Americans Want Congress to Reject Iran Deal

Now... all the blathering and opposition is just about politics.. We are full swing into the election cycle. Common sense will take a back seat.
 

Retired Generals and Admirals Back Iran Deal and Urge Congress to Do The Same

Here's the story and open letter.


Three dozen retired generals and admirals released an open letter Tuesday supporting the Iran nuclear deal and urging Congress to do the same.

Calling the agreement “the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons,” the letter said that gaining international support for military action against Iran, should that ever become necessary, “would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance.”
Click to expand...
 
Had the Bush administration not squandered over 2 Trillion dollars (and U.S. dead) to oust our former ally and mideast strongman Saddam Hussein, perhaps dealing with Iran would be more straight forward. ISIS would not exist, and focus on hunting Bin Laden in Afghanistan(or...?)would have likely have been more effective.

Sorry for being somewhat "off topic", but in discussing Middle East politics some cause-and-effect situations can't be left out.
 

tnthomas said:
Had the Bush administration not squandered over 2 Trillion dollars (and U.S. dead) to oust our former ally and mideast strongman Saddam Hussein, perhaps dealing with Iran would be more straight forward. ISIS would not exist, and focus on hunting Bin Laden in Afghanistan(or...?)would have likely have been more effective.

Sorry for being somewhat "off topic", but in discussing Middle East politics some cause-and-effect situations can't be left out.
Click to expand...

The second invasion of Iraq was not just Bush. It was driven also by other Generals including Gen Sir Mike Jackson of the English command. Many countries also stepped forward after over ten years of Saddam's nasty and constant torturing and killing the citizens of Iraq. Some just do not like to repeat history of events and just love hating Bush. Bush had problems, but so does Obama.
 
tnthomas said:
Had the Bush administration not squandered over 2 Trillion dollars (and U.S. dead) to oust our former ally and mideast strongman Saddam Hussein, perhaps dealing with Iran would be more straight forward. ISIS would not exist, and focus on hunting Bin Laden in Afghanistan(or...?)would have likely have been more effective.

Sorry for being somewhat "off topic", but in discussing Middle East politics some cause-and-effect situations can't be left out.
Click to expand...

It's an important footnote but unfortunately we have to deal with Iran as-is. The question is do we deal with Iran after they violate a technicality of an agreement or do we deal with Iran with blatant, obvious evidence of a dangerous a nuclear weapon or activities.

Iran was lost two times in recent history with the first being the US not doing anything to Iran after the hostages were released. If there was ever a case for covert ops that was it. The new government started their reign by violating international law & protocol and should've have lost all credibility. Then at the end of Gulf War I which should've included tougher restrictions on Iran which probably would've been violated and the US could've countered with an occupation then and there already in position to handle Iran. Just what if scenarios, could've-should'ves.
 
Annie said:
I support the Iran Deal. As I see it, it is certainly better than going to war.
Click to expand...

For now. But it is actually easier to get into a war or military action after the agreement is in place because now rather waiting for absolute undeniable proof a technical violation of that agreement could lead to bombing raids or Iran could do what it has been doing since 1979-take hostages which would require rescue ie a raid of some kind.
 
We should not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good, and we should not reject deals because they are not 100% perfect in every way. I support the agreement, of course. Starting somewhere is infinitely better than not starting at all.
 
Don't worry about it... Even if congress passes a bill to kill the deal.. Obama will veto it and there are not enough votes to over ride a presidential veto.
 
WhatInThe said:
UN to allow Iran to use it's own inspectors-huh?

http://abcnews.go.com/International...-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site-33182400

Along with getting to keep it's hostages.

Own inspectors, advanced notice and "monitoring" is going to be effective how again.
Click to expand...


A few hours after AP released the initial details of the agreement, a revised report emerged overwriting some of the more troubling issues pertaining to the inspection of Parchin.
For instance, the news agency removed from its report the claim that it was Iranian scientists themselves who would be inspecting the air and soil samples at Parchin, rather than UN inspectors. It also removed the claim that the number of air and soil samples taken from within suspected nuclear sites would be limited to seven."
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.672049
 
Jackie22 said:
A few hours after AP released the initial details of the agreement, a revised report emerged overwriting some of the more troubling issues pertaining to the inspection of Parchin.
For instance, the news agency removed from its report the claim that it was Iranian scientists themselves who would be inspecting the air and soil samples at Parchin, rather than UN inspectors. It also removed the claim that the number of air and soil samples taken from within suspected nuclear sites would be limited to seven."
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.672049
Click to expand...

It was kind of overly carefully worded and appears that International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be the front for this 'agreement'. As long as the IAEA is satisfied which is weak verification language. And the IAEA admits to seperate agreements yet supposedly no side deals here?
 
The Iranian "Threat"...what you won't hear from the main stream media, for those interested, more here.

Throughout the world there is great relief and optimism about the nuclear deal reached in Vienna between Iran and the P5+1 nations, the five veto-holding members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany. Most of the world apparently shares the assessment of the U.S. Arms Control Association that “the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action establishes a strong and effective formula for blocking all of the pathways by which Iran could acquire material for nuclear weapons for more than a generation and a verification system to promptly detect and deter possible efforts by Iran to covertly pursue nuclear weapons that will last indefinitely.”
Click to expand...
There are, however, striking exceptions to the general enthusiasm: the United States and its closest regional allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia. One consequence of this is that U.S. corporations, much to their chagrin, are prevented from flocking to Tehran along with their European counterparts. Prominent sectors of U.S. power and opinion share the stand of the two regional allies and so are in a state of virtual hysteria over “the Iranian threat.” Sober commentary in the United States, pretty much across the spectrum, declares that country to be “the gravest threat to world peace.” Even supporters of the agreement here are wary, given the exceptional gravity of that threat. After all, how can we trust the Iranians with their terrible record of aggression, violence, disruption, and deceit?

Opposition within the political class is so strong that public opinion has shifted quickly from significant support for the deal to an even split. Republicans are almost unanimously opposed to the agreement. The current Republican primaries illustrate the proclaimed reasons. Senator Ted Cruz, considered one of the intellectuals among the crowded field of presidential candidates, warns that Iran may still be able to produce nuclear weapons and could someday use one to set off an Electro Magnetic Pulse that “would take down the electrical grid of the entire eastern seaboard” of the United States, killing “tens of millions of Americans.”


​
The two most likely winners, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, are battling over whether to bomb Iran immediately after being elected or after the first Cabinet meeting.

The one candidate with some foreign policy experience, Lindsey Graham, describes the deal as “a death sentence for the state of Israel,” which will certainly come as a surprise to Israeli intelligence and strategic analysts -- and which Graham knows to be utter nonsense, raising immediate questions about actual motives.


​
Keep in mind that the Republicans long ago abandoned the pretense of functioning as a normal congressional party. They have, as respected conservative political commentator Norman Ornstein of the right-wing American Enterprise Institute observed, become a “radical insurgency” that scarcely seeks to participate in normal congressional politics.
Click to expand...
 
My God, these people need powerful antipsychotic medication administered directly into their brains. Bomb Iran? Are they frigging nuts? That is an unprovoked act of war. War crimes/genocide in the making. The inmates are running the asylum, terrifying. How much of this hysteria is fueled by Bibi et al? Where are the rational thinkers?
 
It just seems to me that many support Israel more than the USA, I think some would like to see Netanyahu run for the 2016 presidential elections here if that was possible, they seem to idolize him and he definitely has control of the republican party and what happens here in America. Somehow something's very wrong with that picture.
 
I think it is a terrifying precedent when a foreign head of state has this level of power over another country, particularly one who has time and again illustrated his complete contempt for President Obama and the American people.
 
He's obviously out for his own self-interests, he wants his country to be the only one with nuclear power in the region.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top