The real reason why Obama is pushing a bad deal with Iran

[Liminal]

As more and more details of the deal with Iran come out, it only gets worse and worse. There will be no snap inspections. There are secret side deals with the United Nations that we don't know about. The Iranians will continue to enrich uranium. And develop ICBM's. And fund terrorist groups who will kill Americans.

But through it all, Obama keeps pushing this deal. Ever wonder why? Many people think he is naive. I don't.

Liberals view the government as a force for progressive good when it acts as a controlling, collectivizing force within the country, telling its citizens what to do and when to do it, and redistributing wealth to define "equality" as it sees fit. But internationally, leftists view government as an evil, imperialistic, colonialist force (even though we never had colonies outside of the U.S.). In 1953, we overthrew the prime minister of Iran, Muhammad Mossadegh. Liberals believe he was falsely accused of being aligned with the communist party of Iran and was going to align Iran with Russia. (The actual truth is that he was aligned with the communist party of Iran and was very likely going to align Iran with Russia. Surprised?)

Liberals were very upset when Mossadegh was overthrown. Ever since then, liberals have viewed Irans as the hapless victim of an imperialist America. That's why Jimmy Carter, the worst president America had ever seen until Barack Obama was elected, helped the radical Ayatollah Khomenei take over from the shah. The shah was evil in Carter's mind because he was an ally of the West. Khomenei had anti-Western rhetoric, but for good reason, because of our imperialistic meddling.

Fast-forward to today.

Read more: Blog The real reason why Obama is pushing a bad deal with Iran
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Explain by what right and authority the United States of America has the power to overthrow a democratically elected legal government.

by what 'right and authority' did Mossadegh have to change the terms with the British oil company (today called BP) and nationalize it....in other words steal it from the British....?

How does a private corporation have the right to dictate policy to a legally elected government?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

As more and more details of the deal with Iran come out, it only gets worse and worse. There will be no snap inspections. There are secret side deals with the United Nations that we don't know about. The Iranians will continue to enrich uranium. And develop ICBM's. And fund terrorist groups who will kill Americans.

But through it all, Obama keeps pushing this deal. Ever wonder why? Many people think he is naive. I don't.

Liberals view the government as a force for progressive good when it acts as a controlling, collectivizing force within the country, telling its citizens what to do and when to do it, and redistributing wealth to define "equality" as it sees fit. But internationally, leftists view government as an evil, imperialistic, colonialist force (even though we never had colonies outside of the U.S.). In 1953, we overthrew the prime minister of Iran, Muhammad Mossadegh. Liberals believe he was falsely accused of being aligned with the communist party of Iran and was going to align Iran with Russia. (The actual truth is that he was aligned with the communist party of Iran and was very likely going to align Iran with Russia. Surprised?)

Liberals were very upset when Mossadegh was overthrown. Ever since then, liberals have viewed Irans as the hapless victim of an imperialist America. That's why Jimmy Carter, the worst president America had ever seen until Barack Obama was elected, helped the radical Ayatollah Khomenei take over from the shah. The shah was evil in Carter's mind because he was an ally of the West. Khomenei had anti-Western rhetoric, but for good reason, because of our imperialistic meddling.

Fast-forward to today.

Read more: Blog The real reason why Obama is pushing a bad deal with Iran
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Explain by what right and authority the United States of America has the power to overthrow a democratically elected legal government.

by what 'right and authority' did Mossadegh have to change the terms with the British oil company (today called BP) and nationalize it....in other words steal it from the British....?

How does a private corporation have the right to dictate policy to a legally elected government?

what policy were they dictating.....?

 

[Liminal]

As more and more details of the deal with Iran come out, it only gets worse and worse. There will be no snap inspections. There are secret side deals with the United Nations that we don't know about. The Iranians will continue to enrich uranium. And develop ICBM's. And fund terrorist groups who will kill Americans.

But through it all, Obama keeps pushing this deal. Ever wonder why? Many people think he is naive. I don't.

Liberals view the government as a force for progressive good when it acts as a controlling, collectivizing force within the country, telling its citizens what to do and when to do it, and redistributing wealth to define "equality" as it sees fit. But internationally, leftists view government as an evil, imperialistic, colonialist force (even though we never had colonies outside of the U.S.). In 1953, we overthrew the prime minister of Iran, Muhammad Mossadegh. Liberals believe he was falsely accused of being aligned with the communist party of Iran and was going to align Iran with Russia. (The actual truth is that he was aligned with the communist party of Iran and was very likely going to align Iran with Russia. Surprised?)

Liberals were very upset when Mossadegh was overthrown. Ever since then, liberals have viewed Irans as the hapless victim of an imperialist America. That's why Jimmy Carter, the worst president America had ever seen until Barack Obama was elected, helped the radical Ayatollah Khomenei take over from the shah. The shah was evil in Carter's mind because he was an ally of the West. Khomenei had anti-Western rhetoric, but for good reason, because of our imperialistic meddling.

Fast-forward to today.

Read more: Blog The real reason why Obama is pushing a bad deal with Iran
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Explain by what right and authority the United States of America has the power to overthrow a democratically elected legal government.

by what 'right and authority' did Mossadegh have to change the terms with the British oil company (today called BP) and nationalize it....in other words steal it from the British....?

How does a private corporation have the right to dictate policy to a legally elected government?

what policy were they dictating.....?

As if a private corporation has the power to decide who owns national resources.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

As more and more details of the deal with Iran come out, it only gets worse and worse. There will be no snap inspections. There are secret side deals with the United Nations that we don't know about. The Iranians will continue to enrich uranium. And develop ICBM's. And fund terrorist groups who will kill Americans.

But through it all, Obama keeps pushing this deal. Ever wonder why? Many people think he is naive. I don't.

Liberals view the government as a force for progressive good when it acts as a controlling, collectivizing force within the country, telling its citizens what to do and when to do it, and redistributing wealth to define "equality" as it sees fit. But internationally, leftists view government as an evil, imperialistic, colonialist force (even though we never had colonies outside of the U.S.). In 1953, we overthrew the prime minister of Iran, Muhammad Mossadegh. Liberals believe he was falsely accused of being aligned with the communist party of Iran and was going to align Iran with Russia. (The actual truth is that he was aligned with the communist party of Iran and was very likely going to align Iran with Russia. Surprised?)

Liberals were very upset when Mossadegh was overthrown. Ever since then, liberals have viewed Irans as the hapless victim of an imperialist America. That's why Jimmy Carter, the worst president America had ever seen until Barack Obama was elected, helped the radical Ayatollah Khomenei take over from the shah. The shah was evil in Carter's mind because he was an ally of the West. Khomenei had anti-Western rhetoric, but for good reason, because of our imperialistic meddling.

Fast-forward to today.

Read more: Blog The real reason why Obama is pushing a bad deal with Iran
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Explain by what right and authority the United States of America has the power to overthrow a democratically elected legal government.

by what 'right and authority' did Mossadegh have to change the terms with the British oil company (today called BP) and nationalize it....in other words steal it from the British....?

How does a private corporation have the right to dictate policy to a legally elected government?

what policy were they dictating.....?

As if a private corporation has the power to decide who owns national resources.

as if a nation has the right to steal private property from a corporation they had a deal with....

but then socialists don't respect corporations......especially when they want the profits for themselves.....do they...?

 

[Liminal]

Explain by what right and authority the United States of America has the power to overthrow a democratically elected legal government.

by what 'right and authority' did Mossadegh have to change the terms with the British oil company (today called BP) and nationalize it....in other words steal it from the British....?

How does a private corporation have the right to dictate policy to a legally elected government?

what policy were they dictating.....?

As if a private corporation has the power to decide who owns national resources.

as if a nation has the right to steal private property from a corporation they had a deal with....

but then socialists don't respect corporations......especially when they want the profits for themselves.....do they...?

So how does this justify overthrowing the democratically elected legal government of Iran?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

by what 'right and authority' did Mossadegh have to change the terms with the British oil company (today called BP) and nationalize it....in other words steal it from the British....?

How does a private corporation have the right to dictate policy to a legally elected government?

what policy were they dictating.....?

As if a private corporation has the power to decide who owns national resources.

as if a nation has the right to steal private property from a corporation they had a deal with....

but then socialists don't respect corporations......especially when they want the profits for themselves.....do they...?

So how does this justify overthrowing the democratically elected legal government of Iran?

because they nationalized Britain's oil compay....

what's the justification for that...?

 

[Liminal]

How does a private corporation have the right to dictate policy to a legally elected government?

what policy were they dictating.....?

As if a private corporation has the power to decide who owns national resources.

as if a nation has the right to steal private property from a corporation they had a deal with....

but then socialists don't respect corporations......especially when they want the profits for themselves.....do they...?

So how does this justify overthrowing the democratically elected legal government of Iran?

because they nationalized Britain's oil compay....

what's the justification for that...?

Why would a sovereign nation need to justify controlling their own resources?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

what policy were they dictating.....?

As if a private corporation has the power to decide who owns national resources.

as if a nation has the right to steal private property from a corporation they had a deal with....

but then socialists don't respect corporations......especially when they want the profits for themselves.....do they...?

So how does this justify overthrowing the democratically elected legal government of Iran?

because they nationalized Britain's oil compay....

what's the justification for that...?

Why would a sovereign nation need to justify controlling their own resources?

they did.....and they cut a deal with Britain's oil company regarding those resources......

 

[Liminal]

As if a private corporation has the power to decide who owns national resources.

as if a nation has the right to steal private property from a corporation they had a deal with....

but then socialists don't respect corporations......especially when they want the profits for themselves.....do they...?

So how does this justify overthrowing the democratically elected legal government of Iran?

because they nationalized Britain's oil compay....

what's the justification for that...?

Why would a sovereign nation need to justify controlling their own resources?

they did.....and they cut a deal with Britain's oil company regarding those resources......

Yes I know. The Iranian government offered compensation to those corporations from the very beginning, all legal and proper by any international standard.

 

[nat4900]

but in ten years (or earlier which is more likely) or so they will have a much better nuclear arsenal complete with ICBMs to bomb America that will be much more dangerous than what they could do today........so Obama's 'postponement' plan is idiotic.....even suicidal.....

Then go on........vote for whomever wants to start a war with Iran....after all, Iran is 3 times the size of Iraq, has a navy and powerful air force.. Fully backed by both Russia and China......I mean what could POSSIBLY go wrong with that scenario, right dingbat?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

as if a nation has the right to steal private property from a corporation they had a deal with....

but then socialists don't respect corporations......especially when they want the profits for themselves.....do they...?

So how does this justify overthrowing the democratically elected legal government of Iran?

because they nationalized Britain's oil compay....

what's the justification for that...?

Why would a sovereign nation need to justify controlling their own resources?

they did.....and they cut a deal with Britain's oil company regarding those resources......

Yes I know. The Iranian government offered compensation to those corporations from the very beginning, all legal and proper by any international standard.

there was no mutual agreement regarding such compensation....it was a one-sided steal....

 

[auditor0007]

As more and more details of the deal with Iran come out, it only gets worse and worse. There will be no snap inspections. There are secret side deals with the United Nations that we don't know about. The Iranians will continue to enrich uranium. And develop ICBM's. And fund terrorist groups who will kill Americans.

But through it all, Obama keeps pushing this deal. Ever wonder why? Many people think he is naive. I don't.

Liberals view the government as a force for progressive good when it acts as a controlling, collectivizing force within the country, telling its citizens what to do and when to do it, and redistributing wealth to define "equality" as it sees fit. But internationally, leftists view government as an evil, imperialistic, colonialist force (even though we never had colonies outside of the U.S.). In 1953, we overthrew the prime minister of Iran, Muhammad Mossadegh. Liberals believe he was falsely accused of being aligned with the communist party of Iran and was going to align Iran with Russia. (The actual truth is that he was aligned with the communist party of Iran and was very likely going to align Iran with Russia. Surprised?)

Liberals were very upset when Mossadegh was overthrown. Ever since then, liberals have viewed Irans as the hapless victim of an imperialist America. That's why Jimmy Carter, the worst president America had ever seen until Barack Obama was elected, helped the radical Ayatollah Khomenei take over from the shah. The shah was evil in Carter's mind because he was an ally of the West. Khomenei had anti-Western rhetoric, but for good reason, because of our imperialistic meddling.

Fast-forward to today.

Read more: Blog The real reason why Obama is pushing a bad deal with Iran
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

If there is no deal with Iran, then Iran continues to do whatever they want, including the development of nuclear bombs. If we or Israel attack them because we don't want them to have those weapons, it will be an act of war taken by us or Israel on a sovereign nation. China and Russia may not look favorably on that. Basically, we would be setting things up for another world conflict, and all over Iran. Now, if we have a deal in place with Iran, and they agree not to develop nukes, then we have legitimate ground to stand on if they do. Attacking Iran for developing nukes after they agreed not to would not leave us or Israel as the aggressor if Iran had previously agreed not to develop nukes.

I find it ironic that so many of you believe not having an agreement with Iran will keep Iran from developing nukes while having an agreement with them will allow them to develop nukes. Remember this also. Iran does not have nukes. Israel and the US do. Iran should be the one feeling threatened, yet it seems it is Americans and Israelis who are the ones shaking in their boots over Iran possibly developing nukes. Pakistan has nukes. North Korea has nukes. Are they a threat to us? Should we invade North Korea to take away their nukes because of this great threat?

 

[Liminal]

So how does this justify overthrowing the democratically elected legal government of Iran?

because they nationalized Britain's oil compay....

what's the justification for that...?

Why would a sovereign nation need to justify controlling their own resources?

they did.....and they cut a deal with Britain's oil company regarding those resources......

Yes I know. The Iranian government offered compensation to those corporations from the very beginning, all legal and proper by any international standard.

there was no mutual agreement regarding such compensation....it was a one-sided steal....

Uh huh, so what? Does that mean we should be the enforcers for multi national corporations? I'm not seeing the part where you justify overthrowing a legally elected government.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

but in ten years (or earlier which is more likely) or so they will have a much better nuclear arsenal complete with ICBMs to bomb America that will be much more dangerous than what they could do today........so Obama's 'postponement' plan is idiotic.....even suicidal.....

Then go on........vote for whomever wants to start a war with Iran....after all, Iran is 3 times the size of Iraq, has a navy and powerful air force.. Fully backed by both Russia and China......I mean what could POSSIBLY go wrong with that scenario, right dingbat?

who said war was the first option....?

and it's clear you admit fighting Iran would be difficult even today....how about a few years down the line after they have all that money to arm up....?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

As more and more details of the deal with Iran come out, it only gets worse and worse. There will be no snap inspections. There are secret side deals with the United Nations that we don't know about. The Iranians will continue to enrich uranium. And develop ICBM's. And fund terrorist groups who will kill Americans.

But through it all, Obama keeps pushing this deal. Ever wonder why? Many people think he is naive. I don't.

Liberals view the government as a force for progressive good when it acts as a controlling, collectivizing force within the country, telling its citizens what to do and when to do it, and redistributing wealth to define "equality" as it sees fit. But internationally, leftists view government as an evil, imperialistic, colonialist force (even though we never had colonies outside of the U.S.). In 1953, we overthrew the prime minister of Iran, Muhammad Mossadegh. Liberals believe he was falsely accused of being aligned with the communist party of Iran and was going to align Iran with Russia. (The actual truth is that he was aligned with the communist party of Iran and was very likely going to align Iran with Russia. Surprised?)

Liberals were very upset when Mossadegh was overthrown. Ever since then, liberals have viewed Irans as the hapless victim of an imperialist America. That's why Jimmy Carter, the worst president America had ever seen until Barack Obama was elected, helped the radical Ayatollah Khomenei take over from the shah. The shah was evil in Carter's mind because he was an ally of the West. Khomenei had anti-Western rhetoric, but for good reason, because of our imperialistic meddling.

Fast-forward to today.

Read more: Blog The real reason why Obama is pushing a bad deal with Iran
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

If there is no deal with Iran, then Iran continues to do whatever they want, including the development of nuclear bombs. If we or Israel attack them because we don't want them to have those weapons, it will be an act of war taken by us or Israel on a sovereign nation. China and Russia may not look favorably on that. Basically, we would be setting things up for another world conflict, and all over Iran. Now, if we have a deal in place with Iran, and they agree not to develop nukes, then we have legitimate ground to stand on if they do. Attacking Iran for developing nukes after they agreed not to would not leave us or Israel as the aggressor if Iran had previously agreed not to develop nukes.

I find it ironic that so many of you believe not having an agreement with Iran will keep Iran from developing nukes while having an agreement with them will allow them to develop nukes. Remember this also. Iran does not have nukes. Israel and the US do. Iran should be the one feeling threatened, yet it seems it is Americans and Israelis who are the ones shaking in their boots over Iran possibly developing nukes. Pakistan has nukes. North Korea has nukes. Are they a threat to us? Should we invade North Korea to take away their nukes because of this great threat?

obviously Iran will develop nukes either way......so what is the advantage of the agreement.....? allowing it to happen faster....? or as some think, slower....?

faster or slower we will have to deal with it for real.....why not now...? (or at least after BO is out of office...) certainly before Iran has the ability to flourish...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

because they nationalized Britain's oil compay....

what's the justification for that...?

Why would a sovereign nation need to justify controlling their own resources?

they did.....and they cut a deal with Britain's oil company regarding those resources......

Yes I know. The Iranian government offered compensation to those corporations from the very beginning, all legal and proper by any international standard.

there was no mutual agreement regarding such compensation....it was a one-sided steal....

Uh huh, so what? Does that mean we should be the enforcers for multi national corporations? I'm not seeing the part where you justify overthrowing a legally elected government.

is electing a socialist leader who decides to nationalize a company justifiable....?

nationalizing a corporation (against their agreement) is illegal confiscation of that company......but you deadhead socialists don't understand the concept....you think it's your 'right' to take from a business......i bet you supported Hugo Chavez in Venezuela too.....he not only nationalized oil but many other sectors of business too....

 

[Liminal]

Why would a sovereign nation need to justify controlling their own resources?

they did.....and they cut a deal with Britain's oil company regarding those resources......

Yes I know. The Iranian government offered compensation to those corporations from the very beginning, all legal and proper by any international standard.

there was no mutual agreement regarding such compensation....it was a one-sided steal....

Uh huh, so what? Does that mean we should be the enforcers for multi national corporations? I'm not seeing the part where you justify overthrowing a legally elected government.

is electing a socialist leader who decides to nationalize a company justifiable....?

nationalizing a corporation (against their agreement) is illegal confiscation of that company......but you deadhead socialists don't understand the concept....you think it's your 'right' to take from a business......i bet you supported Hugo Chavez in Venezuela too.....he not only nationalized oil but many other sectors of business too....

I'm still not seeing the part where the United States of America has the right to overthrow a legally elected government. Why should we care about the rights of oil corporations to set terms for a sovereign nation? If a private corporation doing business overseas takes a loss, how is that our problem? That's their risk, not mine.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is no deal with Iran. There will be no inspections. Weren't you paying attention? There will be no inspectors permitted in the country unless they come from a country that has diplomatic relations with Iran. Resumption of diplomatic relations is one of those things Kerry allowed to be taken off the table.

 

[Katzndogz]

they did.....and they cut a deal with Britain's oil company regarding those resources......

Yes I know. The Iranian government offered compensation to those corporations from the very beginning, all legal and proper by any international standard.

there was no mutual agreement regarding such compensation....it was a one-sided steal....

Uh huh, so what? Does that mean we should be the enforcers for multi national corporations? I'm not seeing the part where you justify overthrowing a legally elected government.

is electing a socialist leader who decides to nationalize a company justifiable....?

nationalizing a corporation (against their agreement) is illegal confiscation of that company......but you deadhead socialists don't understand the concept....you think it's your 'right' to take from a business......i bet you supported Hugo Chavez in Venezuela too.....he not only nationalized oil but many other sectors of business too....

I'm still not seeing the part where the United States of America has the right to overthrow a legally elected government. Why should we care about the rights of oil corporations to set terms for a sovereign nation? If a private corporation doing business overseas takes a loss, how is that our problem? That's their risk, not mine.

Is the key then "legally elected government"?

Fail on all counts.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

they did.....and they cut a deal with Britain's oil company regarding those resources......

Yes I know. The Iranian government offered compensation to those corporations from the very beginning, all legal and proper by any international standard.

there was no mutual agreement regarding such compensation....it was a one-sided steal....

Uh huh, so what? Does that mean we should be the enforcers for multi national corporations? I'm not seeing the part where you justify overthrowing a legally elected government.

is electing a socialist leader who decides to nationalize a company justifiable....?

nationalizing a corporation (against their agreement) is illegal confiscation of that company......but you deadhead socialists don't understand the concept....you think it's your 'right' to take from a business......i bet you supported Hugo Chavez in Venezuela too.....he not only nationalized oil but many other sectors of business too....

I'm still not seeing the part where the United States of America has the right to overthrow a legally elected government. Why should we care about the rights of oil corporations to set terms for a sovereign nation? If a private corporation doing business overseas takes a loss, how is that our problem? That's their risk, not mine.

i'm still not seeing where Mossadegh had the right to nationalize Britain's oil company.....a company with a legal agreement to operate in Iran...

who said the oil company was setting terms for the sovereign nation of Iran...? it was a legal agreement.....

the U.S.was an ally of Britain.....friends stick together....besides there was the additional communist threat....