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.

At risk of strolling back into this thread, there's a difference between providing leadership and telling the rest of the world what to do. The former involves sitting down and listening to the wants and needs of other nations, then working together with them to take an offer to Iran and negotiate it down into something that all parties are comfortable with.

 

The latter involves slamming your fists on the table and telling Iran that they either take your deal or get invaded by Israel.

 

I don't know about you, but I think that the US' interests are better served by creating a multi-national agreement than they are by starting World War III.

---

Prime minister chamberlain would disagree. This does nothing to avoid conflict. This does nothing to curb nuclear proliferation in the region.


I will say again, given the international conduct of this president and the weakening of our economy its no surprise we hot fleeced and you cannot seperate the two.



they arent chanting death to france they arent chanting death to russia and they didnt kill german troops. If u want to be the person to look over the bodies of our fallen and tell their families its okay because maybe germany will sit with us in the sand box at playtime then go ahead because an emotional discourse about not "dictating" the safety of our nation is about the same thing.


This charecterization of my way or the highway is curious. The left has no problen when its comservative americans being dictated to. That aside, no one is talking about banging on tables no one is talking about idle finger wagging. We are talking about having a competent executive and a strong military.


We should never have sat down with 4 hostages in iranian hands. We should have never sat down with chants of death to america and we should never have sat down with money still being poured into rockets bound for our allies. This is berghdal with centrifuges.

---

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. 

What exactly is a talking point? The we are not the only nation nor do we dictate what the other nations do? That is a fact that seems to be bothering you in the vitriolic delusion you seem to have here. 

---

Prime minister chamberlain would disagree. This does nothing to avoid conflict. This does nothing to curb nuclear proliferation in the region.

 

The non-proliferation community and the various watch dogs disagree with you
. 

I will say again, given the international conduct of this president and the weakening of our economy its no surprise we hot fleeced and you cannot seperate the two.

That's your opinion that you keep presenting as fact


 


they arent chanting death to france they arent chanting death to russia and they didnt kill german troops. If u want to be the person to look over the bodies of our fallen and tell their families its okay because maybe germany will sit with us in the sand box at playtime then go ahead because an emotional discourse about not "dictating" the safety of our nation is about the same thing.

 

We all gon die? Our soldier won't die when Bibby and the warmongers finally get their way and we start a full out war? OK.



This charecterization of my way or the highway is curious. The left has no problen when its comservative americans being dictated to. That aside, no one is talking about banging on tables no one is talking about idle finger wagging. We are talking about having a competent executive and a strong military.

 

You are equating a multi-national agreement that you think we should have total power over, with forcing bigots to stop discriminating. Makes sense. You are either working with them (some who don't like you to begin with) or you are not. Are you advocating for working with these parties are going lone wolf. Because that is what it seems like. 



We should never have sat down with 4 hostages in iranian hands. We should have never sat down with chants of death to america and we should never have sat down with money still being poured into rockets bound for our allies. This is berghdal with centrifuges.

 

And here it finally is. All pretense cast aside and the real issue has finally been uttered. The right never wanted a deal. They never wanted the negotiations in the first place, leaving one of two options. Total capitulation and the crawling to us on hands and knees of Iran or war. Wonder which of those two is more likely and who would benefit financially and who would suffer. And you wonder about this curious characterization of "my way or the highway".

---

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?

How stupid are we? Stupid enough that if this was a republican president brokering this deal, you'd be calling it peace in the Middle East. Cause that's how Fox News would spin it.


Carry on


Oh btw, has Iran nuked us yet?

---

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?

Man, you still don't get it or your driving your American exceptionalism agenda is just too important to you.

 

America does not answer to any nation, except perhaps now Israel.  Thanks Boehner.  But we do work with other nations on an international scale to an end of nuclear non-proliferation, and should continue to do so.

 

We are far from the only military power in the world.  The EU, Russians, or Chinese could mount a successful invasion of Iran tomorrow if they chose, but they will choose not to do so, because they are sensible and pragmatic in their international diplomacy, not because they are afraid of Tehran.

 

In this issue, you seem to think there is no middle ground:  total capitulation of Iran, or, as you just stated, total capitulation of the US.  You call my "middle ground" failure.  Failure, to me, is another war we can't afford.  A nuclear Pakistan still hasn't attacked a nuclear India, nor has North Korea, which may not even have a bomb, been able to attack their hated, and far more successful, rival to the south.  Why?  Because use of that weapon will elicit an attack on that country by not just the US, but every other military power on the globe. 

 

The US will remain the only country that "got away" with using one (er, two).

 

I think under this framework, Iran may actually achieve a nuclear weapon in 10 - 15 years.  Without this framework, they will achieve it in about 5 years.  The choices are this deal, all out war, or remaining sanctions under which Iran still gets a weapon.  There is no fourth way, even if Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, and Charlton Heston magically reappear tomorrow and summon the Iranian foreign minister to Switzerland.

 

And one last thing that really hasn't been mentioned:  Yes, the angry mob in front of Iranian Parliament chants "Death to America".  Meanwhile, the internet beams in American ideas and culture into the living rooms of the young Iranian's living rooms, and they eat it up like Kardashian Kandy.  I have never been to Iran, but those that have visited do not bring back stories of men keeping harems living in caves and praying for America's death 24/7.  They bring back stories of a country of universities, empowered women, and a huge population under the age of 30 that want more information and experiences beyond just the one book (not a bad idea ANYWHERE, if you ask me).

 

And that 150 billion?  We aren't giving it to them, it was theirs all along.  The hostages?  They're not being held for ransom, they are prisoners.  They have been charged, arrested, being given due process, and are probably getting a fairer, faster trial than they would have in Mexico.

 

I still think Iran sucks, but I think it has potential.  So did Reagan, actually, but that's another story.

---

Man, you still don't get it or your driving your American exceptionalism agenda is just too important to you.

 

America does not answer to any nation, except perhaps now Israel.  Thanks Boehner.  But we do work with other nations on an international scale to an end of nuclear non-proliferation, and should continue to do so.

 

We are far from the only military power in the world.  The EU, Russians, or Chinese could mount a successful invasion of Iran tomorrow if they chose, but they will choose not to do so, because they are sensible and pragmatic in their international diplomacy, not because they are afraid of Tehran.

 

In this issue, you seem to think there is no middle ground:  total capitulation of Iran, or, as you just stated, total capitulation of the US.  You call my "middle ground" failure.  Failure, to me, is another war we can't afford.  A nuclear Pakistan still hasn't attacked a nuclear India, nor has North Korea, which may not even have a bomb, been able to attack their hated, and far more successful, rival to the south.  Why?  Because use of that weapon will elicit an attack on that country by not just the US, but every other military power on the globe. 

 

The US will remain the only country that "got away" with using one (er, two).

 

I think under this framework, Iran may actually achieve a nuclear weapon in 10 - 15 years.  Without this framework, they will achieve it in about 5 years.  The choices are this deal, all out war, or remaining sanctions under which Iran still gets a weapon.  There is no fourth way, even if Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, and Charlton Heston magically reappear tomorrow and summon the Iranian foreign minister to Switzerland.

 

And one last thing that really hasn't been mentioned:  Yes, the angry mob in front of Iranian Parliament chants "Death to America".  Meanwhile, the internet beams in American ideas and culture into the living rooms of the young Iranian's living rooms, and they eat it up like Kardashian Kandy.  I have never been to Iran, but those that have visited do not bring back stories of men keeping harems living in caves and praying for America's death 24/7.  They bring back stories of a country of universities, empowered women, and a huge population under the age of 30 that want more information and experiences beyond just the one book (not a bad idea ANYWHERE, if you ask me).

 

And that 150 billion?  We aren't giving it to them, it was theirs all along.  The hostages?  They're not being held for ransom, they are prisoners.  They have been charged, arrested, being given due process, and are probably getting a fairer, faster trial than they would have in Mexico.

 

I still think Iran sucks, but I think it has potential.  So did Reagan, actually, but that's another story.

I agree with this completely. I would like to add that the time to "breakout" ought be used attempting to normalize relations. I think that is a good goal to have. You wont stop an enemy or a friend from getting weapons forever (aside from all out obliteration). What you can do is turn an enemy into either a friend at best or a neutral party at worst. I think we can do that and with the rise of the younger, more progressive generation, could lead to a much more stable arrangement then the current apocalyptic one we have now. 

---

Oh btw, has Iran nuked us yet?

 

Up until now the sanctions have prevented that. So why are we stopping what has worked to try a different tactic that failed miserably in North Korea? What will you say two years from now when Iran nukes Israel or New York City? I bet you'd still be defending the pact even then.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Up until now the sanctions have prevented that. So why are we stopping what has worked to try a different tactic that failed miserably in North Korea? What will you say two years from now when Iran nukes Israel or New York City? I bet you'd still be defending the pact even then.

Or, more likely, what will you say when they don't? I bet you'll still hate the deal.

---

Or, more likely, what will you say when they don't? I bet you'll still hate the deal.

 

I've stated before that if Iran still does not have a nuke 10 years from now (what the deal promises) then I will admit I was wrong.


 

If Iran has a nuke in less than five years, will you admit you were wrong? I realize that if they actually use it, no apology will bring back the people killed in the attack. Those deaths will be Obama's legacy (and Corker's among others).


 

And you still haven't told me how you know the "Death to America" faction is a minority.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I've stated before that if Iran still does not have a nuke 10 years from now (what the deal promises) then I will admit I was wrong.


If Iran has a nuke in less than five years, will you admit you were wrong? I realize that if they actually use it, no apology will bring back the people killed in the attack. Those deaths will be Obama's legacy (and Corker's among others).

And you still haven't told me how you know the "Death to America" faction is a minority.

1. No. Iran simply having a nuke is not a failure state. Iran will inevitably become a nuclear power at some point. Any country with the infrastructure and desire to do so will become a nuclear power. America no longer gets to pick and choose who can have nukes. If Iran uses a nuke, my optimism was wrong.


2. I can't say whether they are or are not the minority in Iran, but I do know people who have visited over there, and none of them were chased out, hung, ostracized, denied service or suicide bombed. That suggests to me that mainstream Iran is much more moderate than the wackos in charge are.

---

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jj82284" data-cid="528165" data-time="1441061975">
<div>
Prime minister chamberlain would disagree. This does nothing to avoid conflict. This does nothing to curb nuclear proliferation in the region.

 

The non-proliferation community and the various watch dogs disagree with you
. 

I will say again, given the international conduct of this president and the weakening of our economy its no surprise we hot fleeced and you cannot seperate the two.

That's your opinion that you keep presenting as fact


 

they arent chanting death to france they arent chanting death to russia and they didnt kill german troops. If u want to be the person to look over the bodies of our fallen and tell their families its okay because maybe germany will sit with us in the sand box at playtime then go ahead because an emotional discourse about not "dictating" the safety of our nation is about the same thing.

 

We all gon die? Our soldier won't die when Bibby and the warmongers finally get their way and we start a full out war? OK.



This charecterization of my way or the highway is curious. The left has no problen when its comservative americans being dictated to. That aside, no one is talking about banging on tables no one is talking about idle finger wagging. We are talking about having a competent executive and a strong military.

 

You are equating a multi-national agreement that you think we should have total power over, with forcing bigots to stop discriminating. Makes sense. You are either working with them (some who don't like you to begin with) or you are not. Are you advocating for working with these parties are going lone wolf. Because that is what it seems like. 


We should never have sat down with 4 hostages in iranian hands. We should have never sat down with chants of death to america and we should never have sat down with money still being poured into rockets bound for our allies. This is berghdal with centrifuges.

 

And here it finally is. All pretense cast aside and the real issue has finally been uttered. The right never wanted a deal. They never wanted the negotiations in the first place, leaving one of two options. Total capitulation and the crawling to us on hands and knees of Iran or war. Wonder which of those two is more likely and who would benefit financially and who would suffer. And you wonder about this curious characterization of "my way or the highway".

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 Here we go again.  

 

1.) when people call out the leadership of Iran for their rhetoric you are the first to decry generalization, but when its conservatives you feel comfortable calling them racist bigot homophobes any time you want.  

 

2.) gives us back our hostages and stop planning to kill us isn't my way or the highway.  That's pretty common sense.  It is the most vexing thing in the world that those on the left can take those two preconditions and craft this long emotional diatribe about not OFFENDING the Iranian regime or our western Allies.  This demonstrates that the left would have been happy with a ham sandwich as long as it came in a box marked DIPLOMACY!

---

How stupid are we? Stupid enough that if this was a republican president brokering this deal, you'd be calling it peace in the Middle East. Cause that's how Fox News would spin it.


Carry on


Oh btw, has Iran nuked us yet?

 

Thank you for your contribution.  Further affirmation that you can't logically refute my argument.  

---

Man, you still don't get it or your driving your American exceptionalism agenda is just too important to you.

 

America does not answer to any nation, except perhaps now Israel.  Thanks Boehner.  But we do work with other nations on an international scale to an end of nuclear non-proliferation, and should continue to do so.

 

We are far from the only military power in the world.  The EU, Russians, or Chinese could mount a successful invasion of Iran tomorrow if they chose, but they will choose not to do so, because they are sensible and pragmatic in their international diplomacy, not because they are afraid of Tehran.

 

The Russians are the ones selling them the equipment meeting with their Generals against UN sanctions and threatening to violate their end of the START treaty.  The Chinese are actively hacking the defense department at will.  Between the two of them there is a good chance that they leaked classified security information to the libyians.  You really think THEY are going to be the ones to deal with these people?  When was the last time the EU put up a major force in response to a major international threat?  


 

In this issue, you seem to think there is no middle ground:  total capitulation of Iran, or, as you just stated, total capitulation of the US.  You call my "middle ground" failure.  Failure, to me, is another war we can't afford.  A nuclear Pakistan still hasn't attacked a nuclear India, nor has North Korea, which may not even have a bomb, been able to attack their hated, and far more successful, rival to the south.  Why?  Because use of that weapon will elicit an attack on that country by not just the US, but every other military power on the globe. 

 

What middle ground.  They get the money now, they get commerce now, neither of which can be taken away by the snap back provisions under the agreement and all we get is the promise of international inspections by the IAEA which is already having to make side deals just to get into the country including outsourcing some sample collection to the IRANIANS themselves and one of their members has already has his life threatened by the regime?  What did we get again?  Why is everyone on your side of the isle so excited?  oh it just sounds like diplomacy?  Give me a break.  


 

The US will remain the only country that "got away" with using one (er, two).

 

I think under this framework, Iran may actually achieve a nuclear weapon in 10 - 15 years.  Without this framework, they will achieve it in about 5 years.  The choices are this deal, all out war, or remaining sanctions under which Iran still gets a weapon.  There is no fourth way, even if Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, and Charlton Heston magically reappear tomorrow and summon the Iranian foreign minister to Switzerland.

 

And one last thing that really hasn't been mentioned:  Yes, the angry mob in front of Iranian Parliament chants "Death to America".  Meanwhile, the internet beams in American ideas and culture into the living rooms of the young Iranian's living rooms, and they eat it up like Kardashian Kandy.  I have never been to Iran, but those that have visited do not bring back stories of men keeping harems living in caves and praying for America's death 24/7.  They bring back stories of a country of universities, empowered women, and a huge population under the age of 30 that want more information and experiences beyond just the one book (not a bad idea ANYWHERE, if you ask me).

 

And that 150 billion?  We aren't giving it to them, it was theirs all along.  The hostages?  They're not being held for ransom, they are prisoners.  They have been charged, arrested, being given due process, and are probably getting a fairer, faster trial than they would have in Mexico.

 

Just so you know, that lost you ALL credibility with me.  I am responding for the benefit of the group.  


 

I still think Iran sucks, but I think it has potential.  So did Reagan, actually, but that's another story.

 

There was a fourth way.  When the teaming masses of Iranians were yearning to breathe free and ready to overthrow the radical jihadists that want to kill us we should have helped the teaming masses yearning to breathe free.  Instead, for the last six years we have been slowly legitimizing the regime.  We missed our chance and now we are going to show that young impressionable generation that the ayatollah can bring them Western Culture and economic prosperity brought to you by undying devotion to allah and Shariah law.  Nwo that's change you can believe in. 

---

I agree with this completely. I would like to add that the time to "breakout" ought be used attempting to normalize relations. I think that is a good goal to have. You wont stop an enemy or a friend from getting weapons forever (aside from all out obliteration). What you can do is turn an enemy into either a friend at best or a neutral party at worst. I think we can do that and with the rise of the younger, more progressive generation, could lead to a much more stable arrangement then the current apocalyptic one we have now. 

 

so naive its scary.

---

so naive its scary.

Isnt it great to see it as our primary foreign policy?


Everybody cross those fingers and lets all sing!

---

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

1. No. Iran simply having a nuke is not a failure state. Iran will inevitably become a nuclear power at some point. Any country with the infrastructure and desire to do so will become a nuclear power. America no longer gets to pick and choose who can have nukes. If Iran uses a nuke, my optimism was wrong.


2. I can't say whether they are or are not the minority in Iran, but I do know people who have visited over there, and none of them were chased out, hung, ostracized, denied service or suicide bombed. That suggests to me that mainstream Iran is much more moderate than the wackos in charge are.

 

1. So if the result of the agreement is that Iran gets nukes in five years you think the agreement is still worthwhile? At least without the agreement they'd have $150B less to spend on bombs and delivery systems. The sanctions may not work forever, but they've worked so far. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


 

2. There are several Americans currently being held prisoner, so not every American made it back safely. I also seem to remember Iran being very unsafe to Americans back in the late '70s, and many of those Iranians are still alive. Iran is still run as a Theocracy, and their government negotiating the agreement is the same government leading the "death to America" chants. If you expect western influences via the internet and other sources to create a difference, let me remind you that the 9/11 terrorists were totally immersed in western culture. Many of the ISIS people came from Western Europe. Westernization is not reducing modern Islamic fundamentalism, but it's funny to see you spouting the old George Bush rhetoric.


 

How many people do you know who visited Iran? Did your friends who visited Iran tell people over there that they were Americans? And were they insane?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I think that this is an example of the measured restraint that you guys were talking about for conducting business on the world stage.  

---

There was a fourth way.  When the teaming masses of Iranians were yearning to breathe free and ready to overthrow the radical jihadists that want to kill us we should have helped the teaming masses yearning to breathe free.  Instead, for the last six years we have been slowly legitimizing the regime.  We missed our chance and now we are going to show that young impressionable generation that the ayatollah can bring them Western Culture and economic prosperity brought to you by undying devotion to allah and Shariah law.  Nwo that's change you can believe in. 

That worked SOOOOO well in Cuba, Nicaragua, and 1991 Iraq.

---

You know you're right. Lets just sit on our side of the pond and let europe take the lead tapking down the anti semetic psychopaths. That worked so well for nevelle chamberlain.

---