[jbfair728]

I wish Obama was running again. If I could get a fraction of the free stuff he's given to Iran, Cuba, etc, I would be set for life!

"I don't think that word means what you think it means."

*Bernie*

Posted via CB app on my BlackBerry Classic

[grover5]

I wish Obama was running again. If I could get a fraction of the free stuff he's given to Iran, Cuba, etc, I would be set for life!

"I don't think that word means what you think it means."

Lol.

[Captain_Hilts]

I would agree with you that this is a good deal if for one minute I thought Iran would follow the agreement as the US has intended it to be. There are just so many ways to get around the restriction. I, for one, don't trust Iran, a country that has for decades made atrocious threats to the US. I personally don't like our government, no matter who is in charge, dealing with countries that would rather stick a knife in our backs then shake our hands. But that just might be.

Under the Bush administration, Iran was developing nuclear weapons completely unchecked. Of course, we tried scaring them into submission with sanctions and threats of military action (remember McCain's proud moment of singing "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" during his campaign), but that didn't work, and no matter how VP Cheney tries to spin history, Iran's nuclear program not only began under W, it freaking thrived to the point that they went from zero centrifuges in 2003 to thousands of centrifuges in January of 2009. Obama continued this course of action, but the result was the same... until the world powers negotiated a deal.

Now there have been tangible results showing the merits of the deal, but of course those who were against it before they even knew what was in it (because hey, it's Obama, and we have to oppose what he does no matter what) have no better alternative except for something so hardline and unrealistic that Iran would never even approach the negotiating table, which would give them the motivation to go about their business of developing weapons unchecked, which would mean that the US would go right back to sanctions and threats of force until someone does something REALLY stupid.

Posted via CB10

[middbrew]

Under the Bush administration, Iran was developing nuclear weapons completely unchecked. Of course, we tried scaring them into submission with sanctions and threats of military action (remember McCain's proud moment of singing "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" during his campaign), but that didn't work, and no matter how VP Cheney tries to spin history, Iran's nuclear program not only began under W, it freaking thrived to the point that they went from zero centrifuges in 2003 to thousands of centrifuges in January of 2009. Obama continued this course of action, but the result was the same... until the world powers negotiated a deal.

Now there have been tangible results showing the merits of the deal, but of course those who were against it before they even knew what was in it (because hey, it's Obama, and we have to oppose what he does no matter what) have no better alternative except for something so hardline and unrealistic that Iran would never even approach the negotiating table, which would give them the motivation to go about their business of developing weapons unchecked, which would mean that the US would go right back to sanctions and threats of force until someone does something REALLY stupid.

Posted via CB10

I don't disagree that Iran was developing nuclear weapons long before Obama took office. I'm just not convinced that the deal will stop that. All of our allies that are in immediate danger disagree with the deal.

[LoneStarRed]

I don't disagree that Iran was developing nuclear weapons long before Obama took office. I'm just not convinced that the deal will stop that. All of our allies that are in immediate danger disagree with the deal.

To be a traditional ally of the United States in the time of BHO is definitely not a good thing! No free stuff for you! It all goes to traditional adversaries.

"I don't think that word means what you think it means."

[Captain_Hilts]

I don't disagree that Iran was developing nuclear weapons long before Obama took office. I'm just not convinced that the deal will stop that. All of our allies that are in immediate danger disagree with the deal.

Well, with all due respect, if you don't like the deal, what's the alternative? Because if it's anything close to zero tolerance, Iran would never go for it and would happily fire up more centrifuges until someone really does "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." And of course our main ally in the region (Israel) doesn't like the deal, hence why Bibi took the unprecedented move of going around the POTUS to speak before Congress in a blatant attempt to influence our political process. Honestly, he and other Israeli hardliners don't want a deal anymore than the hardliners in Iran or the hardliners in America want a deal. They all sound a little too much like one another for my taste, which is why I prefer to let more sensible-minded individuals do the negotiating. As for the inspection time that some have brought up, the world's foremost nuclear experts agree that 24 days is more than adequate for an inspection notice, arguing that, again, Iran would never agree to 24 hours and that even 24 days is nowhere near enough time to conceal evidence of unauthorized nuclear activity. Iranians aren't magicians. If they violate the conditions of the agreement, NOW we're in a position to know and do something about it, which is miles ahead of where we were before.

Posted via CB10

[FrankUnderwood]

There is really only one choice for President of the United States.

#FU2016

Posted via CB10 on the President Underwood version of the BlackBerry Classic

[middbrew]

Well, with all due respect, if you don't like the deal, what's the alternative? Because if it's anything close to zero tolerance, Iran would never go for it and would happily fire up more centrifuges until someone really does "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." And of course our main ally in the region (Israel) doesn't like the deal, hence why Bibi took the unprecedented move of going around the POTUS to speak before Congress in a blatant attempt to influence our political process. Honestly, he and other Israeli hardliners don't want a deal anymore than the hardliners in Iran or the hardliners in America want a deal. They all sound a little too much like one another for my taste, which is why I prefer to let more sensible-minded individuals do the negotiating. As for the inspection time that some have brought up, the world's foremost nuclear experts agree that 24 days is more than adequate for an inspection notice, arguing that, again, Iran would never agree to 24 hours and that even 24 days is nowhere near enough time to conceal evidence of unauthorized nuclear activity. Iranians aren't magicians. If they violate the conditions of the agreement, NOW we're in a position to know and do something about it, which is miles ahead of where we were before.

Posted via CB10

We need a guy like Henry Kissinger to do those kinds of negotiations.

But seriously...

I'm not so worried about the sites and the 24 day notice before inspections. I'm more concerned with the unreported sites that Russia will help keep going. I would have probably preferred a more aggressive approach on the countries helping Iran than a deal with Iran itself.

I'm not clued in on all the finer details of the deal nor equipped to suggest alternative solutions. It just makes me very uneasy when we deal with a hostile country that at any moment will back out of the deal if they think it's going to benefit them. They just can't be trusted.

[Soapm]

We need a guy like Henry Kissinger to do those kinds of negotiations.

But seriously...

I'm not so worried about the sites and the 24 day notice before inspections. I'm more concerned with the unreported sites that Russia will help keep going. I would have probably preferred a more aggressive approach on the countries helping Iran than a deal with Iran itself.

I'm not clued in on all the finer details of the deal nor equipped to suggest alternative solutions. It just makes me very uneasy when we deal with a hostile country that at any moment will back out of the deal if they think it's going to benefit them. They just can't be trusted.

I agree with you here, it's hard to trust Russia after years of cold war activities but I do like being part of the "bigger" country that extends the olive branch of peace, even if it's eventually proven to be taken as a weakness. We can always prove to the rest of the world, "we tried..."

As for Iran, any deal is better than no deal because as it stands they're free to do as they please. I don't think this is a final solution but a start to containing levels of weapons grade material under irresponsible control. Iran is only the face of the scary creature, there are terrorist who would pay big bucks to have the stuff so any control has to be better than no control...

Plus, years of pounding our chest and shaking our fist hasn't scared anyone into doing right. It would be insane to continue that strategy hoping for different results...

[Soapm]

There is really only one choice for President of the United States.

#FU2016

Posted via CB10 on the President Underwood version of the BlackBerry Classic

One thing for sure, getting notes with his initials would sure raise some eyebrows...

[Soapm]

I wish Obama was running again. If I could get a fraction of the free stuff he's given to Iran, Cuba, etc, I would be set for life!

"I don't think that word means what you think it means."

I thought you were going to say Reagan, he gave Iran card Blanche (with guns to back it up)...

[Captain_Hilts]

I thought you were going to say Reagan, he gave Iran card Blanche (with guns to back it up)...

No doubt. He facilitated the sale of missiles to Iran (illegal giveaway #1) to fund the Contras in Nicaragua (illegal giveaway #2), themselves accused of numerous terrorist attacks and human rights violations. All the while, he established a federal government that legitimized ever bigger giveaways to the top 1%. All that, and he STILL would be too far left for the republican party today. Seems to me that anyone accusing the modern Democratic party of being the party of "free stuff" either has no sense of history or is drinking too much red kool-aid.

Posted via CB10

[grover5]

No doubt. He facilitated the sale of missiles to Iran (illegal giveaway #1) to fund the Contras in Nicaragua (illegal giveaway #2), themselves accused of numerous terrorist attacks and human rights violations. All the while, he established a federal government that legitimized ever bigger giveaways to the top 1%. All that, and he STILL would be too far left for the republican party today. Seems to me that anyone accusing the modern Democratic party of being the party of "free stuff" either has no sense of history or is drinking too much red kool-aid.

Posted via CB10

It is amazing. The Goldwater republican who introduced the most absurd economic policy ever is too far left for the current party. Every time I here the argument for trickle down economics it amazes me that the weak-kneed media continues to behave like it is a reasonable economic position.

[deedeebird]

Bernie Sanders!!!!!!

Posted via CB10

[paulbbp]

Jeb! is out.
Please clap.

I was not a Jeb fan but would much rather had him over Trump. Honestly I don't think I can bring myself to vote for Trump.

Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android on Priv.

[paulbbp]

I don't disagree that Iran was developing nuclear weapons long before Obama took office. I'm just not convinced that the deal will stop that. All of our allies that are in immediate danger disagree with the deal.

I agree the Iran deal was a very bad deal for the US and it allies. That's what happens when you negotiate from a position of weakness.

Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android on Priv.

[paulbbp]

I literally didn't know anyone who felt Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Everyone with any sense was well aware of the agenda being pursued. The fact that you were actually confused by that really underlines your inability to discern Obama's ability to negotiate. You should not discuss foreign policy.

I agreed with the agenda being pursued. With all the intelligence available at the time I would have invaded Iraq too. Intelligence from all over the world validated what the CIA was reporting to the President. Now, at the end it proved to be inaccurate. But given the events and the wickedness of the enemy I understand why Bush did what he did. I still believe we should make no distinction between terrorist and those that support them. Its very easy to call all the bad plays after the game ends.

Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android on Priv.

[tmf06]

I agree the Iran deal was a very bad deal for the US and it allies. That's what happens when you negotiate from a position of weakness.

Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android on Priv.

You mean like trying to negotiate after a bunch of senators illegally send a letter to the opposing party in the middle of negotiations?

[paulbbp]

You mean like trying to negotiate after a bunch of senators illegally send a letter to the opposing party in the middle of negotiations?

Sure, we can include that. We went into the negotiations very weak and pathetic. The letter from the Senators degraded us to even a lower position.

Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android on Priv.

[LoneStarRed]

I agree the Iran deal was a very bad deal for the US and it allies. That's what happens when you negotiate from a position of weakness.

Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android on Priv.

Can you really call that "negotiating" ? Aren't you supposed to get something in return? What did we get other than laughed at and derided for being had?

"I don't think that word means what you think it means."

[grover5]

I agreed with the agenda being pursued. With all the intelligence available at the time I would have invaded Iraq too. Intelligence from all over the world validated what the CIA was reporting to the President. Now, at the end it proved to be inaccurate. But given the events and the wickedness of the enemy I understand why Bush did what he did. I still believe we should make no distinction between terrorist and those that support them. Its very easy to call all the bad plays after the game ends.

Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android on Priv.

Then you weren't paying enough attention. There was tons of doubt about the intelligence. Tons of people were speaking out against the whole idea of Iraq being invaded.

[thurask]

Nevada has been made great again.

[Captain_Hilts]

I agree the Iran deal was a very bad deal for the US and it allies. That's what happens when you negotiate from a position of weakness.

Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android on Priv.

Sorry, but "position of weakness" is a buzzword (or "buzzphrase") that has zero meaning. It's one of those things politicians (especially those who are against Obama) like to say when either they have no argument or are coming from a position not supported by the facts. What exactly is our position of weakness? We have the largest, most advanced military on the face of the Earth AND in the history of the world and we are the economic envy of the world. I know republicans constantly TRY to persuade people that America is no different from a Third World country or that it has been "taken away" because we now have the ACA and legalized gay marriage (if anything, we're a Third World country because republicans refuse any and all infrastructure spending), but I never thought that most people would actually believe it. How exactly are we weak?

Edit: As I and others have asked, if you don't like the deal, what's the alternative?

Posted via CB10

[paulbbp]

Sorry, but "position of weakness" is a buzzword (or "buzzphrase") that has zero meaning. It's one of those things politicians (especially those who are against Obama) like to say when either they have no argument or are coming from a position not supported by the facts. What exactly is our position of weakness? We have the largest, most advanced military on the face of the Earth AND in the history of the world and we are the economic envy of the world. I know republicans constantly TRY to persuade people that America is no different from a Third World country or that it has been "taken away" because we now have the ACA and legalized gay marriage (if anything, we're a Third World country because republicans refuse any and all infrastructure spending), but I never thought that most people would actually believe it. How exactly are we weak?

Edit: As I and others have asked, if you don't like the deal, what's the alternative?

Posted via CB10

The United States making any deal with a terrorist nation is weakness. Our position should have been " here is the deal" and not "let's make a deal". You see American as strong, I see us as incredibly weak when it comes to global leadership. Let's just agree to disagree.

Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android on Priv.

[Captain_Hilts]

The United States making any deal with a terrorist nation is weakness. Our position should have been " here is the deal" and not "let's make a deal". You see American as strong, I see us as incredibly weak when it comes to global leadership. Let's just agree to disagree.

Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android on Priv.

America did not make a deal with a terrorist nation. America and FIVE other nations negotiated from a position of combined strength to slow Iran's nuclear development (which we have) and decrease the amount of nuclear material they have in their possession (which, again, we have). A true position of weakness is doing nothing but issuing threats or simply saying "Here's the deal," because that's precisely the course of action that has compelled them in the past to say, "Screw you, we're going to develop nuclear weapons." If you approach them with a zero tolerance, all-or-nothing, "Here's the deal" plan as you're advocating, they are going to say "No," after which you better be prepared for military engagement. Let's not forget, it was our "position of weakness" that made sure our captured sailors were returned to us almost immediately because we now have diplomatic channels available to solve such problems. When something similar happened under Reagan, his "position of strength" was to illegally sell them missiles through Israel in exchange for hostages, which didn't work out so well.

It seems that you see America as weak because you can only perceive strength as a show of physical force. That's not the way the world works.

Posted via CB10