world

Obama expects better U.S.-Israel ties after Iran deal in place

61 Comments
By JULIE PACE

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

61 Comments
Login to comment

It's always a good idea to temper optimism in matters middle-eastern. Not just the US and Iran, but Britain, Germany, France, Russia, China, the EU and the UN have put many years of hard work into reaching this agreement. If we were to trash that work now by rejecting the agreement, who rationally would want to talk to us again?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The sad thing is he's likely right, and the US support for the crime against humanity (Apartheid is defined as such in international law) practiced by the Israeli regime will continue.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

After this disastrous deal and the way Obama has treated Israel, the best outcome, just wait, smile and be cordial with this guy. They only have to deal with this joker for another 437 days and we can all breathe a deep sigh of relief.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Heh, I'm going to laugh when you start counting down from 1461 with the next democratic president.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I probably won't have to. Doubt that there will be one.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Yea, Obama is a dreamer. Israel ties will be better in 438 when the next president begins to repair all the collateral damage.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Why would he think so? This isn't exactly a family spat.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Because he is Obama! He's right and the American public is wrong, just ask him. And, the pen is mightier than the sword! Perhaps he can share his magical pen with Netanyahu.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Because he is Obama! He's right and the American public is wrong, just ask him. And, the pen is mightier than the sword! Perhaps he can share his magical pen with Netanyahu.

And because he is a socialist! And because he is a dictator! And because he is feeble! And because he hates our country! And because he throws our allies under the bus! And because he uses a teleprompter! And because he wasn't born in this country! And because he plays the race card! And because he wants class warfare! And because he wants to punish job creators! And because he wants to give lazy people free stuff! And because he wants to take away everybody's guns! And because he has a foreign sounding middle name! And because he plays golf! And because he wears mom jeans! And because his wife wants kids to eat healthy food! And because he thinks he's so smart!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Wow!!! For the first time Plastic, you will get a thumbs up from me! Truth to power at its absolute finest. Hit the nail on the head!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Hit the nail on the head!

So you agree that one of Obama's bad points is his foreign sounding middle name?

Got it.

Why don't you and your boy wonder MarkG save some time and just paste my above post into any story that's about Obama.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So you agree that one of Obama's bad points is his foreign sounding middle name?

At this point, I do wonder......

Why don't you and your boy wonder MarkG save some time and just paste my above post into any story that's about Obama.

Hmmmm, that's a thought.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

We may be outnumbered on this news forum but not in the nation! So go on and play with your plastic monkey.

History will prove who is right. Obama is/will be a catastrophic failure for USA! I am afraid of his magical pen next year about this time. Let's wait and see how that great leadership of his pans out when he may really shake up the nation with his executive orders and pardons he'll grant.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

History will prove who is right.

It is and the man isn't even out of office yet. His negatives greatly outweigh anything good that he's done, with the exception of getting OBL.

Obama is/will be a catastrophic failure for USA!

Word.

I am afraid of his magical pen next year about this time. Let's wait and see how that great leadership of his pans out when he may really shake up the nation with his executive orders and pardons he'll grant.

Obama being the obstructionist president that he is, don't be fooled, the man couldn't care less about the constitution although being a so called constitutional law professor, you'd think he would know that.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

We may be outnumbered on this news forum but not in the nation!

Yes, your opinions are outnumbered by most Americans. Your world view is one of exceptionalism, exclusionism, antagonism to science, and paranoia. You are angry because the world does not conform to your narrow expectations.

Do some research. A clear majority of Americans disagree with you on almost every issue you spout off on.

go on and play with your plastic monkey.

Nice one. Original.

History will prove who is right. Obama is/will be a catastrophic failure for USA! I am afraid of his magical pen next year about this time. Let's wait and see how that great leadership of his pans out when he may really shake up the nation with his executive orders and pardons he'll grant.

Well, let's have a look at how the predictions of some of your fellow paranoiacs turned out:

Wayne LaPierre of the NRA in 2012: “We see the president’s strategy crystal clear: Get re-elected and, with no more elections to worry about, get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms’ freedom, erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights and excise it from the U.S. Constitution.”

Chuck Norris in 2012: If Obama is reelected, he will usher in “1,000 years of darkness”

Newt Gingrich in 2012: If reelected, Obama will push gasoline prices up to $10 a gallon.

Marc Thiessen in 2012: In Obama's second term, "job creators will face massive tax increases"

I could go on, but what's the point.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I don't know what the debate is all about. Anyone with a semblance of intelligence already knows definitively that Obama is an excellent president. Why waste time on the inferior?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Yes, your opinions are outnumbered by most Americans.

Don't bet on that buddy. Not by a long shot. But I get your point, if we don't do anything about illegal immigration, then you just might be right, we will be outnumbered because they would of course flock to the party of dependence.

Your world view is one of exceptionalism, exclusionism, antagonism to science, and paranoia. You are angry because the world does not conform to your narrow expectations.

You just described the progressive liberal mindset. ROFL

Well, let's have a look at how the predictions of some of your fellow paranoiacs turned out:

Wayne LaPierre of the NRA in 2012: “We see the president’s strategy crystal clear: Get re-elected and, with no more elections to worry about, get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms’ freedom, erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights and excise it from the U.S. Constitution.”

Oh, but he's trying at every turn.

Chuck Norris in 2012: If Obama is reelected, he will usher in “1,000 years of darkness”

Almost 8 years, it feels like 1,000 years, the last 7 were complete darkness.

Newt Gingrich in 2012: If reelected, Obama will push gasoline prices up to $10 a gallon.

But he is killing coal, gas, won't extend the Keystone pipeline, hates oil, but he doesn't care about creating jobs and wants us all to power our cars with spinach other leafy veggies.

Marc Thiessen in 2012: In Obama's second term, "job creators will face massive tax increases"

Didn't BK move to Canada? Isn't the corporate tax rate still at 40%, the highest in the world? I don't blame any job creator to bail on the US, at least they're smart.

I could go on, but what's the point.

Yes, what is the point?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Oh, but he's trying at every turn.

Please provide a single piece of evidence that Obama is erasing the 2nd Amendment and excising it from the Constitution.

Isn't the corporate tax rate still at 40%, the highest in the world?

Yes. Same as before. That isn't a massive tax increase.

Your reasoning skills are really something.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

MarkG: We may be outnumbered on this news forum but not in the nation!

Of course you are outnumbered, and your base is shrinking. Do they not report this stuff in the places you go for news? The Congressional GOP's ratings are at historic lows. The odds are that you will lose yet another popular vote unless something changes quickly. Your party is doing the exact opposite of what your party said it needed to do when it lost the last election.

Your party is out of step with America on just about every single social issue. The younger generation skews blue on these issues, even for independents. This is of course in places where the GOP hasn't successfully ended pre-registration for teenagers, which of course has nothing to do with my previous sentence. Minorities are a larger chunk of the population and again you are at historic lows. You've also managed to reignite the negative view that women have of the GOP. Congrats on that.

Your hero, Reagan, wouldn't even last a second in the Republican world these days. Instead you have Donald Trump dominating and regardless of what you say, it just looks bad. It reinforces the image of your most negative qualities.

You have no mandate, no candidate, and no legislation to vote on. And you somehow keep making things worse. Please, please don't change.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Please provide a single piece of evidence that Obama is erasing the 2nd Amendment and excising it from the Constitution.

I said, he is "trying" and he would if he could, just don't go there.

Yes. Same as before. That isn't a massive tax increase.

It's the highest in the corporate world. There is a reason, companies are bailing and leaving the States. Seriously, Burger King would NEVER go to Canada if the tax rate was lower than 40%!

Your reasoning skills are really something.

Of course you are outnumbered, and your base is shrinking.

Yeah, liberals keep saying that, they love to believe their own....well, stench would be a nicer word to use.

Do they not report this stuff in the places you go for news? The Congressional GOP's ratings are at historic lows.

Yes, but I also know that 98% of the media is comprised of liberals as well.

The odds are that you will lose yet another popular vote unless something changes quickly. Your party is doing the exact opposite of what your party said it needed to do when it lost the last election.

Well, it depends. Bush got 40% of the Latino vote last time and Romney about 27% and as much as I liked Romney, you also had about 5 million voters that stayed at home, crucial voters that could have taken him to the top. This time around you have a lot more, Your party is out of step with America on just about every single social issue.

With liberal progressive America, yes. traditional America, No.

The younger generation skews blue on these issues, even for independents.

Why then do you have so many Republicans controlling state houses across the country?

And why are they leaving in masses? Hillary is doing very bad with them. Trump is doing far better.

This is of course in places where the GOP hasn't successfully ended pre-registration for teenagers, which of course has nothing to do with my previous sentence. Minorities are a larger chunk of the population and again you are at historic lows.

Usually, they come to their senses after 25, start a family, buy a house, have bills, then they often convert, I did in 1995.

You've also managed to reignite the negative view that women have of the GOP. Congrats on that.

Not with married women 56% vote usually conservative.

Your hero, Reagan, wouldn't even last a second in the Republican world these days.

Totally irrelevant. The would go for JFK, so what's your point? In fact, 40 years ago, we would never see a progressive idiot like Obama in the WH.

Instead you have Donald Trump dominating and regardless of what you say, it just looks bad. It reinforces the image of your most negative qualities.

And you have Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, that's not only sad, but embarrassing and pathetic.

You have no mandate

True

no candidate,

You guys are in a worse position.

and no legislation to vote on. And you somehow keep making things worse. Please, please don't change.

Seriously?? You say that with a straight face??? ROFL Dems are funny...not really, but funny nonetheless.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

--Please provide a single piece of evidence that Obama is erasing the 2nd Amendment and excising it from the Constitution.

I said, he is "trying" and he would if he could,

Could you provide a single piece of evidence that Obama is trying 'at every turn' to erase the 2nd Amendment and excise it from the Constitution? My guess is no.

As for corporate tax raises:

--Same as before. That isn't a massive tax increase.

It's the highest in the corporate world.

That's still not a massive tax increase. You're even dumber than I think you are if you can't recognize that.

98% of the media is comprised of liberals

That's pretty specific. Can you support that figure with a citation? You're a journalist (thought off duty).

married women 56% vote usually conservative.

You mean usually vote conservative. But I know you're driving a vehicle now and don't have time to deal with basic grammar (or basic road safety issues). Anyway, you like that one, don't you. Proves to you that unmarried women are irresponsible and tend to vote liberal?

ROFL Dems are funny...not really, but funny nonetheless

It's always good for Dems to get an intelligent nonpartisan analysis, especially from a seasoned journalist. Dems are funny, but not funny, but actually funny.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Could you provide a single piece of evidence that Obama is trying 'at every turn' to erase the 2nd Amendment and excise it from the Constitution? My guess is no.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/second-amendment-group-rips-obamas-latest-plan-to-limit-gun-rights/article/2568649

That's still not a massive tax increase. You're even dumber than I think you are if you can't recognize that.

Yeah, lol! I thought you'd might say that. I keep forgetting liberals are bad a math. ROFL! what is up with you libs and reality?

That's pretty specific. Can you support that figure with a citation? You're a journalist (thought off duty).

I wouldn't expect you to know, for one thing, you're not in the news or journalist business and with the exception of Fox, there are NO other networks that give a lot of airtime to conservatives. Well, CNN is trying to be fair to conservatives....trying.

You mean usually vote conservative. But I know you're driving a vehicle now and don't have time to deal with basic grammar (or basic road safety issues). Anyway, you like that one, don't you. Proves to you that unmarried women are irresponsible and tend to vote liberal?

So when you get upset once the facts hit you, you resort to ad hominem attacks, is that really necessary? Again, the focus and what's more important for libs is to pose and look good, that is fundamentally it for you guys. If I were to point out every grammatical error or spelling. LOL when I'm working and have enough time on ,y hands like you, I will deeply consider it to proofread before I post, but I do work for a living. But yes, as I was saying, Unmarried women tend to vote liberal. Are they irresponsible......depends, not all, but a lot do rely on that government check.

It's always good for Dems to get an intelligent nonpartisan analysis, especially from a seasoned journalist. Dems are funny, but not funny, but actually funny.

You are very welcome.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Wonder why is it you libs love to personally hurl ad hominem attacks when you lose a debate, it just bewilders me. You guys are not good at it. The president is the same, you say something to Obama, hit him with the truth and he TRIES to be funny and then engages in childish ad hominem attacks and Hillary is no better, in fact, she needs to stop attacking those that are confronting her with all evidence she thinks is just minuscule and nothing to worry about. It just cracks me up. Can't stop laughing.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Obama expects better U.S.-Israel ties after Iran deal in place

Because stabbing someone in the back always brings people together. That's the kind of logic you get from a narcissist like Obama.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

What's even funnier is that Obama in his strange twisted mind thinks that the Israelis like and trust him. Apparently, Obama doesn't read polls, especially if it's not embedded in his TelePrompTer.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

This is from a man that does not negotiate as we saw in the past with his special pen that knows what is best for the common people and world instead of cooperating with the senate and the house. His Israel expectations are just as unreasonable give the 7 year history with Israel.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Wolfpack: Because stabbing someone in the back always brings people together.

Walking away from the deal would stab Europe, China, and Russia in the back at this point, no? And isn't that the grand GOP plan....stab them in the back then renegotiate a completely different deal that they don't want that includes sanctions that they must sign off on to make the deal work?

I can understand that a GOP handler in the bubble can get away with saying that to you, but don't think you can exit the bubble and talk to us like that.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

bass

when you get upset once the facts hit you,

You have provided no relevant facts. Only unsubstantiated polemic. As usual.

if it's not embedded in his TelePrompTer.

Har har. Good one, Rush.

MarkG

a man that does not negotiate as we saw in the past with his special pen that knows what is best for the common people and world instead of cooperating with the senate and the house. His Israel expectations are just as unreasonable give the 7 year history with Israel.

Solid gold. A post loaded with razor sharp logic and irrefutable evidence that Obama is indeed the worst president since the creation of the earth 6,000 years ago.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Too many Republicans get elected by promising that they will refuse to work with Obama. Then they say they won't compromise and they blame Obama for the gridlock. A vast majority of voters blame the GOP for the gridlock (part of their record low approval ratings), but they keep doing it anyway.

They have no leaders and they cannot even hold votes on solutions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Walking away from the deal would stab Europe, China, and Russia in the back at this point, no?

Liberals are just dumb. From Obama to Kerry and trickling all the way down. This deal is a complete shame, a ruse and a complete lie and everyone knows it! The ONLY people that support it are the incompetent progressive liberals that don't have a clue, which is mostly the case about everything and the greedy corrupt politicians that ONLY care about doing business with Iran for their own selfish reasons. All you have to do is read the latest report on what exactly this screwed up deal calls from the Assosiated Press.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_NUCLEAR?SITE=AP

All IAEA member countries must give the agency some insight into their nuclear programs. Some are required to do no more than give a yearly accounting of the nuclear material they possess. But nations- like Iran - suspected of possible proliferation are under greater scrutiny that can include stringent inspections.

The agreement in question diverges from normal procedures by allowing Tehran to employ its own experts and equipment in the search for evidence of activities it has consistently denied - trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran has refused access to Parchin for years and has denied any interest in - or work on - nuclear weapons. Based on U.S., Israeli and other intelligence and its own research, the IAEA suspects that the Islamic Republic may have experimented with high-explosive detonators for nuclear arms.

The IAEA has cited evidence, based on satellite images, of possible attempts to sanitize the site since the alleged work stopped more than a decade ago.

The document seen by the AP is a draft that one official familiar with its contents said doesn't differ substantially from the final version. He demanded anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the issue in public.

The document is labeled "separate arrangement II," indicating there is another confidential agreement between Iran and the IAEA governing the agency's probe of the nuclear weapons allegations.

Iran is to provide agency experts with photos and videos of locations the IAEA says are linked to the alleged weapons work, "taking into account military concerns."

That wording suggests that - beyond being barred from physically visiting the site - the agency won't get photo or video information from areas Iran says are off-limits because they have military significance.

While the document says the IAEA "will ensure the technical authenticity" of Iran's inspection, it does not say how.

The draft is unsigned but the proposed signatory for Iran is listed as Ali Hoseini Tash, deputy secretary of the Supreme National Security Council for Strategic Affairs. That reflects the significance Tehran attaches to the agreement.

Iranian diplomats in Vienna were unavailable for comment, Wednesday while IAEA spokesman Serge Gas said the agency had no immediate comment.

And isn't that the grand GOP plan....stab them in the back then renegotiate a completely different deal that they don't want that includes sanctions that they must sign off on to make the deal work?

The ONLY people that got stabbed in the back are the Israelis, the Sunnis and the suckers that believed this..

I can understand that a GOP handler in the bubble can get away with saying that to you, but don't think you can exit the bubble and talk to us like that.

Once again, liberals show one thing, that they only believe in being loyal to liberalism and not the rule of law, legally or morally. any Democrat that goes with this deal should be ashamed of themselves. They all know it's the worst, absolute worst and if they have even a shrewd of moral decency, like Schumer and Menendez, they will vote against this deal, if not, then they are just partisan hacks, pure and simple.

You have provided no relevant facts. Only unsubstantiated polemic. As usual.

I always do, you just tend to focus usually on what you want to see. This is a problem most liberals have. Myopic vision. I understand, it's just the rose colored glasses that libs live through.

Too many Republicans get elected by promising that they will refuse to work with Obama.

As they should. Why on Earth would ANY sane politician want to work with a president that doesn't believe in upholding the law, only cares about being partisan all the way, refuses to work with congress on anything, unwilling to compromise on anything, a president that cares about his party first and the people second, I don't blame them one bit.

Then they say they won't compromise and they blame Obama for the gridlock. A vast majority of voters blame the GOP for the gridlock (part of their record low approval ratings), but they keep doing it anyway.

As they should and that's why the GOP was elected was to stop this madman, spineless a lot of them have been and that's another reason why people like Trump and the Dems hate it because his polls are rising and the guy is a Juggernaut. The guy is getting record clouds and Hillary can't even keep people awake. The people are tired of this idiot unilateral president that just could care less about America or the people.

They have no leaders and they cannot even hold votes on solutions.

Then that puts Obama in first place, winner hands down!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It's kind of like that game you'd play as a kid where you grab your friends hand and start hitting him with it while saying, "stop hitting yourself." Except when I let go of bass' hand he just keeps hitting himself in the face. Then he tells me "nice try."

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The ONLY people that support it are the incompetent progressive liberals that don't have a clue,

Well, liberals and China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the US and Germany.

But yeah, only liberals.

The Republicans still haven't explained how they think sanctions are going to work if the US pulls out of the deal, while the other five countries go on with it.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It's kind of like that game you'd play as a kid where you grab your friends hand and start hitting him with it while saying, "stop hitting yourself." Except when I let go of bass' hand he just keeps hitting himself in the face. Then he tells me "nice try."

Riiight, so what does that have to do with this weasel of a president and Lurch trying to make the most laughable and damaging deal to not only undermine our allies, but to give them political props Even though their being astronomically Wrong!

But yeah, only liberals.

Typically

The Republicans still haven't explained how they think sanctions are going to work if the US pulls out of the deal, while the other five countries go on with it.

Impose stronger sanctions, make it painful to the Iranians that they have to comply with all rules and regulations, allow complete and full access to every single facility they have, No exceptions. If not, walk away.

But as such, the way Obama and Lurch bungled this, as long as Israel has its nukes,via can always take care of Iran in the worst case scenario. They won't put up with a nuclear Iran-period, nor should they.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Impose stronger sanctions

But if the rest of the world isn't respecting them, then what will that do?

Really you're just parroting the same thing the US has been doing until now - which isn't working.

allow complete and full access to every single facility they have

You mean like they've agreed to do with this deal?

They won't put up with a nuclear Iran-period, nor should they.

Neither will anyone else - which is the whole point of this deal. If you truly believe what you are saying, you should be supporting the deal, not opposing it. If you were truly non-partisan as you say, you would be supporting it. But the fact is, the faux news bubble has told you it's wrong, so you believe them without question, without actually looking into the actual details of the deal.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

But if the rest of the world isn't respecting them, then what will that do?

I already said.

Really you're just parroting the same thing the US has been doing until now - which isn't working.

Yeah, libs said the same thing about getting the Soviets open up.

You mean like they've agreed to do with this deal?

You know, this is why I get completely amazed by the feeble minds of libs. When someone brings facts, you guys completely blow it off, dismiss it and then when you don't have written facts, then you guys gripe and whine and demand that you are shown facts. So I have come to the conclusion that facts ONLY matter to libs, if they agree it to be factual, if NOT, then it's not facts.

Anyway, I already laid it out, but please scroll up. There are about 15 sights that are NOT allowed to be inspected, also, what the f... Sense does it make that Iran is allowed to verify their own nuclear facilities, are you serious???! That doesn't make sense whatsoever. Also, the Americans, Japanese and The Israeli scientists are not allowed to go in and verify any of the sights? I'm usually a very calm, cool, collected guy, but this just infuriates me to no end! No one with half a brain buys this, but as Dr. Carson said, Washington probably already had half of their brains removed.

Neither will anyone else - which is the whole point of this deal. If you truly believe what you are saying, you should be supporting the deal, not opposing it.

That is just utter liberal BS to the max!

If you were truly non-partisan as you say, you would be supporting it.

Because I'm a non-partisan, I vehemently object to the deal.

But the fact is, the faux news bubble has told you it's wrong, so you believe them without question, without actually looking into the actual details of the deal.

Ahhhhh, I was referring to the AP report. Please Strange, you and the other libs, please turn off your selective reading minds and check what the AP wrote, this has nothing to do with Fox. 436 more days until the madness of the Tyrant is finally over!!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The GOP don't have a workable alternative, just some pipe dream where everyone in the world does what we want when we want it, which means their plan can be anything and it always works and we don't need allies. Then if you question their plan you're any idiot because how could you be against always getting what you want? Sheesh!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The GOP don't have a workable alternative, just some pipe dream where everyone in the world does what we want when we want it, which means their plan can be anything and it always works and we don't need allies.

Better than the alternative that Iran has a bomb and decides to go nuts on destroying what it sees as a religious prophecy. The good thing about all this in actuality is that, at least the next president has the power to null and void the deal and it's NOT etched in stone. Thank God for something.

Then if you question their plan you're any idiot because how could you be against always getting what you want? Sheesh!

Ok, so we just let Iran inspect themselves and trust that what they say to the IAEA is valid, honest and upfront?? You bought that line, hook and sinker!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Better than the alternative

What alternative? The GOP has no alternative, so there is no comparison to be made.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

What alternative? The GOP has no alternative, so there is no comparison to be made.

That's the point. You don't compromise with radical Islamists...NEVER, you just squeeze them until they lose the desire to ever want to acquire nuclear weapons.

Strange, please stop. Everyone knows that this deal is a s...... deal. it's just embarrassing. The problem was it was too obvious that Obama and Lurch wanted nothing more than to get a Nobel Prize and the chance for Kerry to take another shot at the presidency. A story, a legend, something for the history books, yes, but not in the way they want. As the liberal AP reported, basically, Iran would be allowed to inspect itself and that's a good thing, seriously??!!? I have to say, even the more liberal press are NOW finally waking up and agreeing this is a crap of a treaty.

But like I said, when it comes to the point when they do declare they have weapons, at least we can count on Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and even Egypt to wipe that country off the map and it will be a astronomical "I told you so" Libs never learn, we went through this with Clinton and the North Koreans. They promised and promised, signed every deal and then what happens, in 2000 they announce to the world, they have nukes. The same exact scenario with Iran will pop up as well. Libs are completely detached and devoid of any type of mental rationalization what's at stake. I'm not at all surprised.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Talking about Iran getting nukes doesn't make your specific proposal any more or less credible. It's actually just sidestepping the credibility issue entirely. In previous posts you've admitted that we will lose Russia and China (at the very least) on the sanctions, yet you haven't explained how your policy of sanctions can still work given that fact. Are you able to address that issue specifically? I have no problem hearing a better plan but when your plan is challenged you start talking about how much you dislike liberals and the result is that you never address the flaws in your plan so naturally people will just table it and move on.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Talking about Iran getting nukes doesn't make your specific proposal any more or less credible.

Any SANE person on this planet that thinks Iran wants peace and is trying to be responsible and reliable future friend and ally is on crack, pure and simple

It's actually just sidestepping the credibility issue entirely. In previous posts you've admitted that we will lose Russia and China (at the very least) on the sanctions, yet you haven't explained how your policy of sanctions can still work given that fact.

I did so, so many times and I get tired of repeating them. Again, you make it tougher, as tough and as painful you can make the sanctions and increase them if you must, if the others drop there's, then you can impose a blockade and decline to do business with ANY country that does give aid to the country. There are always other alternatives, but you don't give the country a match so that it makes it easier for them to light the fuse.

Are you able to address that issue specifically?

I just did.

I have no problem hearing a better plan but when your plan is challenged you start talking about how much you dislike liberals and the result is that you never address the flaws in your plan so naturally people will just table it and move on.

And yet, you keep coming back and jumping on the only viable and logical solution, but being the dovish, hippie, spineless bunch liberals are, they have just given Iran the match and the key to WWIII. Because Obama, Lurch and the weak Dems that would fall on the sword for Obama NO matter right or wrong have unlocked Pandora's box with this. You Dems and libs are nuts if you think Israel and the Sunni's are just going to sit back and wait, absolutely off. Regardless of how dumb and irresponsible this thing is, they don't have to stand for it, nor should they. I just truly feel very sorry for the Iranian people in general because they have these idiot religious Mullahs that could give a rats ass whether the country lives or dies, as long as they follow their sick prophecy. Because the Saudis have their Nukes ready for pick up in Pakistan and the Israelis have a few hundred of their own and they will wipe the county off the map into oblivion and it doesn't matter what libs think what they want or how it should be, they don't live in that region and the ultimate and absolute final say on this matter are the people that feel most threatened and the life of the Iranian people are in the hands of the Mullahs, they will determine the fate of their country. Israel as well as the Sunnis want to exist and if anyone thinks it won't vaporize that country, really doesn't understand anything.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

decline to do business with ANY country that does give aid to the country.

Do you have any idea what effect that would have on the American economy?

Remember, we don't live in a cartoon universe.

Obama's realism on this issue is wise:

“It’s precisely because we’re not counting on the nature of the regime to change that it’s so important for us to make sure they don’t have a nuclear weapon,”

Exactly. If Iran were Sweden, we wouldn't have to find a negotiated and verifiable solution to a very tricky problem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“It’s precisely because we’re not counting on the nature of the regime to change that it’s so important for us to make sure they don’t have a nuclear weapon,”

The ironic thing is that Obama and the republicans are on the exact same page in this regard, but the Republican hatred of president blackenstein won't allow them to actually admit that this deal achieves that goal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do you have any idea what effect that would have on the American economy?

As if Obama cared and it wouldn't be the first time the economy would take a tumble, we would just have to ride out the storm, it's possible, it's feasible.

Remember, we don't live in a cartoon universe.

That's why I don't understand why you libs live in it!!

Obama's realism on this issue is wise:

For himself and Lurch, I agree.

The ironic thing is that Obama and the republicans are on the exact same page in this regard, but the Republican hatred of president blackenstein won't allow them to actually admit that this deal achieves that goal.

The goal that Iran can inspect themselves, the absolute despicable and nuttiest thing to come about since Kerry announced he was running for president.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The goal that Iran can inspect themselves

Thanks for proving with that comment that you don't understand the details of the agreement, and are just opposing it because it came from Obama's government.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Thanks for proving with that comment that you don't understand the details of the agreement,

No, that would be the Democrats and libs, particularly Obama and Lurch.

and are just opposing it because it came from Obama's government.

Even if Bush were doing it or any other Republican, I would be against it, they would never be that dumb, but if they did, I would object to it all the same.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

bass

The goal that Iran can inspect themselves

Taken from a widely discredited AP story (also subsequently discredited by AP itself) that opponents of the deal have manipulated.

Discredited by nuclear experts as well as IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano:

"I am disturbed by statements suggesting that the IAEA has given responsibility for nuclear inspections to Iran. Such statements misrepresent the way in which we will undertake this important verification work."

But misrepresentation is good politics for John Boehner:

"The Obama administration has a lot of explaining to do"

It's interesting that Boehner is not also roasting David Cameron and Angela Merkel, both conservatives. Because this is not about common sense, it's about going after Obama.

In the current GOP, hatred of Obama trumps all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

decline to do business with ANY country that does give aid to the country.

Decline to do business with Russia, China, and parts of Europe? Not to mention other countries who would be so pissed off at the US they wouldn't go along with any plan? The entire world economy would collapse overnight. Come back when you have a "plan" that doesn't include that buried in the footnotes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In the current GOP, hatred of Obama trumps all.

It's near religion to them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taken from a widely discredited AP story (also subsequently discredited by AP itself) that opponents of the deal have manipulated.

Discredited by nuclear experts as well as IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano:

That was one report and there were more scientists that confirmed that the deal was a complete scam. The media has always fought tooth and nail and has an agenda and a complete interest in Obama and this deal, so no surprise there. They have always been irresponsible, bias and beyond corrupt and if they can find ANYTHING that would give a shrewd of doubt to anyone that is against this treaty, they will do anything to make anyone look bad that is against it.

Although some supporters of the Iran nuclear deal sought to discredit the initial Associated Press report, the news organization stands by its reporting and the Obama administration has not denied the story.

This unprecedented arrangement, which would involve Iranian personnel providing photos, videos, and environmental samples from the Parchin military complex to the IAEA, has stoked concerns that the IAEA investigation of Iran’s past work on developing nuclear warheads will amount to little more than a public relations exercise.

The IAEA, as well as intelligence agencies from the U.S. and other countries, long have suspected that Iranian scientists experimented with high-explosive detonators for nuclear arms at Parchin and conducted additional weapons-related work at other sites.

Despite repeated promises to fully cooperate with the IAEA’s investigation, Iran has blocked IAEA inspectors from looking at the Parchin facilities and has razed buildings and stripped away large quantities of earth, further fueling suspicions that Tehran is concealing evidence of past nuclear weapons work.

The disturbing news that the IAEA has agreed to outsource some of its responsibilities to Iran has amplified concerns that questions about Iran’s past efforts to develop nuclear warheads will be swept under the rug in a rush to lift sanctions.

Fred Fleitz, who has worked on Iranian nuclear issues at the CIA, State Department, and House Intelligence Committee during a distinguished 25-year government career, has condemned the IAEA’s side deal as a “preposterous and unserious plan to investigate past and ongoing Iranian nuclear-weapons-related activities.”

The IAEA’s absurd arrangement with Iran is a far cry from “anytime/anywhere” inspections promised by the Obama administration. The final agreement reached at Vienna allows Iran to delay inspections for up to 24 days, and possibly a lot longer if the U.N. Security Council gets involved in deliberations over possible Iranian efforts to delay inspections.

The IAEA’s ludicrous concessions allowing Iranian personnel to gather possible evidence about past Iranian nuclear weapons experiments set a dangerous precedent for future nuclear inspections.

Allowing Iran to assume such a prominent role in investigating itself would amount to putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

It's interesting that Boehner is not also roasting David Cameron and Angela Merkel, both conservatives. Because this is not about common sense, it's about going after Obama.

Why should he??? Obama is the president (one would think otherwise, but...) of the US and he was the one that made this disastrous deal and has to answer to his constituents and the people, NOT the foreign leaders.

Decline to do business with Russia, China, and parts of Europe? Not to mention other countries who would be so pissed off at the US they wouldn't go along with any plan?

Yeah, so what? It might be painful for a time being, but at least we wouldn't give in to principles and make a huge statement that there is no way we will allow Iran to have a bomb or threaten our allies in the region.

The entire world economy would collapse overnight.

Gee, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd didn't care, don't give me that!

Come back when you have a "plan" that doesn't include that buried in the footnotes.

I did, but I know Dems care about looking....cool, I think is the word. If Jimmy Fallon approves of it, it's good!

It's near religion to them.

And the same goes to the Dems and libs when it comes to Bush...or Atheist belief or some spiritual supernatural...something, something belief..

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

bass4funk AUG. 31, 2015 - 01:13PM JST Yeah, so what? It might be painful for a time being, but at least we wouldn't give in to principles and make a huge statement that there is no way we will allow Iran to have a bomb or threaten our allies in the region.

Reality is that U.S. power is limited. U.S. needs Russian and Chinese support for an Iranian nuclear deal. U.S. officials can’t simultaneously put maximum pressure on both Assad and ISIS, the two main rivals for power in Syria. They must decide who is the lesser evil. Accepting that American power is limited means prioritizing. It means making concessions to regimes and organizations you don’t like in order to put more pressure on the ones you fear most. That’s what Roosevelt did when allying with Stalin against Hitler. It’s what Nixon did when he reached out to communist China in order to increase America’s leverage over the U.S.S.R.

Bush refused to do after 9/11, when he defined the “war on terror” not merely as a conflict against al-Qaeda but as a license to wage war, or cold war, against every anti-American regime supposedly pursuing weapons of mass destruction. This massive overestimation of American power underlay the war in Iraq, which has taken the lives of over 5000,000 Iraqis and almost 4,500 Americans, and cost the U.S. over $2 trillion. And it underlay Bush’s refusal to negotiate with Iran, even when Iran made dramatic overtures to the U.S. Negotiations, after all, require mutual concessions, which Bush believed were unnecessary, if America just kept flexing its muscles, the logic went, Iran’s regime would collapse.

Obama has certainly made mistakes in the Middle East. But behind his drive for an Iranian nuclear deal is the effort to make American foreign policy “solvent” again by bringing America’s ends into alignment with its means. That means recognizing that the U.S. cannot force Iran into total submission, either economically or militarily. U.S. tried that in Iraq. It codifies the limits of American power. For the Republican right, that’s a deeply unwelcome realization.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

at least we wouldn't give in to principles

Quite right, bass. Wouldn't do to have people giving in (or even sticking to) their principles, would it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They have always been irresponsible, bias and beyond corrupt and if they can find ANYTHING that would give a shrewd of doubt to anyone that is against this treaty, they will do anything to make anyone look bad that is against it.

So it's a global conspiracy. Even conservatives like David Cameron and Angela Merkel are in on it. All of them witches!

Allowing Iran to assume such a prominent role in investigating itself would amount to putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

Nice cut and paste from the Heritage Foundation. It's just the same polemic more eloquently expressed than you are capable of. But it doesn't add any legitimacy to your rant.

(And really, you should cite your sources. You are a journalist, after all.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: Decline to do business with Russia, China, and parts of Europe? Not to mention other countries who would be so pissed off at the US they wouldn't go along with any plan?

bass: Yeah, so what? It might be painful for a time being, but at least we wouldn't give in to principles and make a huge statement

What the hell is wrong with you? Obviously you know we can't just cut off the U.S. economy from half of world trade. Look, some people sold you on some half-baked "plan" that you never thought to question. Now you're stuck alone on a message board trying to guess what the details of the "plan" are. And apparently there's a footnote that says the U.S. economy gets destroyed overnight, and it's all for a statement, but enough about that.

Maybe you should stick to the cut and paste comments about Obama and liberals. You're well out of your depth on this one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Reality is that U.S. power is limited. U.S. needs Russian and Chinese support for an Iranian nuclear deal.

The problem with that analogy is that the negotiations shouldn't have been held in the first place. For one reason, there were no concessions on Iran's part, none. Obama wanted a legacy, let's get that off our chest fist, every president needs to have some legacy before they leave office, Obamacare, Cuba, I get it, but as sloppy as these attempts were to carve out a legacy, he decided to make a play to bring Iran to the talks, I never had a problem with that, but what is NOW known and what the TRUE intentions of the Obama admin. Really are as well as Iran's it's not wonder everyone, especially in the States are skeptical about this treaty. Obama knew and with good reason that the GOP would never go for it.

U.S. officials can’t simultaneously put maximum pressure on both Assad and ISIS, the two main rivals for power in Syria. They must decide who is the lesser evil.

Technically, Obama could have and has the power to not only give pressure and put the screws to Assad, he could have sent a sizable force of special forces to at least put eyes on the ground (something we desperately need and are lacking) to assess and gather Intel. Obama doesn't have a problem using drones to target ISIS, which is something I don't mind, but on the other hand it would be nice to bring in someone alive to gather more information about the daily activities, plans and goals of the radical Islamists.

Accepting that American power is limited means prioritizing. It means making concessions to regimes and organizations you don’t like in order to put more pressure on the ones you fear most. That’s what Roosevelt did when allying with Stalin against Hitler. It’s what Nixon did when he reached out to communist China in order to increase America’s leverage over the U.S.S.R.

But with all due respect, times have changed and we have weapons that can do a bit more considerable damage than what we had 70 years ago. Reagan negotiated from a point of strength, it wasn't easy, but Gorbachev later worked with Reagan and despite their stark and strong differences, the came to understand one another and even became friends later, this is sadly not the case with Iran and will never be.

Bush refused to do after 9/11, when he defined the “war on terror” not merely as a conflict against al-Qaeda but as a license to wage war, or cold war, against every anti-American regime supposedly pursuing weapons of mass destruction. This massive overestimation of American power underlay the war in Iraq, which has taken the lives of over 5000,000 Iraqis and almost 4,500 Americans, and cost the U.S. over $2 trillion.

Which was unfortunate, the sectarian violence caused overwhelming damage and I agree, having America in the middle of that clash was catastrophic, looking back, it could have been handled in a different way, but we really don't need to rehash the war, it's over and we need to move on.

And it underlay Bush’s refusal to negotiate with Iran, even when Iran made dramatic overtures to the U.S. Negotiations, after all, require mutual concessions, which Bush believed were unnecessary, if America just kept flexing its muscles, the logic went, Iran’s regime would collapse.

Bush knew full well that what Iran was proposing was total lip service from Iran, there were a few top military officials and Ex-prisoners that testified on the record to the U.S. Intelligence commitee with insider knowledge that Iran or better the top regime or Mullahs can NOT and should NOT be trusted.

Obama has certainly made mistakes in the Middle East. But behind his drive for an Iranian nuclear deal is the effort to make American foreign policy “solvent” again by bringing America’s ends into alignment with its means. That means recognizing that the U.S. cannot force Iran into total submission, either economically or militarily. U.S. tried that in Iraq. It codifies the limits of American power. For the Republican right, that’s a deeply unwelcome realization.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying that. I don't believe Obama for one second cares about the real outcome of this deal, so long as he himself can reap the benefits of a quasi-successful deal. Also, if Obama is that committed to solving this crisis, if he cares about our allies, if he cares to achieve something historical and something that could make us and the region safe, then why was there Not a single mention about our 4 hostages that The Iranians are holding.

Saeed Abedini, Robert Levinson, Amir Hekmati and Jason Rezaian

Not a word from the president, not a word to the families, not a word out in the public and right in the face of the Iranians. Had Obama said, absolutely NO negotiations until these men are set free and walked away, I would have given him respect, but he didn't and these men, our men are sitting rotting away in an Iranian prison as, and let's be frank about it, they are human shields! Both Obama and Kerry lost the little respect I had when they said nothing. Even when Obama was asked about the Hostages, he got defensive, why? If he cares so much, he should show his anger and frustration towards the Iranians and not to the media for asking a perfectly legitimate question. Remember, the Dems are still not in unison and perplexed about going with the president, if it were so great, there wouldn't be any apprehensions whatsoever, but they know, all in all its a very bad deal Obama is not running again, many of the Dems are looking to be reelected in their districts and are deeply thinking about possible ramifications if this deal goes bad and it will.

So it's a global conspiracy. Even conservatives like David Cameron and Angela Merkel are in on it. All of them witches!

If something goes down,they don't have to worry about the fallout.

Nice cut and paste from the Heritage Foundation. It's just the same polemic more eloquently expressed than you are capable of. But it doesn't add any legitimacy to your rant.

My, my, my, you keep trying so hard. I told you, comedy doesn't suit liberals, just leave it. Also, I never said, I wrote it. One more thing, you and the other libs whine about sources, when I put it up, then it's not to....ahem, your liberal liking. I can't stop laughing, but I love the fact that libs try. Can't hate you guys for that. ROFL!

(And really, you should cite your sources. You are a journalist, after all.) Or you can look them up yourself. When you guys cut and paste, I do the same, or I guess it only applies to libs as usual. Lol.

What the hell is wrong with you? Obviously you know we can't just cut off the U.S. economy from half of world trade. Look, some people sold you on some half-baked "plan" that you never thought to question. Now you're stuck alone on a message board trying to guess what the details of the "plan" are.

I am???

And apparently there's a footnote that says the U.S. economy gets destroyed overnight, and it's all for a statement, but enough about that.

You think so?

Maybe you should stick to the cut and paste comments about Obama and liberals. You're well out of your depth on this one.

If it's good for the goose.....ROFL

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Did you plagiarize from The Heritage Foundation?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, i leave that for libs to do.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Even when you do it?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I learned from the best. Like I said, there is no satisfying you libs and progressives, the only way to is, if the facts fall in line with YOUR skewed viewpoints, it's acceptable, if not, it's quickly dismissed. Bias? Naaaaw! Hypocrites? Of course not! Partisan? Absolutely not!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

So libs hacked into your JapanToday.com account and posted lifted text without proper sources?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bass4funk AUG. 31, 2015 - 08:50PM JST I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying that. I don't believe Obama for one second cares about the real outcome of this deal, so long as he himself can reap the benefits of a quasi-successful deal.

If there are any U.S, military action against Iranian nuclear facilities, potentially, this could ignite a catastrophic regional conflict and would be ineffective. If the deal falls apart, and then what happens? Those goals are irrelevant, unless U.S.have a plausible plan for achieving them by scrapping the existing deal, which they don’t. This isn’t surprising given that U.S. omnipotence is the guiding assumption behind contemporary Republican foreign policy. Ask any GOP presidential candidate what they propose doing about any global hotspot and their answer is the same, be tougher. U.S. must take a harder line against Iran’s nuclear program, against ISIS, against Assad, against Russian intervention in Ukraine and against Chinese ambitions in the South China Sea.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites