So it's a lose-lose deal that benefits both us (the Americans?) and the Iranians? Odd phrasing. Who are the losers in the deal and why?
Looks like he ran away because he had no answer. That's the thing about the right - the don't really offer up a solution with any details.
Sorry I should have phrased that better. Making the deal or not was a lose-lose proposition for Iranians. Despite the "loss", there are some minor benefits for both sides which are marginally better than would be the case if the deal wasn't signed. Overall, it hasn't solved any real problems. Iran was never going to use a nuclear weapon, and the Middle East is still not a nuclear weapon free zone due to Israel's nukes and those which the United States keeps pointed at us 24/7.
It's certainly political theater. Every person voting sees dollar signs in front of them, and they've been known to follow self interest over American interest. It's all theater, they have to not appear like they're drooling at the prospect of ravaging a massive population like Iran's. The people who are going to host the mcdonalds and the apples of the world are friends of the mullahs, not regular Iranian citizens. I really wish you guys would move on and look at congress' record in recent times. They will vote for the most profitable option and sometimes they have to act like they're doing it begrudgingly. I'm sure the will revolt again regardless of whether the deal is struck, but I don't have much hope that it would be successful and their hopes will be dashed further now that they know the mullahs are befriending the US. Pretty common knowledge in the Middle East that a government partnered with the US is virtually impossible to overthrow due to the weapons and intelligence and technology and media support provided by the US. Keep in mind, literally millions of Iranians revolted a few short years ago and it was crushed handily. Is that a preferred path for me? Personally no, because I don't believe in violence. But it doesn't matter what I think. I don't live there, I haven't suffered what they've suffered. Is revolt the preferred path for Iranians vs diplomacy with a country that has captured several other governments in the region and continues to occupy them? I think it's the only realistic way to achieve a sovereign nation which serves Iranian people. Look at Egypt. All it would take is a secret deal with the right military personnel to subvert the country for another generation. Same situation in Iran: a military filled with poor people heavily reliant on a sugar daddy. The idea that diplomacy with a violent, aggressive enemy like the US could work is now an old myth in the Middle East. The biggest thing that Iranians need to avoid is a secular military coup. For that to happen, we have to anticipate that the military will try to seize control and the mullahs will sanction any amount of violence to keep it. Also important to keep in mind, Iranians as citizens are far more advanced in their desire for and understanding of democracy than any Arab nation. They have keenly watched what has happened in Egypt and other arab spring nations. They've been fantasizing about what would happen if Mosadegh hadn't been taken down, and they have learned the lessons of external groups filling power vacuums during a revolt. I know this is a difficult thing for Americans to accept, but most Iranian citizens are more European in their thinking than Middle Eastern. Moreso than Turkey. Not particularly interested in religion. Obsessed with science. Same social structures, same social culture. Strong, career oriented women. It would be a mistake to equate them with, for example, the Egyptians for whom democracy is a far newer idea or Saudis for whom democracy is just an idea. Anyhow, it's all very interesting and of course it's all just speculation based on my living in the Middle East, being partially of Iranian origin and visiting Iran all the time and spending time with people who actually live there. I know several people who will be able to resume their studies in nearby countries, who will be able to resume trading, etc so that's good.
this effin guy <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">More <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS">@POTUS</a>: "When I sit down with a group of Jewish leaders, just as when I sit down with members of Congress..." 1/2</p>— Matt Bai (@mattbai) <a href="https://twitter.com/mattbai/status/629354205669662720">August 6, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS">@POTUS</a>: "I do not hear back credible arguments on the other side. I hear talking points that have been prepared." 2/2</p>— Matt Bai (@mattbai) <a href="https://twitter.com/mattbai/status/629354340176760832">August 6, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Israeli president warns of isolation over row with US on Iran http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-president-warns-isolation-over-row-us-iran-174751405.html "I am very worried by the battlefront (that has opened up) between Obama and Netanyahu and by relations between the United States and Israel," Rivlin told the Maariv daily. "The prime minister is leading a campaign against the United States as if we were equals, and that is liable to hurt Israel," he said. "We are to a large extent isolated in the world at the moment... I'm not a pessimist but for the first time I see that we are alone." Rivlin told Haaretz daily: "I say to him (Netanyahu) and I'm telling him again that disputes, even where they are just, can at the end of the day turn out to be at Israel's expense."
Seems like he's making a pretty valid point. I remember watching conservatives come out in fury right after the deal was reached... despite knowing absolutely nothing about the deal itself. What I've witnessed from the right is war mongering propaganda that does not take the complexity of the situation into consideration (although they probably do take it into considerations, but just realize how moronic the American public is, and how easily they can be manipulated, as they were with Iraq) :/
surest sign this will pass, the next Democratic leader can vote against it <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p><a class="hashtag" action="hash" title="#breaking">#breaking</a> Schumer breaks with Obama & to officiallly to oppose Iran deal: "I believe the vote to disapprove is the right one."</p>— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) <a href="https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/629476034971348992" data-datetime="2015-08-07T02:15:56+00:00">August 7, 2015</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Obama wants Schumer out http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/obama-allies-blast-schumer-on-iran-deal-talk-of-new-leader/
) And once again you follow it up with being wrong - you really think Obama calls up moveon (which really hasn't been relevant since 2004 or so....) and tells them to start sending e-mail blasts in order to determine who the Senate Majority leader will be....after he leaves office. Maybe in Republican nutjob paranoia town this is how it works. But there is probably a more logical explanation.
Not just MoveOn, several of his surrogates (Vietor, Pfeiffer, Favreau), who would not spout off without the go ahead. edit: Deputy White House Secretary Eric Schultz just retweeted this threat to Schumer Iran wasting zero time negotiating arms deals with Russia now that sanctions are lifted. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Iran?src=hash">#Iran</a> official: Quds force commander Qassem Soleimani went to Moscow to discuss "arms deals." <a href="https://twitter.com/AmbassadorPower">@AmbassadorPower</a> expresses concern. <a href="https://twitter.com/FoxNews">@foxnews</a></p>— Jennifer Griffin (@JenGriffinFNC) <a href="https://twitter.com/JenGriffinFNC/status/629714861057048577">August 7, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I don't even know who these people are. But apparently you have it on good information they are being directed from an Obama-batcave in the dead of night via Obama-batphone, because it's all very important for Barack's third term. Here's an alternative explanation which is much simpler, and by definition much more likely - they think schumer is a douche and substantively wrong on the merits and are acting on this instinct. I tend to agree with them. I didn't get a special coded signal in chemtrails from POTUS telling me to do so.
WH staff Yeah that makes a ton of sense, WH staff publicly trashing next Dem leader without consulting WH first.
Moveon isn't an Obama surrogate as they've opposed Obama several times regarding national security issues such as NSA and drone strikes. What they are is very anti-war so this should be no surprise that they are angry at Schumer.
If you are worry about the people livelihood over there, than sanction is probably not what you want to do. If you are worry about Iran missile, then be comforted that they have the most number of missiles in the Middle East (yes even more than Israel, and yes, they can strike Israel anytime they want to).
