What is the real reason that the GOP does not want a deal with Iran?

[healthmyths]

Here....read the framework of the deal and come back and tell me it is a bad one.

The Iran nuclear deal translated into plain English - Vox

yes....and the frame work for peace with Germany was spot on as well....but if the terrorist government won't abide by the terms...it doesn't matter how pixie dust wonderful those terms are does it?

Let's break this out for a quick history lesson....
The phrase "Peace for Our Time" was spoken on 30 September 1938 by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in his speech concerning the Munich Agreement and the Anglo-German Declaration."
It is primarily remembered for its ironic value: less than a year after the agreement, following continued aggression from Hitler and his invasion of Poland, Europe was plunged into World War II.

Peace for our time - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Iran is not Germany ...

No. And times are different for sure.
But you are obviously too young to remember what happened in 1979..much less WWII.
Which is too bad because there is a value in learning from history which sad to say seems to be shrift in many people today.

I remember history March 19, 2003 a date that will live in Infamy............

You are talking about the fulfillment of Bill Clinton's 1998 Liberation of Iraq Act when Bush who had the balls to fulfill which Clinton only had for licking.
When 28 million people plus millions of children would no longer be starving because their dictator who used electric drills on prisoners tongues,
used students as entertainment for famished lions was finally deposed after just six weeks. "Mission Accomplished".
But of course the traitors like yourself that hate our troops didn't want to see the conflict end so you as these traitors encouraged as an Harvard study
proved encouragement to the barbarians to continue using little kids as bombers when our troops handed out candy.
Of course you loved that because that KILLED OUR troops. You like these idiots have NO IDEA how many of our troops find people like you that
encouraged the barbarians totally disgusting!
I am 100% confident that traitors like you LOVED these words by these traitors!

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
NOTE: You are not that naive to think the terrorists didn't find Kerry calling OUR TROOPS terrorists absolutely EMBOLDENING???

Remember Kerry EARLIER wanted Bush to: "Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ....
to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ....
"Kerry , JanS. 23. 2003

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
NOTE: Do you not believe the terrorists LOVED to hear our troops were cold blooded killers???

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

then Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

You can't convince me that the TERRORISTS were emboldened and encouraged and recruited more terrorists!
After all you idiots that bring up Abu Ghraib as a prime motivator for terrorists recruitment... HOW MUCH more with idiots like the above making those
terrible disgusting statements calling our troops "civilian killers"... "terrorists"!
OF COURSE LIPs like you are ignorant of the facts...

 

[bendog]

I think Ernie summed it up, though suggesting Obama wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, puts him in the nutter stands. But, the rational people opposing this deal in particular think we can get a better deal, in which Tehran will give up a nuclear program entirely, and that Iran can be persuaded to do this with more sanctions. Jeffrey Goldberg terms this deal "the least worse option" doubts this premise, and so do I, but for reasons a bit different from his.

"War would not end the Iranian nuclear challenge. Israeli strikes, and certainly U.S. strikes, could destroy much of the physical infrastructure of the Iranian nuclear program, but cruise missiles cannot destroy knowledge, and I doubt they could destroy the will of the regime. Iran would rebuild those facilities, and would do so free from the burden of international sanctions, which would most likely crumble after such a preventative attack. Sanctions, too, were not bringing Iran to total capitulation. I do think that sanctions concentrated the attention of the regime, and that additional sanctions might have helped improve America's negotiating position. But the Iranian regime was not going to capitulate in the face of a collapsing economy. It would have adapted."

The Iran Nuclear Deal Obama Chooses the Least-Worst Option The Atlantic

I recall the sanctions on Iran, and those sanctions really did shut down Saddam's nuclear program, and the threat of war allowed inspectors to have free access, which the present framework for an agreement requires. Yet, even when el-Baradi found no evidence of a nuclear program, the GD neocons invaded the place anyway, and in doing so we allied the Iraqi Sunnis with Al Queda. So, I don't believe for a second that ALL the pols saying "we need tougher sanctions" will ever support any agreement, and just want to opt for war, and the sooner the better. Iraq would be a walk in the park compared to Iran, and we really didn't win in Iraq.

France and Germany both say they haven't seen enough from Iran to support withdrawing any sanctions. Sadly, I'm sure they're saner than Cotton of Boom Boom McCain, and I suspect they'll require more from Iran that would Obama.

In other words: Republicans don't have a solution.

I don't think I said that. I don't think all gopers want to invade regardless. I think they have to give lip service to Iran is a nuclear threat to Israel, even if they know that to be total Netanyahu bulltripe. I agree with Goldberg that sanctions in and of themselves probably will not get the Republican Guard to give up the entire nuclear program. But, if they're just saying we don't know enough of what Iran is giving up to know if this is good enough.

What "Republican Guard" are you referring too?
The Iraqi Republican Guard (Arabic: حرس العراقي الجمهوري‎ ""Ḥaris al-‘Irāq al-Jamhūriyy") was a branch of the Iraqi military from 1969 to 2003, primarily during the presidency of Saddam Hussein. It later became the Republican Guard Corps, and then the Republican Guard Forces Command (RGFC) with its expansion into two corps. The Republican Guard was disbanded in 2003, after the invasion of Iraq by a U.S.-led international coalition.
I didn't know Iran also had a "Republican Guard".

Revolutionary Guard, so sue me

 

[Slyhunter]

Oh, we want an agreement and don't want a war. We just want competent people to negotiate the deal and the right to reject a bad deal.

And we know just how effective Republicans have been with negotiations like that in the past. North Korea being case in point.

That deal was negotiated by the Clinton Administration with Jimmy Carter leading the charge....

Who was President when North Korea tested their first nuclear weapon? I can't seem to remember, who was it again?

More importantly who was president when they built it.

You mean like in 2006 when the North Koreans tested their first nuclear capable missiles.

I mean Carter.

 

[Slyhunter]

Its just a little bit odd that the American Senators loudly claiming Iran cannot be trusted to fulfill any deal are simultaneously pledging that they will not fulfill any deal....isn't that called suspicious .............Ironic ?

just saying.......

No they are saying no deal is made unless Congress ratify's it and they aren't going to ratify Obama's bad plan.

 

[Slyhunter]

I think Ernie summed it up, though suggesting Obama wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, puts him in the nutter stands. But, the rational people opposing this deal in particular think we can get a better deal, in which Tehran will give up a nuclear program entirely, and that Iran can be persuaded to do this with more sanctions. Jeffrey Goldberg terms this deal "the least worse option" doubts this premise, and so do I, but for reasons a bit different from his.

"War would not end the Iranian nuclear challenge. Israeli strikes, and certainly U.S. strikes, could destroy much of the physical infrastructure of the Iranian nuclear program, but cruise missiles cannot destroy knowledge, and I doubt they could destroy the will of the regime. Iran would rebuild those facilities, and would do so free from the burden of international sanctions, which would most likely crumble after such a preventative attack. Sanctions, too, were not bringing Iran to total capitulation. I do think that sanctions concentrated the attention of the regime, and that additional sanctions might have helped improve America's negotiating position. But the Iranian regime was not going to capitulate in the face of a collapsing economy. It would have adapted."

The Iran Nuclear Deal Obama Chooses the Least-Worst Option The Atlantic

I recall the sanctions on Iran, and those sanctions really did shut down Saddam's nuclear program, and the threat of war allowed inspectors to have free access, which the present framework for an agreement requires. Yet, even when el-Baradi found no evidence of a nuclear program, the GD neocons invaded the place anyway, and in doing so we allied the Iraqi Sunnis with Al Queda. So, I don't believe for a second that ALL the pols saying "we need tougher sanctions" will ever support any agreement, and just want to opt for war, and the sooner the better. Iraq would be a walk in the park compared to Iran, and we really didn't win in Iraq.

France and Germany both say they haven't seen enough from Iran to support withdrawing any sanctions. Sadly, I'm sure they're saner than Cotton of Boom Boom McCain, and I suspect they'll require more from Iran that would Obama.

In other words: Republicans don't have a solution.

Do whatever it takes to force Iran to abide by our terms of them having no nukes, period. More sanctions, bombing their capital, whatever works. No need for ground troops. Eventually they will give in or they will be incapable of proceeding even if they stupidly don't.

 

[Slyhunter]

Republicans want to stop a nuclear deal with Iran. They may have ensured Obama gets one Comment is free The Guardian


"If no deal is reached, what does the Senate GOP think will happen? Peace on earth and goodwill to men? Iran will continue to build up its nuclear program, and the world will eventually face a stark choice between Iran being a screwdriver’s turn away from a nuclear bomb, or using its own traditional bombs inIranand starting a disastrous war."

So what is the reason the GOP does not want a deal with Iran? There is one HUGE reason and it has nothing to do with security, world peace, or even Iran. The GOP does not want to give Obama another victory. They know if Obama gets a deal with Iran, their chances of winning the WH go down to near 0%. It is all a repub political game.

They're making a huge mistake.

The senate doesn't have to approve the agreement. They just have to advise.

The large majority of the people in America want an agreement and don't want war. If the republicans do anything more to prevent this agreement they will have a nation of very angry people to deal with and it won't be pretty.

But the republicans aren't that smart. They're just acting like spoiled brat children. So I don't expect them to make the right choices and they will regret it.

Oh, we want an agreement and don't want a war. We just want competent people to negotiate the deal and the right to reject a bad deal.

Competent people? Competent? Name one competent Republican. And please, don't make it George Bush or Sarah Palin.

Newt Gingrich.

 

[Liminal]

I think Ernie summed it up, though suggesting Obama wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, puts him in the nutter stands. But, the rational people opposing this deal in particular think we can get a better deal, in which Tehran will give up a nuclear program entirely, and that Iran can be persuaded to do this with more sanctions. Jeffrey Goldberg terms this deal "the least worse option" doubts this premise, and so do I, but for reasons a bit different from his.

"War would not end the Iranian nuclear challenge. Israeli strikes, and certainly U.S. strikes, could destroy much of the physical infrastructure of the Iranian nuclear program, but cruise missiles cannot destroy knowledge, and I doubt they could destroy the will of the regime. Iran would rebuild those facilities, and would do so free from the burden of international sanctions, which would most likely crumble after such a preventative attack. Sanctions, too, were not bringing Iran to total capitulation. I do think that sanctions concentrated the attention of the regime, and that additional sanctions might have helped improve America's negotiating position. But the Iranian regime was not going to capitulate in the face of a collapsing economy. It would have adapted."

The Iran Nuclear Deal Obama Chooses the Least-Worst Option The Atlantic

I recall the sanctions on Iran, and those sanctions really did shut down Saddam's nuclear program, and the threat of war allowed inspectors to have free access, which the present framework for an agreement requires. Yet, even when el-Baradi found no evidence of a nuclear program, the GD neocons invaded the place anyway, and in doing so we allied the Iraqi Sunnis with Al Queda. So, I don't believe for a second that ALL the pols saying "we need tougher sanctions" will ever support any agreement, and just want to opt for war, and the sooner the better. Iraq would be a walk in the park compared to Iran, and we really didn't win in Iraq.

France and Germany both say they haven't seen enough from Iran to support withdrawing any sanctions. Sadly, I'm sure they're saner than Cotton of Boom Boom McCain, and I suspect they'll require more from Iran that would Obama.

In other words: Republicans don't have a solution.

Do whatever it takes to force Iran to abide by our terms of them having no nukes, period. More sanctions, bombing their capital, whatever works. No need for ground troops. Eventually they will give in or they will be incapable of proceeding even if they stupidly don't.

More sanctions? Like what? And suppose they don't care if you bomb their capital? Sounds more like a propaganda victory for them.

 

[Liminal]

And we know just how effective Republicans have been with negotiations like that in the past. North Korea being case in point.

That deal was negotiated by the Clinton Administration with Jimmy Carter leading the charge....

Who was President when North Korea tested their first nuclear weapon? I can't seem to remember, who was it again?

More importantly who was president when they built it.

You mean like in 2006 when the North Koreans tested their first nuclear capable missiles.

I mean Carter.

You apparently have no idea what you mean.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The GOP cannot let Obama and the Democrats get the legacy of a good arms deal with Iran on their resume.

That is really all there is to it.

 

[Liminal]

I think Ernie summed it up, though suggesting Obama wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, puts him in the nutter stands. But, the rational people opposing this deal in particular think we can get a better deal, in which Tehran will give up a nuclear program entirely, and that Iran can be persuaded to do this with more sanctions. Jeffrey Goldberg terms this deal "the least worse option" doubts this premise, and so do I, but for reasons a bit different from his.

"War would not end the Iranian nuclear challenge. Israeli strikes, and certainly U.S. strikes, could destroy much of the physical infrastructure of the Iranian nuclear program, but cruise missiles cannot destroy knowledge, and I doubt they could destroy the will of the regime. Iran would rebuild those facilities, and would do so free from the burden of international sanctions, which would most likely crumble after such a preventative attack. Sanctions, too, were not bringing Iran to total capitulation. I do think that sanctions concentrated the attention of the regime, and that additional sanctions might have helped improve America's negotiating position. But the Iranian regime was not going to capitulate in the face of a collapsing economy. It would have adapted."

The Iran Nuclear Deal Obama Chooses the Least-Worst Option The Atlantic

I recall the sanctions on Iran, and those sanctions really did shut down Saddam's nuclear program, and the threat of war allowed inspectors to have free access, which the present framework for an agreement requires. Yet, even when el-Baradi found no evidence of a nuclear program, the GD neocons invaded the place anyway, and in doing so we allied the Iraqi Sunnis with Al Queda. So, I don't believe for a second that ALL the pols saying "we need tougher sanctions" will ever support any agreement, and just want to opt for war, and the sooner the better. Iraq would be a walk in the park compared to Iran, and we really didn't win in Iraq.

France and Germany both say they haven't seen enough from Iran to support withdrawing any sanctions. Sadly, I'm sure they're saner than Cotton of Boom Boom McCain, and I suspect they'll require more from Iran that would Obama.

In other words: Republicans don't have a solution.

I don't think I said that. I don't think all gopers want to invade regardless. I think they have to give lip service to Iran is a nuclear threat to Israel, even if they know that to be total Netanyahu bulltripe. I agree with Goldberg that sanctions in and of themselves probably will not get the Republican Guard to give up the entire nuclear program. But, if they're just saying we don't know enough of what Iran is giving up to know if this is good enough.

Attacking Israel is the last thing the Iranians would want to do. Who wants to attack a nation that can retaliate with a couple of hundred nuclear warheads.

 

[Slyhunter]

I think Ernie summed it up, though suggesting Obama wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, puts him in the nutter stands. But, the rational people opposing this deal in particular think we can get a better deal, in which Tehran will give up a nuclear program entirely, and that Iran can be persuaded to do this with more sanctions. Jeffrey Goldberg terms this deal "the least worse option" doubts this premise, and so do I, but for reasons a bit different from his.

"War would not end the Iranian nuclear challenge. Israeli strikes, and certainly U.S. strikes, could destroy much of the physical infrastructure of the Iranian nuclear program, but cruise missiles cannot destroy knowledge, and I doubt they could destroy the will of the regime. Iran would rebuild those facilities, and would do so free from the burden of international sanctions, which would most likely crumble after such a preventative attack. Sanctions, too, were not bringing Iran to total capitulation. I do think that sanctions concentrated the attention of the regime, and that additional sanctions might have helped improve America's negotiating position. But the Iranian regime was not going to capitulate in the face of a collapsing economy. It would have adapted."

The Iran Nuclear Deal Obama Chooses the Least-Worst Option The Atlantic

I recall the sanctions on Iran, and those sanctions really did shut down Saddam's nuclear program, and the threat of war allowed inspectors to have free access, which the present framework for an agreement requires. Yet, even when el-Baradi found no evidence of a nuclear program, the GD neocons invaded the place anyway, and in doing so we allied the Iraqi Sunnis with Al Queda. So, I don't believe for a second that ALL the pols saying "we need tougher sanctions" will ever support any agreement, and just want to opt for war, and the sooner the better. Iraq would be a walk in the park compared to Iran, and we really didn't win in Iraq.

France and Germany both say they haven't seen enough from Iran to support withdrawing any sanctions. Sadly, I'm sure they're saner than Cotton of Boom Boom McCain, and I suspect they'll require more from Iran that would Obama.

In other words: Republicans don't have a solution.

I don't think I said that. I don't think all gopers want to invade regardless. I think they have to give lip service to Iran is a nuclear threat to Israel, even if they know that to be total Netanyahu bulltripe. I agree with Goldberg that sanctions in and of themselves probably will not get the Republican Guard to give up the entire nuclear program. But, if they're just saying we don't know enough of what Iran is giving up to know if this is good enough.

Attacking Israel is the last thing the Iranians would want to do. Who wants to attack a nation that can retaliate with a couple of hundred nuclear warheads.

Those who think the 12th imam will protect them from retaliation.

 

[blackhawk]

If this deal is the great achivement that is being claimed why are some Democrats skeptical of it also?

 

[Slyhunter]

I think Ernie summed it up, though suggesting Obama wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, puts him in the nutter stands. But, the rational people opposing this deal in particular think we can get a better deal, in which Tehran will give up a nuclear program entirely, and that Iran can be persuaded to do this with more sanctions. Jeffrey Goldberg terms this deal "the least worse option" doubts this premise, and so do I, but for reasons a bit different from his.

"War would not end the Iranian nuclear challenge. Israeli strikes, and certainly U.S. strikes, could destroy much of the physical infrastructure of the Iranian nuclear program, but cruise missiles cannot destroy knowledge, and I doubt they could destroy the will of the regime. Iran would rebuild those facilities, and would do so free from the burden of international sanctions, which would most likely crumble after such a preventative attack. Sanctions, too, were not bringing Iran to total capitulation. I do think that sanctions concentrated the attention of the regime, and that additional sanctions might have helped improve America's negotiating position. But the Iranian regime was not going to capitulate in the face of a collapsing economy. It would have adapted."

The Iran Nuclear Deal Obama Chooses the Least-Worst Option The Atlantic

I recall the sanctions on Iran, and those sanctions really did shut down Saddam's nuclear program, and the threat of war allowed inspectors to have free access, which the present framework for an agreement requires. Yet, even when el-Baradi found no evidence of a nuclear program, the GD neocons invaded the place anyway, and in doing so we allied the Iraqi Sunnis with Al Queda. So, I don't believe for a second that ALL the pols saying "we need tougher sanctions" will ever support any agreement, and just want to opt for war, and the sooner the better. Iraq would be a walk in the park compared to Iran, and we really didn't win in Iraq.

France and Germany both say they haven't seen enough from Iran to support withdrawing any sanctions. Sadly, I'm sure they're saner than Cotton of Boom Boom McCain, and I suspect they'll require more from Iran that would Obama.

In other words: Republicans don't have a solution.

Do whatever it takes to force Iran to abide by our terms of them having no nukes, period. More sanctions, bombing their capital, whatever works. No need for ground troops. Eventually they will give in or they will be incapable of proceeding even if they stupidly don't.

More sanctions? Like what? And suppose they don't care if you bomb their capital? Sounds more like a propaganda victory for them.

They'll care when they have to replace their dead leaders.

 

[Liminal]

I think Ernie summed it up, though suggesting Obama wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, puts him in the nutter stands. But, the rational people opposing this deal in particular think we can get a better deal, in which Tehran will give up a nuclear program entirely, and that Iran can be persuaded to do this with more sanctions. Jeffrey Goldberg terms this deal "the least worse option" doubts this premise, and so do I, but for reasons a bit different from his.

"War would not end the Iranian nuclear challenge. Israeli strikes, and certainly U.S. strikes, could destroy much of the physical infrastructure of the Iranian nuclear program, but cruise missiles cannot destroy knowledge, and I doubt they could destroy the will of the regime. Iran would rebuild those facilities, and would do so free from the burden of international sanctions, which would most likely crumble after such a preventative attack. Sanctions, too, were not bringing Iran to total capitulation. I do think that sanctions concentrated the attention of the regime, and that additional sanctions might have helped improve America's negotiating position. But the Iranian regime was not going to capitulate in the face of a collapsing economy. It would have adapted."

The Iran Nuclear Deal Obama Chooses the Least-Worst Option The Atlantic

I recall the sanctions on Iran, and those sanctions really did shut down Saddam's nuclear program, and the threat of war allowed inspectors to have free access, which the present framework for an agreement requires. Yet, even when el-Baradi found no evidence of a nuclear program, the GD neocons invaded the place anyway, and in doing so we allied the Iraqi Sunnis with Al Queda. So, I don't believe for a second that ALL the pols saying "we need tougher sanctions" will ever support any agreement, and just want to opt for war, and the sooner the better. Iraq would be a walk in the park compared to Iran, and we really didn't win in Iraq.

France and Germany both say they haven't seen enough from Iran to support withdrawing any sanctions. Sadly, I'm sure they're saner than Cotton of Boom Boom McCain, and I suspect they'll require more from Iran that would Obama.

In other words: Republicans don't have a solution.

Do whatever it takes to force Iran to abide by our terms of them having no nukes, period. More sanctions, bombing their capital, whatever works. No need for ground troops. Eventually they will give in or they will be incapable of proceeding even if they stupidly don't.

More sanctions? Like what? And suppose they don't care if you bomb their capital? Sounds more like a propaganda victory for them.

They'll care when they have to replace their dead leaders.

No, I don't think they will. They'll just find some way to retaliate while they become more entrenched. Your plan is no plan at all.

 

[healthmyths]

The GOP cannot let Obama and the Democrats get the legacy of a good arms deal with Iran on their resume.

That is really all there is to it.

NO that's NOT all there is to it!
A LEGACY of a good arms deal is good for everyone! Why would we be as stupid as the Democrats and Obama etc. who did everything to
foil, to disrupt the Liberation of Iraq! I mean these comments were designed to tear apart our military!
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
NOTE: You are not that naive to think the terrorists didn't find Kerry calling OUR TROOPS terrorists absolutely EMBOLDENING???

Remember Kerry EARLIER wanted Bush to: "Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ....
to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ....
"Kerry , JanS. 23. 2003

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
NOTE: Do you not believe the terrorists LOVED to hear our troops were cold blooded killers???

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

then Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

These were destructive words killing our soldiers but NONE of us conservatives would ever deny a "good arms" deal.
The problem is Obama will settle for ANY DEAL!
He wants Iran to have weapons. He wants destruction of Israel!
He is a destroyer and the chances of a "good arms deal" are as good as Obama's word when he said:

"I pledge we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year….. We’ll do it by the end of my first term as President of the United States.
If you like your health care plan, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too."

Obama's record of keeping his word is extremely poor!

 

[Liminal]

I think Ernie summed it up, though suggesting Obama wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, puts him in the nutter stands. But, the rational people opposing this deal in particular think we can get a better deal, in which Tehran will give up a nuclear program entirely, and that Iran can be persuaded to do this with more sanctions. Jeffrey Goldberg terms this deal "the least worse option" doubts this premise, and so do I, but for reasons a bit different from his.

"War would not end the Iranian nuclear challenge. Israeli strikes, and certainly U.S. strikes, could destroy much of the physical infrastructure of the Iranian nuclear program, but cruise missiles cannot destroy knowledge, and I doubt they could destroy the will of the regime. Iran would rebuild those facilities, and would do so free from the burden of international sanctions, which would most likely crumble after such a preventative attack. Sanctions, too, were not bringing Iran to total capitulation. I do think that sanctions concentrated the attention of the regime, and that additional sanctions might have helped improve America's negotiating position. But the Iranian regime was not going to capitulate in the face of a collapsing economy. It would have adapted."

The Iran Nuclear Deal Obama Chooses the Least-Worst Option The Atlantic

I recall the sanctions on Iran, and those sanctions really did shut down Saddam's nuclear program, and the threat of war allowed inspectors to have free access, which the present framework for an agreement requires. Yet, even when el-Baradi found no evidence of a nuclear program, the GD neocons invaded the place anyway, and in doing so we allied the Iraqi Sunnis with Al Queda. So, I don't believe for a second that ALL the pols saying "we need tougher sanctions" will ever support any agreement, and just want to opt for war, and the sooner the better. Iraq would be a walk in the park compared to Iran, and we really didn't win in Iraq.

France and Germany both say they haven't seen enough from Iran to support withdrawing any sanctions. Sadly, I'm sure they're saner than Cotton of Boom Boom McCain, and I suspect they'll require more from Iran that would Obama.

In other words: Republicans don't have a solution.

I don't think I said that. I don't think all gopers want to invade regardless. I think they have to give lip service to Iran is a nuclear threat to Israel, even if they know that to be total Netanyahu bulltripe. I agree with Goldberg that sanctions in and of themselves probably will not get the Republican Guard to give up the entire nuclear program. But, if they're just saying we don't know enough of what Iran is giving up to know if this is good enough.

Attacking Israel is the last thing the Iranians would want to do. Who wants to attack a nation that can retaliate with a couple of hundred nuclear warheads.

Those who think the 12th imam will protect them from retaliation.

Perhaps you failed to grasp the gist of the conversation here. We're talking about real geopolitical considerations, not your fantasy scenario.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No one, no where in the universe, and especially in the nuthouse of the GOP,

has a better plan.

 

[KGB]

Oh, we want an agreement and don't want a war. We just want competent people to negotiate the deal and the right to reject a bad deal.

And we know just how effective Republicans have been with negotiations like that in the past. North Korea being case in point.

That deal was negotiated by the Clinton Administration with Jimmy Carter leading the charge....

Who was President when North Korea tested their first nuclear weapon? I can't seem to remember, who was it again?

It's not who was President when the North Koreans broke the deal they signed back in 1994. It's who originally negotiated it in the first place that matters. Using that logic, why don't you just blame Churchill when the Nazis broke the deal they made with Chamberlain.

The Iranians simply cannot be trusted to keep their end of the bargain. And furthermore, why wasn't their support for terrorist groups not on the table as well? They want to join the civilized world, they need to start playing by the rules. That means no more support to Hamas.

What reasons does Iran have to trust the United States?

I could give crap one about Iran's national security. I only care for US national security. Truth is, I have a hard time making a deal with people who scream "Death to America" every chance they get....

 

[JimH52]

The GOP cannot let Obama and the Democrats get the legacy of a good arms deal with Iran on their resume.

That is really all there is to it.

NO that's NOT all there is to it!
A LEGACY of a good arms deal is good for everyone! Why would we be as stupid as the Democrats and Obama etc. who did everything to
foil, to disrupt the Liberation of Iraq! I mean these comments were designed to tear apart our military!
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
NOTE: You are not that naive to think the terrorists didn't find Kerry calling OUR TROOPS terrorists absolutely EMBOLDENING???

Remember Kerry EARLIER wanted Bush to: "Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ....
to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ....
"Kerry , JanS. 23. 2003

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
NOTE: Do you not believe the terrorists LOVED to hear our troops were cold blooded killers???

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

then Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

These were destructive words killing our soldiers but NONE of us conservatives would ever deny a "good arms" deal.
The problem is Obama will settle for ANY DEAL!
He wants Iran to have weapons. He wants destruction of Israel!
He is a destroyer and the chances of a "good arms deal" are as good as Obama's word when he said:

"I pledge we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year….. We’ll do it by the end of my first term as President of the United States.
If you like your health care plan, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too."

Obama's record of keeping his word is extremely poor!

Please save your fingers. No one is reading your crap.

 

[Slyhunter]

I think Ernie summed it up, though suggesting Obama wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, puts him in the nutter stands. But, the rational people opposing this deal in particular think we can get a better deal, in which Tehran will give up a nuclear program entirely, and that Iran can be persuaded to do this with more sanctions. Jeffrey Goldberg terms this deal "the least worse option" doubts this premise, and so do I, but for reasons a bit different from his.

"War would not end the Iranian nuclear challenge. Israeli strikes, and certainly U.S. strikes, could destroy much of the physical infrastructure of the Iranian nuclear program, but cruise missiles cannot destroy knowledge, and I doubt they could destroy the will of the regime. Iran would rebuild those facilities, and would do so free from the burden of international sanctions, which would most likely crumble after such a preventative attack. Sanctions, too, were not bringing Iran to total capitulation. I do think that sanctions concentrated the attention of the regime, and that additional sanctions might have helped improve America's negotiating position. But the Iranian regime was not going to capitulate in the face of a collapsing economy. It would have adapted."

The Iran Nuclear Deal Obama Chooses the Least-Worst Option The Atlantic

I recall the sanctions on Iran, and those sanctions really did shut down Saddam's nuclear program, and the threat of war allowed inspectors to have free access, which the present framework for an agreement requires. Yet, even when el-Baradi found no evidence of a nuclear program, the GD neocons invaded the place anyway, and in doing so we allied the Iraqi Sunnis with Al Queda. So, I don't believe for a second that ALL the pols saying "we need tougher sanctions" will ever support any agreement, and just want to opt for war, and the sooner the better. Iraq would be a walk in the park compared to Iran, and we really didn't win in Iraq.

France and Germany both say they haven't seen enough from Iran to support withdrawing any sanctions. Sadly, I'm sure they're saner than Cotton of Boom Boom McCain, and I suspect they'll require more from Iran that would Obama.

In other words: Republicans don't have a solution.

Do whatever it takes to force Iran to abide by our terms of them having no nukes, period. More sanctions, bombing their capital, whatever works. No need for ground troops. Eventually they will give in or they will be incapable of proceeding even if they stupidly don't.

More sanctions? Like what? And suppose they don't care if you bomb their capital? Sounds more like a propaganda victory for them.

They'll care when they have to replace their dead leaders.

No, I don't think they will. They'll just find some way to retaliate while they become more entrenched. Your plan is no plan at all.

You saying it is so doesn't make it so. You plan on capitulating and allowing them to getting a nuke is in reality no plan at all, or at least a bad plan.