Guess Iran leader didn't like BO's secrets

I am sure this tweet was just for "domestic consumption"
You know, to fool the Iranians into thinking their leaders ere able to put one over on the great Satan.
I bet Khamenei called BO or at the least Kerry and said not to think a thing about it. Iran still appreciates all BO and Kerry did to get Iran the best deal evah.
OH and maybe also to ask where their 1.5 Billion is, They have some people lined up for that money( and it ain't the Iranian people)

 

hopeful stock photo submitted without comment

 

No matter how jingoist you go, until there are bombs going off in your neighborhood, you're not jingoist enough for the right wingers, here or in Iran.

 

Croc?
I do not understand your point.
Are you saying right wingers in USA want bombs going off in their neighborhoods?
are you saying the Iranians leader are right wing?

 

Horn6721, what I'm saying is populist cries for war, brinksmanship and domination of foreign countries (or in the case of Iran, assertions of soverignty) go over well politically, until people you know start getting maimed and killed. Republicans keep saying that "credible threat of war" is the key to foreign policy success. The last two Republicans Presidents proved they were willing to follow through on the threats. Boy things have worked out great, haven't they? By jingo, we're ready for another fight!

 

Croc
Do you really think this is a good deal? Do you think Members of Congress including Dems pointing out this moves Iran closer to a nuke while giving them access to billions they will , based on history AND the leader's comments, use to aid terrorists is " brinkmanship"?

 

Well the deal would slow down the progress Iran is making on nuclear weapons by an estimated 15 years. Sure some Iranians still hate us, but that would in my opinion dissipate after the sanctions, which have had horrific consequnces on average citizens. (If you don't know why some Iranians hate us, you'll need to go find your own history lessons, but there certainly it could reasonably for what the US government has done to Iranians through imposition of the Shah.)

We've imposed about the toughest sanctions the UN can enforce, so if we want to do more, we need to launch devestating bomb attacks, perhaps followed by ground forces. Iran has more people, more weapons, more motivation and greater popular support for government than anybody we've fought recently, so if we follow through on "credible threats" we'll likely pay a horrific price in lives, war material and weapons.

As far as funding "terrorists" I guess it's hard for me to sort out the Freedom Fighters, ultranationalist, people trying to protect their homes, people trying to overthrow brutal dictators, people who want the peace and order only brutal dictators seem able to achive from the flat out unacceptable "Islamic Terrorists."

 

Croc
I am nonplussed. Surely you are being sarcastic when you say You can't tell the many terrorist groups Iran sponsors from groups only trying to protect their homes from brutal dictators.

 

I believe the Ayatolla or however you spell it is akin to Charles Manson. Would you expect Charles Manson to deal honest and forthright with you? Kerry and the PotUSA believe him, and his government, apparently, to be the sucker in the room when it is actually them.

The same people who bash Christians for their faith in God sure are putting a lot of it in a known entity that is not worthy of any trust/faith at all. Why does Iran deserve any benefit of the doubt in the least?

+/- a day or two on a 24 days window after agreement to be able to see some of the facilities does not equal full access. (insert Jackie Mason comments on NYC restaurant access for health inspectors here)

 

6721, Borrowing a geek phrase "If you think it's simple, you don't understand the problem."

 

Croc
That is no answer, not even a good dodge.
Do you actually think this?" I guess it's hard for me to sort out the Freedom Fighters, ultranationalist, people trying to protect their homes, people trying to overthrow brutal dictators, people who want the peace and order only brutal dictators seem able to achive from the flat out unacceptable "Islamic Terrorists."

Can you give us examples of groups you think fall into the categories you listed that are funded by Iran?

 

I admittedly lack depth of knowledge on who is who in the Middle East and who we can trust them to back Western interests and play nice with others over the long term. I was happy to see Murbarak outsted and now Egypt has a much more repressive regime than when he ruled. Is Libya better off without Kadafy? Iran without Saddam? Is instability from battling factions in countries with no tradition or love of democracy better than entrenched dictators?

I'm smart enough to know I don't know. The folks who think they know? They worry me, because as you look through history, it's not necessarily the smartest or most knowledgeable who are most certain they are right.

 

Croc?
Was the above post supposed to be an answer to my question of which groups you named were sponsored or funded by Iran?

here, from you ;"I guess it's hard for me to sort out the Freedom Fighters, ultranationalist, people trying to protect their homes, people trying to overthrow brutal dictators, people who want the peace and order only brutal dictators seem able to achive from the flat out unacceptable "Islamic Terrorists."
The reality is Iran is a sponsor of terrorist groups and will send at least some of the billions to those groups.
If you re not aware that Iran does in fact support terrorist groups you can find reports from as varied as our State Dept, our DOD, PBS, Brookings Institute. Bloomberg etc etc.
I could not find any credible information on any of the groups you listed that are funded by Iran.

 

Iraq had Apartheid type numbers as to who was controlling everything when Saddam was in control. Think about that for a minute. 10-18% of the population holding down the other 80+% under Saddam. Does that matter?

 

It is astounding to me that liberals can actually believe that you can negotiate with a country that wants to destroy you and your friends. This type of appeasement policy has never worked because you cannot appease evil. Evil always wants more. This treaty will ultimately result in more money in the hands of terror groups and expedite the process of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon.

 

UTChE96, H6721 - if Iran is pure evil - will anything short of war stop them? You talk about this being a bad deal -but there is no good deal with evil.

 

if they are evil you don't give them 140 billion to blow up you and your friends.

 

Is a "bad deal" worse than war?

 

Noted. It is very easy to list all the things not to do. The question is – what do you do to stop them? What will work, or is your answer invading their country? I’m looking for a real answer if you've got one.

 

That is obviously a very difficult question, but for sure this deal was not the answer. Putting more money in the hands of a regime that funds terror groups is moving in the wrong direction.

 

continue sanctions then mutually assured destruction if/when they are successful getting the bomb. they will get it eventually. now with the billions they can fund Hummus for everyone.( you know what I mean)

 

Right Zork. Imposing economic hardship on other countries based on their perceived evil always works out for the best. That's why those forward looking negotiators who ended WWI and sent Germany into a spiraling economic downturn are so revered among historians. Man, that one worked out great!

Listening to the Republican histronics over this treaty makes me wonder if they are stupid or believe we are. Israel, with an estimated stockpile of about 90 nuclear weapons is "being marched to the door of the oven" because in 15 years Iran will have one?

 

time will tell. maybe Kerry is right? What did the USA gain from the deal?

 

So you don't have any answers. All you have is to say what an awful deal this is. How easy is that when you aren't the one who actually has to DO anything?

 

Why did Iran agree to meet with P5+1 for negotiations?

 

You are deflecting. It is a bad deal that helps our sworn enemy. Sticking with the sanctions that were weakening Iran and reducing cash flow to terror groups was a better option than this deal.

 

And how does history look upon Neville Chamberlain and Appeasement?

 

The underlying assumption in all the "this is a bad deal" rhetoric is that everyone was willing to keep the International sanctions in perpetuity. What are the chances that China and Russia continue to support the sanctions forever, which is what the "anti-deal" crowd is advocating? The sanctions were effective, especially in driving Iran to the negotiating table, but were they able to be permanently effective? Does anyone remember Bibi speaking on the floor of the United Nations in 2012 claiming Iran would have a nuclear weapon within 6 months?

The negotiations not only curtailed those active efforts but now we have a deal that says they can't pursue them for 15 years, something even the "anti-deal" side says is inevitable.

Whether right or wrong, the willingness to negotiate just bought us at least 2 years sans nuclear Iran and potentially another 15 more. So, while some focus on the incendiary rhetoric coming from the religious right-wing of both American and Iranian societies, the rational side just extended the time for Iran to go nuclear.

Even during sanctions Iran's funding of Hammas and other terrorist organizations went unabated. Watching the rockets and tunnels they build it's clear where Hammas is investing their terrorist funds. What's a little more money going to do? In all seriousness, Iran has a much greater problem at their doorstep called Isis. Hammas is now fighting Isis directly in Syria (and losing). Iran is fighting Isis directly in Iraq. If they use some of that $140B of their money that was frozen to defeat Iraq is that a bad thing? I'd rather see Iranian Republican Guard dying on the streets of Fallujah and Tikrit than US troops. Clearly Isis can't be defeated from the air and Iraqi Shiite's have no will to fight them.

In a time of crisis, we often need to pick the lesser of 2 evils. Unfortunately, we can't fight wars on every front. If Isis and radical Islam is biggest challenge facing our nation we need help in this fight. Fortunately for us, Isis sees Shiite Iran as just as big an enemy as the US. They've beheaded many more Shiites than they have Americans. Let the various factions of radical Islam fight each other. In fact, the more they do so the less resources are available to attack Western interests.

 

For nearly 2 years BO and his minions have been declaring to the world what goals Iran MUST agree to or there won't be any deal.
Some Centers like Fordow, buried in that mountain MUST be closed
MUST reduce stockpile of centrifuges( est at 19,000)
MUST allow ANYTIME ANYWHERE inspections
Must answer all questions about all military sites

BO said if goals are not meant there will be no deal.

Iran agreed to NONE of those goal.

 

Wouldn't it be great if there were only 1 side to every "negotiation"?