Landmark deal reached on Iran nuclear program

[AURaptor 1,122]

Israel in Saudi Arabia are on the same side of this issue. That should tell you something about how bad it is.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Israel in Saudi Arabia are on the same side of this issue. That should tell you something about how bad it is.

If you have a very limited understanding.

[AUUSN 823]

Israel in Saudi Arabia are on the same side of this issue. That should tell you something about how bad it is.

But very different motivations.

[quietfan 233]

Israel in Saudi Arabia are on the same side of this issue. That should tell you something about how bad it is.

But very different motivations.

True.

I'm not sure Israel would every be satisfied with anything short of direct military intervention and regime change in Iran. They'd be very happy for the US to go to war with Iran even if nukes were never an issue.

While Saudi Arabia has reasonable concerns about the military threat posed by Iran, they also wouldn't be happy with anything that also allows Iran to compete with them on an equal basis in the oil market, e.g., the lifting of sanctions. Might they be more concerned about economic competition than military threat? I don't see Iran's military threat to Saudi Arabia as a serious concern: Operation Desert Shield/Storm demonstrated to me that the US and a coalition of many nations would never tolerate a military attack on the Saudi oil fields, so I don't worry about Iran's military on that front. We have no such commitment to preserving Saudi's economic dominance of the oil market. Competition from Iran would actually be a force for keeping petroleum prices down.

In my mind, the opinions of Britain + France + Germany + Russia + China carry greater weight than the opinions of Israel + Saudi Arabia.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Israel in Saudi Arabia are on the same side of this issue. That should tell you something about how bad it is.

If you have a very limited understanding.

No, if you know full well how bad this deal is .

You can try & mock the intelligence of those who oppose this deal but it's still a colossally bad deal.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Israel in Saudi Arabia are on the same side of this issue. That should tell you something about how bad it is.

If you have a very limited understanding.

No, if you know full well how bad this deal is .

You can try & mock the intelligence of those who oppose this deal but it's still a colossally bad deal.

I am not mocking their intelligence. I question the motives.

[AURaptor 1,122]

The motives aren't the issue.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

The motives aren't the issue.

That is really funny coming from the guy who insists that the President believes he "owns" the White House. Funny coming from the side who declared this a "bad deal" long before any details had even been negotiated. Funny coming from someone who never misses the opportunity to beat the "barry sux" drum. Funny coming from someone who believes there is a liberal conspiracy to destroy America.

I suppose the Rush Limbaugh fan club is above petty politics and disingenuous rhetoric. :-\

[homersapien 11,362]

Gee, I slipped up and made the technical error of calling it a treaty. What a total fool I am.

As far as the press conference, mostly no. I caught only the end of it.

Was there something in particular said at the press conference you'd like to discuss? I am of course, not even close to you intellectually, but I will do the best I can.

Aside from the fact that Obama lied , multiple times, he had 2 real big faux pas.

1. He paints a false choice of " it's either my way or WAR ! " . Complete rubbish.

2. He chides Major Garrett from CBS for the audacity of asking about the 4 US hostages. And despite all of Obama's posturing and monologuing, the fact of the matter is the 4 Americans are still there. He gave and gave and gave, and we got exactly NOTHING in return.

No limits on Iran's ability to aid terrorist groups in the region, which they've been doing for decades. No return of hostages. Not 1 damn thing.

Well, except for the one thing the negotiations were actually held for. <_</>

LOL

LOL all you want, but that's the truth.

This was not a general agreement. It was specifically about Iran building a nuclear weapon and nothing else..

[Strychnine 1,802]

Gee, I slipped up and made the technical error of calling it a treaty. What a total fool I am.

As far as the press conference, mostly no. I caught only the end of it.

Was there something in particular said at the press conference you'd like to discuss? I am of course, not even close to you intellectually, but I will do the best I can.

Aside from the fact that Obama lied , multiple times, he had 2 real big faux pas.

1. He paints a false choice of " it's either my way or WAR ! " . Complete rubbish.

2. He chides Major Garrett from CBS for the audacity of asking about the 4 US hostages. And despite all of Obama's posturing and monologuing, the fact of the matter is the 4 Americans are still there. He gave and gave and gave, and we got exactly NOTHING in return.

No limits on Iran's ability to aid terrorist groups in the region, which they've been doing for decades. No return of hostages. Not 1 damn thing.

Well, except for the one thing the negotiations were actually held for. <_</>

LOL

LOL all you want, but that's the truth.

This was not a general agreement. It was specifically about Iran building a nuclear weapon and nothing else..

This was also not a general agreement solely between the United States and Iran. It was a coalition of nations gathered specifically for the purpose of addressing Iran's nuclear program, and nothing else. Captive Americans, Iran's support of Assad, Iran's support of Hamas/Hezbollah, and Iran's perspective toward the Israeli-Palestinian issue are all irrelevant in that discussion. However, they are issues that the potential success of this deal could warm the Iranians up to resolving diplomatically. The United States is not the entity with the leverage that brought Iran to the table, and our interests were not a primary factor. This was between the United Nations Security Council and Iran. Aside from military action, the United States ultimately holds very little leverage over Iran.

First, some thought that an initial deal would be impossible with Iran. Then they believed that Iran would violate the interim deal. Then they believed that a long-term deal would be impossible. Now they believe it is a bad deal because it does not address or resolve every issue the United States has with Iran, all at once. For those, anything short of regime change or Iran's complete capitulation is a bad deal.

[homersapien 11,362]

Gee, I slipped up and made the technical error of calling it a treaty. What a total fool I am.

As far as the press conference, mostly no. I caught only the end of it.

Was there something in particular said at the press conference you'd like to discuss? I am of course, not even close to you intellectually, but I will do the best I can.

Aside from the fact that Obama lied , multiple times, he had 2 real big faux pas.

1. He paints a false choice of " it's either my way or WAR ! " . Complete rubbish.

2. He chides Major Garrett from CBS for the audacity of asking about the 4 US hostages. And despite all of Obama's posturing and monologuing, the fact of the matter is the 4 Americans are still there. He gave and gave and gave, and we got exactly NOTHING in return.

No limits on Iran's ability to aid terrorist groups in the region, which they've been doing for decades. No return of hostages. Not 1 damn thing.

Well, except for the one thing the negotiations were actually held for. <_</>

LOL

LOL all you want, but that's the truth.

This was not a general agreement. It was specifically about Iran building a nuclear weapon and nothing else..

This was also not a general agreement solely between the United States and Iran. It was a coalition of nations gathered specifically for the purpose of addressing Iran's nuclear program, and nothing else. Captive Americans, Iran's support of Assad, Iran's support of Hamas/Hezbollah, and Iran's perspective toward the Israeli-Palestinian issue are all irrelevant in that discussion. However, they are issues that the potential success of this deal could warm the Iranians up to resolving diplomatically. The United States is not the entity with the leverage that brought Iran to the table, and our interests were not a primary factor. This was between the United Nations Security Council and Iran. Aside from military action, the United States ultimately holds very little leverage over Iran.

First, some thought that an initial deal would be impossible with Iran. Then they believed that Iran would violate the interim deal. Then they believed that a long-term deal would be impossible. Now they believe it is a bad deal because it does not address or resolve every issue the United States has with Iran, all at once. For those, anything short of regime change or Iran's complete capitulation is a bad deal.

Exactly. Well said.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Captive Americans, Iran's support of Assad, Iran's support of Hamas/Hezbollah, and Iran's perspective toward the Israeli-Palestinian issue are all irrelevant in that discussion

Spoken like a true Obama supporter.

The U.S. got exactly nothing out of this deal No reduction in Iran's involvement in illegal aiding of terrorist groups. No release of US citizens. Iran got billions of dollars unfrozen, it's gold , and end to sanctions. Oh yeah, and a direct pathway to a nuclear weapon.

Brilliant.

Oh, and it gets better ! Those most awesomely smart nuk-u-lar scientist in the whole wide world Obama was gushing about, those who claim this is such a great idea ?

Not gonna be allowed to inspect the sites in Iran. Nope. NO American scientist will be allowed to inspect anything. Zilch, nodda. Zero.

Way to drive a soft bargain, Kerry