Time to Call Obama and Kerry What They Are Traitors

[Alex.]

Alex 11876211

Seems to me that Obama is working for the Russians again as they benefit by having their ally Iran reap the rewards of this agreement.

Our President got huge applause yesterday at a VFW Post, when he defined opposition to this treaty as the same misguided thinking that chose war over diplomacy in March 2003 when US troops were sent on a wild goose chase into Iraq.?

Russia warned Bush that it would be a disaster to invade. Putin was with diplomacy working on that one.

You have no alternative to what this treaty accomplishes. It's in effect and will not be stopped.

Diplomacy will prove to be the way tather than war. You are working for the same neocon fools that gave us 4484 dead US troops in Iraq.

I agree with Obama on that.

Continue with your whine. It's all you can do, until time proves you wrong as time proved Bush wrong on Iraq.

I am not whining, I made an informed judgment on this treaty and it's effects.

And 30 pages later, you have provided no alternative...just whining.

LOL yet you are the only one who continues to cry.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

Yes, this is how Iranians react to getting "screwed" by us.

 

[idb]

The Conservatives in Iran don't like the deal either.
Maybe they should get together with the Republicans and form a lobbying group.
In fact, they could bring Israel in as well.

 

[Bfgrn]

Who Should Be Trusted in the Iran Deal?

Many commentators greeted the recently announced agreement over Iran's nuclear program with deep skepticism. They dismissed the two years of negotiations between the six most powerful countries in the world and Iran with a single assertion: the deal should be rejected because the other side cannot be trusted.

Some of these naysayers are right. There is reason to doubt whether the United States can be trusted.

Iranians, like Americans, have long memories. They have not forgotten that in 1953 the CIA helped engineer a coup that overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh, the democratically elected prime minister of their country. And they have not forgotten the reason: at Mosaddegh's urging the Iranian parliament voted to nationalize the oil industry, and America wanted to help Britain continue to control it instead. So we helped reinstall a monarch, the Shah, who suppressed any dissent or political development until he was overthrown in 1979, just before the takeover of the American embassy.

There are other, more recent incidents that Iranians remember and Americans prefer to forget. In 1988, the cruiser Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner with 290 people onboard, including 66 children. In the immediate aftermath of the incident, American officials justified shooting down the aircraft by claiming that it was descending at a high rate of speed and headed toward the warship. That and almost everything else they said at the time turned out to be false. It is hard for Iranians to believe that the crew of a ship with the most advanced radar in the fleet could get all that wrong and mistake an Airbus for an F-14 fighter.

To add insult to injury from the Iranian perspective, the captain of the Vincennes was not only not punished; he was given a medal "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service." And George H.W. Bush, who was in the midst of his campaign to succeed Ronald Reagan, was quoted as saying, "I will never apologize for the United States -- I don't care what the facts are." He shouldn't have worried. The U.S. still has not apologized.

Of course, critics of the agreement in this country -- mainly Republicans, AIPAC and others on the right -- have their version of history and an equally distrustful perspective. They claim the lack of an inspection regime that provides access anywhere, anytime to all of Iran's nuclear and military sites will enable it to cheat. And over 170 Republican congressmen cosponsored a resolution condemning the agreement -- even before it was formally submitted to Congress -- which claimed it failed "at every level."

These reactions are due, in part, to our historical baggage. The takeover of the American embassy, seizure of over 50 of its employees and holding them hostage for 444 days was traumatic for Americans. And Iran's record of sponsoring groups we consider terrorists is proffered as another reason to reject the agreement. Iranians, however, could easily make the same argument against the United States.

Before Oliver North became a Fox News personality, he worked at the White House where he illegally sold weapons to Iran to raise cash to give to the Contras to terrorize Nicaragua. The Reagan administration gave millions of dollars to the group and paid millions more to the Argentine military to train them. No matter that the Contras were little more than the remnants of the security forces of the deposed dictator whose family had run Nicaragua since 1936. The Argentines were chosen because they were well qualified for the job. They had just murdered somewhere north of 9,000 of their countrymen in what became known as Argentina's "dirty war." So by the measure of many, America has also been a state sponsor of terrorism.

There are more contemporary reasons for Iran to doubt the agreement is worth the paper it is written on. The seemingly endless supply of politicians posing to be the next Republican presidential candidate appear to be in a competition to see who can claim they would cancel it faster. And then there is the open letter Tom Cotton and 46 other GOP senators sent to Iran's leaders, lecturing them on the constitution and stressing that whoever succeeds President Obama could revoke the agreement with "the stroke of a pen."

So why should Iran believe America will uphold the agreement? Because it is in Iran's interest to ease the weight of history and move ahead with creating a better life for its people. If it looks forward instead of endlessly rehashing the grievances of the past, the agreement might just work out for the benefit of both countries and the rest of the world.

And who knows? Maybe the Washington tendency to let nothing escape being a victim of petty partisan politics can be overcome in this case. But to assume America can have the vision and maturity to do so requires trust.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Alex 11905566

Read my posts grasshopper not going to repeat myself.

Long winded whining about the deal is not providing an alternative to the deal. An alternative would have to be a different plan of action.

When Bush became President Iran had zero centrifuges By the end of his term as President Iran had 8000. Obama got the UN Permanent Five plus Germany to enforce tougher sanctions. Iran surpassed 20,000 centrifuges under tougher and enforced sanctions. So 'status quo' does not appear to be stopping Iran's nuclear quest. Status quo does not seem to be a good alternative to the deal. The deal limits and reverses centrifuges that are currently spinning.

So what is your alternative to the deal. Is it 'bomb bomb bomb - bomb bomb Iran, John McCain style or what?

 

[Bfgrn]

Long winded whining about the deal is not providing an alternative to the deal. An alternative would have to be a different plan of action.

When Bush became President Iran had zero centrifuges By the end of his term as President Iran had 8000. Obama got the UN Permanent Five plus Germany to enforce tougher sanctions. Iran surpassed 20,000 centrifuges under tougher and enforced sanctions. So 'status quo' does not appear to be stopping Iran's nuclear quest. Status quo does not seem to be a good alternative to the deal. The deal limits and reverses centrifuges that are currently spinning.

So what is your alternative to the deal. Is it 'bomb bomb bomb - bomb bomb Iran, John McCain style or what?

Looks like the "traitors" Obama and Kerry were able to accomplish exactly what Bush tried and failed to do

On Iran’s nuclear program, Bush administration strategy was to rally the international community to confront the Iranian regime with a strategic choice. Tehran could transparently and verifiably give up its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability, especially its enrichment facility at Natanz. If it did, the international community would respond with substantial diplomatic, economic and security benefits. These would include the relaxation of existing economic sanctions and active international support for a truly peaceful civilian nuclear program, including the supply of nuclear fuel so Iran would not need an enrichment facility. If it rejected this choice, the regime would only be further isolated diplomatically, incur increased economic sanctions, and run the risk of military action.
The George W. Bush Administration The Iran Primer


FINALLY...

Thank you President Obama!!!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Good points here for the Wingnuts both in Iran and the U.S.


Obama Bravely Ignores the Clamoring of the Warmongers with Iran Deal

.
Obama is correct that America's true interests, and those of the world, are with peace, not continued conflict, with Iran. The U.S. is not a partisan in the Shia-Sunni struggle; if anything, the U.S. confronts mainly Sunni terrorism, funded from Saudi Arabia, not Shia terrorism backed by Iran. Obama is also right that, despite Israel's arguments, the agreement will reduce the possibility of Iran ever becoming a nuclear state.

The best way to ensure that outcome is to normalize relations with it, help its economy recover, and support its integration into the international community. Iran is a great and ancient culture. Its opening to the world as a place of business, tourism, the arts and sports would be a boon to global stability and prosperity.

The new treaty will verifiably prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon for at least a decade -- and keep it bound to nuclear non-proliferation thereafter. This is the time to begin a broader U.S.-Iran rapprochement and build a new security regime in the Middle East and the world that leads toward full global nuclear disarmament. To get there requires, above all, replacing war (including the CIA's secret wars) with commerce and other forms of peaceful exchange.

Obama Bravely Ignores the Clamoring of the Warmongers with Iran Deal Jeffrey Sachs


If it is presumed to be traitorous by posters here for the first U.S. President since Kennedy to stand up to the CIA and U.S. Military against covert manipulation in foreign nations then so be it. Our wingnuts are appropriately named. Nuts!

 

[Bfgrn]

Inaugural Address 20 January 1961 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library Museum

"Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course--both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew--remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof.

Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate."

The Middle East After Vienna
Here's What Will Happen If the Iran Deal Falls Through

The Iranian and P5+1 (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, plus Germany) negotiators in Vienna seem to be on the brink of reaching an agreement to significantly limit Iran’s nuclear program and place it under strict international monitoring. But what if they fail to bridge their differences in the final hours? Or what if the U.S. Congress scuttles a deal down the road—a less likely but still worrying outcome? Indeed, with the principle that “no deal is better than a bad deal” likely to dominate any congressional debate, it is a good moment to examine what the Middle East might look like without a nuclear deal.

Failure to reach or approve a deal would likely produce one or more of the following: an expanded Iranian nuclear program; an erosion of broad international sanctions without any benefit to regional and global security; heightened potential for military conflict; and the loss of opportunities to work on major areas of common concern to Iran and the United States.

...

But what is certain is that the absence of a deal will foreclose possibilities for even limited cooperation and the possibility of moderating Iran’s behavior over time. As U.S. President Barack Obama noted in a discussion of his administration’s revision of Cuba policy, current policies of pressure and isolation haven’t worked, so logic dictates a new approach. The same can be said of the United States’ Iran policy: The policies of isolating and punishing Iran—which has spanned Democratic and Republican administrations—have not produced more moderate Iranian behavior at home, in the region, or across the globe. It might be time to test whether engagement with a nuclear-constrained Iran can produce better results.

The Middle East today is in serious turmoil. No one should be under the illusion that even a strong nonproliferation agreement that prevents all possible pathways toward the Iranian bomb will magically transform this volatile region. But on balance, the Middle East would be better off with a good nuclear deal than without one.

Dalia Dassa Kaye Here s What Will Happen If the Deal With Iran Falls Through

 

[Alex.]

Alex 11905566

Read my posts grasshopper not going to repeat myself.

Long winded whining about the deal is not providing an alternative to the deal. An alternative would have to be a different plan of action.

When Bush became President Iran had zero centrifuges By the end of his term as President Iran had 8000. Obama got the UN Permanent Five plus Germany to enforce tougher sanctions. Iran surpassed 20,000 centrifuges under tougher and enforced sanctions. So 'status quo' does not appear to be stopping Iran's nuclear quest. Status quo does not seem to be a good alternative to the deal. The deal limits and reverses centrifuges that are currently spinning.

So what is your alternative to the deal. Is it 'bomb bomb bomb - bomb bomb Iran, John McCain style or what?

Read my posts

 

[Alex.]

Inaugural Address 20 January 1961 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library Museum

"Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course--both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew--remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof.

Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate."

The Middle East After Vienna
Here's What Will Happen If the Iran Deal Falls Through

The Iranian and P5+1 (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, plus Germany) negotiators in Vienna seem to be on the brink of reaching an agreement to significantly limit Iran’s nuclear program and place it under strict international monitoring. But what if they fail to bridge their differences in the final hours? Or what if the U.S. Congress scuttles a deal down the road—a less likely but still worrying outcome? Indeed, with the principle that “no deal is better than a bad deal” likely to dominate any congressional debate, it is a good moment to examine what the Middle East might look like without a nuclear deal.

Failure to reach or approve a deal would likely produce one or more of the following: an expanded Iranian nuclear program; an erosion of broad international sanctions without any benefit to regional and global security; heightened potential for military conflict; and the loss of opportunities to work on major areas of common concern to Iran and the United States.

...

But what is certain is that the absence of a deal will foreclose possibilities for even limited cooperation and the possibility of moderating Iran’s behavior over time. As U.S. President Barack Obama noted in a discussion of his administration’s revision of Cuba policy, current policies of pressure and isolation haven’t worked, so logic dictates a new approach. The same can be said of the United States’ Iran policy: The policies of isolating and punishing Iran—which has spanned Democratic and Republican administrations—have not produced more moderate Iranian behavior at home, in the region, or across the globe. It might be time to test whether engagement with a nuclear-constrained Iran can produce better results.

The Middle East today is in serious turmoil. No one should be under the illusion that even a strong nonproliferation agreement that prevents all possible pathways toward the Iranian bomb will magically transform this volatile region. But on balance, the Middle East would be better off with a good nuclear deal than without one.

Dalia Dassa Kaye Here s What Will Happen If the Deal With Iran Falls Through

The Mid East is always in turmoil, this deal will not change Iran that is what needs to take place.

 

[Bfgrn]

Inaugural Address 20 January 1961 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library Museum

"Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course--both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew--remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof.

Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate."

The Middle East After Vienna
Here's What Will Happen If the Iran Deal Falls Through

The Iranian and P5+1 (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, plus Germany) negotiators in Vienna seem to be on the brink of reaching an agreement to significantly limit Iran’s nuclear program and place it under strict international monitoring. But what if they fail to bridge their differences in the final hours? Or what if the U.S. Congress scuttles a deal down the road—a less likely but still worrying outcome? Indeed, with the principle that “no deal is better than a bad deal” likely to dominate any congressional debate, it is a good moment to examine what the Middle East might look like without a nuclear deal.

Failure to reach or approve a deal would likely produce one or more of the following: an expanded Iranian nuclear program; an erosion of broad international sanctions without any benefit to regional and global security; heightened potential for military conflict; and the loss of opportunities to work on major areas of common concern to Iran and the United States.

...

But what is certain is that the absence of a deal will foreclose possibilities for even limited cooperation and the possibility of moderating Iran’s behavior over time. As U.S. President Barack Obama noted in a discussion of his administration’s revision of Cuba policy, current policies of pressure and isolation haven’t worked, so logic dictates a new approach. The same can be said of the United States’ Iran policy: The policies of isolating and punishing Iran—which has spanned Democratic and Republican administrations—have not produced more moderate Iranian behavior at home, in the region, or across the globe. It might be time to test whether engagement with a nuclear-constrained Iran can produce better results.

The Middle East today is in serious turmoil. No one should be under the illusion that even a strong nonproliferation agreement that prevents all possible pathways toward the Iranian bomb will magically transform this volatile region. But on balance, the Middle East would be better off with a good nuclear deal than without one.

Dalia Dassa Kaye Here s What Will Happen If the Deal With Iran Falls Through

The Mid East is always in turmoil, this deal will not change Iran that is what needs to take place.

Hello? Please answer...I will make it real simple for ya...

Iran is more dangerous:

1) with nuclear weapons

2) without nuclear weapons


Take your time.....................................................

 

[Alex.]

Inaugural Address 20 January 1961 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library Museum

"Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course--both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew--remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof.

Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate."

The Middle East After Vienna
Here's What Will Happen If the Iran Deal Falls Through

The Iranian and P5+1 (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, plus Germany) negotiators in Vienna seem to be on the brink of reaching an agreement to significantly limit Iran’s nuclear program and place it under strict international monitoring. But what if they fail to bridge their differences in the final hours? Or what if the U.S. Congress scuttles a deal down the road—a less likely but still worrying outcome? Indeed, with the principle that “no deal is better than a bad deal” likely to dominate any congressional debate, it is a good moment to examine what the Middle East might look like without a nuclear deal.

Failure to reach or approve a deal would likely produce one or more of the following: an expanded Iranian nuclear program; an erosion of broad international sanctions without any benefit to regional and global security; heightened potential for military conflict; and the loss of opportunities to work on major areas of common concern to Iran and the United States.

...

But what is certain is that the absence of a deal will foreclose possibilities for even limited cooperation and the possibility of moderating Iran’s behavior over time. As U.S. President Barack Obama noted in a discussion of his administration’s revision of Cuba policy, current policies of pressure and isolation haven’t worked, so logic dictates a new approach. The same can be said of the United States’ Iran policy: The policies of isolating and punishing Iran—which has spanned Democratic and Republican administrations—have not produced more moderate Iranian behavior at home, in the region, or across the globe. It might be time to test whether engagement with a nuclear-constrained Iran can produce better results.

The Middle East today is in serious turmoil. No one should be under the illusion that even a strong nonproliferation agreement that prevents all possible pathways toward the Iranian bomb will magically transform this volatile region. But on balance, the Middle East would be better off with a good nuclear deal than without one.

Dalia Dassa Kaye Here s What Will Happen If the Deal With Iran Falls Through

The Mid East is always in turmoil, this deal will not change Iran that is what needs to take place.

Hello? Please answer...I will make it real simple for ya...

Iran is more dangerous:

1) with nuclear weapons

2) without nuclear weapons


Take your time.....................................................

Who knows, they have no weapons right now do they?

 

[Bfgrn]

Who knows, they have no weapons right now do they?

LOL...obfuscation...I knew you wouldn't answer a straight forward question...

 

[Alex.]

Who knows, they have no weapons right now do they?

LOL...obfuscation...I knew you wouldn't answer a straight forward question...

I did as best as it was presented. I cannot fix you or your need to have information spoon fed to you. Please go back and think about how to ask your question.

 

[skye]

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.)

Unfortunately people like you are naive to a dangerous extent.

Despite the agreement the fact remains that in a short period of time the maximum being fifteen years Iran has been allowed to have nuclear weapons capability.

There is a good chance that Iran will break the agreement as it now knows that the US is a toothless tiger and will not respond militarily.

It will also be virtually impossible to reimpose the sanctions as this would need the agreement of Russia and China for a start and any trading partners.


The situation now is similar to that of North Korea where the world was celebrating a nuclear free deal but within a few years the agreement was broken without any response from the rest of the world.

An unbelievable section of this agreement is the fact that the signatories have assured Iran that they will protect Iran's nuclear capability from any attacks either cyber or militarily ....so the situation now is that if Israel or Saudi Arabia or any other enemy of Iran attempted to launch any attack, the US would have to fight them off! How increible ridiculous!

The question now has to be seriously asked of Obama and his Administration:

WHAT SIDE ARE YOU REALLY ON?

 

[Bfgrn]

Who knows, they have no weapons right now do they?

LOL...obfuscation...I knew you wouldn't answer a straight forward question...

I did as best as it was presented. I cannot fix you or your need to have information spoon fed to you. Please go back and think about how to ask your question.

It can't be asked in a more simple way. This treaty forbids Iran from having a nuclear weapon.

Iran is more dangerous:

1) with nuclear weapons

2) without nuclear weapons

 

[Bfgrn]

Unfortunately people like you are naive to a dangerous extent.

Despite the agreement the fact remains that in a short period of time the maximum being fifteen years Iran has been allowed to have nuclear weapons capability.

There is a good chance that Iran will break the agreement as it now knows that the US is a toothless tiger and will not respond militarily.

It will also be virtually impossible to reimpose the sanctions as this would need the agreement of Russia and China for a start and any trading partners.


The situation now is similar to that of North Korea where the world was celebrating a nuclear free deal but within a few years the agreement was broken without any response from the rest of the world.

An unbelievable section of this agreement is the fact that the signatories have assured Iran that they will protect Iran's nuclear capability from any attacks either cyber or militarily ....so the situation now is that if Israel or Saudi Arabia or any other enemy of Iran attempted to launch any attack, the US would have to fight them off! How increible ridiculous!

The question now has to be seriously asked of Obama and his Administration:

WHAT SIDE ARE YOU REALLY ON?

Total right wing propaganda...

Obama’s critics are the real gamblers on Iran

Let’s imagine that the opponents of the nuclear agreement with Iran get their way: The U.S. Congress kills it. What is the most likely consequence? Within one year, Iran would have more than 25,000 centrifuges, its breakout time would shrink to mere weeks and the sanctions against it would crumble. How is this in the United States’ national interest? Or Israel’s? Or Saudi Arabia’s?

This is not an implausible scenario; it is rooted in facts. In 2005, three European powers rejected a nuclear deal with Iran after two years of negotiations. Hassan Rouhani, now president, was then Iran’s chief negotiator. After the talks collapsed, the Islamic republic ramped up centrifuge production, going from fewer than 200 installed to 20,000 today. It also built up more than 16,000 pounds of enriched uranium gas and accelerated work on the heavy-water reactor at Arak, which provides a path to a plutonium bomb.

There is no doubt that Iran has the capacity to make centrifuges, even under crippling sanctions. Between November 2012 and November 2013, when all international sanctions against Iran were in place, it installed 6,000 new centrifuges. Iran’s program has grown through the years with indigenous science and technology, not large-scale reliance on foreigners.

The idea that China, Russia and the European Union would maintain sanctions against Iran if Washington turned down a deal that they painstakingly negotiated and fully embrace is far-fetched. China is desperate to buy Iran’s (discounted) oil. Russia is already negotiating to sell it nuclear-power technology and machinery. And the French foreign minister has scheduled a trip to Tehran next week, presumably to do what that country’s diplomats always do: promote French corporate interests.

Obama’s critics say he is gambling that Iran will comply with the accord. In fact, the administration is making a calculated bet that Iran will be constrained by international pressure, intrusive inspections, verification mechanisms and the prospect of snapback sanctions. The deal’s opponents have conjured up a fantasy scenario in which the world will sign up for more sanctions, Tehran will meekly return to the table with further concessions, or perhaps the Islamic republic will itself implode — and its successors will then denounce and dismantle the nuclear program. To bet on this scenario is the real gamble, a high stakes one with little evidence to support it.

Washington Post

 

[Alex.]

Who knows, they have no weapons right now do they?

LOL...obfuscation...I knew you wouldn't answer a straight forward question...

I did as best as it was presented. I cannot fix you or your need to have information spoon fed to you. Please go back and think about how to ask your question.

It can't be asked in a more simple way. This treaty forbids Iran from having a nuclear weapon.

Iran is more dangerous:

1) with nuclear weapons

2) without nuclear weapons

Iran does not currently possess any nuclear weapons so I cannot address that with any certainty. While Iran is a sworn enemy of the US and would like to see it's destruction Iran also is mindful of it's own survival and would not risk starting a nuclear war. Iran also has to be careful as their allies Russia and China may not support them if they chose to take the offensive and attack the US.

 

[TooTall]

"TIME TO CALL OBAMA AND KERRY WHAT THEY ARE: TRAITORS"

Oh, brother.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous, nothing but partisan tripe.

What would you call a man who testified to Congress while the US was still actively engaged in armed conflict in Vietnam?

John Kerry testimony

"I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

I would call him a traitor as there is no doubt that he was aiding and abetting the enemy.

 

[TooTall]

Record of Achievement - Expanding Home Ownership

• 
  
• The US homeownership rate reached a record 69.2 percent in the second quarter of 2004. The number of homeowners in the United States reached 73.4 million, the most ever. And for the first time, the majority of minority Americans own their own homes.
• The President set a goal to increase the number of minority homeowners by 5.5 million families by the end of the decade. Through his homeownership challenge, the President called on the private sector to help in this effort. More than two dozen companies and organizations have made commitments to increase minority homeownership - including pledges to provide more than $1.1 trillion in mortgage purchases for minority homebuyers this decade.
• President Bush signed the $200 million-per-year American Dream Downpayment Act which will help approximately 40,000 families each year with their downpayment and closing costs.
• The Administration proposed the Zero-Downpayment Initiative to allow the Federal Housing Administration to insure mortgages for first-time homebuyers without a downpayment. Projections indicate this could generate over 150,000 new homeowners in the first year alone.
• President Bush proposed a new Single Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit to increase the supply of affordable homes.

Just have to love these damned 'Conservatives' that have such a selective memory. Above are the real facts.

That was insane. Every racist knows that minorities have no business owning a home. That is what you meant is it not?