Kerry says Congress veto of Iran deal would be 'ultimate screwing of ayatollah'

Iran's on a roll. Their policy is expansionist. Give the Iranians time, and they will push the House of Saud so hard that Iran will displace Israel as a threat to Saudi Arabia. Remember, even China allied itself with its ideological and geopolitical foe when sufficiently threatened by the Soviet Union.

 

that could be true as well for many republicans, could just be Obama supports it, so they don't.... doesn't matter if there is no better alternative

 

Which is why the house republicans are all lined up to vote no and the senate no vote is gaining momentum. You use definitions that other people (except Kerry and Obama) find dis-ingenious.

- - - Updated - - -

By the leaders who demand them, yes it would.

 

It's a bad deal, that's why they oppose it. What's your excuse for the Democrats who oppose this deal and are expressing the very same objections as Republicans?

There are better alternatives, but because Obama opposes them, his followers oppose them.

It's all about Obama with his cult of personality...

 

I would like you to provide a quoted and nonbiased source to back up that statement.

 

I posted a link, you don't like the link, look it up yourself, it was said... there are many links out there

 

most dems do not care either way

it's whats best for Israel, but Israel doesn't want it, so most like me say let the deal die... I do not mind helping our allies, but only if they want the help

now if Israel wants us to go to war first rather then try diplomacy first, then I say no to that as well

.

 

Your link doesnt support your assertion. Thats why you dont even bother supplying it now.

 

Iran has already passed that point and the House of Saud knows it. Look at how the Saudis are directly fighting Iran's proxy in Yemen (Ansar Allah, a.k.a., the Houthis) and are content to continue watching Caliph Ibrahim's death cult fight Iran and its lackeys in Damascus, Baghdad and Lebanon/Hezbollah.

Saudi Arabia and Israel are already aligned against Iran. The Saudis will never publicly admit it, but they'll work with Tel Aviv if it serves their interests.

 

For you to pick and choose which ones you like? You made the claim, provide the quote.

 

That's why Democrats should never be entrusted with our national security.

quote]it's whats best for Israel, but Israel doesn't want it, so most like me say let the deal die... I do not mind helping our allies, but only if they want the help

now if Israel wants us to go to war first rather then try diplomacy first, then I say no to that as well[/QUOTE]

This is about what's best for the United States, and the overwhelming majority of Americans understand that this deal is not what's best for the United States.

The interests of Israel and the rest of our allies in the region is a concern because this deal is not best for them, either, but our interests come first.

Unfortunately, Obama's deal with the "Death to America!" crowd doesn't reflect that. It reflects putting Tehrans's interests first.

 

Great post.

 

No, Dems care about this.

What nobody likes is that it was a negotiated plan, and we didn't come out with everything we wanted - which is always what happens in every negotiation.

If this deal fails, what comes next?

Does anyone out there think China, Russia, France, and the rest are going to continue the sanctions long enough to be a useful chip in some future retry at negotiations?

 

No, inspections, destruction of the heavy water reactor, elimination of a majority of their centrifuges, downgrading and removal of enriched product, etc - these are not things Tehran wanted.

Iran has the right to have a nuclear industry. Tehran sees that as more important than the sanctions, obviously.

Are you seriously interested in starting another war?

 

This deal is already a failure.

What the vast majority of Americans don't like about this deal is that it will make America and the world less safe.

Why Obama would negotiate a deal that puts the interests of Iran before that of the United States and the world doesn't lead to any favorable conclusions, either. Traitor? Islamist fanboy? ANSWERnik idiot?

This deal is a failure, and as we learned at Munich 1938, diplomatic failures have dire consequences.

 

Are you seriously going to sit there and LIE about war being the only alternative to this sham deal?

Are you simply ignorant of the alternatives or do you just believe everything that the 2013 Politifact Liar of the Year tells you?

The one thing necessary to verify Tehran's compliance was an "anytime, anywhere" inspection regime - without that there is no point in negotiating a pact that rewards Iran's compliance with the lifting of sanctions. Did Obama stick to that one necessary condition or did he spinelessly fold to Tehran's demands?

 

You are honestly mistaken. Check this out:

http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/files...ials Required What the Iran Deal Concedes.pdf

Iran has a right to a nuclear industry under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but due to UNSC resolutions it did not have the right to enrich uranium.

I think Iran wanted to have its cake and to eat it too. And Iran succeeded.

No one contemplates war as a viable option.

 

You know Obama and his deal are in trouble when he has to resort to lies, false choices and fear-mongering to sell it to the American people.

And the American people aren't buying:

And Obama LIED, once again, when he claimed that opposition was driven by partisan politics. Independents oppose the deal 55-29%.

 

Zionists, republicans and some tiny Arab states in one side, the rest of world in other side! Let me make it clear it for you: the best condition for us is that congress veto this deal! and then we will have all we wanted!

 

For all the folks upset about the Iran nuke deal, Relax.
After a while, the US will make up a story and get all self righteous. Then the US will bomb Iran.
They did it to Iraq and Libya, they can do it to Iran.

 

I asked a question. There are those who seriously believe that we need to bomb Iran - that a negotiated solution can not work, regardless of the negotiations.

I'm encouraged to see that you view that direction as ludicrous.

The difficulty with this negotiation is that:

- this negotiation was NOT "with Iran". The negotiation was between the US and China, Russia, France, UK, Germany, and Iran. We led the negotiation, but we are only one of those at the table.

- these nations (including our own) are not ready for military action against Iran. This is in part due to two independent assessments (by the US and by Israel) that Iran is not working toward a weapon. And, Iran has a right to a nuclear industry oriented to medicine, energy and trade.

- the sanctions are not going to hold forever.

So, what do you think was missing from the negotiation? How would you have changed the negotiation to be more favorable to the US?

 

The very first US "concession" in that document states that centrifuges won't be "dismantled". But, 2/3 of their centrifuges will be removed.

The fact that decommissioning 13,000 centrifuges is ignored disqualifies this organization - not just the "analysis" paper.

 

if it doesn't pass and Iran gets a nuke and we have to go to war... people will say you should of done the deal......

maybe republicans shoudl of kept there dirty hands out of it and not told Iran they would not honor any deal.... when a country is doing that it makes it hard to negotiate the best possible deal

republicans sabotaged the process then complain we did not get more.....

.

 

republicans just want war... that is why we should never should never be entrusted with our national security... look at Iraq

the deal is what is best, republicans do not want it, it wont pass, so kill the deal.... not gonna fight for a deal Israel nor republicans want... so if republicans want to kill the deal, so be it... we tried

.

 

I provided a link, that means I get to pick... you don't like my link... do your own search... lol

.