is a better first option for the people of the world than going to war -- MUST be "identifying with Islamic extremists." Do I have that right?The people that back this plan seem to have forgotten what Iran actually is and what they have told the world. I do not see how anyone could not see it. Who actually knows the future? This deal could have been at least a little more than what I've seen America has gotten out of it. Our salesmen suck.




Please correct me if I've misunderstood you. If I have understood you correctly, you are the religious extremist Maggot. Your insistence that people who don't share YOUR specific Christian-driven views and interpretations must be Atheists and Islamic Extremist/terrorist-sympathizers is what's comical, and nutty as hell.

Any more questions?

[Maggot]

Okay, you don't want to answer the direct questions posted in response to your direct statements/observations.

No problem Maggot -- I think you're nutty as hell.

I have no problem acknowledging and owning my opinions, whether they're inserted within questions or stated directly -- I not only believe that, my friend; I know it to be a fact.

Were those direct questions?