Obama offended by attacks on Jews who back Iran deal

[Chicog]

Does your remote control not have a "mute" button on it?

Us youngsters can multitask Chuck.

[Chicog]

12 hours of news a day is utter garbage.

I'll take facts from Pews Research over your personal opinion any time. There is nothing in your posts that even remotely suggests the credibility of a respected, nonpartisan think tank.

As you wish UG.

[Ulysses G.]

More personal OPINION that does nothing to contradict the FACTS.

Which news organization is the most trusted? The answer is complicated. Our recent report, Political Polarization and Media Habits, finds that trust and distrust in the news media varies greatly by political ideology.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/30/which-news-organization-is-the-most-trusted-the-answer-is-complicated/

Edited September 1, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

Fox Schmox.

[Johpa]

 

The Iran deal is an agreement for world peace. The only alternative is another Middle-Eastern War.

That is a false choice. A BETTER DEAL is the alternative.

It is your logic that is false. There is always a better deal for both sides than the negotiated deal. That is why, in English, we use the world "deal" as signifying the end of negotiations between two sides. The fact that we have a deal is a good thing, even if some people on both sides would want a better deal for their side. But in the end in it is a decent deal that I see more as an argument for world peace that some binding agreement. The alternative, which quite frankly is no deal, is not an argument for world peace but an argument for continued friction and war. Look, I am no Pollyanna, and I think Huntington was right, there is a clash of cultures going on. But at least this deal puts any major conflict on hold with more time to prevent any Megido Meeting and time for alternate solutions to arise politically, or perhaps socially.

[Chicog]

More personal OPINION that does nothing to contradict the FACTS.

Personal opinion?

You said you believe Pew Research.

Make your mind up will you.

[Ulysses G.]

Pew Research asked some people their OPINIONS on THEIR most trusted news source. Did you bother to read the article that chart came from? It has NOTHING to do with the FACT that FOX News do about 12 hours per day of straight news, which is a little less than CNN. That is based on RESEARCH.

[Ulysses G.]

 

The Iran deal is an agreement for world peace. The only alternative is another Middle-Eastern War.

That is a false choice. A BETTER DEAL is the alternative.

It is your logic that is false. There is always a better deal for both sides than the negotiated deal.

Nope. The claim that only alternative is another Middle-Eastern War is FALSE. A better deal is just ONE alternative.

[Chicog]

Pew Research asked some people their OPINIONS on THEIR most trusted news source. Did you bother to read the article that chart came from? It has NOTHING to do with the FACT that FOX News do about 12 hours per day of straight news, which is a little less than CNN. That is based on RESEARCH.

Do your own research, it's easier and more reliable. Then try and contradict me.

[Ulysses G.]

You mean just make stuff up from thin air like you have done? I have actual facts to back me up. FOX News do about 12 hours per day of straight news and I have proven it.

[BKResort]

"Read my lips"

I support the Iran deal, but all this commotion about it, is a waste of energy.

Even if is approved and implemented, will be canceled by the next president, Clinton or Bush...at the first opportunity or excuse.

[Jingthing]

"Read my lips"

I support the Iran deal, but all this commotion about it, is a waste of energy.

Even if is approved and implemented, will be canceled by the next president, Clinton or Bush...at the first opportunity or excuse.

Clinton strongly supports the deal. As far a republican "canceling" it, I think it won't be easy as you think.

[Jingthing]

It's pleasing to see the historic progressive American Jewish newspaper THE FORWARD get so much attention lately. Now the interview with Obama. Recently a Forward reporter was invited to Iran to do an extensive story about life there ... very very unusual for a Jewish media outlet to get such an invite.

http://forward.com/news/318930/a-jewish-journalists-exclusive-look-inside-iran/

A paper with a very interesting history indeed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forward

Edited September 1, 2015 by Jingthing

[Mazungu]

 

The Iran deal is an agreement for world peace. The only alternative is another Middle-Eastern War.

That is a false choice. A BETTER DEAL is the alternative.

It is your logic that is false. There is always a better deal for both sides than the negotiated deal.

Nope. The claim that only alternative is another Middle-Eastern War is FALSE. A better deal is just ONE alternative.

“A better deal”, REALLY? After the world powers have spent years bargaining and negotiating and giving and taking to reach this deal they are just going to start over? They are just going to say to the Iranians, "this deal is a sucker for us and we don't like it anymore." So if you Iranians want to make a deal now the terms are going to much harder on you, OK? And the Iranians are going to say, "jeez, we see your point...we'll just give you everything you want OK?" I guess that's the logic and intellectual thought process of the Republican right wing and all the others who say, "Let's just make this deal better!" Ha Ha what a laugh! In my opinion if the hardline mullahs in Iran and the hardline Israelis and the hardline Republicans all hate it...it must be a pretty fair deal for all parties.

[chuckd]

Who said the "hardline Mullahs" hate it?

[Chicog]

You mean just make stuff up from thin air like you have done? I have actual facts to back me up. FOX News do about 12 hours per day of straight news and I have proven it.

Funny that, I have it on all week and you don't watch it. And you refuse to, lest you have to swallow your words.

I can send you a link to it if you want.

[Mazungu]

Who said the "hardline Mullahs" hate it?

Many hardline clerics in Iran are opposed to the deal because it imposes restrictions on what they see as Iran's right to a nuclear program.

http://www.startribune.com/iranian-hard-liner-says-supreme-leader-opposes-nuclear-deal/321949761/

[Jingthing]

Yeah well, the bottom line if the Mullahs hated it THAT much they could kill it as they have TOTAL power there! So they have reservations, obviously, but they don't hate it enough to kill it. So the logic that enemies of the Mullahs (include me in that) should love this deal because the Mullahs hate it is full of holes.

I am most interested in what the Iranian enemies of the Mullahs think and the info I have on that is that they're split.

I know a lot of people want to paint this as black and white ... and history might show they are right, but from where we are now, it just doesn't seem quite that clear cut.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Jingthing

[Mazungu]

Yeah well, the bottom line if the Mullahs hated it THAT much they could kill it as they have TOTAL power there! So they have reservations, obviously, but they don't hate it enough to kill it. So the logic that it is good for enemies of the Mullahs (include me in that) should love this deal because the Mullahs hate it is full of holes.

They don't like it just as the Republicans don't like it. But I hope neither has the power to scuttle the deal. The logic is that nobody gets everything they want in a good deal for both sides.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/analysis-iranian-hardliners-are-striving-kill-vienna-agreement-666148695

[Jingthing]

I am not buying the line of any equivalence between the Iranian Mullahs and the U.S. republicans. Sorry. I know Obama has pushed that rhetoric, but sorry, I think he's full of crap on that.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Jingthing

[chuckd]

Who said the "hardline Mullahs" hate it?

Many hardline clerics in Iran are opposed to the deal because it imposes restrictions on what they see as Iran's right to a nuclear program.

http://www.startribune.com/iranian-hard-liner-says-supreme-leader-opposes-nuclear-deal/321949761/

Yet this is the operative part of your link:

"Khamenei has not publicly approved or disapproved of the deal. However, he has repeatedly offered words of support for Iran's nuclear negotiators. Moderates believe the deal would have never been reached without Khamenei's private approval."

The early objection on the part of the Mullahs was that they would lose their sovereignty through the IAEA inspection process. We now know the special deal between the IAEA and Iran has solved that problem.

Iran now has a 24 day window to sanitize any site the IAEA wishes to inspect.

"Any time, any where" has gone by the wayside.

Why would Iran not be happy? They are getting the sanctions lifted on virtually everything and receiving +/- $150 Billion for their troubles.

[Srikcir]

The Iran deal is an agreement for world peace. The only alternative is another Middle-Eastern War.

That is a false choice. A BETTER DEAL is the alternative.

If not for Obama's crazy "non-binding agreement", the world could have kept tightening the screws until Iran capitulated to the terms we were demanding in the first place. If it looks like a treaty, walks like a treaty and talks like a treaty, is it really a treaty?

NO - the agreement is not a duck.

(taken in part from a report by Stephen Collinson, CNN)

It is up to the POTUS to decide whether it is negotiating an agreement that formally binds the United States to commitments under international law; i.e., a treaty, or a less stringent arrangement.

POTUS executive agreements under Article II of the Constitution stipulates that an agreement is only viewed as a treaty once it has been made with "the advice and consent of the Senate." Since Obama does not view the Iranian deal as a treaty, it is not a treaty. However, since the agreement is nonbinding, the next POTUS can legally renege on the agreement.

The USA loses nothing terms of sovereignty in this agreement. The Iranian nuclear deal does not change the USA military posture. USA sanctions mandated by US Congress can remain in place, albeit no longer complimented by UN and P-5 sanctions. The POTUS can unilaterally lift sanctions made by executive privilege.

So while the Iranian deal maybe be a treaty under international law, it is not a treaty under USA law. There is no case law in the USA that says otherwise. And the Republicans have no current plans to challenge Obama in court, probably because a win would constrain any future Republican president facing a democratic majority.

[ABCer]

EVERYONE who backs that stupid deal should be ridiculed. It is the worst deal since the Munich Agreement. There is no reason to single Jews out.

But do not underestimate the psychological effect of his position.

Most people read only the first part: Obama defends Jews.... who support him.

Which proves that

- psychology works!

- not all Jews are smart despite the common belief!

- if you support me, by supporting you I support myself!

- after all it is possible to be 'not enough black'.

All this rhetoric is not important once money is released and sanctions lifted.

Then the orders for arms will be fulfilled and "Death to America!" and "Death to Israel!" will flood the streets of Tehran again.

I wonder did the Nobel Peace Prize was ever asked back?

[Steely Dan]

If president Obama is offended by attacks on Jews who back the Iran deal I assume he must also be against the disgraceful religion baiting attitude of those who oppose the deal as Israel firsters. If not Mr Obama is not condemning antisemitism but is merely defending those who choose to agree with him and using their religion as a crutch to prop his indignation on.

[Mazungu]

Anybody who is against this deal needs to think long and hard about what the most likely alternative is if this deal falls through. Those against this deal seem to think “we can get a better deal” or they think “we can just tighten the screws harder on the sanctions until the Iranians say surrender.” Both of these are unlikely scenarios in my opinion. The first because after years of negotiating the world powers are not going to go through this process again anytime soon. Why should they when they all agreed this was the best deal that could be reached between all parties and then the US congress killed the deal? Why go through all that again? Sure everyone in the West would love a better deal but just jumping up and down and screaming “we want a better deal” is not going to get it done. A better deal isn’t on the table and won’t be. The other alternative of those against the deal think we can just tighten the screws harder on the sanctions. I don’t think this is realistic. If this deal falls through the Russians and Chinese (not everyone in the world hates the Iranians) will likely give a nod and a wink to green light doing business with Iran again. Maybe the Russians and Chinese won’t lift the sanctions officially but the sanctions will start getting very holey. If the deal falls through the Iranians will be free to pursue any nuclear weapons program they wish. The end result and most likely alternative if this deal falls through will be an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities and another Middle-Eastern WAR.

[Jingthing]

If president Obama is offended by attacks on Jews who back the Iran deal I assume he must also be against the disgraceful religion baiting attitude of those who oppose the deal as Israel firsters. If not Mr Obama is not condemning antisemitism but is merely defending those who choose to agree with him and using their religion as a crutch to prop his indignation on.

Agreed, but I doubt you're going to like this comment.

I blame both Obama and Bibi for this situation of questioning the motivations of American Jews for or against the deal.

Bibi made a tactical decision to get involved in partisan U.S. politics and he has made a big play globally to assert he is the Big Daddy of all Jews.

But he isn't. He is the leader of ISRAEL only.

So he inflamed this and what he did was then further aggravated by Obama's rhetoric.

But I doubt Obama would have ever talked that way if it wasn't for Bibi's actions.

The has put American Jews in a very weird and awkward political position. Because Bibi allied himself specifically with the republican part and U.S. Jews are overwhelmingly democrats. U.S. Jews across party lines of course overwhelmingly support the existence and defense of Israel ... but having domestic partisan political matters messed with this way ... crosses a line I that might have been better off not being crossed.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Jingthing

[chuckd]

Anybody who is against this deal needs to think long and hard about what the most likely alternative is if this deal falls through. Those against this deal seem to think “we can get a better deal” or they think “we can just tighten the screws harder on the sanctions until the Iranians say surrender.” Both of these are unlikely scenarios in my opinion. The first because after years of negotiating the world powers are not going to go through this process again anytime soon. Why should they when they all agreed this was the best deal that could be reached between all parties and then the US congress killed the deal? Why go through all that again? Sure everyone in the West would love a better deal but just jumping up and down and screaming “we want a better deal” is not going to get it done. A better deal isn’t on the table and won’t be. The other alternative of those against the deal think we can just tighten the screws harder on the sanctions. I don’t think this is realistic. If this deal falls through the Russians and Chinese (not everyone in the world hates the Iranians) will likely give a nod and a wink to green light doing business with Iran again. Maybe the Russians and Chinese won’t lift the sanctions officially but the sanctions will start getting very holey. If the deal falls through the Iranians will be free to pursue any nuclear weapons program they wish. The end result and most likely alternative if this deal falls through will be an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities and another Middle-Eastern WAR.

Guess what.

The ink isn't dry on the "agreement" and the Iranians are already using it to their benefit on conventional weapons.

These are the people this administration trusts to keep their words.

They will, too. As long as those words are..."Death to America".

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

Iran Vows to Violate UN Restrictions on Ballistic Missiles

Iran missile stocks increase

BY: Adam Kredo

September 1, 2015 4:00 pm

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani vowed that the Islamic Republic would violate outstanding United Nations restrictions governing the country’s ballistic missile program and that the behavior would not violate the recent nuclear accord, according to a translation of the leader’s remarks performed by the CIA’s Open Source Center.

Iran is “not committed to the restrictions on its missile program,” according to a recent comment made by Rouhani, who said a violation of international restrictions would not impact the nuclear accord recently reached with global powers.

“We have formally announced that we are not committed to these provisions [related to missiles] mentioned in [the] U.N. resolution,” Rouhani was quoted as saying in an Aug. 29 Persian language speech broadcast on Iran’s state-controlled television networks.

It is written into the nuclear accord that a violation of U.N. bans on Iran’s missile program will not impact the deal.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-vows-to-violate-un-restrictions-on-ballistic-missiles/

[Chicog]

Anybody who is against this deal needs to think long and hard about what the most likely alternative is if this deal falls through. Those against this deal seem to think “we can get a better deal” or they think “we can just tighten the screws harder on the sanctions until the Iranians say surrender.” Both of these are unlikely scenarios in my opinion. The first because after years of negotiating the world powers are not going to go through this process again anytime soon. Why should they when they all agreed this was the best deal that could be reached between all parties and then the US congress killed the deal? Why go through all that again? Sure everyone in the West would love a better deal but just jumping up and down and screaming “we want a better deal” is not going to get it done. A better deal isn’t on the table and won’t be. The other alternative of those against the deal think we can just tighten the screws harder on the sanctions. I don’t think this is realistic. If this deal falls through the Russians and Chinese (not everyone in the world hates the Iranians) will likely give a nod and a wink to green light doing business with Iran again. Maybe the Russians and Chinese won’t lift the sanctions officially but the sanctions will start getting very holey. If the deal falls through the Iranians will be free to pursue any nuclear weapons program they wish. The end result and most likely alternative if this deal falls through will be an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities and another Middle-Eastern WAR.

Guess what.

The ink isn't dry on the "agreement" and the Iranians are already using it to their benefit on conventional weapons.

These are the people this administration trusts to keep their words.

They will, too. As long as those words are..."Death to America".

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

Iran Vows to Violate UN Restrictions on Ballistic Missiles

Iran missile stocks increase

BY: Adam Kredo

September 1, 2015 4:00 pm

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani vowed that the Islamic Republic would violate outstanding United Nations restrictions governing the country’s ballistic missile program and that the behavior would not violate the recent nuclear accord, according to a translation of the leader’s remarks performed by the CIA’s Open Source Center.

Iran is “not committed to the restrictions on its missile program,” according to a recent comment made by Rouhani, who said a violation of international restrictions would not impact the nuclear accord recently reached with global powers.

“We have formally announced that we are not committed to these provisions [related to missiles] mentioned in [the] U.N. resolution,” Rouhani was quoted as saying in an Aug. 29 Persian language speech broadcast on Iran’s state-controlled television networks.

It is written into the nuclear accord that a violation of U.N. bans on Iran’s missile program will not impact the deal.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-vows-to-violate-un-restrictions-on-ballistic-missiles/

Yeah, I don't really think defying UN resolutions is anything to get too excited about. One of Iran's neighbours has been doing it for years.

[Mazungu]

Guess what.

The ink isn't dry on the "agreement" and the Iranians are already using it to their benefit on conventional weapons.

These are the people this administration trusts to keep their words.

They will, too. As long as those words are..."Death to America".

Maybe you shouldn't live in fear so much. Israel & the US both have the conventional and nuclear capability to wipe Iran off the map. Iran knows this just like the Soviets did during the cold war and it was a useful deterrent from either side crossing red lines. Iran will likely behave the same as the Soviets when faced with mutually assured destruction from either the Israelis or the US.

This Iran deal is (and only is ) meant to keep Iran from developing NUCLEAR weapons...if that means loosing up on the conventional weapons ban so be it...it's a price worth paying to keep Iran from going nuclear.

[chuckd]

Guess what.

The ink isn't dry on the "agreement" and the Iranians are already using it to their benefit on conventional weapons.

These are the people this administration trusts to keep their words.

They will, too. As long as those words are..."Death to America".

Maybe you shouldn't live in fear so much. Israel & the US both have the conventional and nuclear capability to wipe Iran off the map. Iran knows this just like the Soviets did during the cold war and it was a useful deterrent from either side crossing red lines. Iran will likely behave the same as the Soviets when faced with mutually assured destruction from either the Israelis or the US.

This Iran deal is (and only is ) meant to keep Iran from developing NUCLEAR weapons...if that means loosing up on the conventional weapons ban so be it...it's a price worth paying to keep Iran from going nuclear.

"Maybe you shouldn't live in fear so much."

Why does Iran need ICBMs if they don't have nukes? Are they planning on barrel bombing LAX?

You have obviously never lived in Iran or the Middle East. If you had any experience with them you might not believe they are quite as predictable as the Soviets during the cold war.

There's nothing to keep them from going nuclear now. The "any time, any where" inspection regime is a joke and will accomplish nothing.

Iran will do exactly as they have been doing all along and thumb their collective noses at the rest of the world, including the omniscient P-5+1.