Time to Call Obama and Kerry What They Are Traitors

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It is not an alternative to the deal when the deal does not licence nuclear weapons. ...

The Deal in fact DOES License Iran to Develop and Use Nuclear Weapons...

It does so by posing as a means to prevent such, which possesses no means to prohibit such, thus providing the means for Iran to do so, as the world sits idly by allowing it to do so, within the scope of "The Deal" it made... .

Ya see Scamp... 'stating deceitful intent...' is, in reality; thus in truth, a demonstration of one's intent. To recognize that intent, merely requires one to recognize the deceit.

There's absolutely NOTHING complex about any of this.

 

[Bobby1250]

For almost fifty years, John Kerry has been selling out American interests to the enemy. Iran is his biggest success. The dirty Iran nuke deal is the culmination of his life’s many treasons.

And none of this would have happened without Obama.

Obama began his rise by pandering to radical leftists on removing Saddam. He urged them to take on Egypt instead, and that’s what he did once in office, orchestrating the takeover of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and across the region. The Muslim Brotherhood was overthrown by popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, but Obama had preserved the Iranian regime when it was faced with the Green Revolution. Now Iran is his last best Islamist hope for stopping America in the Middle East.

What scum!


Time to Call Obama and Kerry What They Are Traitors Frontpage Mag

"Selling out" ?

Selling implies he has taken money for what you claim he has done.

How MUCH money has Kerry made?

Btw? FrontPageMag is a Mossad disinformation website. Do you have anything credible to support your claim?

 

[Bobby1250]

Obama began his rise by pandering to radical leftists on removing Saddam.

Time to Call Obama and Kerry What They Are Traitors Frontpage Mag

ORLY?

The United States Senate career of Barack Obama began on January 4, 2005 and ended on November 16, 2008.

United States Senate career of Barack Obama - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Hussein had been captured, tried and hanged before 0bama was elected to the Senate.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The Deal in fact DOES License Iran to Develop and Use Nuclear Weapons...

It does so by posing as a means to prevent such, which possesses no means to prohibit such, thus providing the means for Iran to do so, as the world sits idly by allowing it to do so, within the scope of "The Deal" it made...

Tell us what means to prevent existed 15 seconds prior to the deal being inked.

 

[Bfgrn]

All you have done is whine and parrot the neocons...the very same scum who told us that the United States had to attack Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Nope I have analyzed and offered a reasonable critique together with ideas and solutions, you are the one who has fallen back on platitudes and Kool-ade drenched commentary sprinkled with personal attacks.

You have offered NOTHING as an alternative...

What you want is not a treaty...you want an edict...

You are naive, foolish, dogmatic and UN-realistic...

Analyze THIS...

According to critics of the Iran deal, Obama got played. If he had just waited, they argue, painful economic sanctions would have forced the Iranians to cave completely. And when that happened, the United States could have taken down Iran's nuclear program entirely, instead of just limiting it.

This narrative sounds compelling. It's also a total fantasy. The way sanctions actually worked means that the longer the US waited to make a deal, the worse it would have been.

Miles Kahler, a distinguished professor at American University, put this point really well in a piece for Brookings. Kahler's basic point is that the deal isn't just an agreement between America and Iran — it's a deal between America, Iran, and America's international partners. People who say there was a better deal don't really understand what countries like Russia and China wanted out of the negotiations:

Each of [America's] negotiating partners—three European allies, Russia, and China—paid a higher economic price for these economic sanctions in trade and investment foregone than the United States, whose companies have had (and will continue to have) limited economic exchange with Iran since the revolution, prevented by layers of unilateral sanctions imposed by successive U.S. administrations. Without the support of its negotiating partners for extending or deepening sanctions, their effectiveness would be immediately undermined. Given the greater opportunity cost of sanctions for them—particularly for Russia and China—it is difficult to imagine that they would follow any U.S. pursuit of a tougher bargain. Thus, the deal that is on the table represents not only a bargain between the P5+1 and Iran, but also a bargain among the P5+1 partners themselves.

In other words, the sanctions that led to this deal depended on the participation of those other countries. But because they previously traded a lot with Iran, they were also suffering a lot from the sanctions. America didn't have strong trade ties with Iran in the first place, so it felt much less economic pain. But Germany and China didn't want to give up the money they could make from Iran forever. If Obama walked away from this deal, these countries would likely have given up on sanctions altogether — and the prospect of a "better deal" would have vanished.

This is a very basic, fundamental point, but no deal critic has been able to answer it in a remotely plausible fashion. That's probably because the supposed "better deal" is 100 percent fictional. It was never a real option — just a myth made up to obscure the truth that this deal was the best one available.

The biggest thing Iran deal critics get wrong in one paragraph - Vox


"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

The author of your piece nothing but a left wing hack:
Zack Beauchamp
Dictator-for-Life
Zack writes about all of the things that are not American things. He previously edited a section on political thought at ThinkProgress and, before that, contributed to The Dish. It's pronounced BEE-chum.

WHO FUNDS THE FAR LEFT? YOU’LL BE SURPRISED
The Center for American Progress is a left-wing organization that is closely associated with the Obama administration. Its principal product is a web site called Think Progress. Think Progress is part of the internet cesspool that modern liberalism has become. Written by hack left-wing bloggers, it is bitterly hostile to free enterprise."

Who Funds the Far Left You ll Be Surprised Power Line

Zack Beauchamp - Vox

Come back when you have a more plausible hero.

Oh, my...you are admitting you are surrendering?

And your sources?

Nope I am admitting that your sources are bias and without any basis to make an objective analysis and that you have not presented anything but hackneyed platitudes and yellow dog perspective.

I have presented my sources previously, go back and read. I may provide more if I see something worthy of posting.

And your sources? The OP is from a site run by a Marxist neocon. And your one article is from a neocon think tank.

These are the very same neocons who told us we must invade Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons. The very same Iraq where we found ZERO WMD's or current nuclear material.

The same neocons whose policies created a power vacuum that emboldened renegade and genocidal groups like ISIS.

 

[Alex.]

Nope I have analyzed and offered a reasonable critique together with ideas and solutions, you are the one who has fallen back on platitudes and Kool-ade drenched commentary sprinkled with personal attacks.

You have offered NOTHING as an alternative...

What you want is not a treaty...you want an edict...

You are naive, foolish, dogmatic and UN-realistic...

Analyze THIS...

According to critics of the Iran deal, Obama got played. If he had just waited, they argue, painful economic sanctions would have forced the Iranians to cave completely. And when that happened, the United States could have taken down Iran's nuclear program entirely, instead of just limiting it.

This narrative sounds compelling. It's also a total fantasy. The way sanctions actually worked means that the longer the US waited to make a deal, the worse it would have been.

Miles Kahler, a distinguished professor at American University, put this point really well in a piece for Brookings. Kahler's basic point is that the deal isn't just an agreement between America and Iran — it's a deal between America, Iran, and America's international partners. People who say there was a better deal don't really understand what countries like Russia and China wanted out of the negotiations:

Each of [America's] negotiating partners—three European allies, Russia, and China—paid a higher economic price for these economic sanctions in trade and investment foregone than the United States, whose companies have had (and will continue to have) limited economic exchange with Iran since the revolution, prevented by layers of unilateral sanctions imposed by successive U.S. administrations. Without the support of its negotiating partners for extending or deepening sanctions, their effectiveness would be immediately undermined. Given the greater opportunity cost of sanctions for them—particularly for Russia and China—it is difficult to imagine that they would follow any U.S. pursuit of a tougher bargain. Thus, the deal that is on the table represents not only a bargain between the P5+1 and Iran, but also a bargain among the P5+1 partners themselves.

In other words, the sanctions that led to this deal depended on the participation of those other countries. But because they previously traded a lot with Iran, they were also suffering a lot from the sanctions. America didn't have strong trade ties with Iran in the first place, so it felt much less economic pain. But Germany and China didn't want to give up the money they could make from Iran forever. If Obama walked away from this deal, these countries would likely have given up on sanctions altogether — and the prospect of a "better deal" would have vanished.

This is a very basic, fundamental point, but no deal critic has been able to answer it in a remotely plausible fashion. That's probably because the supposed "better deal" is 100 percent fictional. It was never a real option — just a myth made up to obscure the truth that this deal was the best one available.

The biggest thing Iran deal critics get wrong in one paragraph - Vox


"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

The author of your piece nothing but a left wing hack:
Zack Beauchamp
Dictator-for-Life
Zack writes about all of the things that are not American things. He previously edited a section on political thought at ThinkProgress and, before that, contributed to The Dish. It's pronounced BEE-chum.

WHO FUNDS THE FAR LEFT? YOU’LL BE SURPRISED
The Center for American Progress is a left-wing organization that is closely associated with the Obama administration. Its principal product is a web site called Think Progress. Think Progress is part of the internet cesspool that modern liberalism has become. Written by hack left-wing bloggers, it is bitterly hostile to free enterprise."

Who Funds the Far Left You ll Be Surprised Power Line

Zack Beauchamp - Vox

Come back when you have a more plausible hero.

Oh, my...you are admitting you are surrendering?

And your sources?

Nope I am admitting that your sources are bias and without any basis to make an objective analysis and that you have not presented anything but hackneyed platitudes and yellow dog perspective.

I have presented my sources previously, go back and read. I may provide more if I see something worthy of posting.

And your sources? The OP is from a site run by a Marxist neocon. And your one article is from a neocon think tank.

These are the very same neocons who told us we must invade Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons. The very same Iraq where we found ZERO WMD's or current nuclear material.

The same neocons whose policies created a power vacuum that emboldened renegade and genocidal groups like ISIS.

Hmm let's see I provided original portions of the agreement, then analysed and gave my opinion. You have solely relied being spoon fed thoughts and ideas from your clearly biased sources, my left wing friend. How about taking a chance giving your own opinion without spouting some platitude or what someone else is telling you what to think.

 

[Bfgrn]

You have offered NOTHING as an alternative...

What you want is not a treaty...you want an edict...

You are naive, foolish, dogmatic and UN-realistic...

Analyze THIS...

According to critics of the Iran deal, Obama got played. If he had just waited, they argue, painful economic sanctions would have forced the Iranians to cave completely. And when that happened, the United States could have taken down Iran's nuclear program entirely, instead of just limiting it.

This narrative sounds compelling. It's also a total fantasy. The way sanctions actually worked means that the longer the US waited to make a deal, the worse it would have been.

Miles Kahler, a distinguished professor at American University, put this point really well in a piece for Brookings. Kahler's basic point is that the deal isn't just an agreement between America and Iran — it's a deal between America, Iran, and America's international partners. People who say there was a better deal don't really understand what countries like Russia and China wanted out of the negotiations:

Each of [America's] negotiating partners—three European allies, Russia, and China—paid a higher economic price for these economic sanctions in trade and investment foregone than the United States, whose companies have had (and will continue to have) limited economic exchange with Iran since the revolution, prevented by layers of unilateral sanctions imposed by successive U.S. administrations. Without the support of its negotiating partners for extending or deepening sanctions, their effectiveness would be immediately undermined. Given the greater opportunity cost of sanctions for them—particularly for Russia and China—it is difficult to imagine that they would follow any U.S. pursuit of a tougher bargain. Thus, the deal that is on the table represents not only a bargain between the P5+1 and Iran, but also a bargain among the P5+1 partners themselves.

In other words, the sanctions that led to this deal depended on the participation of those other countries. But because they previously traded a lot with Iran, they were also suffering a lot from the sanctions. America didn't have strong trade ties with Iran in the first place, so it felt much less economic pain. But Germany and China didn't want to give up the money they could make from Iran forever. If Obama walked away from this deal, these countries would likely have given up on sanctions altogether — and the prospect of a "better deal" would have vanished.

This is a very basic, fundamental point, but no deal critic has been able to answer it in a remotely plausible fashion. That's probably because the supposed "better deal" is 100 percent fictional. It was never a real option — just a myth made up to obscure the truth that this deal was the best one available.

The biggest thing Iran deal critics get wrong in one paragraph - Vox


"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

The author of your piece nothing but a left wing hack:
Zack Beauchamp
Dictator-for-Life
Zack writes about all of the things that are not American things. He previously edited a section on political thought at ThinkProgress and, before that, contributed to The Dish. It's pronounced BEE-chum.

WHO FUNDS THE FAR LEFT? YOU’LL BE SURPRISED
The Center for American Progress is a left-wing organization that is closely associated with the Obama administration. Its principal product is a web site called Think Progress. Think Progress is part of the internet cesspool that modern liberalism has become. Written by hack left-wing bloggers, it is bitterly hostile to free enterprise."

Who Funds the Far Left You ll Be Surprised Power Line

Zack Beauchamp - Vox

Come back when you have a more plausible hero.

Oh, my...you are admitting you are surrendering?

And your sources?

Nope I am admitting that your sources are bias and without any basis to make an objective analysis and that you have not presented anything but hackneyed platitudes and yellow dog perspective.

I have presented my sources previously, go back and read. I may provide more if I see something worthy of posting.

And your sources? The OP is from a site run by a Marxist neocon. And your one article is from a neocon think tank.

These are the very same neocons who told us we must invade Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons. The very same Iraq where we found ZERO WMD's or current nuclear material.

The same neocons whose policies created a power vacuum that emboldened renegade and genocidal groups like ISIS.

Hmm let's see I provided original portions of the agreement, then analysed and gave my opinion. You have solely relied being spoon fed thoughts and ideas from your clearly biased sources, my left wing friend. How about taking a chance giving your own opinion without spouting some platitude or what someone else is telling you what to think.

It is really so simple a child could understand it. This is not just a good deal, it is an incredibly good deal.

Please tell me what restraint on Iran's nuclear program exist today?

The treaty limits Iran's nuclear program to:

• Iran will give up about 14,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges.
• Iran will give up 97 percent of its enriched uranium; it will hold on to only 300 kilograms' worth.
• Iran will be forbidden from enriching uranium beyond energy-grade fuel, or 3.67 percent enrichment. (Weapons-grade uranium is 90 percent enriched.)
• Iran will destroy or export the core of its plutonium plant at Arak, and replace it with a new core that cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium. It will ship out all spent nuclear fuel.

 

[Bobby1250]

The author of your piece nothing but a left wing hack:
Zack Beauchamp
Dictator-for-Life
Zack writes about all of the things that are not American things. He previously edited a section on political thought at ThinkProgress and, before that, contributed to The Dish. It's pronounced BEE-chum.

WHO FUNDS THE FAR LEFT? YOU’LL BE SURPRISED
The Center for American Progress is a left-wing organization that is closely associated with the Obama administration. Its principal product is a web site called Think Progress. Think Progress is part of the internet cesspool that modern liberalism has become. Written by hack left-wing bloggers, it is bitterly hostile to free enterprise."

Who Funds the Far Left You ll Be Surprised Power Line

Zack Beauchamp - Vox

Come back when you have a more plausible hero.

Oh, my...you are admitting you are surrendering?

And your sources?

Nope I am admitting that your sources are bias and without any basis to make an objective analysis and that you have not presented anything but hackneyed platitudes and yellow dog perspective.

I have presented my sources previously, go back and read. I may provide more if I see something worthy of posting.

And your sources? The OP is from a site run by a Marxist neocon. And your one article is from a neocon think tank.

These are the very same neocons who told us we must invade Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons. The very same Iraq where we found ZERO WMD's or current nuclear material.

The same neocons whose policies created a power vacuum that emboldened renegade and genocidal groups like ISIS.

Hmm let's see I provided original portions of the agreement, then analysed and gave my opinion. You have solely relied being spoon fed thoughts and ideas from your clearly biased sources, my left wing friend. How about taking a chance giving your own opinion without spouting some platitude or what someone else is telling you what to think.

It is really so simple a child could understand it. This is not just a good deal, it is an incredibly good deal.

Please tell me what restraint on Iran's nuclear program exist today?

The treaty limits Iran's nuclear program to:

• Iran will give up about 14,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges.
• Iran will give up 97 percent of its enriched uranium; it will hold on to only 300 kilograms' worth.
• Iran will be forbidden from enriching uranium beyond energy-grade fuel, or 3.67 percent enrichment. (Weapons-grade uranium is 90 percent enriched.)
• Iran will destroy or export the core of its plutonium plant at Arak, and replace it with a new core that cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium. It will ship out all spent nuclear fuel.

In other words; Israel gets to KEEP it's MONOPOLY on the LUCRATIVE MARKET of the manufacturing of medical isotopes for cancer research because of the...

Who are dumb enough to believe every word they hear or read from the zio clan media conglomerate ABCNNBCBSFOXNYT.

 

[Bfgrn]

Oh, my...you are admitting you are surrendering?

And your sources?

Nope I am admitting that your sources are bias and without any basis to make an objective analysis and that you have not presented anything but hackneyed platitudes and yellow dog perspective.

I have presented my sources previously, go back and read. I may provide more if I see something worthy of posting.

And your sources? The OP is from a site run by a Marxist neocon. And your one article is from a neocon think tank.

These are the very same neocons who told us we must invade Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons. The very same Iraq where we found ZERO WMD's or current nuclear material.

The same neocons whose policies created a power vacuum that emboldened renegade and genocidal groups like ISIS.

Hmm let's see I provided original portions of the agreement, then analysed and gave my opinion. You have solely relied being spoon fed thoughts and ideas from your clearly biased sources, my left wing friend. How about taking a chance giving your own opinion without spouting some platitude or what someone else is telling you what to think.

It is really so simple a child could understand it. This is not just a good deal, it is an incredibly good deal.

Please tell me what restraint on Iran's nuclear program exist today?

The treaty limits Iran's nuclear program to:

• Iran will give up about 14,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges.
• Iran will give up 97 percent of its enriched uranium; it will hold on to only 300 kilograms' worth.
• Iran will be forbidden from enriching uranium beyond energy-grade fuel, or 3.67 percent enrichment. (Weapons-grade uranium is 90 percent enriched.)
• Iran will destroy or export the core of its plutonium plant at Arak, and replace it with a new core that cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium. It will ship out all spent nuclear fuel.

In other words; Israel gets to KEEP it's MONOPOLY on the LUCRATIVE MARKET of the manufacturing of medical isotopes for cancer research because of the...

Who are dumb enough to believe every word they hear or read from the zio clan media conglomerate ABCNNBCBSFOXNYT.

I'm sure that is foremost in Bibi's mind...

 

[skye]

Oh, my...you are admitting you are surrendering?

And your sources?

Nope I am admitting that your sources are bias and without any basis to make an objective analysis and that you have not presented anything but hackneyed platitudes and yellow dog perspective.

I have presented my sources previously, go back and read. I may provide more if I see something worthy of posting.

And your sources? The OP is from a site run by a Marxist neocon. And your one article is from a neocon think tank.

These are the very same neocons who told us we must invade Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons. The very same Iraq where we found ZERO WMD's or current nuclear material.

The same neocons whose policies created a power vacuum that emboldened renegade and genocidal groups like ISIS.

Hmm let's see I provided original portions of the agreement, then analysed and gave my opinion. You have solely relied being spoon fed thoughts and ideas from your clearly biased sources, my left wing friend. How about taking a chance giving your own opinion without spouting some platitude or what someone else is telling you what to think.

It is really so simple a child could understand it. This is not just a good deal, it is an incredibly good deal.

Please tell me what restraint on Iran's nuclear program exist today?

The treaty limits Iran's nuclear program to:

• Iran will give up about 14,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges.
• Iran will give up 97 percent of its enriched uranium; it will hold on to only 300 kilograms' worth.
• Iran will be forbidden from enriching uranium beyond energy-grade fuel, or 3.67 percent enrichment. (Weapons-grade uranium is 90 percent enriched.)
• Iran will destroy or export the core of its plutonium plant at Arak, and replace it with a new core that cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium. It will ship out all spent nuclear fuel.

In other words; Israel gets to KEEP it's MONOPOLY on the LUCRATIVE MARKET of the manufacturing of medical isotopes for cancer research because of the...

Who are dumb enough to believe every word they hear or read from the zio clan media conglomerate ABCNNBCBSFOXNYT.

Why don't you stick you ISOTOPES where the sun never shines?

Oh dear Lord what an obnoxious vermin!

 

[Bfgrn]

Nope I am admitting that your sources are bias and without any basis to make an objective analysis and that you have not presented anything but hackneyed platitudes and yellow dog perspective.

I have presented my sources previously, go back and read. I may provide more if I see something worthy of posting.

And your sources? The OP is from a site run by a Marxist neocon. And your one article is from a neocon think tank.

These are the very same neocons who told us we must invade Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons. The very same Iraq where we found ZERO WMD's or current nuclear material.

The same neocons whose policies created a power vacuum that emboldened renegade and genocidal groups like ISIS.

Hmm let's see I provided original portions of the agreement, then analysed and gave my opinion. You have solely relied being spoon fed thoughts and ideas from your clearly biased sources, my left wing friend. How about taking a chance giving your own opinion without spouting some platitude or what someone else is telling you what to think.

It is really so simple a child could understand it. This is not just a good deal, it is an incredibly good deal.

Please tell me what restraint on Iran's nuclear program exist today?

The treaty limits Iran's nuclear program to:

• Iran will give up about 14,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges.
• Iran will give up 97 percent of its enriched uranium; it will hold on to only 300 kilograms' worth.
• Iran will be forbidden from enriching uranium beyond energy-grade fuel, or 3.67 percent enrichment. (Weapons-grade uranium is 90 percent enriched.)
• Iran will destroy or export the core of its plutonium plant at Arak, and replace it with a new core that cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium. It will ship out all spent nuclear fuel.

In other words; Israel gets to KEEP it's MONOPOLY on the LUCRATIVE MARKET of the manufacturing of medical isotopes for cancer research because of the...

Who are dumb enough to believe every word they hear or read from the zio clan media conglomerate ABCNNBCBSFOXNYT.

Why don't you stick you ISOTOPES where the sun never shines?

Oh dear Lord what an obnoxious vermin!

Hey skye...does Iran have a right to nuclear energy?

 

[Bobby1250]

Nope I am admitting that your sources are bias and without any basis to make an objective analysis and that you have not presented anything but hackneyed platitudes and yellow dog perspective.

I have presented my sources previously, go back and read. I may provide more if I see something worthy of posting.

And your sources? The OP is from a site run by a Marxist neocon. And your one article is from a neocon think tank.

These are the very same neocons who told us we must invade Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons. The very same Iraq where we found ZERO WMD's or current nuclear material.

The same neocons whose policies created a power vacuum that emboldened renegade and genocidal groups like ISIS.

Hmm let's see I provided original portions of the agreement, then analysed and gave my opinion. You have solely relied being spoon fed thoughts and ideas from your clearly biased sources, my left wing friend. How about taking a chance giving your own opinion without spouting some platitude or what someone else is telling you what to think.

It is really so simple a child could understand it. This is not just a good deal, it is an incredibly good deal.

Please tell me what restraint on Iran's nuclear program exist today?

The treaty limits Iran's nuclear program to:

• Iran will give up about 14,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges.
• Iran will give up 97 percent of its enriched uranium; it will hold on to only 300 kilograms' worth.
• Iran will be forbidden from enriching uranium beyond energy-grade fuel, or 3.67 percent enrichment. (Weapons-grade uranium is 90 percent enriched.)
• Iran will destroy or export the core of its plutonium plant at Arak, and replace it with a new core that cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium. It will ship out all spent nuclear fuel.

In other words; Israel gets to KEEP it's MONOPOLY on the LUCRATIVE MARKET of the manufacturing of medical isotopes for cancer research because of the...

Who are dumb enough to believe every word they hear or read from the zio clan media conglomerate ABCNNBCBSFOXNYT.

Why don't you stick you ISOTOPES where the sun never shines?

Oh dear Lord what an obnoxious vermin!

I get it. You dislike facts and truth for some strange reason. Care to share the reason why you're so allergic to honesty and integrity?

 

[Bfgrn]

You have offered NOTHING as an alternative...

What you want is not a treaty...you want an edict...

You are naive, foolish, dogmatic and UN-realistic...

Analyze THIS...

According to critics of the Iran deal, Obama got played. If he had just waited, they argue, painful economic sanctions would have forced the Iranians to cave completely. And when that happened, the United States could have taken down Iran's nuclear program entirely, instead of just limiting it.

This narrative sounds compelling. It's also a total fantasy. The way sanctions actually worked means that the longer the US waited to make a deal, the worse it would have been.

Miles Kahler, a distinguished professor at American University, put this point really well in a piece for Brookings. Kahler's basic point is that the deal isn't just an agreement between America and Iran — it's a deal between America, Iran, and America's international partners. People who say there was a better deal don't really understand what countries like Russia and China wanted out of the negotiations:

Each of [America's] negotiating partners—three European allies, Russia, and China—paid a higher economic price for these economic sanctions in trade and investment foregone than the United States, whose companies have had (and will continue to have) limited economic exchange with Iran since the revolution, prevented by layers of unilateral sanctions imposed by successive U.S. administrations. Without the support of its negotiating partners for extending or deepening sanctions, their effectiveness would be immediately undermined. Given the greater opportunity cost of sanctions for them—particularly for Russia and China—it is difficult to imagine that they would follow any U.S. pursuit of a tougher bargain. Thus, the deal that is on the table represents not only a bargain between the P5+1 and Iran, but also a bargain among the P5+1 partners themselves.

In other words, the sanctions that led to this deal depended on the participation of those other countries. But because they previously traded a lot with Iran, they were also suffering a lot from the sanctions. America didn't have strong trade ties with Iran in the first place, so it felt much less economic pain. But Germany and China didn't want to give up the money they could make from Iran forever. If Obama walked away from this deal, these countries would likely have given up on sanctions altogether — and the prospect of a "better deal" would have vanished.

This is a very basic, fundamental point, but no deal critic has been able to answer it in a remotely plausible fashion. That's probably because the supposed "better deal" is 100 percent fictional. It was never a real option — just a myth made up to obscure the truth that this deal was the best one available.

The biggest thing Iran deal critics get wrong in one paragraph - Vox


"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

The author of your piece nothing but a left wing hack:
Zack Beauchamp
Dictator-for-Life
Zack writes about all of the things that are not American things. He previously edited a section on political thought at ThinkProgress and, before that, contributed to The Dish. It's pronounced BEE-chum.

WHO FUNDS THE FAR LEFT? YOU’LL BE SURPRISED
The Center for American Progress is a left-wing organization that is closely associated with the Obama administration. Its principal product is a web site called Think Progress. Think Progress is part of the internet cesspool that modern liberalism has become. Written by hack left-wing bloggers, it is bitterly hostile to free enterprise."

Who Funds the Far Left You ll Be Surprised Power Line

Zack Beauchamp - Vox

Come back when you have a more plausible hero.

Oh, my...you are admitting you are surrendering?

And your sources?

Nope I am admitting that your sources are bias and without any basis to make an objective analysis and that you have not presented anything but hackneyed platitudes and yellow dog perspective.

I have presented my sources previously, go back and read. I may provide more if I see something worthy of posting.

And your sources? The OP is from a site run by a Marxist neocon. And your one article is from a neocon think tank.

These are the very same neocons who told us we must invade Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons. The very same Iraq where we found ZERO WMD's or current nuclear material.

The same neocons whose policies created a power vacuum that emboldened renegade and genocidal groups like ISIS.

Hmm let's see I provided original portions of the agreement, then analysed and gave my opinion. You have solely relied being spoon fed thoughts and ideas from your clearly biased sources, my left wing friend. How about taking a chance giving your own opinion without spouting some platitude or what someone else is telling you what to think.

BTW...my "bias" source was an op-ed that quoted this guy...

Iran Sanctions and the Illusion of a Better Bargain - Lawfare


Even the most vehement critics of the Obama administration’s agreement curbing Iran’s nuclear capabilities, among them Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Senator Tom Cotton, no longer advance the military option for eliminating Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Instead, they argue that a better bargain could have been negotiated, if the Obama administration had not “given away” the leverage awarded by comprehensive economic sanctions. Given Iran’s economic disarray, maintenance or tightening of the sanctions would have eventually forced the Iranian government to accept much tougher limits on its nuclear programs or even their complete dismantling.

These arguments sidestep the multilateral character of the sanctions imposed on Iran and the asymmetry in costs borne by the other members of the P5+1. Each of those negotiating partners—three European allies, Russia, and China—paid a higher economic price for these economic sanctions in trade and investment foregone than the United States, whose companies have had (and will continue to have) limited economic exchange with Iran since the revolution, prevented by layers of unilateral sanctions imposed by successive U. S. administrations. Without the support of its negotiating partners for extending or deepening sanctions, their effectiveness would be immediately undermined. Given the greater opportunity cost of sanctions for them—particularly for Russia and China—it is difficult to imagine that they would follow any U.S. pursuit of a tougher bargain. Thus, the deal that is on the table represents not only a bargain between the P5+1 and Iran, but also a bargain among the P5+1 partners themselves.

 

[skye]

And your sources? The OP is from a site run by a Marxist neocon. And your one article is from a neocon think tank.

These are the very same neocons who told us we must invade Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons. The very same Iraq where we found ZERO WMD's or current nuclear material.

The same neocons whose policies created a power vacuum that emboldened renegade and genocidal groups like ISIS.

Hmm let's see I provided original portions of the agreement, then analysed and gave my opinion. You have solely relied being spoon fed thoughts and ideas from your clearly biased sources, my left wing friend. How about taking a chance giving your own opinion without spouting some platitude or what someone else is telling you what to think.

It is really so simple a child could understand it. This is not just a good deal, it is an incredibly good deal.

Please tell me what restraint on Iran's nuclear program exist today?

The treaty limits Iran's nuclear program to:

• Iran will give up about 14,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges.
• Iran will give up 97 percent of its enriched uranium; it will hold on to only 300 kilograms' worth.
• Iran will be forbidden from enriching uranium beyond energy-grade fuel, or 3.67 percent enrichment. (Weapons-grade uranium is 90 percent enriched.)
• Iran will destroy or export the core of its plutonium plant at Arak, and replace it with a new core that cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium. It will ship out all spent nuclear fuel.

In other words; Israel gets to KEEP it's MONOPOLY on the LUCRATIVE MARKET of the manufacturing of medical isotopes for cancer research because of the...

Who are dumb enough to believe every word they hear or read from the zio clan media conglomerate ABCNNBCBSFOXNYT.

Why don't you stick you ISOTOPES where the sun never shines?

Oh dear Lord what an obnoxious vermin!

Hey skye...does Iran have a right to nuclear energy?

From their own religious and political viewpoint they quite obviously feel they have every right.

The other viewpoint of course, which is the only sensible and rational one is that Iran should not be allowed to get nuclear weapons because of its inherent deadly, aggressive attitude towards much of the world.

If there ever is a regime change which proves its friendly intentions even then it would have to be questioned why Iran would need these weapons.

The world has enough of these deadly bombs, it doesn't need anymore.

 

[Alex.]

The author of your piece nothing but a left wing hack:
Zack Beauchamp
Dictator-for-Life
Zack writes about all of the things that are not American things. He previously edited a section on political thought at ThinkProgress and, before that, contributed to The Dish. It's pronounced BEE-chum.

WHO FUNDS THE FAR LEFT? YOU’LL BE SURPRISED
The Center for American Progress is a left-wing organization that is closely associated with the Obama administration. Its principal product is a web site called Think Progress. Think Progress is part of the internet cesspool that modern liberalism has become. Written by hack left-wing bloggers, it is bitterly hostile to free enterprise."

Who Funds the Far Left You ll Be Surprised Power Line

Zack Beauchamp - Vox

Come back when you have a more plausible hero.

Oh, my...you are admitting you are surrendering?

And your sources?

Nope I am admitting that your sources are bias and without any basis to make an objective analysis and that you have not presented anything but hackneyed platitudes and yellow dog perspective.

I have presented my sources previously, go back and read. I may provide more if I see something worthy of posting.

And your sources? The OP is from a site run by a Marxist neocon. And your one article is from a neocon think tank.

These are the very same neocons who told us we must invade Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons. The very same Iraq where we found ZERO WMD's or current nuclear material.

The same neocons whose policies created a power vacuum that emboldened renegade and genocidal groups like ISIS.

Hmm let's see I provided original portions of the agreement, then analysed and gave my opinion. You have solely relied being spoon fed thoughts and ideas from your clearly biased sources, my left wing friend. How about taking a chance giving your own opinion without spouting some platitude or what someone else is telling you what to think.

It is really so simple a child could understand it. This is not just a good deal, it is an incredibly good deal.

Please tell me what restraint on Iran's nuclear program exist today?

The treaty limits Iran's nuclear program to:

• Iran will give up about 14,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges.
• Iran will give up 97 percent of its enriched uranium; it will hold on to only 300 kilograms' worth.
• Iran will be forbidden from enriching uranium beyond energy-grade fuel, or 3.67 percent enrichment. (Weapons-grade uranium is 90 percent enriched.)
• Iran will destroy or export the core of its plutonium plant at Arak, and replace it with a new core that cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium. It will ship out all spent nuclear fuel.

I have already stated my position on this.

 

[Alex.]

The author of your piece nothing but a left wing hack:
Zack Beauchamp
Dictator-for-Life
Zack writes about all of the things that are not American things. He previously edited a section on political thought at ThinkProgress and, before that, contributed to The Dish. It's pronounced BEE-chum.

WHO FUNDS THE FAR LEFT? YOU’LL BE SURPRISED
The Center for American Progress is a left-wing organization that is closely associated with the Obama administration. Its principal product is a web site called Think Progress. Think Progress is part of the internet cesspool that modern liberalism has become. Written by hack left-wing bloggers, it is bitterly hostile to free enterprise."

Who Funds the Far Left You ll Be Surprised Power Line

Zack Beauchamp - Vox

Come back when you have a more plausible hero.

Oh, my...you are admitting you are surrendering?

And your sources?

Nope I am admitting that your sources are bias and without any basis to make an objective analysis and that you have not presented anything but hackneyed platitudes and yellow dog perspective.

I have presented my sources previously, go back and read. I may provide more if I see something worthy of posting.

And your sources? The OP is from a site run by a Marxist neocon. And your one article is from a neocon think tank.

These are the very same neocons who told us we must invade Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons. The very same Iraq where we found ZERO WMD's or current nuclear material.

The same neocons whose policies created a power vacuum that emboldened renegade and genocidal groups like ISIS.

Hmm let's see I provided original portions of the agreement, then analysed and gave my opinion. You have solely relied being spoon fed thoughts and ideas from your clearly biased sources, my left wing friend. How about taking a chance giving your own opinion without spouting some platitude or what someone else is telling you what to think.

BTW...my "bias" source was an op-ed that quoted this guy...

Iran Sanctions and the Illusion of a Better Bargain - Lawfare


Even the most vehement critics of the Obama administration’s agreement curbing Iran’s nuclear capabilities, among them Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Senator Tom Cotton, no longer advance the military option for eliminating Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Instead, they argue that a better bargain could have been negotiated, if the Obama administration had not “given away” the leverage awarded by comprehensive economic sanctions. Given Iran’s economic disarray, maintenance or tightening of the sanctions would have eventually forced the Iranian government to accept much tougher limits on its nuclear programs or even their complete dismantling.

These arguments sidestep the multilateral character of the sanctions imposed on Iran and the asymmetry in costs borne by the other members of the P5+1. Each of those negotiating partners—three European allies, Russia, and China—paid a higher economic price for these economic sanctions in trade and investment foregone than the United States, whose companies have had (and will continue to have) limited economic exchange with Iran since the revolution, prevented by layers of unilateral sanctions imposed by successive U. S. administrations. Without the support of its negotiating partners for extending or deepening sanctions, their effectiveness would be immediately undermined. Given the greater opportunity cost of sanctions for them—particularly for Russia and China—it is difficult to imagine that they would follow any U.S. pursuit of a tougher bargain. Thus, the deal that is on the table represents not only a bargain between the P5+1 and Iran, but also a bargain among the P5+1 partners themselves.

Nope you offered this clown up:

The author of your piece nothing but a left wing hack:
Zack Beauchamp
Dictator-for-Life
Zack writes about all of the things that are not American things. He previously edited a section on political thought at ThinkProgress and, before that, contributed to The Dish. It's pronounced BEE-chum.

WHO FUNDS THE FAR LEFT? YOU’LL BE SURPRISED
The Center for American Progress is a left-wing organization that is closely associated with the Obama administration. Its principal product is a web site called Think Progress. Think Progress is part of the internet cesspool that modern liberalism has become. Written by hack left-wing bloggers, it is bitterly hostile to free enterprise."

Who Funds the Far Left You ll Be Surprised Power Line

 

[Bfgrn]

Hmm let's see I provided original portions of the agreement, then analysed and gave my opinion. You have solely relied being spoon fed thoughts and ideas from your clearly biased sources, my left wing friend. How about taking a chance giving your own opinion without spouting some platitude or what someone else is telling you what to think.

It is really so simple a child could understand it. This is not just a good deal, it is an incredibly good deal.

Please tell me what restraint on Iran's nuclear program exist today?

The treaty limits Iran's nuclear program to:

• Iran will give up about 14,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges.
• Iran will give up 97 percent of its enriched uranium; it will hold on to only 300 kilograms' worth.
• Iran will be forbidden from enriching uranium beyond energy-grade fuel, or 3.67 percent enrichment. (Weapons-grade uranium is 90 percent enriched.)
• Iran will destroy or export the core of its plutonium plant at Arak, and replace it with a new core that cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium. It will ship out all spent nuclear fuel.

In other words; Israel gets to KEEP it's MONOPOLY on the LUCRATIVE MARKET of the manufacturing of medical isotopes for cancer research because of the...

Who are dumb enough to believe every word they hear or read from the zio clan media conglomerate ABCNNBCBSFOXNYT.

Why don't you stick you ISOTOPES where the sun never shines?

Oh dear Lord what an obnoxious vermin!

Hey skye...does Iran have a right to nuclear energy?

From their own religious and political viewpoint they quite obviously feel they have every right.

The other viewpoint of course, which is the only sensible and rational one is that Iran should not be allowed to get nuclear weapons because of its inherent deadly, aggressive attitude towards much of the world.

If there ever is a regime change which proves its friendly intentions even then it would have to be questioned why Iran would need these weapons.

The world has enough of these deadly bombs, it doesn't need anymore.

Your parochial indoctrinated propaganda aside, this treaty DOES forbid Iran from enriching uranium beyond energy-grade fuel, or 3.67 percent enrichment. (Weapons-grade uranium is 90 percent enriched.)

 

[Bobby1250]

It is really so simple a child could understand it. This is not just a good deal, it is an incredibly good deal.

Please tell me what restraint on Iran's nuclear program exist today?

The treaty limits Iran's nuclear program to:

• Iran will give up about 14,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges.
• Iran will give up 97 percent of its enriched uranium; it will hold on to only 300 kilograms' worth.
• Iran will be forbidden from enriching uranium beyond energy-grade fuel, or 3.67 percent enrichment. (Weapons-grade uranium is 90 percent enriched.)
• Iran will destroy or export the core of its plutonium plant at Arak, and replace it with a new core that cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium. It will ship out all spent nuclear fuel.

In other words; Israel gets to KEEP it's MONOPOLY on the LUCRATIVE MARKET of the manufacturing of medical isotopes for cancer research because of the...

Who are dumb enough to believe every word they hear or read from the zio clan media conglomerate ABCNNBCBSFOXNYT.

Why don't you stick you ISOTOPES where the sun never shines?

Oh dear Lord what an obnoxious vermin!

Hey skye...does Iran have a right to nuclear energy?

From their own religious and political viewpoint they quite obviously feel they have every right.

The other viewpoint of course, which is the only sensible and rational one is that Iran should not be allowed to get nuclear weapons because of its inherent deadly, aggressive attitude towards much of the world.

If there ever is a regime change which proves its friendly intentions even then it would have to be questioned why Iran would need these weapons.

The world has enough of these deadly bombs, it doesn't need anymore.

Your parochial indoctrinated propaganda aside, this treaty DOES forbid Iran from enriching uranium beyond energy-grade fuel, or 3.67 percent enrichment. (Weapons-grade uranium is 90 percent enriched.)

Yes, even though Israel is STILL kvetching 24/7 as always, Iran got screwed. They really did want to be able to compete in the lucrative medical isotope market.

This is going to be 0bama and Kerry's legacy. Screwing Iran over.

No doubt Israel will reward them big time when the furor dies down.

 

[Bfgrn]

Oh, my...you are admitting you are surrendering?

And your sources?

Nope I am admitting that your sources are bias and without any basis to make an objective analysis and that you have not presented anything but hackneyed platitudes and yellow dog perspective.

I have presented my sources previously, go back and read. I may provide more if I see something worthy of posting.

And your sources? The OP is from a site run by a Marxist neocon. And your one article is from a neocon think tank.

These are the very same neocons who told us we must invade Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons. The very same Iraq where we found ZERO WMD's or current nuclear material.

The same neocons whose policies created a power vacuum that emboldened renegade and genocidal groups like ISIS.

Hmm let's see I provided original portions of the agreement, then analysed and gave my opinion. You have solely relied being spoon fed thoughts and ideas from your clearly biased sources, my left wing friend. How about taking a chance giving your own opinion without spouting some platitude or what someone else is telling you what to think.

BTW...my "bias" source was an op-ed that quoted this guy...

Iran Sanctions and the Illusion of a Better Bargain - Lawfare


Even the most vehement critics of the Obama administration’s agreement curbing Iran’s nuclear capabilities, among them Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Senator Tom Cotton, no longer advance the military option for eliminating Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Instead, they argue that a better bargain could have been negotiated, if the Obama administration had not “given away” the leverage awarded by comprehensive economic sanctions. Given Iran’s economic disarray, maintenance or tightening of the sanctions would have eventually forced the Iranian government to accept much tougher limits on its nuclear programs or even their complete dismantling.

These arguments sidestep the multilateral character of the sanctions imposed on Iran and the asymmetry in costs borne by the other members of the P5+1. Each of those negotiating partners—three European allies, Russia, and China—paid a higher economic price for these economic sanctions in trade and investment foregone than the United States, whose companies have had (and will continue to have) limited economic exchange with Iran since the revolution, prevented by layers of unilateral sanctions imposed by successive U. S. administrations. Without the support of its negotiating partners for extending or deepening sanctions, their effectiveness would be immediately undermined. Given the greater opportunity cost of sanctions for them—particularly for Russia and China—it is difficult to imagine that they would follow any U.S. pursuit of a tougher bargain. Thus, the deal that is on the table represents not only a bargain between the P5+1 and Iran, but also a bargain among the P5+1 partners themselves.

Nope you offered this clown up:

The author of your piece nothing but a left wing hack:
Zack Beauchamp
Dictator-for-Life
Zack writes about all of the things that are not American things. He previously edited a section on political thought at ThinkProgress and, before that, contributed to The Dish. It's pronounced BEE-chum.

WHO FUNDS THE FAR LEFT? YOU’LL BE SURPRISED
The Center for American Progress is a left-wing organization that is closely associated with the Obama administration. Its principal product is a web site called Think Progress. Think Progress is part of the internet cesspool that modern liberalism has become. Written by hack left-wing bloggers, it is bitterly hostile to free enterprise."

Who Funds the Far Left You ll Be Surprised Power Line

What is hilarious is ALL your sources are classified as right wing hacks. They are not unbiased in any way, shape or form.

SO, your right wing hacks must be believed...

You can deride Zack Beauchamp all you want, but his article is titled:
The biggest thing Iran deal critics get wrong, in one paragraph

The ONE PARAGRAPH is authored by:

 

[Bfgrn]

In other words; Israel gets to KEEP it's MONOPOLY on the LUCRATIVE MARKET of the manufacturing of medical isotopes for cancer research because of the...

Who are dumb enough to believe every word they hear or read from the zio clan media conglomerate ABCNNBCBSFOXNYT.

Why don't you stick you ISOTOPES where the sun never shines?

Oh dear Lord what an obnoxious vermin!

Hey skye...does Iran have a right to nuclear energy?

From their own religious and political viewpoint they quite obviously feel they have every right.

The other viewpoint of course, which is the only sensible and rational one is that Iran should not be allowed to get nuclear weapons because of its inherent deadly, aggressive attitude towards much of the world.

If there ever is a regime change which proves its friendly intentions even then it would have to be questioned why Iran would need these weapons.

The world has enough of these deadly bombs, it doesn't need anymore.

Your parochial indoctrinated propaganda aside, this treaty DOES forbid Iran from enriching uranium beyond energy-grade fuel, or 3.67 percent enrichment. (Weapons-grade uranium is 90 percent enriched.)

Yes, even though Israel is STILL kvetching 24/7 as always, Iran got screwed. They really did want to be able to compete in the lucrative medical isotope market.

This is going to be 0bama and Kerry's legacy. Screwing Iran over.

No doubt Israel will reward them big time when the furor dies down.

Sorry buster, your bs won't fly...Iran SIGNED the deal. They are big boys and girls...