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.

No whining. What I have done was attempt to have a discussion with you, my bad. You have done nothing but parrot the thinking expressed by our leader and his cronies forgetting the negative ripple effect and poor system of execution of the deal, additionally, it does not adequately serve the interests of the US business community or it's citizens.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Alex 11895552

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

Convince us that your so/called judgment has any advantage over the highest leaders and experts of five other highly advanced nations plus the nuclear experts they have and the IAEA have been working on for years.

You have an opinion highly based upon your pre-judged prejudice.

It's never good 'judgment' to choose war over trying diplomacy in a situation where there is no current nuclear threat that exists today.

We need Iran on our side to help fight Sunni Daesh in Iraq and Syria. That's enough war for right now. Your big picture judgment is flawed.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Alex 11903021

No whining. What I have done was attempt to have a discussion with you, my bad. You have done nothing but parrot the thinking expressed by our leader and his cronies forgetting the negative ripple effect and poor system of execution of the deal, additionally, it does not adequately serve the interests of the US business community or it's citizens.

I see no alternative coming from your informed judgment. I wrote, "You have no alternative to what this treaty accomplishes."" And you must not have one. Good judgment would require that you have a better way. You don't. That is why your only recourse is whining about it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Alex 11903021

No whining. What I have done was attempt to have a discussion with you, my bad. You have done nothing but parrot the thinking expressed by our leader and his cronies forgetting the negative ripple effect and poor system of execution of the deal, additionally, it does not adequately serve the interests of the US business community or it's citizens.

I see no alternative coming from your informed judgment. I wrote, "You have no alternative to what this treaty accomplishes."" And you must not have one. Good judgment would require that you have a better way. You don't. That is why your only recourse is whining about it.

Alternatives? To Licensing Iran for Nuclear Weapons?

I'm just spit-balling here, but how about NOT LICENSING IRAN for Nuclear Weapons?

 

[Alex.]

Alex 11903021

No whining. What I have done was attempt to have a discussion with you, my bad. You have done nothing but parrot the thinking expressed by our leader and his cronies forgetting the negative ripple effect and poor system of execution of the deal, additionally, it does not adequately serve the interests of the US business community or it's citizens.

I see no alternative coming from your informed judgment. I wrote, "You have no alternative to what this treaty accomplishes."" And you must not have one. Good judgment would require that you have a better way. You don't. That is why your only recourse is whining about it.

Blow it out your ass. Read what I have been writing. I am not going to repeat myself.

 

[Alex.]

Alex 11895552

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

Convince us that your so/called judgment has any advantage over the highest leaders and experts of five other highly advanced nations plus the nuclear experts they have and the IAEA have been working on for years.

You have an opinion highly based upon your pre-judged prejudice.

It's never good 'judgment' to choose war over trying diplomacy in a situation where there is no current nuclear threat that exists today.

We need Iran on our side to help fight Sunni Daesh in Iraq and Syria. That's enough war for right now. Your big picture judgment is flawed.

NotfooledbyW: "You have an opinion highly based upon your pre-judged prejudice." <--- again bullshit.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

No whining. What I have done was attempt to have a discussion with you, my bad. You have done nothing but parrot the thinking expressed by our leader and his cronies forgetting the negative ripple effect and poor system of execution of the deal, additionally, it does not adequately serve the interests of the US business community or it's citizens.

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.

 

[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.

No whining. What I have done was attempt to have a discussion with you, my bad. You have done nothing but parrot the thinking expressed by our leader and his cronies forgetting the negative ripple effect and poor system of execution of the deal, additionally, it does not adequately serve the interests of the US business community or it's citizens.

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.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

I'm just spit-balling here, but how about NOT LICENSING IRAN for Nuclear Weapons?

It is not an alternative to the deal when the deal does not licence nuclear weapons. That's how rightwing propaganda generally works; make a false claim that something does "x" and then propose to do "y". Nice try. Do you have a real alternative.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Alex 11876211

11876211

LOL I am not pwned, I look at the substance of the agreement and see how this may effect others.

" INSPECTIONS - The deal gives United Nations inspectors access to suspect Iranian military sites, while giving Tehran 24 days to provide access to the facilities.

Lawmakers who wanted "anytime, anywhere" inspections will want to know how this will ensure that Tehran will not cheat. They worry the delay could allow compromising material to be destroyed. "A lot can be done in 24 days," said U.S. Representative Steve Israel, a Democrat.

ARMS EMBARGO - Congressional questioning about the nuclear deal has focused on the lifting of a U.N. ban on Iran for conventional weapons after five years and for ballistic missile technology after eight years.

"It is hard for us to accept it, so we just want to take a look at it," said Ben Cardin, the top Democrat on the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Lawmakers worry that Tehran's access to advanced arms, even years down the line, would enhance its ability to fuel regional sectarian strife and threaten U.S. ally Israel. Opponents have further lamented that the deal fails to freeze or roll back Iran's advances in ballistic missile development.

SANCTIONS - Under the deal, the main oil and financial sanctions could be lifted this year. Many lawmakers questioned the wisdom of giving Iran access to up to $150 billion in revenue before it proves it will adhere to the agreement.

"That is an immediate, giant benefit to the Iranian regime," said U.S. Representative Brad Sherman, a Democrat. Sherman said he worried the money made available to Tehran would be funneled to corrupt officials or Syrian President Bashar al-Assad or militants fighting U.S. allies, or even Americans.

PRISONERS - Even lawmakers who are prepared to support the deal said they were disappointed that it did not include the release of former U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati, Christian pastor Saeed Abedini, Washington Post Tehran bureau chief Jason Rezaian and former FBI agent Robert Levinson.

Administration officials say they bring up the prisoners at every meeting with Iranian officials, but said they did not insist on the releases because it was essential to focus the talks with Iran on the nuclear issue.

UN SECURITY COUNCIL VOTE - Both Republicans and Democrats, including the chairman and ranking member of the influential Senate Foreign Relations Committee, do not want the United Nations to vote on the Iran nuclear deal before the 82-day U.S. review period ends in September. After stopping in at a meeting between Vice President Joe Biden and committee Democrats, Senator Bob Corker, the panel's Republican chairman, called the vote, now set for Monday, "an affront to the American people." Cardin co-signed a letter urging Obama to postpone the vote."

Factbox Sanctions inspections concern U.S. lawmakers reviewing Iran deal - Yahoo News

These are just the concerns, this agreement has disrupted everyone but Obama in his pwned state and blindness.

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.

Nope. No alternative here.

 

[Bfgrn]

Alex 11876211 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.

No whining. What I have done was attempt to have a discussion with you, my bad. You have done nothing but parrot the thinking expressed by our leader and his cronies forgetting the negative ripple effect and poor system of execution of the deal, additionally, it does not adequately serve the interests of the US business community or it's citizens.

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

 

[DollyLongstaff]

You right wing turds only offer ONE solution...

Bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb, bomb Iran...

Scum? The right are THE scum of mankind...

At least Obama and Kerry didn't leave any Americans behind. Right?

Hillary in prison? No one looks good in orange, especially if it's an orange pantsuit.

 

[Alex.]

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.

No whining. What I have done was attempt to have a discussion with you, my bad. You have done nothing but parrot the thinking expressed by our leader and his cronies forgetting the negative ripple effect and poor system of execution of the deal, additionally, it does not adequately serve the interests of the US business community or it's citizens.

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.

 

[Alex.]

Alex 11876211

11876211

LOL I am not pwned, I look at the substance of the agreement and see how this may effect others.

" INSPECTIONS - The deal gives United Nations inspectors access to suspect Iranian military sites, while giving Tehran 24 days to provide access to the facilities.

Lawmakers who wanted "anytime, anywhere" inspections will want to know how this will ensure that Tehran will not cheat. They worry the delay could allow compromising material to be destroyed. "A lot can be done in 24 days," said U.S. Representative Steve Israel, a Democrat.

ARMS EMBARGO - Congressional questioning about the nuclear deal has focused on the lifting of a U.N. ban on Iran for conventional weapons after five years and for ballistic missile technology after eight years.

"It is hard for us to accept it, so we just want to take a look at it," said Ben Cardin, the top Democrat on the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Lawmakers worry that Tehran's access to advanced arms, even years down the line, would enhance its ability to fuel regional sectarian strife and threaten U.S. ally Israel. Opponents have further lamented that the deal fails to freeze or roll back Iran's advances in ballistic missile development.

SANCTIONS - Under the deal, the main oil and financial sanctions could be lifted this year. Many lawmakers questioned the wisdom of giving Iran access to up to $150 billion in revenue before it proves it will adhere to the agreement.

"That is an immediate, giant benefit to the Iranian regime," said U.S. Representative Brad Sherman, a Democrat. Sherman said he worried the money made available to Tehran would be funneled to corrupt officials or Syrian President Bashar al-Assad or militants fighting U.S. allies, or even Americans.

PRISONERS - Even lawmakers who are prepared to support the deal said they were disappointed that it did not include the release of former U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati, Christian pastor Saeed Abedini, Washington Post Tehran bureau chief Jason Rezaian and former FBI agent Robert Levinson.

Administration officials say they bring up the prisoners at every meeting with Iranian officials, but said they did not insist on the releases because it was essential to focus the talks with Iran on the nuclear issue.

UN SECURITY COUNCIL VOTE - Both Republicans and Democrats, including the chairman and ranking member of the influential Senate Foreign Relations Committee, do not want the United Nations to vote on the Iran nuclear deal before the 82-day U.S. review period ends in September. After stopping in at a meeting between Vice President Joe Biden and committee Democrats, Senator Bob Corker, the panel's Republican chairman, called the vote, now set for Monday, "an affront to the American people." Cardin co-signed a letter urging Obama to postpone the vote."

Factbox Sanctions inspections concern U.S. lawmakers reviewing Iran deal - Yahoo News

These are just the concerns, this agreement has disrupted everyone but Obama in his pwned state and blindness.

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.

Nope. No alternative here.

Read my posts grasshopper not going to repeat myself.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Bfgrn]

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

No whining. What I have done was attempt to have a discussion with you, my bad. You have done nothing but parrot the thinking expressed by our leader and his cronies forgetting the negative ripple effect and poor system of execution of the deal, additionally, it does not adequately serve the interests of the US business community or it's citizens.

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?

 

[Votto]

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

What will Iran do with all those billions that will now be infused into their economy?

Will they build homeless shelters? Create a Peace Corps? Start a Salvation Army for Muslims?

I can hardly wait to see!!

 

[Votto]

The Right has sold out to the MIlitary Industrial Complex despite Eisenhower's warning.

And the left has done what about it while in power?

I guess arming up for the newly created Armageddon.

 

[Alex.]

No whining. What I have done was attempt to have a discussion with you, my bad. You have done nothing but parrot the thinking expressed by our leader and his cronies forgetting the negative ripple effect and poor system of execution of the deal, additionally, it does not adequately serve the interests of the US business community or it's citizens.

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.

 

[Hossfly]

You right wing turds only offer ONE solution...

Bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb, bomb Iran...

Scum? The right are THE scum of mankind...

At least Obama and Kerry didn't leave any Americans behind. Right?

Hillary in prison? No one looks good in orange, especially if it's an orange pantsuit.

We'll give Hitlery her choice of colors.