# Iran Nuclear Agreement



## ~Lenore (Jul 23, 2015)

> "We request you transmit these two side agreements to Congress  immediately so we may perform our duty to assess the many important  questions related to the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action],"  the letter says.
> National Security Adviser Susan Rice, while defending the overall  nuclear agreement, appeared to acknowledge the existence of the side  deals on Wednesday. She said the matter of the Iran nuclear program's  "possible military dimensions" (PMD) has long been an issue between Iran  and the IAEA. She said they "negotiated and concluded an agreement to  deal with this issue of PMD, which was one of the major sticking points  in our dealings."
> 
> She added: "These documents are not public, but nonetheless, we have  been briefed on those documents, we know their contents, we're satisfied  with them and we will share the contents of those briefings in full in a  classified session with the Congress.
> ...



*I guess once again we "need to pass it so we can see what's in it.."  It seems even Secretary Of State Kerry has not seen or read them either.  Just more and more Obama transparency...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-to-reveal-side-deals-in-iran-nuke-agreement/
*


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 23, 2015)

Ahhhhh yes the familiar song of displeasure, and from a Texan (wasn't that the adopted state of uh...don't tell me, I'll get it....uh oh yeah George "count me out of Vietnam" Bush?)


----------



## Falcon (Jul 23, 2015)

It's funny how the liberals cannot just comment on the going thread but almost ALWAYS bring up
dirt on the other guys. Seems to be their only defense.  Pity.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 23, 2015)

Seems the only thing conservatives post is anti-President Obama material. Pity.


----------



## ~Lenore (Jul 23, 2015)

*My post was information about another deal that is being made that concerns our country, in fact the whole world, with Iran who screams, "DEATH TO AMERICA!! publicly!  And our president wants approval of an agreement with hidden issues that we are not to know about!   I do not understand this as an attack on the president personally but against an international policy he wants passed without full disclosure to the people of our country.

It very much reminds me of how he and the Senate handled the Health Care Plan.  If you can not or will not see the similarity, that is YOUR problem. 
*


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 23, 2015)

Thank you for your additional thoughts.  The day we have all of our citizens vote to ratify a (at this stage) treaty is the day we will no longer be able to negotiate such treaties.  How would the "decider" have accomplished this?  Keep in mind we elect people to office to do these things, it's the way its always been.


----------



## Falcon (Jul 23, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Seems the only thing conservatives post is anti-President Obama material. Pity.



*SEE ?   You did it again.*


----------



## Misty (Jul 23, 2015)

A CBSNY reporter stated there were 10,000 people protesting the Iran deal in New York Square last night, Lenore. 

[h=1]Thousands Of Protesters Rally In Times Square Against Iran Nuclear Deal[/h]http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/07/22/iran-nuclear-deal-protest/


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 23, 2015)

Falcon said:


> *SEE ?   You did it again.*



Calm down John, you are overwrought.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 23, 2015)

Misty said:


> A CBSNY reporter stated there were 10,000 people protesting the Iran deal in New York Square last night, Lenore.
> 
> *Thousands Of Protesters Rally In Times Square Against Iran Nuclear Deal*
> 
> http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/07/22/iran-nuclear-deal-protest/



Was there any report of how many people around the world are not protesting?  How many million?  This accord is not only between us and Iran it is also is approved by the UN and many other countries.


----------



## Lon (Jul 23, 2015)

Count me as one that doesn't like the deal & the recent comments by the EYE AH TOLLAH will probably aid in killing it anyway.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 23, 2015)

Why do people think that we can just scrap this deal and go back to the table and get a harsher one with all the sanctions intact?   No... there will be no deal at all... and Iran will be resuming bomb building the very next day..  China won't come back to the table..  Russia won't come back to the table.. our Allies won't come back to the table..   So.. I guess that leaves WAR....  yep..  run over there and bomb the hell out of Iran.. get our troops on the ground with thousands more Americans killed...  and after that... Iran will be back to bomb building in 3 years...  Isn't 10 years and no lives lost better?

There.. and I said all that without bringing up "the Decider"    Scrapping the deal will only bring WAR... and will make a few more billionaires.. to avoid paying taxes..


----------



## Lon (Jul 23, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Why do people think that we can just scrap this deal and go back to the table and get a harsher one with all the sanctions intact?   No... there will be no deal at all... and Iran will be resuming bomb building the very next day..  China won't come back to the table..  Russia won't come back to the table.. our Allies won't come back to the table..   So.. I guess that leaves WAR....  yep..  run over there and bomb the hell out of Iran.. get our troops on the ground with thousands more Americans killed...  and after that... Iran will be back to bomb building in 3 years...  Isn't 10 years and no lives lost better?
> 
> There.. and I said all that without bringing up "the Decider"    Scrapping the deal will only bring WAR... and will make a few more billionaires.. to avoid paying taxes..



If war was to start at any point, now or later, who do you think would fire the first shot?


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 23, 2015)

Lon said:


> If war was to start at any point, now or later, who do you think would fire the first shot?


I don't understand the question as it relates to this treaty.


----------



## Lon (Jul 23, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> I don't understand the question as it relates to this treaty.



My question relates to Shalimar's post and not the treaty. She thinks there will be war if the treaty fails. It helps to read the posts Jim


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jul 23, 2015)

Misty said:


> A CBSNY reporter stated there were 10,000 people protesting the Iran deal in New York Square last night, Lenore.
> 
> *Thousands Of Protesters Rally In Times Square Against Iran Nuclear Deal*
> 
> http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/07/22/iran-nuclear-deal-protest/



Wasn't that protester's rally funded and supported by Israel supporters?  Maybe all those people involved, who appear to have similar rallies organized and funded in other locations in America, are just supporters of Israel, and hold it in higher importance than the USA?  I'm sure all the money that goes to republican elections from Israel has something to do with all this nonsense.  http://stopiranrally.org/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...6d031e-0744-11e2-858a-5311df86ab04_story.html

http://billmoyers.com/2015/03/17/real-story-behind-republicans-iran-letter/



> Those members of Congress don’t arrive at their positions on issues related to Iran through discussion and debate among themselves.
> 
> They are given their marching orders by AIPAC lobbyists, and time after time, they sign the letters and vote for legislation or resolution that they are given, as former AIPAC lobbyist MJ Rosenberg has recalled.
> 
> This Israeli exercise of control over Congress on Iran and issues of concern to Israel resembles the Soviet direction of its satellite regimes and loyal Communist parties more than any democratic process, but with campaign contributions replacing the inducements that kept its bloc allies in line.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 23, 2015)

Lon said:


> My question relates to Shalimar's post and not the treaty. She thinks there will be war if the treaty fails. It helps to read the posts Jim



You mean QuickSilver?  It helps to know who you are speaking about/to.


----------



## imp (Jul 23, 2015)

Lon said:


> My question relates to *Shalimar's post* and not the treaty. She thinks there will be war if the treaty fails. *It helps to read the posts Jim*



My PC shows no post by Shalimar, Lon. Hasty over-read? No offense now, I disagree with Jim, too, just haven't said so.   imp


----------



## imp (Jul 23, 2015)

*Liberal, non-Liberal, or otherwise*

Squabbling over political backgrounds solves little and inflames already irritated minds. Fact is, Iran has had a very colored and very lopsided political existence as far as America is concerned, for many decades.

Start just a few months before Pearl Harbor. Iran got a new King, Shah Pahlavi, succeeding his father. Iran then had 2,500 continuous years of monarchy ruling the country. Pretty impressive record. Reza Pahlavi introduced a series of economic, political, and social reforms aimed at making Iran a modern player in global affairs. His achievements over 30 years+ time are of enormous merit, but at the cost of dictatorship. His secret police were known to perform home invasions, during which a child would be snatched away, never to be seen again. A bad side existed. 

The Shah abdicated the throne in 1979, and fled the country. It was purported by news reports, a trainload of freight cars left with him, some containing untold tons of precious metal bullion, the Treasury of the country stripped and stolen. A year previous, the Shah had granted extreme dissidents living outside the country amnesty, including the Ayatollah Khomeini, who went on to become AMERICA'S nemesis. The Shah bounced from one country to another several times, and was found to be dying of cancer while in Mexico City. He requested permission to enter the U.S. for medical treatment, to which Khomeini publicly declared terrible consequences would ensue should that happen. Henry Kissinger, a good buddy of the Shah, arranged for treatment in New York City, to which the Shah was transported. Khomeini demanded, but of course was turned down, that the Shah be returned to Iran to be tried for crimes perpetrated there. *As a result, 44 Americans in Iran were held there against their will for 444 days .  

*Jimmy Carter sent in a rescue effort which failed miserably, some of our soldiers I believe died in  that effort. The Shah croaked, finally, having been the cause of near-world turmoil during that time. The hostages had suffered horrible treatment, including Russian-Roulette games, and mock executions. The hostages were officially released 20 minutes after Ronald Reagan completed his inaugural speech as President.


In the late '80s and early '90s, Colin Powell, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it was widely reported after the fact, of course, that Powell had clandestinely, circumventing Congressional approval, sent some several thousands of Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs) to Iran! Some years later, those missiles were suspected of being used in attempts to shoot down civilian airliners. 


How do you suppose our standing with Iran has been  since that caper?     imp


----------



## Lon (Jul 23, 2015)

imp said:


> My PC shows no post by Shalimar, Lon. Hasty over-read? No offense now, I disagree with Jim, too, just haven't said so.   imp



My apologies gentlemen------------My head was up my  ---


----------



## Lon (Jul 23, 2015)

like this commentary by Dennis Prager where he says in part,


							Many in the West denied the darkness of Nazism. They looked the other way when that evil could have been stopped and then appeased it as it became stronger.

 We are reliving 1938. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain went to Munich to negotiate with Adolf Hitler. He left believing Hitler's promises of peace in exchange for Germany being allowed to annex large parts of Czechoslovakia. Upon returning to England, Chamberlain announced, "Peace for our time."

 The American and European negotiations with Iran have so precisely mirrored 1938 that you have to wonder how anyone could not see it.


----------



## BobF (Jul 23, 2015)

Obama said if we don't go with his idea then there will be war.   That is who said that.   Who will fire the first shot?    No question for that as Iran has said they would do that.

Actually, if Iran wants a war now would be a good time.   We should join with all those folks fighting ISIS and make sure we keep all that energy heading straight into Iran as we chase the ISIS folks.   Best to do that now before ISIS knocks off all those trying to stop ISIS.   Later on far too many of the resisters will be overcome and our part to stop them will be much bigger and tougher.

Ye_s, _ISIS does seem to be coming from the Sunni beliefs, but the Sunni are already fighting the ISIS and are calling Iran and their militant groups a bunch of terrorists too.   Plenty of evil in this world and no reason for us to wait till we are the only ones standing to start our defenses.   Sort of like 1938 and 1941 ways of thinking.


----------



## imp (Jul 23, 2015)

Lon said:


> ...
> We are reliving 1938. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain went to Munich to negotiate with Adolf Hitler.* He left believing Hitler's promises of peace in exchange for Germany being allowed to annex large parts of Czechoslovakia. *Upon returning to England, Chamberlain announced, "Peace for our time."
> 
> The American and European negotiations with Iran have so precisely mirrored 1938 that you have to wonder how anyone could not see it.



Explaining in large part, my Grandpa's hatred for the Germans. He was born in the Sudetenland invaded by Hitler.   imp


----------



## imp (Jul 23, 2015)

BobF said:


> Obama said if we don't go with his idea then there will be war.   That is who said that.   Who will fire the first shot?    No question for that as Iran has said they would do that.
> 
> Actually, if Iran wants a war now would be a good time.



I suspect when the shouting and mongering are over, it may be Israel who fires the first shot. Wouldn't be the first time, either!    imp


----------



## Shalimar (Jul 23, 2015)

I am with you, Imp. Why is it that with many,Israel gets a free pass regardless of it's exceedingly dubious actions?


----------



## ~Lenore (Jul 23, 2015)

*If Israel fires the first shot, it will be for self preservation.  They are first on Iran's target to get annihilated from the face of the earth.  If they do it, the rest of the middle east countries will be celebrating that they did not have to do it.   *


----------



## Shalimar (Jul 23, 2015)

Just thought I would mention one positive outcome during the Iran hostage crisis. The CIA and my government worked together to save six American diplomats  who had escaped being held hostage. Our Canadian diplomats hid them until Canadian passports could be arranged.


----------



## Shalimar (Jul 23, 2015)

The Zionists use terror tactics, while crying anti Semitism to anyone else who behaves as they do. Fifty percent of my family is Jewish. Their response to Israeli policy is, not in my name!


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 23, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Just thought I would mention one positive outcome during the Iran hostage crisis. The CIA and my government worked together to save six American diplomats  who had escaped being held hostage. Our Canadian diplomats hid them until Canadian passports could be arranged.



That was a great rescue. Kudos to the Canadian Embassy.


----------



## imp (Jul 23, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Just thought I would mention one positive outcome during the Iran hostage crisis. The CIA and my government worked together to save six American diplomats  who had escaped being held hostage. Our Canadian diplomats hid them until Canadian passports could be arranged.



Very true. There was Canadian involvement. Thank you for that!   imp


----------



## imp (Jul 23, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> The Zionists use terror tactics, while crying anti Semitism to anyone else who behaves as they do. Fifty percent of my family is Jewish. Their *response to Israeli policy is, not in my name*!



Please explain, as I am unable to quite understand the meaning. Forgive my ignorance?   imp


----------



## imp (Jul 23, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> *I am with you, Imp.* Why is it that with many,Israel gets a free pass regardless of it's exceedingly dubious actions?



But, you may not remain so. I did not mean to imply my disagreement, or agreement, with Israel's "first shot". Simply revealed the existence of that possibility. You have to remember, regardless of all other argument, that the Jews had been without a country of their own for a very long time. Given the opportunity to have one, entailed lasting  and eternal vigilance against losing it. Thus, they defend mightily any possible presentation of consequence causing them to lose it.   imp


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 24, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> I am with you, Imp. Why is it that with many,Israel gets a free pass regardless of it's exceedingly dubious actions?



Sadly... it has NOTHING to do with the Israelis..  this love affair the American Right has with Israel...  In fact.. the Religious Right sees the Jews has heathens that will be converted to Christianity on the final days....   The Israel obsession is based on the Bible and the final coming of Christ... So Israel must be defended and protected no matter WHAT crap they pull  or what demand they make..


----------



## Misty (Jul 24, 2015)

Interesting articles, Seabreeze, but there are many people not connected  to the pro-Israel contingent who believe this has been a bad  deal....and many democrats among them. It was a weak deal. We are not  getting the freedom of American Hostages, there will be no inspections  whenever they are wanted, in fact last I read, Iran said no to any  inspections etc. Iran has been given billions of dollars just to come to  the table to talk to us. Iran is getting the majority of the  concessions. Iran is also known to be a supporter of terrorists, and tho  there are many countries who are allies of the U.S, Iran is not known  to be our ally...in fact they are known for saying  "Death To America."  For many years, Israel has been known to be our  ally, until Pres. Obama became President.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 24, 2015)

My view is this deal makes things more visible to the west.  Like anything else these days it's obviously not everything we want but it's better than no deal.


----------



## Lon (Jul 24, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> My view is this deal makes things more visible to the west.  Like anything else these days it's obviously not everything we want but it's better than no deal.



Accepting the Deal is like Peeing in Bed------The Relief is only temporary---Eventually you must get up and change the bed.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 24, 2015)

Lon said:


> Accepting the Deal is like Peeing in Bed------The Relief is only temporary---Eventually you must get up and change the bed.



Well discounting your analogy, what is your solution Lon?  No throwing stones at this unless you have a WORKABLE solution.


----------



## Jackie22 (Jul 24, 2015)

[h=1]WEEKLY ADDRESS: A Comprehensive, Long-Term Deal with Iran[/h]Source: *White House*

In this week's address, the President explained the comprehensive, long-term deal announced earlier this week that will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This agreement cuts off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon, implements unprecedented monitoring and inspections of Iran’s key nuclear facilities, and ensures that if Iran violates these terms, the strict sanctions previously imposed on the country will snap back into place. This is a good deal that demonstrates that American diplomacy can bring about real and meaningful change that makes our country, and the world, safer and more secure. 



Read more: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/weekly-address 

This week, the United States and our international partners finally achieved something that decades of animosity has not – a deal that will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. 

*This deal will make America and the world safer and more secure. Still, you’re going to hear a lot of overheated and often dishonest arguments about it in the weeks ahead. So today, I want to take a moment to take those on one by one, and explain what this deal does and what it means. *

First, you’ll hear some critics argue that this deal somehow makes it easier for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. Now, if you think it sounds strange that the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, and some of the world’s best nuclear scientists would agree to something like that, you’re right. This deal actually closes off Iran’s pathway to a nuclear weapon. Today, Iran has enough nuclear material to produce up to 10 nuclear weapons. With this deal, they’ll have to ship 98% of that material out of the country – leaving them with a fraction of what it takes to make even one weapon. With this deal, they’ll have to repurpose two key nuclear facilities so they can’t produce materials that could be used for a nuclear weapon. So this deal actually pushes Iran further away from a bomb. And there’s a permanent prohibition on Iran ever having a nuclear weapon. 

Second, you might hear from critics that Iran could just ignore what’s required and do whatever they want. That they’re inevitably going to cheat. Well, that’s wrong, too. With this deal, we will have unprecedented, 24/7 monitoring of Iran’s key nuclear facilities. With this deal, international inspectors will have access to Iran’s entire nuclear supply chain. The verification process set up by this deal is comprehensive and it is intrusive – precisely so we can make sure Iran keeps its commitments. 

Third, you might hear from critics that Iran faces no consequences if it violates this deal. That’s also patently false. If Iran violates this deal, the sanctions we imposed that have helped cripple the Iranian economy – the sanctions that helped make this deal possible – would snap back into place promptly. 

There’s a reason this deal took so long to negotiate. Because we refused to accept a bad deal. We held out for a deal that met every one of our bottom lines. And we got it.

Does this deal resolve all of the threats Iran poses to its neighbors and the world? No. Does it do more than anyone has done before to make sure Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon? Yes. And that was our top priority from the start. That’s why it’s in everyone’s best interest to make sure this deal holds. Because without this deal, there would be no limits on Iran’s nuclear program. There would be no monitoring, no inspections. The sanctions we rallied the world to impose would unravel. Iran could move closer to a nuclear weapon. Other countries in the region might race to do the same. And we’d risk another war in the most volatile region in the world. That’s what would happen without this deal. 

*On questions of war and peace, we should have tough, honest, serious debates. We’ve seen what happens when we don’t. That’s why this deal is online for the whole world to see. I welcome all scrutiny. I fear no questions. As Commander-in-Chief, I make no apology for keeping this country safe and secure through the hard work of diplomacy over the easy rush to war. And on Tuesday, I’ll continue to press this case when I address the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Because nobody understands the true cost of war better than those who’ve actually served in this country’s uniform.* 

We have before us an historic opportunity to pursue a safer, more secure world for our children. It might not come around again in our lifetimes. That’s why we’re going to seize it today – and keep America a beacon of hope, liberty, and leadership for generations to come. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/weekly-address


You know I see a lot of complaining about this deal, but none of those complaining have an alternative plan and I might add some of the complaints are nothing but fox news and facebook rhetoric.


----------



## Lon (Jul 24, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Well discounting your analogy, what is your solution Lon?  No throwing stones at this unless you have a WORKABLE solution.



If I had the power I would not accept any deal without immediate release of the American hostages that they hold and then let Iran make the next move and we respond accordingly.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 24, 2015)

Lon said:


> If I had the power I would not accept any deal without immediate release of the American hostages that they hold and then let Iran make the next move and we respond accordingly.



So you are ready to go to still another war in the middle East.  No allies according to them, we go it alone.  This is a play right out of thr George Bush playbook.  Amazing!  No wonder we are always somewhere in a damn war.  War in this case is for would be participants to decide...not observers.


----------



## Lon (Jul 24, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> So you are ready to go to still another war in the middle East.  No allies according to them, we go it alone.  This is a play right out of thr George Bush playbook.  Amazing!  No wonder we are always somewhere in a damn war.  War in this case is for would be participants to decide...not observers.



Why are you assuming there would be another war if we demand release of our hostages?


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 24, 2015)

Lon said:


> Why are you assuming there would be another war if we demand release of our hostages?



What would be left?  You end negotiations, the allies all go home, Iran continues with their nuke program, and the hostages are still in custody.  You didn't leave many options, now it's sit down USA  and shut up or we try to force the issue.


----------



## Shalimar (Jul 24, 2015)

QS, sadly, my own evangelical Prime Minister falls into that group. On one of his many trips to visit his buddy Bibi, he carefully avoided bringing any of the moderate church leaders with him, including the United Church of Canada, our "state" church, which has been labeled by Zionist organisations such as the Wiesenthal Institute, as anti Israel, due to their boycott policy.


----------



## Lon (Jul 24, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> What would be left?  You end negotiations, the allies all go home, Iran continues with their nuke program, and the hostages are still in custody.  You didn't leave many options, now it's sit down USA  and shut up or we try to force the issue.



I would support the U.S. threatening Iran with severe penalties like destroying some of their nuclear facilities if they do not immediately release the hostages. If push comes to shove we should do the pushing and stop avoiding what at some point in time would be a confrontation anyway. We should not be blackmailed into submission. If that sounds like war mongering then so be it. Peace at any price SUCKS.


----------



## ~Lenore (Jul 24, 2015)

*Peace at any price never ends up being PEACE. *


----------



## Jackie22 (Jul 25, 2015)

Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.

Albert Einstein


----------



## Lon (Jul 25, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.
> 
> Albert Einstein



That's a really nice thought, but Einstein's strength was in Physics not diplomacy or psychology.


----------



## Jackie22 (Jul 25, 2015)

Lon said:


> That's a really nice thought, but Einstein's strength was in Physics not diplomacy or psychology.



No matter where Einstein's strength lay, he was a genius and realized the futility of war and the advantages of understanding and negotiating.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 25, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> No matter where Einstein's strength lay, he was a genius and realized the futility of war and the advantages of understanding and negotiating.



Exactly Jackie.  Too many of oldsters are willing to send our young to these battles.  We have done it in our entire history.  When do we sit one out.  I don't see the young, able bodied yearning to charge into Iran, it's always our old or those who for whatever reason won't be going who want to make that first move.


----------



## Shalimar (Jul 25, 2015)

I think Albert Einstein was on point. Re his supposed lack of expertise, I think anyone of Jewish extraction, who personally experienced Nazi Germany, had an excellent grasp of the futility of war.


----------



## Lon (Jul 25, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> No matter where Einstein's strength lay, he was a genius and realized the futility of war and the advantages of understanding and negotiating.



Common sense would dictate that negotiating is preferable to war, you don't need to be a genius to get that.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 25, 2015)

Lon said:


> Common sense would dictate that negotiating is preferable to war, you don't need to be a genius to get that.



Since when did common sense come back into vogue?


----------



## Shalimar (Jul 25, 2015)

Most psychologists and therapists are not hawkish in their approach. Too often they see the irrevocable emotional/mental anguish that these wars spit out. Common sense? When has that ever trumped power, fanaticism, or greed?


----------



## ~Lenore (Jul 25, 2015)

*Evil takes over and takes power when good refuses to FIGHT.   *


----------



## Jackie22 (Jul 25, 2015)

Lon said:


> Common sense would dictate that negotiating is preferable to war, you don't need to be a genius to get that.



Common sense took a hike in the leadin to the war in Iraq, and IMHO, also in the dissention and disapproval, instigated mostly by Israel, of this deal with Iran.


----------



## Josiah (Jul 25, 2015)

What really worries Israel  most about the proposed agreement is not that Iran might enrich its uranium into an A-bomb. (If that were the case, why would they so virulently oppose a deal that put off this prospect by more than a decade?) No, what worries them much more deeply is that Iran might rejoin the community of nations, possibly even as a diplomatic (and eventually trading) partner of the United States and Europe.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 25, 2015)

Josiah said:


> What really worries Israel  most about the proposed agreement is not that Iran might enrich its uranium into an A-bomb. (If that were the case, why would they so virulently oppose a deal that put off this prospect by more than a decade?) No, what worries them much more deeply is that Iran might rejoin the community of nations, possibly even as a diplomatic (and eventually trading) partner of the United States and Europe.



I think you are right but I also think Iran's attitude will preclude their rejoining.  Where's the Shah when we need him???


----------



## BobF (Jul 25, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.
> 
> Albert Einstein



Nice, but in his case if the nations of the world had not taken on Hitler Germany there would be no Jewish around today.


----------



## Josiah (Jul 25, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> I think you are right but I also think Iran's attitude will preclude their rejoining.  Where's the Shah when we need him???



I think there is a better prospect of Iran beginning to behave like a responsible member of the community of nations if their relationship with the rest of the world is normalized. The younger generation of Iranians don't necessarily share the hard-line sentiments of the old clerics. Fifteen years from now I would wager that Iran will be less rather than more bellicose towards it's neighbors. They also constitute a major force opposing ISIS.


----------



## Josiah (Jul 26, 2015)

Let's remember that the US is not the world's "decider". The Iran Nuclear Agreement was negotiated by six parties, US, UK, France, Russia, China and Iran. Furthermore, just recently the 15 members of the U.N. Security Council voted unanimously in Favor of the Iran deal. That's a lot of international opinion unequivacally in favor of the Iran nuclear agreement. OK let's suppose the US Congress voted against the deal and then overode the President's veto, in effect quashing the agreement. Somehow, I don't think the rest of world minus Israel will be particularly enthusiastic about continuing the sanctions nor in treating Iran as the outcast nation in as much as Iran was willing to abide by a negotiated agreement promising not to build a nuclear weapon. I think the international sentiment will be fairly pissed off at the US for poisoning the well of negotiations. If some future Republican president thinks he'll be able to negotiate a better agreement he's kidding himself.


----------



## BobF (Jul 26, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> Common sense took a hike in the leadin to the war in Iraq, and IMHO, also in the dissention and disapproval, instigated mostly by Israel, of this deal with Iran.



So you are saying the UN request to several nations to go settle Iraq down was wrong?


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 26, 2015)

bobf said:


> so you are saying the un request to several nations to go settle iran down was wrong?



wtf?


----------



## BobF (Jul 26, 2015)

What is your problem Jim?    Are you saying the UN had nothing to do with Iraq.    I guess I was not spelling Iraq correctly.   An awful lot about Iran lately.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 26, 2015)

Bob are you confused here?


----------



## Josiah (Aug 3, 2015)

I continue to be thoroughly puzzled by Israel's fierce opposition to the Iran nuclear agreement. None of the arguments against the deal that suggest that it won't delay Iran getting a bomb make any sense at all and so fear of nuclear armed Iran is not the reason for Israel's opposition. Some people have said that Israel's motives lie with opposition to Iran establishing normal trade relations with the rest of the world. Frankly this doesn't seem like enough of a reason to justify the hissy fit that Israel is throwing. It just doesn't add up in my mind.


----------



## BobF (Aug 3, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> Common sense took a hike in the leadin to the war in Iraq, and IMHO, also in the dissention and disapproval, instigated mostly by Israel, of this deal with Iran.



Jim, I was responding to this post by Jackie22.    She spoke of Iraq and so did I.    Now who is the confused one in this thread Jim?


----------

