<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OORklkFql3k?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This "deal" is a tragedy for the United States, far worse than the infamous Chamberlain capitulation that accelerated the advent of World War II. That is my opinion, but here is my question. Which Democratic senators will vote with Republicans to avert this travesty?
^Guy who is always wrong, paraphrasing pundit blowhard who is also always wrong. Of course, being wrong is no excuse to not keep rolling him out there. For rubes like Commodore it's a badge of honor.
How long before saudis want there own nukes? You thought middle east was unstable, you have seen nothing yet.
1) After Obama traded five terrorists in exchange for one deserter, he abandoned four U.S. citizens held by Iran. 2) The Iranians can negotiate when inspectors do their inspections by a month or more and don't apply at all to military nuclear applications. 3) Once Iranian assets are unfrozen, there is no methodology for re-freezing them. What's to prevent Iran from mooning us once they have their money back? 4) What's to prevent Iran from pulling a North Korea on nuclear proliferation? Those are the four just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more and even bigger issues. Now, please answer my question.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: Netanyahu tells Obama in a phone call the Iran nuclear deal "threatens Israel security"</p>— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) <a href="https://twitter.com/BarakRavid/status/620993106083647492">July 14, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
So, is it safe for me to infer that you believe that this deal will accelerate the advent of World War III? And more hastily than did the Munich Agreement in respect to WWII?
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Quds force tried to blow up a restaurant in Washington, US government rewards it by taking it off the sanctions list? <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/IranDeal?src=hash">#IranDeal</a></p>— Saeed Ghasseminejad (@SGhasseminejad) <a href="https://twitter.com/SGhasseminejad/status/620994653446344704">July 14, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
So is it safe for me to infer that you think this is a great deal and that the United States didn't cave during negotiations?
If Netanyahu is against it, it's probably a pretty good deal. It seems like there are provisions for verification, so it isn't a matter of just trusting Iran to follow through. It will all be able to be verified. With any sanctions being lifted, Iran will be able to fund more terrorist groups. That seems like the real danger here.
that's a false assumption. they could easily use it in the ME, against Saudi, Israel, etc, without provoking a response by the U.S., at least under the current administration, and most certainly not by the EU. in fact, they could probably nuke Turkey, and the US/EU would stand down, although there are US nukes at Incirlik. they don't currently have the capability to hit the U.S. by conventional delivery mechanisms, but that could change one day. and in any event, Saudi and Egypt will surely each want their own bombs. the US mostly got fig leaves, and gave up a lot.
The "deal" is so vague Iran can stall any objection for months through arbitration on the minutia. Iran's funding of terrorist groups was never a concern of Kerry and Obama because that issue would tarnish the "deal." If Israel feels threatened, there is nothing and no one, certainly not Obama, who has the political capital to pull the reins in on Israel to keep them from attacking Iran. Remember, Iran's army is so much bigger than Israel's, a nuclear launch by Israel becomes a distinct possibility.
