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

[Liminal]

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.

Wrong as usual professor.

 

[Liminal]

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....

So then obviously private corporations have rights of sovereignty over what ever nation they do business with.

 

[Liminal]

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.

Different history dummy.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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....

So then obviously private corporations have rights of sovereignty over what ever nation they do business with.

what does a legal agreement have to do with 'rights of sovereignty'......?

 

[Liminal]

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....

So then obviously private corporations have rights of sovereignty over what ever nation they do business with.

what does a legal agreement have to do with 'rights of sovereignty'......?

How does a legal agreement with a private corporation supersede a nation's right to make whatever laws and conditions they choose?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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....

So then obviously private corporations have rights of sovereignty over what ever nation they do business with.

what does a legal agreement have to do with 'rights of sovereignty'......?

How does a legal agreement with a private corporation supersede a nation's right to make whatever laws and conditions they choose?

i'm no international lawyer but a fundamental principle of law must be that contracts are respected....

 

[Liminal]

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....

So then obviously private corporations have rights of sovereignty over what ever nation they do business with.

what does a legal agreement have to do with 'rights of sovereignty'......?

How does a legal agreement with a private corporation supersede a nation's right to make whatever laws and conditions they choose?

i'm no international lawyer but a fundamental principle of law must be that contracts are respected....

How many domestic and international laws do you think the United States violated when we instigated a coup in Iran?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Obama is a secret member of and acting on behalf of the Muslim brotherhood.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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....

So then obviously private corporations have rights of sovereignty over what ever nation they do business with.

what does a legal agreement have to do with 'rights of sovereignty'......?

How does a legal agreement with a private corporation supersede a nation's right to make whatever laws and conditions they choose?

i'm no international lawyer but a fundamental principle of law must be that contracts are respected....

How many domestic and international laws do you think the United States violated when we instigated a coup in Iran?

do tell...

 

[nat4900]

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....?

Almost word for word what Gen Patton stated.....YET, we've managed to co-exist and prosper with the Russians.....You know nothing about the Persians except what Israel tells you to believe....Stay dumb.

 

[Liminal]

Obama is a secret member of and acting on behalf of the Muslim brotherhood.

So was Donald Trump's mother......another closely guarded secret.

 

[nat4900]

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...

The idea that you right wing nitwit do not seem to comprehend is that Iran is NOT our enemy...it may be Israel's, but its not ours......Like Pakistan and N. Korea, Iran WILL have nukes......It would be MUCH better for common Iranians to view the US and the West in a better, more moderate light so that the religious zealots there begin to lose their stronghold on their country.

With RW war-mongers, (who, btw, took away the ONLY possible check on Iran......i.e. Saddam Hussein) Iran will see us as the belligerent ones, making the ousting of the zealots much more difficult.

 

[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?

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...

There is a very good possibility that Iran does not develop nukes if an agreement exists, so long as they get something out of the deal. The fact that you believe Iran will develop nukes either way just gives greater credence to the idea that we should try to negotiate an agreement that might keep them from going down that path.