# Americans Want Congress to Reject Iran Deal



## Lon (Jul 28, 2015)

CNN  says majority of Americans want Congress to reject the deal. Are you in the Majority?


----------



## doat (Jul 28, 2015)

Thats why it won't happen.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 28, 2015)

I am not sure that poll or the CNN statement actually represents the "majority" of Americans and I support the treaty.


----------



## Misty (Jul 28, 2015)

I saw that article, Lon, and yes, I am in the majority


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 28, 2015)

Depends what poll you look at..  Washington post has Americans favoring the deal 2 to 1



> By a nearly 2 to 1 margin, Americans support the notion of striking a deal with Iran that restricts the nation’s nuclear program in exchange for loosening sanctions, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.
> But the survey — released hours before Tuesday’s negotiating deadline — also finds few Americans are hopeful that such an agreement will be effective. Nearly six in 10 say they are not confident that a deal will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, unchanged from 15 months ago, when the United States, France, Britain, Germany, China and Russia reached an interim agreement with Iran aimed at sealing a long-term deal.
> Overall, the poll finds 59 percent support an agreement in which the United States and its negotiating partners lift major economic sanctions in exchange for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program. Thirty-one percent oppose a deal.




I certainly support the deal..


----------



## Lon (Jul 28, 2015)

I wonder what the majority thinking in the UK  is Re: The Iran Deal? I haven't seen any similar reporting.


----------



## Josiah (Jul 28, 2015)

[h=2]New poll: U.S. Jews support Iran deal, despite misgivings[/h]

http://www.jewishjournal.com/nation/article/new_poll_u.s._jews_support_iran_deal_despite_misgivings


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 28, 2015)

Here's one  that breaks it down by party..  Ya think the CNN poll mainly polled Republicans????


----------



## WhatInThe (Jul 28, 2015)

I think the fear of anything 'nuclear' gives what support this treaty is getting. Many of the surveyed probably don't even know why the sanctions were in place or the hostage crisis from 1979-early 1981.


----------



## Butterfly (Jul 28, 2015)

Might be cynical of me, but I doubt the majority of Americans know enough about it to know whether they support it or not.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 28, 2015)

Butterfly said:


> Might be cynical of me, but I doubt the majority of Americans know enough about it to know whether they support it or not.




But what those against it DO know is that President Obama is for it... so it must be bad...  that's all they need to know.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 28, 2015)

QS, you strip off all the veneer and expose the underlay which is pure hatred.  Good on you Girl.


----------



## BobF (Jul 28, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Here's one  that breaks it down by party..  Ya think the CNN poll mainly polled Republicans????



Look what happens when you strip out the biased thinking political parties, Republicans and Democrats.   We go from one exaggeration to a opposite exaggeration but the independents do give us a fair and even distribution.

We just have to get rid of political parties and only have candidate names and voter boxes on our ballots.   We need to eliminate these biased opinions from the ballots.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 29, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> I am not sure that poll or the CNN statement actually represents the "majority" of Americans and I support the treaty.



_Nor do I, Jim.  Polls I've seen are definitely pro-treaty.  Methinks there are some watching too much Faux news!_


----------



## Jackie22 (Jul 29, 2015)

Rocky said:


> _Nor do I, Jim.  Polls I've seen are definitely pro-treaty.  Methinks there are some watching too much Faux news!_



I don't think so either.....in spite of the kind of money Israel has put into the propaganda for the opposition, some or all of that money probably came from the US.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 29, 2015)

Israel it using us for all they are worth....  We fight wars for them.. we send them aid...  we bend over backwards to not upset them and even let them influence our politics.  ..  and why?  Because Israel figures into the Right Wing Religious ideology involving the "final days" which states that Jews must control all of the Holy Land before the 2nd coming of Christ.  It's not a love for the Jewish people... in fact they fully expect them to convert to Christianity before the Rapture.. or will burn in hell..


----------



## Jackie22 (Jul 29, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Israel it using us for all they are worth....  We fight wars for them.. we send them aid...  we bend over backwards to not upset them and even let them influence our politics.  ..  and why?  Because Israel figures into the Right Wing Religious ideology involving the "final days" which states that Jews must control all of the Holy Land before the 2nd coming of Christ.  It's not a love for the Jewish people... in fact they fully expect them to convert to Christianity before the Rapture.. or will burn in hell..



Exactly!


----------



## Josiah (Jul 29, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Israel it using us for all they are worth....  We fight wars for them.. we send them aid...  we bend over backwards to not upset them and even let them influence our politics.  ..  and why?  Because Israel figures into the Right Wing Religious ideology involving the "final days" which states that Jews must control all of the Holy Land before the 2nd coming of Christ.  It's not a love for the Jewish people... in fact they fully expect them to convert to Christianity before the Rapture.. or will burn in hell..



Yes, there's certainly this weird religious rationale, but more important is the influence of a lot of deep pocket American Jews who have an inordinate amount of political influence.
In the end I'm totally convinced that Chuck Schumer will come out and support the agreement.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jul 29, 2015)

Lon said:


> CNN  says majority of Americans want Congress to reject the deal. Are you in the Majority?



If that it the majority, which I doubt from all I've read, then I am not in the "majority".



Jackie22 said:


> I don't think so either.....not with the kind of money Israel has put into the propaganda for the opposition, some or all of that money probably came from the US.



I've linked to an AIPAC related site in another thread (the rally in NY) clearly showing the Israel push in America against this deal.  Here's another article some may be interested to read.  https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/24/israel-clears-the-bench-in-iran-fight/




> *Israel Clears the Bench in Iran Fight*
> 
> *July 24, 2015*
> 
> ...


----------



## imp (Jul 29, 2015)

This morning, a T-V commercial advertisement was presented asking demand be made of representatives to quash the deal.   imp


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 29, 2015)

imp said:


> This morning, a T-V commercial advertisement was presented asking demand be made of representatives to quash the deal.   imp



Ahhhh....  yes....  Thanks Citizens United...  Lots of $$$$$$$ available to influence politics..  Bet the Ad was bought and paid for by those looking to profit from more WAR...   AND to those who do not want Iran to start producing and selling oil again... thus driving down the prices..  Follow the money honey.

Within hours of the announcement of an Iran nuclear deal early on Tuesday, lawyers around Washington were fielding calls from U.S. corporate clients eager to know what the 159-page deal would mean for their business prospects.

U.S. companies face losing out to foreign competitors in Iran as they wait for signs that Tuesday's historic nuclear agreement is sticking and that U.S. lawmakers are willing to loosen long-standing restrictions on trade and investment, according to corporate lawyers and company executives.


Read more:  http://www.businessinsider.com/us-b...of-the-iran-nuclear-deal-2015-7#ixzz3hIui5W8D

So again.. the wealthy and corporations are able fool gullible Americans into voting for the Corporate interest..


----------



## WhatInThe (Jul 29, 2015)

I thought "deals" or "agreements" were based on diplomacy & civility. This Ayatollah tweet says other wise.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/iran-khamenei-tweets-image-obama-gun-head-article-1.2304560

Was this "deal" really negotiated in good faith.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Aug 10, 2015)

Sounds like Netanyahu is suppressing all those in Israel who do not agree with his opposition to the Iran Deal, not surprising. Full story here.


A report out of Israel claims that Prime Minister Netanyahu is covering up and suppressing Israeli intelligence that disagrees with his opposition to Obama’s Iran nuclear deal.

According to Haaretz:

_There are those in the Intelligence Corps, including those in the research division dealing with Iran, who have a very positive view of the nuclear agreement. Their views, at variance with the totally negative stance taken by Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, have bubbled up to the level of Halevy, Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot and others, but there too they have been swallowed up as if they had never existed.

 Although this is not usually the case in the Intelligence Corps, as opposed to that regarding state secrets, these views are being concealed from the public. Where is the oversight department that is supposed to present contrarian views to the accepted wisdom?__…..
__Netanyahu, who is afraid of the publication of intelligence assessments that contradict his own, wants to prevent the public and the U.S. Congress from seeing the cracks in the false facade of a unified Israeli front that opposes the agreement with Iran. Military officers who cooperate with this approach are in breach of their national duty._Netanyahu’s behavior sounds very similar to that of the Bush administration before the United States invaded Iraq. At the time, the administration officials pushing for war in Iraq ignored, suppressed, or discredited any intelligence that disagreed with the Bush/Cheney assessment of Iraq as a fast and easy war to win.​​The result was a mismanaged disaster of a war in Iraq that neither the American or the Iraqi people have yet to recover fully from.

 Netanyahu is trying to woo Senate Democrats into opposing the deal. Israeli intelligence reports that disagree with his opposition to the deal would be fatal to his plan of getting enough votes in the Senate to kill the deal.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is still interfering in American politics, and he is doing it in the most disingenuous manner possible. The peoples of both Israel and the United States deserve to see all of the Israeli intelligence on the deal.

Republicans in Congress and Netanyahu are trying to put over a WMD level lie on the American people. Instead of mushroom clouds, it’s nuclear programs, and getting rid of Saddam has been replaced by war with Iran.


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 10, 2015)

It appears to this Canuck that Bibi expects America to jump when he snaps his fingers??


----------



## Ralphy1 (Aug 11, 2015)

The people of Iran want the deal and I'm with them.  Further, from what I have heard and read, it is not a perfect deal but good enough...


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 11, 2015)

Now... all the blathering and opposition is just about politics..  We are full swing into the election cycle.  Common sense will take a back seat.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Aug 11, 2015)

*Retired Generals and Admirals Back Iran Deal and Urge Congress to Do The Same*

Here's the story and open letter.





> Three dozen retired generals and admirals released an open letter Tuesday supporting the Iran nuclear deal and urging Congress to do the same.
> 
> Calling the agreement “the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons,” the letter said that gaining international support for military action against Iran, should that ever become necessary, “would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance.”


----------



## tnthomas (Aug 12, 2015)

Had the Bush administration *not* squandered over 2 Trillion dollars (and U.S. dead) to oust our former ally and mideast strongman Saddam Hussein, perhaps dealing with Iran would be more straight forward.    ISIS would not exist, and focus on hunting Bin Laden in Afghanistan(or...?)would have likely have been more effective.

Sorry for being somewhat "off topic", but in discussing Middle East politics some cause-and-effect situations can't be left out.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Aug 14, 2015)

Why Hawks should also support the Iran Deal, more here.  http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/08/levin-warner-military-option-iran-nuclear-deal-000198


----------



## BobF (Aug 14, 2015)

tnthomas said:


> Had the Bush administration *not* squandered over 2 Trillion dollars (and U.S. dead) to oust our former ally and mideast strongman Saddam Hussein, perhaps dealing with Iran would be more straight forward.    ISIS would not exist, and focus on hunting Bin Laden in Afghanistan(or...?)would have likely have been more effective.
> 
> Sorry for being somewhat "off topic", but in discussing Middle East politics some cause-and-effect situations can't be left out.



The second invasion of Iraq was not just Bush.   It was driven also by other Generals including Gen Sir Mike Jackson of the English command.   Many countries also stepped forward after over ten years of Saddam's nasty and constant torturing and killing the citizens of Iraq.    Some just do not like to repeat history of events and just love hating Bush.   Bush had problems, but so does Obama.


----------



## WhatInThe (Aug 14, 2015)

tnthomas said:


> Had the Bush administration *not* squandered over 2 Trillion dollars (and U.S. dead) to oust our former ally and mideast strongman Saddam Hussein, perhaps dealing with Iran would be more straight forward.    ISIS would not exist, and focus on hunting Bin Laden in Afghanistan(or...?)would have likely have been more effective.
> 
> Sorry for being somewhat "off topic", but in discussing Middle East politics some cause-and-effect situations can't be left out.



It's an important footnote but unfortunately we have to deal with Iran as-is. The question is do we deal with Iran after they violate a technicality of an agreement or do we deal with Iran with blatant, obvious evidence of a dangerous a nuclear weapon or activities.

 Iran was lost two times in recent history with the first being the US not doing anything to Iran after the hostages were released. If there was ever a case for covert ops that was it. The new government started their reign by violating international law & protocol and should've have lost all credibility. Then at the end of Gulf War I which should've included tougher restrictions on Iran which probably would've been violated and the US could've countered with an occupation then and there already in position to handle Iran. Just what if scenarios, could've-should'ves.


----------



## Ruthanne (Aug 15, 2015)

I support the Iran Deal.  As I see it, it is certainly better than going to war.


----------



## WhatInThe (Aug 16, 2015)

Annie said:


> I support the Iran Deal.  As I see it, it is certainly better than going to war.



For now. But it is actually easier to get into a war or military action after the agreement is in place because now rather waiting for absolute undeniable proof a technical violation of that agreement could lead to bombing raids or Iran could do what it has been doing since 1979-take hostages which would require rescue ie a raid of some kind.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Aug 19, 2015)

70 Nonproliferation Experts support the Iran Deal, everyone should.  http://www.armscontrol.org/files/Nonpro_Specialist_statement_on_Iran_Deal_Aug_2015.pdf


----------



## WhatInThe (Aug 19, 2015)

UN to allow Iran to use it's own inspectors-huh?

http://abcnews.go.com/International...-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site-33182400

Along with getting to keep it's hostages.

Own inspectors, advanced notice and "monitoring" is going to be effective how again.


----------



## MaryZPA (Aug 19, 2015)

We should not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good, and we should not reject deals because they are not 100% perfect in every way.  I support the agreement, of course.  Starting somewhere is infinitely better than not starting at all.


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 19, 2015)

At this point, I would be more afraid of Congress than Iran.


----------



## QuickSilver (Aug 19, 2015)

Don't worry about it...  Even if congress passes a bill to kill the deal.. Obama will veto it and there are not enough votes to over ride a presidential veto.


----------



## AZ Jim (Aug 19, 2015)

I wholeheartedly support the agreement.  Let Iran babble it's "death to America" crap all they want, who cares.


----------



## Jackie22 (Aug 20, 2015)

WhatInThe said:


> UN to allow Iran to use it's own inspectors-huh?
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/International...-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site-33182400
> 
> ...




A few hours after AP released the initial details of the agreement, a revised report emerged overwriting some of the more troubling issues pertaining to the inspection of Parchin. 
For instance, the news agency removed from its report the claim that it was Iranian scientists themselves who would be inspecting the air and soil samples at Parchin, rather than UN inspectors. It also removed the claim that the number of air and soil samples taken from within suspected nuclear sites would be limited to seven." 
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.672049


----------



## WhatInThe (Aug 20, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> A few hours after AP released the initial details of the agreement, a revised report emerged overwriting some of the more troubling issues pertaining to the inspection of Parchin.
> For instance, the news agency removed from its report the claim that it was Iranian scientists themselves who would be inspecting the air and soil samples at Parchin, rather than UN inspectors. It also removed the claim that the number of air and soil samples taken from within suspected nuclear sites would be limited to seven."
> http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.672049



It was kind of overly carefully worded and appears that International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be the front for this 'agreement'. As long as the IAEA is satisfied which is weak verification language. And the IAEA admits to seperate agreements yet supposedly no side deals here?


----------



## SeaBreeze (Aug 21, 2015)

The Iranian "Threat"...what you won't hear from the main stream media, for those interested, more here. 



> Throughout the world there is great relief and optimism about the nuclear deal reached in Vienna between Iran and the P5+1 nations, the five veto-holding members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany. Most of the world apparently shares the assessment of the U.S. Arms Control Association that “the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action establishes a strong and effective formula for blocking all of the pathways by which Iran could acquire material for nuclear weapons for more than a generation and a verification system to promptly detect and deter possible efforts by Iran to covertly pursue nuclear weapons that will last indefinitely.”





> There are, however, striking exceptions to the general enthusiasm: the United States and its closest regional allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia. One consequence of this is that U.S. corporations, much to their chagrin, are prevented from flocking to Tehran along with their European counterparts. Prominent sectors of U.S. power and opinion share the stand of the two regional allies and so are in a state of virtual hysteria over “the Iranian threat.” Sober commentary in the United States, pretty much across the spectrum, declares that country to be “the gravest threat to world peace.” Even supporters of the agreement here are wary, given the exceptional gravity of that threat.  After all, how can we trust the Iranians with their terrible record of aggression, violence, disruption, and deceit?
> 
> Opposition within the political class is so strong that public opinion has shifted quickly from significant support for the deal to an even split. Republicans are almost unanimously opposed to the agreement. The current Republican primaries illustrate the proclaimed reasons. Senator Ted Cruz, considered one of the intellectuals among the crowded field of presidential candidates, warns that Iran may still be able to produce nuclear weapons and could someday use one to set off an Electro Magnetic Pulse that “would take down the electrical grid of the entire eastern seaboard” of the United States, killing “tens of millions of Americans.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 22, 2015)

My God, these people need powerful antipsychotic medication administered directly into their brains. Bomb Iran? Are they frigging nuts? That is an unprovoked act of war. War crimes/genocide in the making. The inmates are running the asylum, terrifying. How much of this hysteria is fueled by Bibi et al? Where are the rational thinkers?


----------



## SeaBreeze (Aug 25, 2015)

Another letter to Congress in support of the Iran Deal from Christian leaders.  http://fcnl.org/issues/iran/christian_leaders_iran_deal.pdf


----------



## AZ Jim (Aug 25, 2015)

Republicans can't screw us up enough.  They work tirelessly keeping things in turmoil.  Bless their little pointed heads.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Aug 25, 2015)

It just seems to me that many support Israel more than the USA, I think some would like to see Netanyahu run for the 2016 presidential elections here if that was possible, they seem to idolize him and he definitely has control of the republican party and what happens here in America.  Somehow something's very wrong with that picture.


----------



## Shalimar (Aug 25, 2015)

I think it is a terrifying precedent when a foreign head of state has this level of power over another country, particularly one who has time and again illustrated his complete contempt for President Obama and the American people.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Aug 25, 2015)

He's obviously out for his own self-interests, he wants his country to be the only one with nuclear power in the region.


----------

