What he does is take the number of people who back the deal (21%) and claims that means 79% oppose it. Of course he neglects to tell you that some 30% are undecided and the real number that opposes it isn't 79%. This is how the right lies to try to make an argument. They aren't very honest people. The truth is against them so they just plain outright lie.
The Iranian president wishes a happy Rosh Hashana: http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/09/13/429072/Iran-Hassan-Rouhani-Jews-Rosh-Hashana-Tehran I for one am SHOCKED that our fair and balanced friends on the right here didn't deem this newsworthy.
I'm watching the CBS interview with Iranian president Rouhani. One thing to consider is if this deal is really such a great deal for Iran is why are so many Iranian hardliners against it?
No mention of Iran making a statement in which they say that they are willing to swap prisoners with us? Conservatives better hope Obama doesn't bring these Americans home, they're losing half-truths to nitpick him on..
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Iran tests a long-range missile, possibly violating its nuclear deal with the U.S. and other world powers <a href="http://t.co/JBQtcjwRMg">http://t.co/JBQtcjwRMg</a></p>— The New York Times (@nytimes) <a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/653232351997231104">October 11, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
From that link: I'm trying to figure out why an Iranian hardliner would be against this agreement when it's supposedly such a sweet deal for Iran according to our Republican friends.
Maybe they think and boast like our Fundamentalist wing of Congressmen, aka the Tea Party? As for the missile launch, jfc, the ink hasn't even dried yet.
What poor and irresponsible reporting from NYT. "Possibly" violate the nuclear deal, then go on to talk about UN resolution (which supposedly deal with missile) that is adopted AFTER the nuclear deal. So are they talking about possibly violating the UN resolution that is not the nuclear deal. And of course the nuclear deal language is fully available for all to read. They couldn't at least point to the part that is even suspect. Why didn't they? ... click bait.
Says that there are restrictions on ballistic missiles, here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/parametersforajointcomprehenisveplanofaction.pdf And here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/jcpoa_what_you_need_to_know.pdf This is available for all to read. Why didn't you?
^^ You didn't fully understand it. That's correct, there are restriction on ballistic missiles as part of the new UN resolution. It's not part of the nuclear deal. It's a separate UN resolution. The reason why they pass a new UN resolution AFTER the deal is because ALL past UN resolutions will be lifted AS PART of the nuclear deal. The nuclear deal remove all past sanction. A new UN resolution after the deal replace one of the sanction that will be removed. It's right there from your first link.
^^ which is why it's a irresponsible and poor article. If NYT said Iran "probably" violate UN security resolution, it can at least be accurate. Whether Iran did or did not violate the UN security resolution is up to debate by experts, as they pointed out. What NYT said isn't accurate according to their own article.
Funny thing about that mew missile. Whether or not it's a violation of the ridiculous deal with Iran, it is completely useless from a military standpoint unless it is armed with a nuclear warhead. It is estimated to have a CEP of 1,650 feet, which would make it pretty much useless as a conventional weapon designed to hit a specific target. But perfectly fine for a nuke-armed weapon. http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a17759/irans-got-a-new-ballistic-missile/ Sorry to interrupt, please return to your partisan, craven, and shameless defense of what is quite obviously one of the worst arms control deals in human history. Just some food for thought.
I have to quibble on the partisan accusation at least. Insofar as I support this Iran deal, it's out of a pretty nonpartisan trust and faith I put in the presidency and the state department and really nothing to do with the political party the officials in those offices emanate from. I'll grant it has less to do with how I judge the merits of the deal because while I understand the proposed value of the deal I'm not really qualified to judge its merits. I trust my representatives here in the Admin to have armed themselves with the information, to have thought on it carefully, to exercise good judgement, and to put the interests of the country above all else in this deal. Might it be different with a Republican in office? Maybe somewhat if I suspect him of poor judgement. I suspected Bush of poor judgement in starting the Iraq war. But, I still assume he was informed, thought carefully, and put the interests of the country first. In any case, the default position should be to trust the experts you voted in to represent your interests. So trusting the president in this shouldn't be considered partisan. You should feel free to distrust the president too, but I think it shades partisan if you do so because you question his character or motives. Another tell-tale sign seems to be hyperbolic language and over-the-top certainty in one's convictions. If this is the worst arms control deal in history, is it because Obama had no information, paid no attention, used poor judgement, or because he doesn't have the country's best interest at heart?
treeman thinks it's the worst deal in human history because treeman is obsessed with attacking Iran. treeman believes that Iran is evil and war with them in inevitable. If you are against more wars in the Middle East, the deal is obviously a step in the right direction.
Baba Booey and other libtards don't understand (or likely care) the game that Iran is playing here. While we were desperately seeking a deal with Iran - any deal - the Iranians, Russians, and Assad regime were planning a counteroffensive that would not only rescue the Assad regime but simultaneously neutralize American efforts to bolster anti-regime forces in Syria and negate our influence in Iraq (which just signed a security accord with Russia, Syria, and Iran). Oh, and their Supreme Leader was busily writing a book about how he plans to bring about the demise of Israel through a sustained intifada, which by all accounts appears to be beginning. You see, now that we have a deal with them - one that will be protected at any cost as long as Obama is POTUS - we are unable to counter these Iranian (or Russian, for that matter) moves. We are also unable to effectively counter other Iranian moves in the region (such as in Yemen, Bahrain, Iraq, or elsewhere) for fear of upsetting the deal before the ink is dry. Any violations of the accord will be ignored unless they are too egregrious to ignore, and Iran will not be dumb enough to get caught doing anything that will demand action. Iran wants to become the prime player in the region. Russia wants to secure its interests there as well, and if they can do so while sticking their thumb in our eye then all the better. We have chosen to abandon the region to its fate rather than upset the Iranians or Russians, and the locals know which way the wind is blowing. You fools who believe that this deal will save us from further military conflict are in for a rude surprise. You fail to understand that conflict there is inevitable (how this escapes you I have yet to understand, just turn on your damned TV or read any news item about the region and you would probably notice it's quite a violent place). The only questions are exactly when, where, and how bad it will be (nukes / WMD), and whether it will reach our shores. This idiot President of ours has been bumbling from one foreign policy disaster to the next for nearly 7 years now, from the first "reset" button to the latest head separated from a body in Ramadi, and the Iran nuke deal - which will enable Iran to become the defacto rulers of most of the ME eventually - has essentially neutered the one power who has any real hope of restoring an appropriate balance there. War will come. It's already begun, and our enemies are a dozen steps ahead of us at every turn. You can pretend it's not happening if you like, but that will only get more people killed in the long run, because in that part of the world if you project weakness, then everyone and his mother will smell it, sense it, and take advantage of it. Weakness starts wars there, strength prevents them. And we are the weak horse after this deal. It's coming whether you like it or not.
Treeman was similarly obsessed with Iraq. As one of his heroes, Dubya, attempted to say: "Fool me once shame on you; fool me twice shame on me." Sadly Treeman's sources fooled him once before to the point he volunteered for the greatest strategic error in modern US history --the Iraq War leading to the creation of ISIS. Looks like he is being fooled again.
As usual, no counter, only personal attacks. It's telling that this is always the case. And excerpt from this article describes what I am saying more precisely: One problem is that while President Obama saw the nuclear deal as an opportunity to bridge divides with Iran, both Russia and Iran saw the negotiation as an opportunity to advance an anti-American agenda. While President Obama and his negotiating team were hunting for compromises and mutually face-saving agreements. Russia was looking for ways to turn the deal into a formula for destabilizing the region at Washington’s expense. Thus Russia insisted at the 11th hour in the negotiations on the lifting of a conventional weapons export ban. And even as President Obama scrambled to dodge Congressional scrutiny of the deal, Iran unhelpfully insisted that U.S. domestic debate consisted a material breach of the deal and rattled its sabers at home. Instead of seeing the deal as the start of a new era of cooperation, Russia and Iran, as the WSJ recently reported, immediately began planning Russia’s entry into the Syrian conflict—without, of course, telling their new friend and partner President Obama what they had in mind. These negotiations, which may even have been taking place while the nuclear deal was being hammered out, were advanced by General Soleimani’s visit to Moscow. In late August, rumors of a major Russian presence in Syria began making their way into the press; by early September, Western outlets confirmed the delivery of equipment and the presence of “advisors”. On September 27, with the Russian presence in Syria open knowledge, President Putin used his U.N. General Assembly speech to call for international support of Assad and a broad anti-ISIS coalition—but then turned around and struck seemingly every rebel group in Syria but ISIS. To add insult to injury, despite extensive U.S. efforts to set up military-to-military communications with Russia (in order to achieve “deconfliction”, i.e. avoid unintentional shooting), the Russians announced the timing of the first strikes by having a general stroll into the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and drop the news that they’d begin within an hour. This is the diplomatic equivalent of kicking sand in the face; it is a studied and deliberate insult. The attacks the general mentioned, presumably not coincidentally, hit U.S.-backed groups particularly hard. Not content with that, Russia announced an intelligence-sharing pact with Iraq, Syria, and Iran and arranged for reconnaissance flyovers of Iraqi airspace (where the U.S. also operates). Iraqi Shi’a lawmakers and militia leaders, seemingly at the instigation of Iran, began calling for direct Russian military involvement in Iraq, claiming that the U.S. had been ineffective in providing assistance. Russian airplanes flying missions in Syria have also violated Turkish—i.e. NATO—airspace, leading to confrontations with Turkish jets. Late last week, the Syrian government announced that a new major offensive, including troops from the Assad regime, Iran, and Hezbollah, backed by Russian airpower, was underway. Now, Iran has nixed further talks with the U.S., begun to push back on the nuclear deal, and announced the conviction of Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian of an unspecified crime. Rezaian, held captive by Iran since his arrest in July 2014, famously and controversially was not freed as part of the nuclear deal. Full Article: http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/10/12/unexpectedly-the-middle-east-meltdown-continues/ These are facts on the ground. These are actual events, things that have actually happened. Not conjecture, not guesses or estimations. It's difficult to see how any objective reading of these facts can lead one to any conclusion other than what I've stated. As usual, facts here are countered with personal attacks. And as I said, that is telling in itself, and why it's generally pointless to attempt to hold a logical debate here. As is generally the case, the Left side of the aisle is not interested in dealing with facts on the ground, and when the facts don;t support their case they are ignored. At this point, I usually find myself simply shrugging. It's simply too late to turn most of this stuff around at this point; the damage has already been done, and we likely have no choice but to let events play out and deal with the aftermath. The results of this President's disastrous foreign policy will be particularly harmful to our children, I fear, but it is what it is.
