Iranian hard-liner says Supreme Leader opposes nuclear deal

[Scott]

This topic is about Iran. Stay on topic.

[retarius]

This guy is an idiot. Congress will kill the deal anyway. But other nations have skin in the game and they will be angry at the party that breaks the deal. The smart tactic would be to shut up and let America break the deal and take the flak? Imagine how Germany feels if after 1000s of hours of negotiation and with everyone in agreement Congress blocks it.

[Chicog]

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about. It was not until Israel wiped out 5 Arab armies in 6 days in 1967 that the USA decided to become staunch allies. Israel had ready won a number of wars, mostly on their own dime. The Soviet Union was arming the Arabs and giving them intelligence, but they failed dismally over and over again. Israel did not begin to receive large amounts of assistance from America until 1974.

Just briefly, because it's clearly off topic, you seem to be ignoring the $3 Billion (starting at 1949 rates) they received in total prior to that. Taking say 1961 as an average that's equivalent to $24 Billion dollars. So you might want to correct your post. I'll close that subject here because they really didn't get upset with Iran until the Shah was deposed.

[Chicog]

Aug 17, 3:42 AM EDT

IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL COULD SURVIVE EVEN IF CONGRESS DISAPPROVES

BY DEB RIECHMANN

ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The September vote on the Iran nuclear deal is billed as a titanic standoff between President Barack Obama and Congress. Yet even if lawmakers reject the agreement, it's not game over for the White House.

A congressional vote of disapproval would not prevent Obama from acting on his own to start putting the accord in place. While he probably would take some heavy criticism, this course would let him add the foreign policy breakthrough to his second-term list of accomplishments.

Obama doesn't need a congressional OK to give Iran most of the billions of dollars in relief from economic sanctions that it would get under the agreement, as long as Tehran honors its commitments to curb its nuclear program - at least for now.

More here

[lifeincnx]

Aug 17, 3:42 AM EDT

IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL COULD SURVIVE EVEN IF CONGRESS DISAPPROVES

BY DEB RIECHMANN

ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The September vote on the Iran nuclear deal is billed as a titanic standoff between President Barack Obama and Congress. Yet even if lawmakers reject the agreement, it's not game over for the White House.

A congressional vote of disapproval would not prevent Obama from acting on his own to start putting the accord in place. While he probably would take some heavy criticism, this course would let him add the foreign policy breakthrough to his second-term list of accomplishments.

Obama doesn't need a congressional OK to give Iran most of the billions of dollars in relief from economic sanctions that it would get under the agreement, as long as Tehran honors its commitments to curb its nuclear program - at least for now.

More here

I hope this President sticks it to this do-nothing 114th Congress. Heck, they're worse than the 112th Congress. Even then the Republicans controlled the House, and voted 33 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Once, OK, twice, three times, but no. THIRTY THREE TIMES! Now that has to be the definition of Republican insanity. Those group is even worse.

[chuckd]

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is a Presidential appointment, to be confirmed by the Senate.

General Dempsey was appointed by President Barack Obama.

Where do you think his loyalties lie?

His signature on the letter tells the answer.

You single out one name, fair enough, from my entire post. How about the the 30 US generals, many Israeli citizens, top nuclear scientists, the intelligence branch of the Israeli Defense Forces and the Mossad who support the deal? Perhaps just an oversight on your part.

The letter originated with General Dempsey.

How many of the signatories to that letter owe their careers to General Dempsey or are working for him as we speak?

A Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has very long tentacles. He can, simply by inference, get lesser mortals to do as he wishes.

Obviously I can't speak for the Mossad or Israeli intelligence branches you claim are in support of the Iran deal.

Were you ever in the military?

[lifeincnx]

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is a Presidential appointment, to be confirmed by the Senate.

General Dempsey was appointed by President Barack Obama.

Where do you think his loyalties lie?

His signature on the letter tells the answer.

You single out one name, fair enough, from my entire post. How about the the 30 US generals, many Israeli citizens, top nuclear scientists, the intelligence branch of the Israeli Defense Forces and the Mossad who support the deal? Perhaps just an oversight on your part.

The letter originated with General Dempsey.

How many of the signatories to that letter owe their careers to General Dempsey or are working for him as we speak?

A Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has very long tentacles. He can, simply by inference, get lesser mortals to do as he wishes.

Obviously I can't speak for the Mossad or Israeli intelligence branches you claim are in support of the Iran deal.

Were you ever in the military?

I did not claim anything; I referenced and linked to a reliable source, which you apparently did not bother to follow. So, go back to step one and read it in my initial and subsequent post. FYI, most of those signatories are recently retired generals, otherwise they would not formally speak out either for or against their Commander-in-Chief. And no, I have not been in the military and your question is moot. But if you want to try to play that old game, try listening to what many front-line vets have to say about this deal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKojgfsAeH8&feature=youtu.be

http://www.votevets.org/

[Chicog]

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is a Presidential appointment, to be confirmed by the Senate.

General Dempsey was appointed by President Barack Obama.

Where do you think his loyalties lie?

His signature on the letter tells the answer.

You single out one name, fair enough, from my entire post. How about the the 30 US generals, many Israeli citizens, top nuclear scientists, the intelligence branch of the Israeli Defense Forces and the Mossad who support the deal? Perhaps just an oversight on your part.

The letter originated with General Dempsey.

How many of the signatories to that letter owe their careers to General Dempsey or are working for him as we speak?

A Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has very long tentacles. He can, simply by inference, get lesser mortals to do as he wishes.

Obviously I can't speak for the Mossad or Israeli intelligence branches you claim are in support of the Iran deal.

Were you ever in the military?

Who Supports the Iran Nuclear Agreement?

32 top American scientists

More than 100 former American Ambassadors

60 national security experts

The Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates)

67 Former Israeli intelligence and military officials

http://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Who-Supports-the-Iran-Nuclear-Agreement.pdf

[chuckd]

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is a Presidential appointment, to be confirmed by the Senate.

General Dempsey was appointed by President Barack Obama.

Where do you think his loyalties lie?

His signature on the letter tells the answer.

You single out one name, fair enough, from my entire post. How about the the 30 US generals, many Israeli citizens, top nuclear scientists, the intelligence branch of the Israeli Defense Forces and the Mossad who support the deal? Perhaps just an oversight on your part.

The letter originated with General Dempsey.

How many of the signatories to that letter owe their careers to General Dempsey or are working for him as we speak?

A Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has very long tentacles. He can, simply by inference, get lesser mortals to do as he wishes.

Obviously I can't speak for the Mossad or Israeli intelligence branches you claim are in support of the Iran deal.

Were you ever in the military?

Who Supports the Iran Nuclear Agreement?

32 top American scientists

More than 100 former American Ambassadors

60 national security experts

The Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates)

67 Former Israeli intelligence and military officials

http://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Who-Supports-the-Iran-Nuclear-Agreement.pdf

Who doesn't support it?

Me, roughly two thirds of the US public and the Ayatollah Khamenei don't support it.

1/3rd do...1/3rd don't...1/3rd don't know

Only in Obama-land does that constitute a mandate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Public Split on Iran Nuclear Deal — WSJ/NBC Poll

By LAURA MECKLER

and KRISTINA PETERSON

The American public is evenly divided over an agreement aimed at preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, with a third supporting the deal, a third opposing it and a third saying they don’t know enough to say, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds.

That’s a step backwards for the White House, which is strongly pushing the agreement. In June, the Journal/NBC News found about the same level of support for a potential deal, but fewer people opposed.

The agreement, reached last month between Iran, the U.S. and other nations, imposes strict limits on Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for easing international sanctions. The poll comes as Congress prepares to debate the matter this fall.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/08/03/american-public-split-on-iran-nuclear-deal-wsjnbc-poll/

[Chicog]

Who doesn't support it?

Me, roughly two thirds of the US public and the Ayatollah Khamenei don't support it.

1/3rd do...1/3rd don't...1/3rd don't know

Only in Obama-land does that constitute a mandate.

By that logic two thirds are not against it.

Although it's more likely 2/3 of the population haven't actually read it, and that probably includes most of the third that are against it.

[chuckd]

I've read it. Have you read it?

Well, everything but the secret deals which nobody but the Iranians have read.

[Ulysses G.]

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about. It was not until Israel wiped out 5 Arab armies in 6 days in 1967 that the USA decided to become staunch allies. Israel had ready won a number of wars, mostly on their own dime. The Soviet Union was arming the Arabs and giving them intelligence, but they failed dismally over and over again. Israel did not begin to receive large amounts of assistance from America until 1974.

Just briefly, because it's clearly off topic, you seem to be ignoring the $3 Billion (starting at 1949 rates) they received in total prior to that.

Go do some research on how much aid the US gave to their Arab enemies at the same time and the weapons that America sold to them as well. America was trying to play both sides of the conflict until we eventually decided on Israel. Israel won all the wars before that mostly on their own dime and all the wars after that using only their own soldiers. The Palestinians and 5 Arab armies were being funded and armed by the Soviets and they still LOST every time.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Ulysses G.