Iran Deal: Funding Terrorists or Improving Diplomacy

[Slade3200]

The Right is tearing this Iran deal apart. The Left defends the attempt to progress diplomatic relations with Iran and prevent the development of Nuclear weapons.

Now that the sanctions have been lifted and Iran has access to $100 Billion there is a media uproar. The squakers are inaccurately depicting the situation as us paying Iran which will in turn funds terrorism. The reality is that the money is from oil sales between Iran and countries like China, India, S. Korea, and Turkey... The sanctions blocked Iran's access to their own money gained from sales of their products to other countries... Lets be clear about that.

I find the deal easy to critique as there are many many elements, however, with two very opposing positions it is impossible to get EVERYTHING that we want. I believe the administration attempted to get as much as they could with the underlying goal of hindering Iran's nuclear development. Part of this attempt towards diplomacy and a working relationship is to stop holding Iran's money and trust that they are smart with how they spend it. With any deal we have to give to get and there has to be a show of respect and trust to build a relationship. Also noteworthy is that the deal wasn't just between the US and Iran, although we did work in some additional specific terms, the deal was a joint effort with the US, UK, Russia, France, China, and Germany. With that said, I pose the following questions:

To the Right: With your critical view of the deal, how would you propose to handle the situation with Iran. IE. Do you chip away in attempt to build a bridge to diplomatic relations or do you take an absolutist approach, which I fear would lead to war or growing hostility from a very dangerous potential enemy?? If you prefer the later, please explain why?

To the Left: How do you defend the actions taken by our administration and do you feel good about the terms of the Iran deal?

PLEASE POST SOLUTIONS AND IDEAS... ALL I HEAR IS PARTISAN CRITIQUES AND IT'S GETTING OLD. I'M NOT INTERESTED IN STARTING A COMPLAINT FORUM. IF YOU DON'T LIKE SOMETHING THEN PROPOSE A BETTER SOLUTION.

 

[Stephanie]

what it is? Is the signal that they can kidnap and terrorizes the American citizens, our Military men and women and these people will pay a handsome ransom for them.

Bill Clinton had the same ideas. Of course Hillary in on his administration like she is in this one. and as soon he left office we had 9/11 nine months later.

start preparing now. and especally if it's a Republican who wins the Presidency.

 

[Slade3200]

what it is? Is the signal that they can kidnap and terrorizes the American citizens, our Military men and women and these people will pay a handsome ransom for them.

Bill Clinton had the same ideas. Of course Hillary in on his administration like she is in this one. and as soon he left office we had 9/11 nine months later.

start preparing now. and especally if it's a Republican who wins the Presidency.

Solutions please... All I hear is partisan criticism.

 

[Stephanie]

what it is? Is the signal that they can kidnap and terrorizes the American citizens, our Military men and women and these people will pay a handsome ransom for them.

Bill Clinton had the same ideas. Of course Hillary in on his administration like she is in this one. and as soon he left office we had 9/11 nine months later.

start preparing now. and especally if it's a Republican who wins the Presidency.

Solutions please... All I hear is partisan criticism.

well pardon me. I had no idea the political forum had changed.

 

[RandallFlagg]

The Right is tearing this Iran deal apart. The Left defends the attempt to progress diplomatic relations with Iran and prevent the development of Nuclear weapons.

Now that the sanctions have been lifted and Iran has access to $100 Billion there is a media uproar. The squakers are inaccurately depicting the situation as us paying Iran which will in turn funds terrorism. The reality is that the money is from oil sales between Iran and countries like China, India, S. Korea, and Turkey... The sanctions blocked Iran's access to their own money gained from sales of their products to other countries... Lets be clear about that.

I find the deal easy to critique as there are many many elements, however, with two very opposing positions it is impossible to get EVERYTHING that we want. I believe the administration attempted to get as much as they could with the underlying goal of hindering Iran's nuclear development. Part of this attempt towards diplomacy and a working relationship is to stop holding Iran's money and trust that they are smart with how they spend it. With any deal we have to give to get and there has to be a show of respect and trust to build a relationship. Also noteworthy is that the deal wasn't just between the US and Iran, although we did work in some additional specific terms, the deal was a joint effort with the US, UK, Russia, France, China, and Germany. With that said, I pose the following questions:

To the Right: With your critical view of the deal, how would you propose to handle the situation with Iran. IE. Do you chip away in attempt to build a bridge to diplomatic relations or do you take an absolutist approach, which I fear would lead to war or growing hostility from a very dangerous potential enemy?? If you prefer the later, please explain why?

To the Left: How do you defend the actions taken by our administration and do you feel good about the terms of the Iran deal?

PLEASE POST SOLUTIONS AND IDEAS... ALL I HEAR IS PARTISAN CRITIQUES AND IT'S GETTING OLD. I'M NOT INTERESTED IN STARTING A COMPLAINT FORUM. IF YOU DON'T LIKE SOMETHING THEN PROPOSE A BETTER SOLUTION.

View attachment 60698​

Quite frankly, EVERYTHING about this "deal" sits wrong with me. What was the "urgency"? We got absolutely nothing for our side, while Iran gets 150 billion - which they will use to further terrorism and developing their bomb and we got 4-5 political prisoners in the deal. Hell, even that dumbass Kerry stated that the money would "probably" be used for terrorism.

None of this makes any sense (for America) at all. It's very much like the turning loose of prisoners at Guantanamo. We are releasing some of the most dangerous terrorists on the earth. WE get nothing from it except death.

So, you ask, "How do we handle the situation with Iran"? Simple. Treat them as the State Sponsor of Terrorism that they are. Cut them off from the world - as we did with North Korea. That's the only way to handle these people. As it is now - we are holding the shovel to dig our own graves.

 

[Claudette]

Iran got it all on this deal. If you can call our getting hosed a deal.

Douchebag and Kerry can pat themselves on the back for this deal but we taxpayers got hosed. Again.

Iran will continue to try for a nuclear weapon and will use OUR money to continue to sponsor terrorism.

Such a deal.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

what it is? Is the signal that they can kidnap and terrorizes the American citizens, our Military men and women and these people will pay a handsome ransom for them.

Bill Clinton had the same ideas. Of course Hillary in on his administration like she is in this one. and as soon he left office we had 9/11 nine months later.

start preparing now. and especally if it's a Republican who wins the Presidency.

Solutions please... All I hear is partisan criticism.

Solution, outlaw dimwits.

 

[Stephanie]

what it is? Is the signal that they can kidnap and terrorizes the American citizens, our Military men and women and these people will pay a handsome ransom for them.

Bill Clinton had the same ideas. Of course Hillary in on his administration like she is in this one. and as soon he left office we had 9/11 nine months later.

start preparing now. and especally if it's a Republican who wins the Presidency.

Solutions please... All I hear is partisan criticism.

Solution, outlaw dimwits.

this post has been edited: as I confused two people with my answer.

Most of it stands on the facts are: what solutions do we have now? none. . the deal has been done. so now we sit back and wait for outcome. as I said in the above post. when they did this crawling to the enemy under Clinton. as soon as he left office we 9/11 Nine months later.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

what it is? Is the signal that they can kidnap and terrorizes the American citizens, our Military men and women and these people will pay a handsome ransom for them.

Bill Clinton had the same ideas. Of course Hillary in on his administration like she is in this one. and as soon he left office we had 9/11 nine months later.

start preparing now. and especally if it's a Republican who wins the Presidency.

Solutions please... All I hear is partisan criticism.

Solution, outlaw dimwits.

screw you. there is no solution now. the deal has been done. so now we sit back and wait for outcome. as I said in the above post. when they did this crawling to the enemy under Clinton. as soon as he left office we 9/11 Nine months later. when you own this board you can give out demands. until then you knock your high and mighty down a notch.

You talking to me?

 

[Stephanie]

what it is? Is the signal that they can kidnap and terrorizes the American citizens, our Military men and women and these people will pay a handsome ransom for them.

Bill Clinton had the same ideas. Of course Hillary in on his administration like she is in this one. and as soon he left office we had 9/11 nine months later.

start preparing now. and especally if it's a Republican who wins the Presidency.

Solutions please... All I hear is partisan criticism.

Solution, outlaw dimwits.

screw you. there is no solution now. the deal has been done. so now we sit back and wait for outcome. as I said in the above post. when they did this crawling to the enemy under Clinton. as soon as he left office we 9/11 Nine months later. when you own this board you can give out demands. until then you knock your high and mighty down a notch.

You talking to me?

oh man, I meant it for someone else. I'm going to delete this and give it to the right person. so sorry.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

what it is? Is the signal that they can kidnap and terrorizes the American citizens, our Military men and women and these people will pay a handsome ransom for them.

Bill Clinton had the same ideas. Of course Hillary in on his administration like she is in this one. and as soon he left office we had 9/11 nine months later.

start preparing now. and especally if it's a Republican who wins the Presidency.

Solutions please... All I hear is partisan criticism.

Solution, outlaw dimwits.

screw you. there is no solution now. the deal has been done. so now we sit back and wait for outcome. as I said in the above post. when they did this crawling to the enemy under Clinton. as soon as he left office we 9/11 Nine months later. when you own this board you can give out demands. until then you knock your high and mighty down a notch.

You talking to me?

oh man, I meant it for someone else. I'm going to delete this and give it to the right person. so sorry.

I have had that happen to me also. All is good.

 

[Stephanie]

I can't delete it. anyway it wasn't to you.

 

[Stephanie]

Solutions please... All I hear is partisan criticism.

Solution, outlaw dimwits.

screw you. there is no solution now. the deal has been done. so now we sit back and wait for outcome. as I said in the above post. when they did this crawling to the enemy under Clinton. as soon as he left office we 9/11 Nine months later. when you own this board you can give out demands. until then you knock your high and mighty down a notch.

You talking to me?

oh man, I meant it for someone else. I'm going to delete this and give it to the right person. so sorry.

I have had that happen to me also. All is good.

I would never talk that way to you.

 

[jwoodie]

To the Right: With your critical view of the deal, how would you propose to handle the situation with Iran. IE. Do you chip away in attempt to build a bridge to diplomatic relations or do you take an absolutist approach, which I fear would lead to war or growing hostility from a very dangerous potential enemy?? If you prefer the later, please explain why?

Not only a false choice, but disingenuous as well. Could you have presented the same question to Great Britain in 1939?

What I would do is repudiate the nuclear agreement with Iran, reimpose the most extreme sanctions possible and declare The Gulf to be a No Sail Zone for the Iranian Navy. I would then declare Iran to be a Terrorist nation and place ABM sites around it to shoot down any ballistic missiles fired from Iranian soil. I would further declare that an Iranian nuclear attack on another country would be considered a declaration of war against the United States.

Does that answer your "question?"

 

[g5000]

The whole point of sanctions is to get a rogue nation to change its behavior.

If you don't remove the sanctions once that behavior is changed, then sanctions are pointless.

Iran has changed its behavior. It has deconstructed its nuclear weapons program. It has removed the very reasons the sanctions against the nuclear weapons program were put in place, and so there is no reason for them any longer.

It must really upset the loons their "Obama gave Iran nukes" narrative has been proven to be utterly false. Despite it being false, they still want the sanctions! WTF is that?!?

 

[jwoodie]

Iran has changed its behavior. It has deconstructed its nuclear weapons program. It has removed the very reasons the sanctions against the nuclear weapons program were put in place, and so there is no reason for them any longer.

 

[g5000]

Iran has changed its behavior. It has deconstructed its nuclear weapons program. It has removed the very reasons the sanctions against the nuclear weapons program were put in place, and so there is no reason for them any longer.

Sadly for you, it is the truth.

They have met the terms of the agreement, despite claims by the loons they never would.

The only ones who deny it are people like you who have never read a word of the agreement and get all their information from propaganda outlets.

 

[imawhosure]

The Right is tearing this Iran deal apart. The Left defends the attempt to progress diplomatic relations with Iran and prevent the development of Nuclear weapons.

Now that the sanctions have been lifted and Iran has access to $100 Billion there is a media uproar. The squakers are inaccurately depicting the situation as us paying Iran which will in turn funds terrorism. The reality is that the money is from oil sales between Iran and countries like China, India, S. Korea, and Turkey... The sanctions blocked Iran's access to their own money gained from sales of their products to other countries... Lets be clear about that.

I find the deal easy to critique as there are many many elements, however, with two very opposing positions it is impossible to get EVERYTHING that we want. I believe the administration attempted to get as much as they could with the underlying goal of hindering Iran's nuclear development. Part of this attempt towards diplomacy and a working relationship is to stop holding Iran's money and trust that they are smart with how they spend it. With any deal we have to give to get and there has to be a show of respect and trust to build a relationship. Also noteworthy is that the deal wasn't just between the US and Iran, although we did work in some additional specific terms, the deal was a joint effort with the US, UK, Russia, France, China, and Germany. With that said, I pose the following questions:

To the Right: With your critical view of the deal, how would you propose to handle the situation with Iran. IE. Do you chip away in attempt to build a bridge to diplomatic relations or do you take an absolutist approach, which I fear would lead to war or growing hostility from a very dangerous potential enemy?? If you prefer the later, please explain why?

To the Left: How do you defend the actions taken by our administration and do you feel good about the terms of the Iran deal?

PLEASE POST SOLUTIONS AND IDEAS... ALL I HEAR IS PARTISAN CRITIQUES AND IT'S GETTING OLD. I'M NOT INTERESTED IN STARTING A COMPLAINT FORUM. IF YOU DON'T LIKE SOMETHING THEN PROPOSE A BETTER SOLUTION.

View attachment 60698​

Good question, but wrong premise!

We didn't have to do anything. Suggesting we did, is a false narrative.

Was it successful? I will let you answer your own question! How? Just ask yourself, what is the rhetoric coming out of Iran! Does the words coming from them sound to you as trying to be conciliatory?

And so I ask-------> when everything a country says over, and over is..............we want to destroy you..........do you give them access to 150 billion dollars; even if it is theirs but you control it, or tell them to go pound some Iranian sand into their derriere?

That is NOT called politics my friend, that is called logic!

 

[g5000]

Iran has removed all but a minimum of enriched uranium from their country, leaving only the amount allowed in the agreement. Nowhere near enough to make a bomb.

Iran has shut down and poured concrete over their plutonium reactor. Again, in accordance with the agreement. This reactor was the one which Netanyahu made such a fuss about with his little cartoon bomb drawing which claimed Iran was just weeks away from a nuke.

Iran has deconstructed and destroyed their nuclear weapons facilities and installed round the clock monitoring of those facilities.

They have met every part of the agreement, and they even freed the hostages the loons were whining about not being in the agreement.

In other words, Iran has defused every single argument the loons had.

 

[whitehall]

There is absolutely no doubt that the Iran deal will fund terrorists, John Kerry admitted it. When you factor in the potential of Iran cooking a nuclear brew and dumping trillions of gallons of crude on the volatile oil market, killing American jobs, you have to ask yourself "what the hell is the upside"?