Strychnine 1,802 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 homer - you're wrong & deluded. It's just that simple. Then perhaps you could tell him why he is wrong and deluded. If you have the time to be here posting, then you have the time to elaborate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mims44 1,867 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 I'm honestly cool with this. I'm also cool with the above suggestion to harvest from the homeless, and I'd like to add criminals serving life sentences as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 homer - you're wrong & deluded. It's just that simple. as he is on all topics.............Iran will deceive as usual. Only now, they will do so with tons of Ca$h and barry/Kerry blessing. Israel will deal with Iran's nuke situation in time. They have no choice....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 homer - you're wrong & deluded. It's just that simple. as he is on all topics.............Iran will deceive as usual. Only now, they will do so with tons of Ca$h and barry/Kerry blessing. Israel will deal with Iran's nuke situation in time. They have no choice....... You guys just cannot come up with a single rational argument against this agreement, can you? The agreement's out there. Find something in it justify it's rejection. As usual, it seems to me that you and Raptor are more interested in venting and throwing out insults than making a rational argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Iran will now have an influx of CASH to continue as the world leader in spreading and supporting terrorism. ( I will give you a few days to attempt understanding of that fact before going further)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,122 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 homer - you're wrong & deluded. It's just that simple. Then perhaps you could tell him why he is wrong and deluded. If you have the time to be here posting, then you have the time to elaborate. It's common knowledge that this is a bad deal with Iran. I don't have time to go over this again and again and again when it's already been in the news and posted countless times. Only a Obama sycophant will be so deluded into thinking this is a good deal. It isn't, it won't be, and never has been & never will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,588 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Believing Iran is only looking for peaceful nuclear power is very dangerous....however we (the US) no longer have the stomach, will, or manpower to do anything about it. It Is Done...... So I take it you oppose the agreement just reached which prevents them from building a weapon? It doesn't matter....read between the lines, homie! They WILL have a weapon agreement or not! We won't/can't stop it now. No, they won't have a weapon for at least a decade or longer. Whereas, without the agreement they could have one in what, a year or so? I just don't see the downside here. At worst, they will somehow violate the agreement, in which case they turn themselves into an outlaw pariah state that justifies any action taken against them in the eyes of the world. Et tu emt? :-\ I'll take that as an admission that you can't think of a single counter argument to what I wrote. I don't need a counter argument. All I need to do is look at historical facts and recent trends....it's an easy thing to see and understand. Iran is hell bent on being the dominant player in the middle east. Sorry if you believe in pink unicorns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Iran will now have an influx of CASH to continue as the world leader in spreading and supporting terrorism. ( I will give you a few days to attempt understanding of that fact before going further)... And why is that? It's because they their assets were frozen to force them to the negotiating table for the purpose of stopping their bomb program. Since they have done exactly that, that's obviously one of the things they get from the agreement. As for supporting and spreading terrorism, many of the countries in the ME are doing that, including ones that are supposed to be our allies. Regardless, such activity was not a part of this agreement, which was focused exclusively on their building a nuclear weapon which they could and were doing without that money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,588 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Iran will now have an influx of CASH to continue as the world leader in spreading and supporting terrorism. ( I will give you a few days to attempt understanding of that fact before going further)... And why is that? It's because they their assets were frozen to force them to the negotiating table for the purpose of stopping their bomb program. Since they have done exactly that, that's obviously one of the things they get from the agreement. As for supporting and spreading terrorism, many of the countries in the ME are doing that, including ones that are supposed to be our allies. Regardless, such activity was not a part of this agreement, which was focused exclusively on their building a nuclear weapon which they could and were doing without that money. LOLOLOL! Their "assets" have been frozen for years. Who did that may I ask???? Department of State The United States has imposed restrictions on activities with Iran under various legal authorities since 1979, following the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The most recent statute, the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRSHRA), added new measures and procedures to the 1996 Iran Sanctions Act (ISA). The ISA authorizes sanctions on businesses or individuals engaging in certain commercial transactions in Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Believing Iran is only looking for peaceful nuclear power is very dangerous....however we (the US) no longer have the stomach, will, or manpower to do anything about it. It Is Done...... So I take it you oppose the agreement just reached which prevents them from building a weapon? It doesn't matter....read between the lines, homie! They WILL have a weapon agreement or not! We won't/can't stop it now. No, they won't have a weapon for at least a decade or longer. Whereas, without the agreement they could have one in what, a year or so? I just don't see the downside here. At worst, they will somehow violate the agreement, in which case they turn themselves into an outlaw pariah state that justifies any action taken against them in the eyes of the world. Et tu emt? :-\ I'll take that as an admission that you can't think of a single counter argument to what I wrote. I don't need a counter argument. All I need to do is look at historical facts and recent trends....it's an easy thing to see and understand. Iran is hell bent on being the dominant player in the middle east. Sorry if you believe in pink unicorns. Well if you want to argue against establishing this agreement with Iran, you need a reason other than your opinion and pink unicorns. :-\ And the US is hardly in a position to fall back on historical arguments in our relationship with Iran. We overthrew their elected government and installed a dictator just to ensure we got their oil. But you certainly don't have to play if you've got nothing to contribute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Iran will now have an influx of CASH to continue as the world leader in spreading and supporting terrorism. ( I will give you a few days to attempt understanding of that fact before going further)... And why is that? It's because they their assets were frozen to force them to the negotiating table for the purpose of stopping their bomb program. Since they have done exactly that, that's obviously one of the things they get from the agreement. As for supporting and spreading terrorism, many of the countries in the ME are doing that, including ones that are supposed to be our allies. Regardless, such activity was not a part of this agreement, which was focused exclusively on their building a nuclear weapon which they could and were doing without that money. LOLOLOL! Their "assets" have been frozen for years. Who did that may I ask???? Department of State The United States has imposed restrictions on activities with Iran under various legal authorities since 1979, following the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The most recent statute, the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRSHRA), added new measures and procedures to the 1996 Iran Sanctions Act (ISA). The ISA authorizes sanctions on businesses or individuals engaging in certain commercial transactions in Iran. Nevertheless the frozen assets were one of the "carrots" we offered Iran as incentive to stop their nuclear weapons program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Iran will now have an influx of CASH to continue as the world leader in spreading and supporting terrorism. ( I will give you a few days to attempt understanding of that fact before going further)... And why is that? It's because they their assets were frozen to force them to the negotiating table for the purpose of stopping their bomb program. Since they have done exactly that, that's obviously one of the things they get from the agreement. As for supporting and spreading terrorism, many of the countries in the ME are doing that, including ones that are supposed to be our allies. Regardless, such activity was not a part of this agreement, which was focused exclusively on their building a nuclear weapon which they could and were doing without that money. And now they have tons of ca$h to speed up the process they had already begun. Got it? The difference is I DO NOT TRUST THE LIARS TO DO WHAT YOU SAY THEY HAVE AGREED TO DO. THEY HAVE A CLEAR PATTERN OF CHEATING AND LYING ( much like west vance)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUTUmike 79 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Here's a good article from The Economist on the subject: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21657803-nuclear-deal-iran-better-alternativeswar-or-no-deal-all-hiyatollah "The nuclear deal with Iran is better than the alternatives—war or no deal at all" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Iran will now have an influx of CASH to continue as the world leader in spreading and supporting terrorism. ( I will give you a few days to attempt understanding of that fact before going further)... And why is that? It's because they their assets were frozen to force them to the negotiating table for the purpose of stopping their bomb program. Since they have done exactly that, that's obviously one of the things they get from the agreement. As for supporting and spreading terrorism, many of the countries in the ME are doing that, including ones that are supposed to be our allies. Regardless, such activity was not a part of this agreement, which was focused exclusively on their building a nuclear weapon which they could and were doing without that money. And now they have tons of ca$h to speed up the process they had already begun. Got it? The difference is I DO NOT TRUST THE LIARS TO DO WHAT YOU SAY THEY HAVE AGREED TO DO. THEY HAVE A CLEAR PATTERN OF CHEATING AND LYING ( much like west vance)... You guys just cannot come up with a single rational argument against this agreement, can you? The agreement's out there. Find something in it to justify it's rejection. As usual, it seems to me that you and Raptor are more interested in venting and throwing out insults than making a rational argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,462 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 barry done give them a bomb. I hate moron libtards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,588 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 You guys just cannot come up with a single rational argument against this agreement, can you? WHY? You wouldn't agree anyway. History is on my side...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,588 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Iran will now have an influx of CASH to continue as the world leader in spreading and supporting terrorism. ( I will give you a few days to attempt understanding of that fact before going further)... And why is that? It's because they their assets were frozen to force them to the negotiating table for the purpose of stopping their bomb program. Since they have done exactly that, that's obviously one of the things they get from the agreement. As for supporting and spreading terrorism, many of the countries in the ME are doing that, including ones that are supposed to be our allies. Regardless, such activity was not a part of this agreement, which was focused exclusively on their building a nuclear weapon which they could and were doing without that money. LOLOLOL! Their "assets" have been frozen for years. Who did that may I ask???? Department of State The United States has imposed restrictions on activities with Iran under various legal authorities since 1979, following the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The most recent statute, the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRSHRA), added new measures and procedures to the 1996 Iran Sanctions Act (ISA). The ISA authorizes sanctions on businesses or individuals engaging in certain commercial transactions in Iran. Nevertheless the frozen assets were one of the "carrots" we offered Iran as incentive to stop their nuclear weapons program. LOL!!!! You believe whatever talking point Master Obama provides.......how cute. Nevertheless....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,462 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Iran will now have an influx of CASH to continue as the world leader in spreading and supporting terrorism. ( I will give you a few days to attempt understanding of that fact before going further)... And why is that? It's because they their assets were frozen to force them to the negotiating table for the purpose of stopping their bomb program. Since they have done exactly that, that's obviously one of the things they get from the agreement. As for supporting and spreading terrorism, many of the countries in the ME are doing that, including ones that are supposed to be our allies. Regardless, such activity was not a part of this agreement, which was focused exclusively on their building a nuclear weapon which they could and were doing without that money. LOLOLOL! Their "assets" have been frozen for years. Who did that may I ask???? Department of State The United States has imposed restrictions on activities with Iran under various legal authorities since 1979, following the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The most recent statute, the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRSHRA), added new measures and procedures to the 1996 Iran Sanctions Act (ISA). The ISA authorizes sanctions on businesses or individuals engaging in certain commercial transactions in Iran. Nevertheless the frozen assets were one of the "carrots" we offered Iran as incentive to stop their nuclear weapons program. LOL!!!! You believe whatever talking point Master Obama provides.......how cute. Nevertheless....... Do you believe any of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,588 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Iran will now have an influx of CASH to continue as the world leader in spreading and supporting terrorism. ( I will give you a few days to attempt understanding of that fact before going further)... And why is that? It's because they their assets were frozen to force them to the negotiating table for the purpose of stopping their bomb program. Since they have done exactly that, that's obviously one of the things they get from the agreement. As for supporting and spreading terrorism, many of the countries in the ME are doing that, including ones that are supposed to be our allies. Regardless, such activity was not a part of this agreement, which was focused exclusively on their building a nuclear weapon which they could and were doing without that money. LOLOLOL! Their "assets" have been frozen for years. Who did that may I ask???? Department of State The United States has imposed restrictions on activities with Iran under various legal authorities since 1979, following the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The most recent statute, the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRSHRA), added new measures and procedures to the 1996 Iran Sanctions Act (ISA). The ISA authorizes sanctions on businesses or individuals engaging in certain commercial transactions in Iran. Nevertheless the frozen assets were one of the "carrots" we offered Iran as incentive to stop their nuclear weapons program. LOL!!!! You believe whatever talking point Master Obama provides.......how cute. Nevertheless....... Do you believe any of them? It's hard too anymore. I only know that Iran has very little room for being trusted to adhere to an agreement. The worst thing the United States ever did was step foot in the middle east........of course Rommel would been better served if we hadn't. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 You guys just cannot come up with a single rational argument against this agreement, can you? WHY? You wouldn't agree anyway. History is on my side...... I don't have to agree anymore than you have to agree with my reasons for accepting the deal. This is supposedly a debate - or at least a discussion - of the merits of this agreement. Normally, people present logical arguments in such a debate. Is this your argument: Iran cannot be trusted to abide by the terms of the agreement, so we should simply reject it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Iran will now have an influx of CASH to continue as the world leader in spreading and supporting terrorism. ( I will give you a few days to attempt understanding of that fact before going further)... And why is that? It's because they their assets were frozen to force them to the negotiating table for the purpose of stopping their bomb program. Since they have done exactly that, that's obviously one of the things they get from the agreement. As for supporting and spreading terrorism, many of the countries in the ME are doing that, including ones that are supposed to be our allies. Regardless, such activity was not a part of this agreement, which was focused exclusively on their building a nuclear weapon which they could and were doing without that money. LOLOLOL! Their "assets" have been frozen for years. Who did that may I ask???? Department of State The United States has imposed restrictions on activities with Iran under various legal authorities since 1979, following the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The most recent statute, the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRSHRA), added new measures and procedures to the 1996 Iran Sanctions Act (ISA). The ISA authorizes sanctions on businesses or individuals engaging in certain commercial transactions in Iran. Nevertheless the frozen assets were one of the "carrots" we offered Iran as incentive to stop their nuclear weapons program. LOL!!!! You believe whatever talking point Master Obama provides.......how cute. Nevertheless....... Sorry, I don't understand that response. Was not releasing the frozen financial assets part of the deal or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUTUmike 79 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Iran will now have an influx of CASH to continue as the world leader in spreading and supporting terrorism. ( I will give you a few days to attempt understanding of that fact before going further)... And why is that? It's because they their assets were frozen to force them to the negotiating table for the purpose of stopping their bomb program. Since they have done exactly that, that's obviously one of the things they get from the agreement. As for supporting and spreading terrorism, many of the countries in the ME are doing that, including ones that are supposed to be our allies. Regardless, such activity was not a part of this agreement, which was focused exclusively on their building a nuclear weapon which they could and were doing without that money. LOLOLOL! Their "assets" have been frozen for years. Who did that may I ask???? Department of State The United States has imposed restrictions on activities with Iran under various legal authorities since 1979, following the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The most recent statute, the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRSHRA), added new measures and procedures to the 1996 Iran Sanctions Act (ISA). The ISA authorizes sanctions on businesses or individuals engaging in certain commercial transactions in Iran. Nevertheless the frozen assets were one of the "carrots" we offered Iran as incentive to stop their nuclear weapons program. LOL!!!! You believe whatever talking point Master Obama provides.......how cute. Nevertheless....... Do you believe any of them? It's hard too anymore. I only know that Iran has very little room for being trusted to adhere to an agreement. The worst thing the United States ever did was step foot in the middle east........of course Rommel would been better served if we hadn't. lol That's why the deal includes the right for the the IAEA to access Iran's facilities and even their supply chain at any point. Trust wasn't part of this agreement--rather, heavy monitoring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,462 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Iran will now have an influx of CASH to continue as the world leader in spreading and supporting terrorism. ( I will give you a few days to attempt understanding of that fact before going further)... And why is that? It's because they their assets were frozen to force them to the negotiating table for the purpose of stopping their bomb program. Since they have done exactly that, that's obviously one of the things they get from the agreement. As for supporting and spreading terrorism, many of the countries in the ME are doing that, including ones that are supposed to be our allies. Regardless, such activity was not a part of this agreement, which was focused exclusively on their building a nuclear weapon which they could and were doing without that money. LOLOLOL! Their "assets" have been frozen for years. Who did that may I ask???? Department of State The United States has imposed restrictions on activities with Iran under various legal authorities since 1979, following the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The most recent statute, the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRSHRA), added new measures and procedures to the 1996 Iran Sanctions Act (ISA). The ISA authorizes sanctions on businesses or individuals engaging in certain commercial transactions in Iran. Nevertheless the frozen assets were one of the "carrots" we offered Iran as incentive to stop their nuclear weapons program. LOL!!!! You believe whatever talking point Master Obama provides.......how cute. Nevertheless....... Do you believe any of them? It's hard too anymore. I only know that Iran has very little room for being trusted to adhere to an agreement. The worst thing the United States ever did was step foot in the middle east........of course Rommel would been better served if we hadn't. lol Is there any value in a framework and agreement that limits their development of nuclear weapons? Any, even the high ground of waiting until there is a clear violation of an agreement with the world? Without the political rhetoric, do you see no practical value? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 http://www.huffingto..._b_7905218.html Why Republicans Oppose the Iran Agreement: Follow the Money by Jeff Faux By any sensible measure, our country's highest foreign policy priority is halting the spread of nuclear weapons. Given our size and military might, we Americans are safe from outside invasion for as far into the future as anyone can possible see. But we are clearly vulnerable to terrorist attacks. And the more nuclear weapons there are in the world, the greater the chance that a future suicide bomber strolling through one of our cities will be carrying a nuclear device in his or her backpack. Unfortunately, non-proliferation has long taken a back seat to less important drivers of our geopolitics. Thus, for example, in order to keep good relations with Israel and Pakistan, successive US governments provided both countries with billions in military aid while they built nuclear weapons and refused to sign the international non-proliferation agreement. Today, Pakistan's government - corrupt and potentially unstable - is the major source of nuclear weapon technology dribbling out into the world. Yet, now, when we finally have an opportunity to stop a hostile nation from acquiring true weapons of mass destruction, Republican Party leaders have vowed to kill it. A few hours after Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran was announced and before they had time to read the text, House speaker John Boehner and a chorus of GOP luminaries declared their opposition. Aside from their hysterical references to Obama as Neville Chamberlain and the Iranian president as Adolf Hitler, Republicans say they oppose the agreement for two reasons. First, it will not succeed. Second, it will succeed. It won't succeed, they say, because the Iranians will try to cheat. Possibly. But this is the tightest, most enforceable nuclear agreement ever. Iran has agreed to intrusive inspections and, if they are in violation, to "snapback" provisions that will automatically restore the economic sanctions that drove it to make the deal in the first place. Obama's agreement is based on the same principle Ronald Reagan followed when he signed the 1987 treaty with the Soviet Union for mutual reduction of nuclear missile arsenals: "Trust, but verify." On the question of trust, the Iranians have had to take their own leap of faith. We are, after all, the nation that in 1953 engineered the overthrow of their democratically elected leader and imposed a despotic king - and in the 1970s provided that king with nuclear technology. In 1980, we supported Saddam Hussein's attack on Iran, igniting an eight-year war that killed over a million Iranians. In 1988, we shot down an Iranian passenger plane over Iranian territory murdering 290 civilians, including 66 children, for which we have never even apologized. We then turned on Hussein, plunging the Middle East into its current nightmare of killing, destruction and terror. Not exactly a record to inspire confidence. Well, if you are not convinced by their first argument, the Republicans have another: the agreement is bad because it will succeed, i.e., lifting economic sanctions, says Boehner, "will embolden Iran - the world's largest sponsor of terror - by helping stabilize and legitimatize its regime as it spreads even more violence and instability to the region." Iran certainly supports some bad actors in the Middle East drama. But by far the greatest support for terrorism against the United States has come not from our "enemy" Shiite Iran, but from our Sunni allies -- Saudi Arabia and the Gulf oil sheikdoms, whose royal families have bankrolled the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and provided at least start-up funds for ISIS, in their holy war against the Shiites. No doubt, ending the embargo will make it easier for Iran to pursue its interests in the region. That's why the Saudis and Israelis say they oppose it. But from the point of view of Americans' security, that risk pales beside the risk of nuclear proliferation. So whose priorities are the Republicans serving? Moreover, they have no alternative. The notion that a new Republican president - Trump? Bush? Walker? Rubio? Huckabee? (The current leaders in the polls) - could by virtue of their superior knowledge of the Persian mind strike a better deal does not pass the laugh test. But this is no laughing matter. Time is not on our side. Failure to conclude this agreement now will destroy the political influence of Iran's moderates, guaranteeing an all-out acceleration of Tehran's nuclear bomb program. And the only way to stop that, would be war, which, among other disastrous consequences, would vastly expand the pool of volunteers for suicide missions within the US. Clearly, the Republican opposition is not driven by thought-through national security considerations. What then is motivating them? The common answer is "partisanship". The Republicans, so the story goes, hate Barack Obama and are determined to deny him any success. But if that was the case, how do we explain the overwhelming Republican support for the President's trade bill, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, upon which he bet so much of his personal political capital? Not only did they back Obama's proposal, the Republicans even denied themselves, as the majority party, the right to amend any deal he brings back from his secret negotiations with eleven foreign countries? To understand why the Republicans support Obama on the trade treaty but not the nuclear treaty, follow the money. On trade, the GOP was serving the interests of its big business contributors who want to produce for US markets in places where labor is cheap and regulation is weak. On the Iranian treaty, the Republicans are carrying the water for another group of financiers. One is the so-called Israeli lobby, which in the last few years has dramatically shifted away from the Democrats to the Republicans. Major contributors, such as casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, are in strategic alliance with the rightwing Koch Brothers and Christian fundamentalist constituencies that until recently were openly anti-Semitic. Adelson alone contributed almost $100 million dollars to conservatives in the last presidential election, and will be putting up even more this time. Actually, the Iran accord is likely to be in the interest of the Israeli people. Its net effect will be to intensify the Shiite-Sunni conflict, diverting the energies of Middle Eastern Muslim countries away from their quarrel with Israel. But with some exceptions, the major American Jewish political funders take their cue from Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu, who has made a career of demonizing the Iranians, and is now, in effect, the de facto leader for foreign affairs of the Republican Party. Other, less well-known sources of money to defeat the Iranian accord are the Gulf oil sheikdoms. In addition to funding terrorists, their monies flow generously to Washington's lobbying firms, think-tanks, journalists and, of course politicians running for office. An ex-Republican senator who heads one of the largest super PACs in America is a registered lobbyist for Saudi Arabia. The Gulf states get further leverage on American politics through their close ties to the US oil and defense industries, who, even after seven years of Democratic Party control of the Energy and Defense Departments, still contribute more to Republican candidates. The influence of money on domestic policy making is generally acknowledged, although inadequately scrutinized, by the media. Foreign policy disputes, however, are treated as more honest, high-toned differences over strategic ideas, e.g., hawks versus doves, realists versus idealists, interventionists versus isolationists. But in our globalized political economy, influence peddling - for export or import -- no longer stops at the water's edge. There is no reason to think that our foreign policy is immune from the same corrupting financial considerations that shape our domestic policy. In 2013 the top ten foreign countries, led by the United Arab Emirates, spent $70 million (not including diplomatic contacts) to influence Washington policymakers. So, once you consider the money, the shallow dim-wittedness of the Republican opposition to the Iranian nuclear agreement becomes less of a mystery. As Upton Sinclair once observed, "It's hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,588 Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Iran will now have an influx of CASH to continue as the world leader in spreading and supporting terrorism. ( I will give you a few days to attempt understanding of that fact before going further)... And why is that? It's because they their assets were frozen to force them to the negotiating table for the purpose of stopping their bomb program. Since they have done exactly that, that's obviously one of the things they get from the agreement. As for supporting and spreading terrorism, many of the countries in the ME are doing that, including ones that are supposed to be our allies. Regardless, such activity was not a part of this agreement, which was focused exclusively on their building a nuclear weapon which they could and were doing without that money. LOLOLOL! Their "assets" have been frozen for years. Who did that may I ask???? Department of State The United States has imposed restrictions on activities with Iran under various legal authorities since 1979, following the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The most recent statute, the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRSHRA), added new measures and procedures to the 1996 Iran Sanctions Act (ISA). The ISA authorizes sanctions on businesses or individuals engaging in certain commercial transactions in Iran. Nevertheless the frozen assets were one of the "carrots" we offered Iran as incentive to stop their nuclear weapons program. LOL!!!! You believe whatever talking point Master Obama provides.......how cute. Nevertheless....... Do you believe any of them? It's hard too anymore. I only know that Iran has very little room for being trusted to adhere to an agreement. The worst thing the United States ever did was step foot in the middle east........of course Rommel would been better served if we hadn't. lol Is there any value in a framework and agreement that limits their development of nuclear weapons? Any, even the high ground of waiting until there is a clear violation of an agreement with the world? Without the political rhetoric, do you see no practical value? I just don't see Iran following any rule that confines their desire to be the top dog in the region. It's all a front to get cash and further empower the regime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.