With all due respect:

 

All due respect thats missing very pertinent facts. 1.) this deal arms iran exponentially. No it doesn't


2.) our allies are reluctant because we have not lead in the world stage.  No they aren't


3.) nukes are an invasion deturant.  Even if true, so what, and they are not nearly the deterent that the Zagros mountains are.


After they cross that threshhold u cant just take out the regime with a hundred k troops.  We couldn't do that now anyway, and we shouldn't want to.


Casualty projections become unthinkable let alone the potential for terrorism A terrorist with a nuclear bomb is a truly frightening thing.  It would be nice to have some inspectors, or something, watching the whole time, huh?

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't love the deal, nor does the Obama administration.  But the idea that the deal somehow puts them closer to a nuclear weapon than if we just left things the way they are is just, simply, false.  20 pages in, I'm pretty sure we've covered that ground before.

 

And I'm sick of us going it alone, BTW.  The British, French, Germans, Chinese and Russians don't want a nuclear Iran any more than we do.  Let's hang with them for a few years, let the Mullahs die off, and show a new generation of Iranians just how awesome and cool we are.

 

Maybe in time, they will forgive us for engineering the 1953 coup of their freely elected government, and we can forgive them for their chicken-(you know what) hostage taking in 1980.

---

With all due respect:

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't love the deal, nor does the Obama administration.  But the idea that the deal somehow puts them closer to a nuclear weapon than if we just left things the way they are is just, simply, false.  20 pages in, I'm pretty sure we've covered that ground before.

 

And I'm sick of us going it alone, BTW.  The British, French, Germans, Chinese and Russians don't want a nuclear Iran any more than we do.  Let's hang with them for a few years, let the Mullahs die off, and show a new generation of Iranians just how awesome and cool we are.

 

Maybe in time, they will forgive us for engineering the 1953 coup of their freely elected government, and we can forgive them for their chicken-(you know what) hostage taking in 1980.

A lot of people in favor of the deal don't like the deal. That's the part the opponents are missing here. They think (ignorantly) they could have gotten a perfect deal as if we conducted these negotiations on our own. They could not have but it's a great talking about to scream about how loud it is.

 

I would also be interested in how this 150 billion that keeps coming up was solely in our possession and if we back out of the deal and the rest of countries sign off on it (they will) how much gets released. I am going to guess all of it regardless of what happens in congress. 

---

Lol awesome and cool. Thats whats up. We should have just played hitler some jazz music.


Rough terrain vs. Threat of thermonuclear detonation.... Ok



150 billion dollars buys a lot of weapons systems.


If i thought the inspections were legitimate we wouldnt be talking about this.


We can not and should nou outsource our security.

---

Lol awesome and cool. Thats whats up. We should have just played hitler some jazz music.


Rough terrain vs. Threat of thermonuclear detonation.... Ok



150 billion dollars buys a lot of weapons systems.


If i thought the inspections were legitimate we wouldnt be talking about this.


We can not and should nou outsource our security.

Can you answer my question about the 150 billion please. You seem so very well informed in all aspects of this deal and not at all biased in any sense of the word. I am sure you can tell me whether and how we control all that money. 

---

Can you answer my question about the 150 billion please. You seem so very well informed in all aspects of this deal and not at all biased in any sense of the word. I am sure you can tell me whether and how we control all that money. 

 

Those out of country assets are frozen by the international financial community.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Those out of country assets are frozen by the international financial community.

So it's not us giving them this money it's actually all the nations that are involved in this deal? Would it still likely happen if congress doesn't approve it?

---

At this point from what i understand the action of the un will release the funds without our consent. A move lead by john kerry and obama

---

At this point from what i understand the action of the un will release the funds without our consent. A move lead by john kerry and obama

So it does not matter what congress does then? They can turn down the deal have it not vetoed get their way and still not got their way because this is not a unilateral deal despite how some people seem to present it?

---

Unilateral international whatever is irrelevant. This administration wants them to have the money. Had Hour president and international representatives not signed off then the un would not have lifted sanctions. Had this been treated like a treaty they would have needed 67 votes t. Give that ascent. So yes congress slit its parlimentary throat with the corker amendment. The question we should be asking is why the president didnt delay the relief of sanctions until iran complied

---

Unilateral international whatever is irrelevant. This administration wants them to have the money. Had Hour president and international representatives not signed off then the un would not have lifted sanctions. Had this been treated like a treaty they would have needed 67 votes t. Give that ascent. So yes congress slit its parlimentary throat with the corker amendment. The question we should be asking is why the president didnt delay the relief of sanctions until iran complied

It's not relevant? That's the dumbest thing you have said on here easily. It's one of the most relevant parts to the entire discussion. Which part of, it's not up to the USA or it's president all by itself do you not understand? 

---

There we go thats better. U were starting to worry me. Obama made this presentation to the un. John kerry and our team gave them the legitimacy. Republicans in congress are hamstrung, the president and the secretary of state could jave stopped this but they didnt want to because this is their swan song.

---

Do you think Europe would have been pleased if we stopped this deal?  Especially when they have stronger economic ties to Iran?  No, they wouldn't. 


Iran might have less money (though Europe would still try to salvage the deal, so they'd have more money than they do now in any case), but they'd be able to easily still break the agreement, and then when they did Europe would be right to blame us for not going along with the deal.  Not sure what's hard to understand about that.  So why would they, if Iran got the bomb because we failed to do our part, join us in the fight against Iran if it came to it?

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Do you think Europe would have been pleased if we stopped this deal?  Especially when they have stronger economic ties to Iran?  No, they wouldn't. 


Iran might have less money (though Europe would still try to salvage the deal, so they'd have more money than they do now in any case), but they'd be able to easily still break the agreement, and then when they did Europe would be right to blame us for not going along with the deal.  Not sure what's hard to understand about that.  So why would they, if Iran got the bomb because we failed to do our part, join us in the fight against Iran if it came to it?

You are missing his entire point. It's not that other nations are involved. It's that we are involved and only we matter here. The other nations are irrelevant to the conversation because our word is world law. 

---

When you become president of the united states, you do not swear an oath to the business interests of France and Russia or to cower to the will of Britain.  You swear an oath to preserve protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America and as such accept the responsibilities there in to protect its citizens from all enemies foreign and Domestic with the understanding that the power vested in the Executive branch to broker foreign policy is to inherently serve that end.  

 

It is the responsibility of Barrack Obama to execute Foreign policy that best serves our national interests from the standpoint of both security and economic stability.  his entire foreign policy as a whole has done NEITHER! 

 

So first, I really don't care how happy Europe would be if we didn't let them unilaterally expand trade with a international sponsor of terror.  At what point do they worry about how happy we will be if they back an enemy sworn to our destruction that has actively undermined our international military efforts and killed our soldiers? 

 

As far as the p5 plus 1 talks over the last two years I have said it before and I will say it again realistically we are the only country that can offer a credible military enforcement mechanism against Iran.  The French can't, the brits can't and China/Russia are on their side.  As such the only strength in the negotiations would come from us.  When they looked down to John Kerry at the end of the table and asked "well John how far are you willing to go with this" you really expect us to believe that John Kerry got up and did his best rendition of the St/. Crispens day speech promising that America would spend all its blood and treasure to prevent a nuclear Iran?  In the absence of American leadership this is what happens.  And frankly, everyone here should darn well know better.  Otherwise all of Europe would still be speaking German.  That's why the deal is fundamentally capitulation. 

 

Moreover, its not just the financial interest of doing business with Iran.  It's also the solution that we have come up with to deal with ISIS.  It is the unofficial position of this white house that we should allow Iran to Strengthen itself to counterbalance ISIS in the region.  So its not bad enough that we have ceded our authority to the international community, we have outsourced our national security interests to the Ayatollah of   Iran that has sworn to our mortal destruction. 

 

So in the interest of cheap gas for France, while we begin the long hard road of EPA regulations on coal to combat CLIMATE CHANGE, we have given 150 billion dollars to an enemy that to this day swears to kill us and is guided by a form of religious/political zeal that FORBIDS THEM to recognize non muslim sovereignty in any form while we courteously dismantle the greatest military that the world has ever seen for the faint promise that Europe might like us more if instead of the leading political economic and military power in the world we take our place as some pathetic also rand that has to bow at the alter of the international body that gets the majority of funding from our tax payers. 

 

That's change you can believe in. 

 

how stupid are we?

---

You are missing his entire point. It's not that other nations are involved. It's that we are involved and only we matter here. The other nations are irrelevant to the conversation because our word is world law.

American interests fIrst and always.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

American interests fIrst and always.

Which has less bearing on negotiations involving multiple countries then people people seem to think is the case. 

---

When you become president of the united states, you do not swear an oath to the business interests of France and Russia or to cower to the will of Britain.  You swear an oath to preserve protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America and as such accept the responsibilities there in to protect its citizens from all enemies foreign and Domestic with the understanding that the power vested in the Executive branch to broker foreign policy is to inherently serve that end.  

 

It is the responsibility of Barrack Obama to execute Foreign policy that best serves our national interests from the standpoint of both security and economic stability.  his entire foreign policy as a whole has done NEITHER! 

 

So first, I really don't care how happy Europe would be if we didn't let them unilaterally expand trade with a international sponsor of terror.  At what point do they worry about how happy we will be if they back an enemy sworn to our destruction that has actively undermined our international military efforts and killed our soldiers? 

 

As far as the p5 plus 1 talks over the last two years I have said it before and I will say it again realistically we are the only country that can offer a credible military enforcement mechanism against Iran.  The French can't, the brits can't and China/Russia are on their side.  As such the only strength in the negotiations would come from us.  When they looked down to John Kerry at the end of the table and asked "well John how far are you willing to go with this" you really expect us to believe that John Kerry got up and did his best rendition of the St/. Crispens day speech promising that America would spend all its blood and treasure to prevent a nuclear Iran?  In the absence of American leadership this is what happens.  And frankly, everyone here should darn well know better.  Otherwise all of Europe would still be speaking German.  That's why the deal is fundamentally capitulation. 

 

Moreover, its not just the financial interest of doing business with Iran.  It's also the solution that we have come up with to deal with ISIS.  It is the unofficial position of this white house that we should allow Iran to Strengthen itself to counterbalance ISIS in the region.  So its not bad enough that we have ceded our authority to the international community, we have outsourced our national security interests to the Ayatollah of   Iran that has sworn to our mortal destruction. 

 

So in the interest of cheap gas for France, while we begin the long hard road of EPA regulations on coal to combat CLIMATE CHANGE, we have given 150 billion dollars to an enemy that to this day swears to kill us and is guided by a form of religious/political zeal that FORBIDS THEM to recognize non muslim sovereignty in any form while we courteously dismantle the greatest military that the world has ever seen for the faint promise that Europe might like us more if instead of the leading political economic and military power in the world we take our place as some pathetic also rand that has to bow at the alter of the international body that gets the majority of funding from our tax payers. 

 

That's change you can believe in. 

 

how stupid are we?

I dunno but the fact that you think there being more countries involved than just the US is "irrelevant" or that we actually have the ability to dictate terms unilaterally (which is also probably irrelevant to you) that are impossible to get is pretty telling on your end. 

---

Thank you my good friend.  The fact that you are unable to refute any of my points and have to resort back to an inflammatory talking point is proof positive that my conclusions are erudite. 

---

Yes, the Presidents job is to put the interests of the American people first.


Is it not in the interests of the American people to keep on good terms with our allies?  Apparently not.  It'd be better I suppose, in your opinion, to go to war with Iran without help from Europe, and just go in there with Israel.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

It would be better in my opinion for america to previde the leadership and commitment that allows the international community to be bold in the face of terrorism or nationalist threats.

---