Honest Question re: Iran Deal

[DvlDog4WVU]

Does it not concern some of you that Congress will be making a vote in favor or against without having all of the information at their disposal? I have read numerous stories on this and this is the one major flaw I am extremely concerned about. The report from the IAEA which is not grounded in investigation but in Iranian disclosure isn't even due out until mid-Dec. I know where the usual partisan hacks stand on this, but for you guys that seem logical, this is truly disturbing. We honestly have elected officials firmly for and/or against without having access to all of the information. We also don't have full disclosure from the White House.

If you recall back to the 2008 campaign, Obama planned to reach out to Iran to begin mending fences. Is this just political maneuvering for the purpose of legacy? Was this actually a necessity? I can't recall the details, but was this completely initiated by us and we brought everyone to the table? If so, why? Who benefits? I think we know or at least make a very educated guess the Russians, France, Germany, and China are going to reap serious financial gains from this.

Whether you are for or against this how can you or our elected officials make an informed decision at this point?

 

[moe]

Does it not concern some of you that Congress will be making a vote in favor or against without having all of the information at their disposal? I have read numerous stories on this and this is the one major flaw I am extremely concerned about. The report from the IAEA which is not grounded in investigation but in Iranian disclosure isn't even due out until mid-Dec. I know where the usual partisan hacks stand on this, but for you guys that seem logical, this is truly disturbing. We honestly have elected officials firmly for and/or against without having access to all of the information. We also don't have full disclosure from the White House.

If you recall back to the 2008 campaign, Obama planned to reach out to Iran to begin mending fences. Is this just political maneuvering for the purpose of legacy? Was this actually a necessity? I can't recall the details, but was this completely initiated by us and we brought everyone to the table? If so, why? Who benefits? I think we know or at least make a very educated guess the Russians, France, Germany, and China are going to reap serious financial gains from this.

Whether you are for or against this how can you or our elected officials make an informed decision at this point?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action

 

[mneilmont]

Does it not concern some of you that Congress will be making a vote in favor or against without having all of the information at their disposal? I have read numerous stories on this and this is the one major flaw I am extremely concerned about. The report from the IAEA which is not grounded in investigation but in Iranian disclosure isn't even due out until mid-Dec. I know where the usual partisan hacks stand on this, but for you guys that seem logical, this is truly disturbing. We honestly have elected officials firmly for and/or against without having access to all of the information. We also don't have full disclosure from the White House.

If you recall back to the 2008 campaign, Obama planned to reach out to Iran to begin mending fences. Is this just political maneuvering for the purpose of legacy? Was this actually a necessity? I can't recall the details, but was this completely initiated by us and we brought everyone to the table? If so, why? Who benefits? I think we know or at least make a very educated guess the Russians, France, Germany, and China are going to reap serious financial gains from this.

Whether you are for or against this how can you or our elected officials make an informed decision at this point?

Hope and Trust. Has Iran indicated that they can be trusted? This one cannot even be passed to out find out what is in it. It is a secret agreement between IAEA and Iran, and our congressmen are going to vote to allow the veto to stand.

If you are looking for a logical explanation, there is none. Individuals can reason with themselves that it is better than going to war. Even that is TBD. The vote simply defies logic.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

The UN unanimously endorses the deal and now Colin Powell is endorsing the deal. Heres an article on what Powell said about it.

Republican Colin Powell, former National Security Adviser, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former Secretary of State supports the Iran Deal. He revealed his support in fairly laudatory terms on Meet the Press.

Here's the summaryfrom PoliticusUSA.

It’s a pretty good deal… I know there are objections to it, but here’s why I think it’s a good deal,” the former Secretary of State said. He continued, “One of the great concerns that the opposition has that we are leaving open a ‘lane’ for the Iranians to go back to creating a nuclear weapon in 10-15 years are forgetting the reality that they have been on a superhighway for the last ten years to create a nuclear weapon or nuclear weapons program with no speed limit.” And while Dick Cheney tried to ignore the reality that under the Bush administration Iran went from 0 centrifuges to 5000, Colin Powell was not ignoring reality.
“In the last ten years they’ve gone from 136 centrifuges up to something like 19,000 centrifuges.” That is something Republicans never talk about. Powell pointed out, “This agreement will take them down to 5,000 cent all of this will be under IAEA supervision and I think this is a good outcome.”
“They had stockpiled something in the neighborhood of 12,000 kilograms of uranium. This deal will bring it down to 300 kilograms,” Powell said. “It’s a remarkable reduction. I’m amazed that they would do this this but they have done it.”

A remarkable reduction indeed.
Colin Powell, former National Security Adviser, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former Secretary of State . . . the man who sold WMD to the UN . . . supports the Iran deal. He says,

“These are remarkable changes. We have stopped this highway race that they were going down and I think this is very, very important.” It's a good deal. The Republicans have nothing.
Well said, sir. Well said.

I think it is a good deal. I studied very carefully the outline of the deal and what's in that deal. And I've also carefully looked at the opposition to the deal. And my judgment, after balancing those two sets of information is that it's a pretty good deal. Chuck Todd asked about the opposition from Isreal and Saudia Arabia, which Colin Powell destroyed swiftly and completely. First, he said that "King Salman of Saudi Arabia did give his approval to this week when he was here with the president," which showed Chuck Todd being completely uninformed about Saudia Arabia's so-called opposition. Seems as Israel stands alone as it relates to the rest of the world and this deal. Thus, the second point, he said the Iran deal cannot be stopped because the US is not in this alone and never was.
And we also have to keep in mind that we are in this with a number of other countries. All of the ones that have worked with us, China, Russia, Germany, France, Britain, they have already agreed to it. The British foreign secretary was already in Iran last week with a trade delegation. And so even if we were to kill this deal, which is not going to happen, it's going to take effect anyway because all of these other countries that were in it with us are going to move forward, the UN is going to move forward, and a hundred nations have already agreed to this deal thinking it's a good deal. And they're all going to be moving forward. We're going to be standing in the sidelines.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

The UN unanimously endorses the deal and now Colin Powell is endorsing the deal. Heres an article on what Powell said about it.

Republican Colin Powell, former National Security Adviser, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former Secretary of State supports the Iran Deal. He revealed his support in fairly laudatory terms on Meet the Press.

Here's the summaryfrom PoliticusUSA.

It’s a pretty good deal… I know there are objections to it, but here’s why I think it’s a good deal,” the former Secretary of State said. He continued, “One of the great concerns that the opposition has that we are leaving open a ‘lane’ for the Iranians to go back to creating a nuclear weapon in 10-15 years are forgetting the reality that they have been on a superhighway for the last ten years to create a nuclear weapon or nuclear weapons program with no speed limit.” And while Dick Cheney tried to ignore the reality that under the Bush administration Iran went from 0 centrifuges to 5000, Colin Powell was not ignoring reality.
“In the last ten years they’ve gone from 136 centrifuges up to something like 19,000 centrifuges.” That is something Republicans never talk about. Powell pointed out, “This agreement will take them down to 5,000 cent all of this will be under IAEA supervision and I think this is a good outcome.”
“They had stockpiled something in the neighborhood of 12,000 kilograms of uranium. This deal will bring it down to 300 kilograms,” Powell said. “It’s a remarkable reduction. I’m amazed that they would do this this but they have done it.”

A remarkable reduction indeed.
Colin Powell, former National Security Adviser, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former Secretary of State . . . the man who sold WMD to the UN . . . supports the Iran deal. He says,

“These are remarkable changes. We have stopped this highway race that they were going down and I think this is very, very important.” It's a good deal. The Republicans have nothing.
Well said, sir. Well said.

I think it is a good deal. I studied very carefully the outline of the deal and what's in that deal. And I've also carefully looked at the opposition to the deal. And my judgment, after balancing those two sets of information is that it's a pretty good deal. Chuck Todd asked about the opposition from Isreal and Saudia Arabia, which Colin Powell destroyed swiftly and completely. First, he said that "King Salman of Saudi Arabia did give his approval to this week when he was here with the president," which showed Chuck Todd being completely uninformed about Saudia Arabia's so-called opposition. Seems as Israel stands alone as it relates to the rest of the world and this deal. Thus, the second point, he said the Iran deal cannot be stopped because the US is not in this alone and never was.
And we also have to keep in mind that we are in this with a number of other countries. All of the ones that have worked with us, China, Russia, Germany, France, Britain, they have already agreed to it. The British foreign secretary was already in Iran last week with a trade delegation. And so even if we were to kill this deal, which is not going to happen, it's going to take effect anyway because all of these other countries that were in it with us are going to move forward, the UN is going to move forward, and a hundred nations have already agreed to this deal thinking it's a good deal. And they're all going to be moving forward. We're going to be standing in the sidelines.

Thank you for posting that. I read that as well. Back to the point, we don't know what's in the deal and the full scope of Iran's nuclear program is not going to be detailed until well after a vote takes place. Even then, it's self reported by Iran to the IAEA to establish a baseline for their current status in order to mark the reductions proposed. The IAEA is not investigating anything to reach a conclusion, a baseline, etc. it is taking on faith what Iran tells it. This is actually outlined in what I've been able to read.

A very interesting blurb in the last para:

The British foreign secretary was already in Iran last week with a trade delegation.


Are you guys really not seeing the motivations behind the other countries? Why all of the cloak and dagger stuff by our country?

 

[WVPATX]

Thank you for posting that. I read that as well. Back to the point, we don't know what's in the deal and the full scope of Iran's nuclear program is not going to be detailed until well after a vote takes place. Even then, it's self reported by Iran to the IAEA to establish a baseline for their current status in order to mark the reductions proposed. The IAEA is not investigating anything to reach a conclusion, a baseline, etc. it is taking on faith what Iran tells it. This is actually outlined in what I've been able to read.

A very interesting blurb in the last para:

The British foreign secretary was already in Iran last week with a trade delegation.


Are you guys really not seeing the motivations behind the other countries? Why all of the cloak and dagger stuff by our country?

Obama's former Military Intelligence chief has blasted the agreement. Good read.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ear-present-danger-Iran-wishful-thinking.html

 

[Airport]

Obama, Hillary and the dems will blame a despicable video if things go bad.

 

[MOUNTIE IN MD]

It's not only a suspect deal regarding Nuke devt. but more concerning is funneling in new $$$ to fund Iran's terrorist activities.

 

[mneilmont]

It's not only a suspect deal regarding Nuke devt. but more concerning is funneling in new $$$ to fund Iran's terrorist activities.

And our comrades are blindly vocalizing their support of the deal and defending the Obama position. There is zero in the deal for US as far as we know. The administration has touted so many things that were in, or would be in, the final deal - or there would be no deal - that just did not materialize. "No deal is better than a bad deal"; "Any where, any time inspection"; "This is a good deal"; "Take the deal or war are only options"; Etc.

IMO, the predictable outcome from anything this administration achieves puts our country in second place. Of course the argument that will be offered against these words of wit will be a claim of racist. That meaningless word is intended to win and stop all discussion.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

And our comrades are blindly vocalizing their support of the deal and defending the Obama position. There is zero in the deal for US as far as we know. The administration has touted so many things that were in, or would be in, the final deal - or there would be no deal - that just did not materialize. "No deal is better than a bad deal"; "Any where, any time inspection"; "This is a good deal"; "Take the deal or war are only options"; Etc.

IMO, the predictable outcome from anything this administration achieves puts our country in second place. Of course the argument that will be offered against these words of wit will be a claim of racist. That meaningless word is intended to win and stop all discussion.

Even if you are a racist you can still be critical of something without the criticism being founded in racism as seems the case in your response.

 

[WVUBRU]

Thank you for posting that. I read that as well. Back to the point, we don't know what's in the deal and the full scope of Iran's nuclear program is not going to be detailed until well after a vote takes place. Even then, it's self reported by Iran to the IAEA to establish a baseline for their current status in order to mark the reductions proposed. The IAEA is not investigating anything to reach a conclusion, a baseline, etc. it is taking on faith what Iran tells it. This is actually outlined in what I've been able to read.

A very interesting blurb in the last para:

The British foreign secretary was already in Iran last week with a trade delegation.


Are you guys really not seeing the motivations behind the other countries? Why all of the cloak and dagger stuff by our country?

I most certainly understand individual skepticism after the previous administration fooled the public with deception and started a war with Iraq. However, I am of the belief that not everything regarding foreign policy should be transparent to the public and the public role is to make sure they elect the right leaders to make good decisions. I rarely comment on the decisions made by the leaders on foreign policy regardless of Administration and this is a reason why among others.

I do believe a large motivation among other countries is based on economics for the individual country and region along with the weapon side of things with Iran. I didn't think that was the case with those opponents in the US until a couple of weeks ago when I saw some posts on this board from some on the right side of the aisle.

 

[Airport]

I most certainly understand individual skepticism after the previous administration fooled the public with deception and started a war with Iraq. However, I am of the belief that not everything regarding foreign policy should be transparent to the public and the public role is to make sure they elect the right leaders to make good decisions. I rarely comment on the decisions made by the leaders on foreign policy regardless of Administration and this is a reason why among others.

I do believe a large motivation among other countries is based on economics for the individual country and region along with the weapon side of things with Iran. I didn't think that was the case with those opponents in the US until a couple of weeks ago when I saw some posts on this board from some on the right side of the aisle.

Nobody fooled anybody. The CIA gave intelligence which Hillary and almost all the dems agreed with. According to law, all of the requirements of the deal are to be presented to congress. The President has not, he's in violation but it doesn't matter now. It's done. I hope someone hits Iran before it's too late.

 

[bornaneer]

To get a deal done is considered as progress. Several of the involved countries stand to profit with this deal. I am willing to give it a chance because Israel will take care of any problem that may arise..

 

[Keyser76]

Nobody fooled anybody. The CIA gave intelligence which Hillary and almost all the dems agreed with. According to law, all of the requirements of the deal are to be presented to congress. The President has not, he's in violation but it doesn't matter now. It's done. I hope someone hits Iran before it's too late.

Someone hits Iran, you have no clue, Iran ain't Iraq and look how many military lives were wasted taking out no threat Saddam. I f*cking hate stupid *** chicken hawks. But then I'm sure everyone in Iran is a robed ayatollah in your mind.

 

[bornaneer]

I f*cking hate stupid *** chicken hawks.

I guess you are referring to Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden. Thanks for bringing that fact to our attention. For the record, I am and was against any action in Iraq and other middle eastern countries.

 

[WVPATX]

To get a deal done is considered as progress. Several of the involved countries stand to profit with this deal. I am willing to give it a chance because Israel will take care of any problem that may arise..

I disagree. We are giving Iran access to $150B with which to both acquire conventional weapons, including missiles and fund additional terror throughout the world, including against our own people and our country. I am not sure why we would give a tyrannical regime any financial support or any international legitimacy.

 

[bornaneer]

I disagree. We are giving Iran access to $150B with which to both acquire conventional weapons, including missiles and fund additional terror throughout the world, including against our own people and our country. I am not sure why we would give a tyrannical regime any financial support or any international legitimacy.

Just to clarify, I would not have given them a cent. I was referring to the other countries involved in this deal. If they do fund terrorism that would hit us, I would bomb them back into the stone age.

 

[mneilmont]

Some/all of you brilliant ***** people who are buying into the Administration and this "deal", would like you to answer a question. I am still trying to get over a bit of excessive drinking from last Friday. My mind is fuzzier than normal(keep your wise assed remarks to yourself) and taking prednisone to relieve pain and get a little feel good going. Share a little friendly advise at this point. Don't drink a quart of scotch and drink from a gallon jug of moonshine for chaser. When you get older, it seems to take a bit longer to recover from the good ones.

The question is from discussion on Senate floor yesterday. Iran has 1250 mile range rockets that are capable of carrying warhead to Israel and Europe. They could actually construct some nukes within 3 months. Those places are practically vulnerable now if Israel doesn't act. Now in this "deal" signed off on by SOS on behalf of US is the authorization for Iran to build or buy ICBM shortly after the ink is dry. An InterContinentalBalisticMissle has limited use. WHY WOULD THE US SIGN OFF ON A DEAL THAT GIVES IRAN THE CAPACITY TO STRIKE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? Their current intermediate range miss falls short of reaching our shores. Their leadership yells death to US and Israel and we provide them the opportunity to acquire a payload that could accomplish their chants and slogans. WHY? Does this agreement offer any protection or achieve a goal of our own? It is not racist speak either.

 

[moe]

Some/all of you brilliant ***** people who are buying into the Administration and this "deal", would like you to answer a question. I am still trying to get over a bit of excessive drinking from last Friday. My mind is fuzzier than normal(keep your wise assed remarks to yourself) and taking prednisone to relieve pain and get a little feel good going. Share a little friendly advise at this point. Don't drink a quart of scotch and drink from a gallon jug of moonshine for chaser. When you get older, it seems to take a bit longer to recover from the good ones.

The question is from discussion on Senate floor yesterday. Iran has 1250 mile range rockets that are capable of carrying warhead to Israel and Europe. They could actually construct some nukes within 3 months. Those places are practically vulnerable now if Israel doesn't act. Now in this "deal" signed off on by SOS on behalf of US is the authorization for Iran to build or buy ICBM shortly after the ink is dry. An InterContinentalBalisticMissle has limited use. WHY WOULD THE US SIGN OFF ON A DEAL THAT GIVES IRAN THE CAPACITY TO STRIKE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? Their current intermediate range miss falls short of reaching our shores. Their leadership yells death to US and Israel and we provide them the opportunity to acquire a payload that could accomplish their chants and slogans. WHY? Does this agreement offer any protection or achieve a goal of our own? It is not racist speak either.

I like folks like yourself and WVPATX who complain about the deal and then wrap up their comments by saying they don't understand the deal. I'm no expert on it myself but I congratulate you all on that approach. Perhaps you might read what some people consider are positive aspects of the agreement not just articles on the perceived negatives when you're searching for reasons why the deal got done.

 

[WVPATX]

I like folks like yourself and WVPATX who complain about the deal and then wrap up their comments by saying they don't understand the deal. I'm no expert on it myself but I congratulate you all on that approach.

Where did I say that I don't understand the deal?

 

[moe]

Where did I say that I don't understand the deal?

Quoting you...I am not sure why we would give a tyrannical regime any financial support or any international legitimacy.

 

[WVPATX]

Quoting you...I am not sure why we would give a tyrannical regime any financial support or any international legitimacy.

That has nothing to do with not understanding the deal. You're reading comprehension isn't very good.

 

[mneilmont]

I like folks like yourself and WVPATX who complain about the deal and then wrap up their comments by saying they don't understand the deal. I'm no expert on it myself but I congratulate you all on that approach. Perhaps you might read what some people consider are positive aspects of the agreement not just articles on the perceived negatives when you're searching for reasons why the deal got done.

That is about as stupid a response as any you have made. I asked a question because I don't know the answer. You attempt a back handed slap at me and you have nothing to contribute other than criticism. And, you dumb *** don't know or care that congress is being asked to vote on something that they state up front that they cannot vote for it without knowing what is in it. You buy everything because Obama is selling? You have just topped all the stupid things you have said in the past. Damn, do you never have anything to offer besides blind lib support or just a comment contrary to the issue?

And you have no problem that we got nothing that just two weeks ago our side said without these things there would be no deal? What I assumed was our side accepted a deal that was absolute 180 from what was being required before. You are either a trusting soul of lib vernacular or just plain idiot and I fully suspect latter. Damn.

AAA