Obama's Iran deal may well survive on Capitol Hill

[up-country_sinclair]

In 2012, the president declared that “the deal we’ll accept” with Iran “is that they end their nuclear program” and “abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.” Neither one happened.

The resolutions called for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. However under the agreement, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years.

None of Iran’s nuclear facilities will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not shipped out of the country. The truth is that Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state. Facts are Facts,

You've got lots of claims and quotation marks in this post but nary a citation to back any of it up.

You expect other posters to take your word for it? With your history of fiddling with facts and simply making things up?

Dream on.

Or post credible links to support every claim in the post.

[Ulysses G.]

Sorry, produce something that I have "made up". You are lying and what I have written is accurate. Instead of accusing me of something you have fabricated, why don't you try to prove that my facts are wrong? Most of the things you have highlighted are right in the deal, so you might try reading it, instead of wasting everyone's time trolling.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1651/

Edited August 22, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Thakkar]

For and against

[Ulysses G.]

For and against

Senator Robert Menendez is a democrat that voted against the Iraq war and is firmly against Obama's Iran deal, so there goes that theory.

"I have looked into my own soul and my devotion to principle may once again lead me to an unpopular course, but if Iran is to acquire a nuclear bomb, it will not have my name on it". "It is for these reasons that I will vote to disapprove the agreement and, if called upon, would vote to override a veto."

[Thakkar]

For and against

Senator Robert Menendez is a democrat that voted against the Iraq war and is firmly against Obama's Iran deal, so there goes that theory.

"I have looked into my own soul and my devotion to principle may once again lead me to an unpopular course, but if Iran is to acquire a nuclear bomb, it will not have my name on it". "It is for these reasons that I will vote to disapprove the agreement and, if called upon, would vote to override a veto."

Is Senator Robert Menendez an expert? In his reasoning to vote against the deal, is there a citation of fact or logic as to how he came to his decision?

If he had a factual or logical basis for his objection, he would not need to espouse amorphous and meaningless claptrap like "looking into one's soul."

T

[Ulysses G.]

For and against

Hillary Clinton supports Obama's deal and voted FOR the Iraq War, so there goes that theory.

[Thakkar]

For and against

Hillary Clinton supports Obama's deal and voted FOR the Iraq War, so there goes that theory.

I have no idea what that means. The smiley isn't helping.

T

[up-country_sinclair]

For and against

Senator Robert Menendez is a democrat that voted against the Iraq war and is firmly against Obama's Iran deal

Senator Menendez?

Next you'll tell me that former Congressman James Trafficant would have been against the deal.

Senator Robert Menendez is under Federal indictment on corruption charges.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/menendez-expected-to-be-indicted-as-soon-as-wednesday-sources-say/2015/04/01/623024c6-d86e-11e4-8103-fa84725dbf9d_story.html

Senator Robert Menendez was named one of the most corrupt members of congress:

http://www.citizensforethics.org/pages/robert-menendez-new-jersey-crew-most-corrupt-members-of-congress

The charges against Senator Menendez focus on him using his office to advance the interests of a campaign donor.

But of course AIPAC would never be involved in anything like that.

[Linky]

For and against

Hillary Clinton supports Obama's deal and voted FOR the Iraq War, so there goes that theory.

I have no idea what that means. The smiley isn't helping.

T

Dont worry, even he wont know what it means, but will make something up and play with facts try and support it. He is well known for not being entirely truthful re facts.

If the US does the right thing and agrees with the deal it joins the rest of the world. If it doesnt agree then the rest of the world will continue with the agreement without them.

So whether the US does the desl or not will have no consequence to anyone except US businesses.

[Ulysses G.]

For and against

Senator Robert Menendez is a democrat that voted against the Iraq war and is firmly against Obama's Iran deal

Senator Menendez?

Senator Robert Menendez is a democrat that voted against the Iraq war and is against Obama's Iran deal. He is not an "architect" of the Iraq war in any sense. How does your smear job change that fact?

[Pinot]

The Wingnutosphere sees the Iran agreement as the end of the world as we know it. Republicans want only war, no other alternatives. They're as bad as the radical mullahs with the "Death to America bullshit".

I see it as an agreement to bring Iraq back into World instead of being an isolated rogue state. Their religious nutters (same as ours) took them down that path and the people of Iran have had enough. Most Iraqis are reasonable wonderful people. It's when the radicals take over a country that it ends up like Iraq.

Take a look at the current crop of Republicans who want to be President for examples of extremism. Read the comments above! It's crazy scary stuff. American radical right-wing extremism is the single biggest threat to World peace. All of these ridiculous candidates are dangerous. If they don't ruin the economy like Bush did, they'll gin up a war like Bush did. Want more of the same? Any of these crazy Republicans will do.

This is going to be another huge Obama victory. His legacy as a great effective President will only grow after he leaves office. That drives the nutters crazy and you see it here on TV. They hate him with a passion. He can't do anything right and he's ruined America. That's what runs through the nutters heads as they soak in the bile from Fox.

Obama...greatest American President? I can rattle off his accomplishments if you like? Obama wins again. Deal with it.

[up-country_sinclair]

For and against

Senator Robert Menendez is a democrat that voted against the Iraq war and is firmly against Obama's Iran deal

Senator Menendez?

Senator Robert Menendez is a democrat that voted against the Iraq war and is against Obama's Iran deal. He is not an "architect" of the Iraq war in any sense. How does your smear job change that fact?

I never stated that Senator Menendez was an architect of the Iraq war.

What I did state is that Senator Menendez is under Federal indictment on corruption charges.

What I did state is that Senator Menendez was named one of the most corrupt members of Congress.

And what you've attempted to do is deflect attention from these facts.

But distractions aside, as it stands now, the deal will not be stopped by the traitorous Israeli Firsters in Washington DC.

[chuckd]

For and against

Senator Robert Menendez is a democrat that voted against the Iraq war and is firmly against Obama's Iran deal, so there goes that theory.

"I have looked into my own soul and my devotion to principle may once again lead me to an unpopular course, but if Iran is to acquire a nuclear bomb, it will not have my name on it". "It is for these reasons that I will vote to disapprove the agreement and, if called upon, would vote to override a veto."

Is Senator Robert Menendez an expert? In his reasoning to vote against the deal, is there a citation of fact or logic as to how he came to his decision?

If he had a factual or logical basis for his objection, he would not need to espouse amorphous and meaningless claptrap like "looking into one's soul."

T

Menendez is a sitting United States Senator.

What are your expert qualifications?

He has a vote, you don't.

He has only to answer to his constituents for his actions. Not some anonymous individual on a Thai forum.

[Thakkar]

For and against

Senator Robert Menendez is a democrat that voted against the Iraq war and is firmly against Obama's Iran deal, so there goes that theory.

"I have looked into my own soul and my devotion to principle may once again lead me to an unpopular course, but if Iran is to acquire a nuclear bomb, it will not have my name on it". "It is for these reasons that I will vote to disapprove the agreement and, if called upon, would vote to override a veto."

Is Senator Robert Menendez an expert? In his reasoning to vote against the deal, is there a citation of fact or logic as to how he came to his decision?

If he had a factual or logical basis for his objection, he would not need to espouse amorphous and meaningless claptrap like "looking into one's soul."

T

Menendez is a sitting United States Senator.

What are your expert qualifications?

He has a vote, you don't.

He has only to answer to his constituents for his actions. Not some anonymous individual on a Thai forum.

I now understand why you might oppose the deal: your level of reading comprehension is very low. The comparison isn't between me and Senator Menendez, but between the senator and diplomats/generals/scientists/IAEA Inspectors and the small fact that the senator has given no valid reasons for his opposition.

T

[chuckd]

Is Senator Robert Menendez an expert? In his reasoning to vote against the deal, is there a citation of fact or logic as to how he came to his decision?

If he had a factual or logical basis for his objection, he would not need to espouse amorphous and meaningless claptrap like "looking into one's soul."

T

Menendez is a sitting United States Senator.

What are your expert qualifications?

He has a vote, you don't.

He has only to answer to his constituents for his actions. Not some anonymous individual on a Thai forum.

I now understand why you might oppose the deal: your level of reading comprehension is very low. The comparison isn't between me and Senator Menendez, but between the senator and diplomats/generals/scientists/IAEA Inspectors and the small fact that the senator has given no valid reasons for his opposition.

T

Thanks for your usually snarky response.

Now for my own.

When your "diplomats/generals/scientists/IAEA inspectors" get a vote in the halls of Congress, give us a call. Until then, the Senator has no obligation to provide a reason other than what he has already done.

You don't like it? Not anybody's problem but yours.

[Thakkar]

Is Senator Robert Menendez an expert? In his reasoning to vote against the deal, is there a citation of fact or logic as to how he came to his decision?

If he had a factual or logical basis for his objection, he would not need to espouse amorphous and meaningless claptrap like "looking into one's soul."

T

Menendez is a sitting United States Senator.

What are your expert qualifications?

He has a vote, you don't.

He has only to answer to his constituents for his actions. Not some anonymous individual on a Thai forum.

I now understand why you might oppose the deal: your level of reading comprehension is very low. The comparison isn't between me and Senator Menendez, but between the senator and diplomats/generals/scientists/IAEA Inspectors and the small fact that the senator has given no valid reasons for his opposition.

T

Thanks for your usually snarky response.

Now for my own.

When your "diplomats/generals/scientists/IAEA inspectors" get a vote in the halls of Congress, give us a call. Until then, the Senator has no obligation to provide a reason other than what he has already done.

You don't like it? Not anybody's problem but yours.

With this level of discourse, it is no wonder Republicans are a laughing stock.

The senator is a representative of the people. He is obligated to the public (including those who didn't vote for him) to understand--and to demonstrate his understanding of--what he is voting on. He has to justify his stance with something more concrete than "I searched my soul." If he has good reasons, where in his statement are they articulated?

T

[Pinot]

One way to judge a sticky political issue is to find out where Dick (Darth) Chaney stands and then go 180 degrees the other way. Always a safe bet.

[up-country_sinclair]

Menendez is a sitting United States Senator.

What are your expert qualifications?

He has a vote, you don't.

He has only to answer to his constituents for his actions. Not some anonymous individual on a Thai forum.

Yes, he currently is a sitting US Senator. But how long do you think it will be until he is sitting in a jail cell?

Yes, he currently has a vote. But not on the Foreign Relations Committee, because he was forced to step down in shame.

You see, he's been brought up on corruption charges after a multi-year investigation by the FBI.

So, in addition to answering to his constituents, he'll also have to answer to a Federal judge and a jury of his peers.

There is a mountain of evidence that indicates he sold his votes and influence of his elected office for cash. Just out of curiosity, how much do you think AIPAC has donated to Senator Menendez over the years?

Edited August 22, 2015 by up-country_sinclair

[Thakkar]

There's a kind of propaganda--I forget what it's called--that was first invented by the Soviets. Practitioners pretend to have discourse, but the purpose is simply to muddy the waters with inanities and irrelevancies, half-truths, rumour, even lies. The result is shouting matches and diversions, and no real advancement of understanding, compromise, progress or resolutions.

We see a good demonstration of these methods with the Russian-sponsored news network, RT.com. They seem to have learned their tricks from right wing network, Fox, who, ironically, seem to have learned it from the Commie Soviets.

My support for the Iran Nuclear deal is based on my understanding of the 159 page document, and reading/watching various analysis of the agreement in the media (including Fox). My reasons are articulated elsewhere in these forums. There may be good reasons for opposing the agreement, but, honestly, I haven't seen any articulated by its opponents. All I've seen are irrelevancies, distractions and outright lies. The opposition I see here on this and other threads are almost verbatim repeats from Fox of those water-muddying propaganda techniques I mentioned.

This is not to say that opponents here are propagandists working for Fox/GOP/AIPAC/whatever. As far as I can tell, the opposition is either ideological, or based on fallacious arguments.

I am always ready to change my views when presented with facts or, compelling arguments. That just hasn't happened here, or in the wider world I'm monitoring where this issue is being discussed. In my effort to genuinely understand opposition to the agreement, I've been watching Fox more than usual as well as reading Breitbart (a really well-designed site, btw). But, hand to heart, I really haven't seen honest or compelling arguments there.

This is an international agreement. America is not the only party. Britain, Germany, The EU, China, Russia, the United Nations and the IAEA have all endorsed the deal. It is happening with or without U.S. participation. This in itself is not reason enough for the U.S. to participate. But if it doesn't, it better have some darn good reasons that stand up to scrutiny, or at least make sense. Otherwise the U.S. risks ridicule, irrelevancy and, despite its super power status, declining respect and influence in world affairs. That is not a good state of affairs, especially for the rabid "America First" advocates. And it isn't healthy for any of us if the world's premier power sits on the irrelevancy sidelines while the rest of the world moves on.

Those of you here opposing the deal, I implore you to seek truth from facts. Or, if you believe you have the facts, use those in a goodwill effort to convince people like me.

BTW, "You can't trust the Iranians" is not an argument because the the deal does not rely on trust but on rigorous, independent inspections and continuous monitoring.

I say again that this is too important an issue for partisan point-scoring.

T

[Publicus]

I've sent your post to the office of Sen Menendez so the senator can see for himself how to make a rational, persuasive and convincing statement of public policy decision making.

Buy By way of contrast, I've also asked the senator from New Jersey how much per word he wuz paid for his statement of opposition to the Agreement. I don't question the indicted senator's integrity, I impugn it outright and justifiably. He was against the Iraq war but he is in favor of war against Iran,

[Anthony5]

The kamikaze right with its teabaggers driving the Washington Republicans actually thought they could deny a two-term POTUS his inevitable legacy. The sky pilots of the far right have only managed to bounce their planes off the hull of the unsinkable Barack Obama, 44th POTUS.

All that the hard driving warmongers on the right have left now is their desperate hope war breaks out anyway. UN sponsorship of the P5+1 negotiators and the Agreement really kills 'em besides over there on the fringes of normal society.

The right looks to lose yet another one.

Well Obama is not doing less wars.....He actually increased the drone strikes which are terrorist actions in my opinion.

But they are more surgical than carpet bombing and less dangerous to US service men and women than pointless incursions into hostile territory swarming with suicide bombers and other assorted nutcases.

Best of a bad bunch really.

Good evaluation.

Drone warfare is likely to be the preferred way to keep the neighbourhood safe for Israel in the foreseeable future.

Did you want to say FROM Israel?

[hawker9000]

For and against

Oh. Cartoons!

[hawker9000]

But Obamanistas everywhere should be able to relate to this one, too!