https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=iran+nuclear+deal&tbm=nws&tbs=qdr:h

Here's a short list of things I trust more than the Iranian Nuclear deal:

* Mexican tap water
* A rattlesnake with a pet me sign
* OJ Simpson showing me his knife collection
* A fart when I have diarrhea
* An elevator ride with Ray Rice
* Taking pills offered by Bill Cosby
* Michael Jackson's Doctor
* A Palestinian on a motorcycle
* Gas station Sushi
* A Jimmy Carter economic plan
* Brian Williams news reports
* Loch Ness monster sightings
* Prayers for peace from Al Sharpton

does anyone think this was a good deal?.... the Iranians seem to be having quite a laugh...

does anyone think this was a good deal?.... the Iranians seem to be having quite a laugh...

No. Not sure what is worse, a bad deal or no deal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBvIg_zRgiY

Seems like there are a lot of Israelis who are in favor if it including former heads of Shin Bet and the Mossad:

In an interview this week with the Daily Beast, Ami Ayalon, former head of the Shin Bet, or Israel’s top domestic security agency, suggested Israel’s politicians were playing “with fears in a fearful society.”

He praised the Vienna agreement as a useful measure to curb the Iranian threat.

“When negotiations began, Iran was two months away from acquiring enough material for a [nuclear] bomb. Now it will be 12 months,” Ayalon said, adding that many of his compatriots were not seeing the strategic advantage of the deal. “Israelis are failing to distinguish between reducing Iran’s nuclear capability and Iran being the biggest devil in the Middle East.”

When a framework agreement was reached in Lausanne, Switzerland, in April, Efraim Halevy, former chief of the Mossad, Israel’s spy agency, hailed Obama’s victory. In an op-ed in the Yedioth Ahronot, Halevy listed some of the key provisions of the deal, which included a strict regime of inspections and the neutralizing of Iran’s key nuclear facilities.

“Anyone who has followed events in Iran in recent decades or has studied the matter has to admit truthfully that he never believed Iran would ever agree to discuss these issues,” he wrote, “let alone agree” to the measures imposed on Tehran by the world powers.

The alternative would be military strikes, which would plunge the region in deeper insecurity and would likely not be successful, Halevy said in an interview with Israeli radio in April.

“If we think that the monitoring won’t be effective, the only other option is a military campaign that will only set back the Iranians for a limited number of years,” he said.

Instead, argued Amos Yadlin, a retired air force general and former head of Israeli military intelligence, “there is a chance to set Iran back by many years.”

The final agreement, Yadlin told Israeli radio in April, would not legitimize Iran’s misdeeds on the international state, which include actively supporting militant proxy organizations in the Middle East deemed terrorist organizations by the United States and its allies.

“Iran can’t go back to being a legitimate member of the family of nations if it doesn’t stop all its activities that are not included in the agreement — its subversive activities, its support of terror groups, weapons proliferation,” Yadlin said. “The Americans took a strategic decision ... to deal with the nuclear issue as a separate matter and to not tie it to the other issues.”

Seems like there are a lot of Israelis who are in favor if it including former heads of Shin Bet and the Mossad:

In an interview this week with the Daily Beast, Ami Ayalon, former head of the Shin Bet, or Israel’s top domestic security agency, suggested Israel’s politicians were playing “with fears in a fearful society.”
.”



"In an interview this week with the Daily Beast, Ami Ayalon, former head of the Shin Bet, or Israel's top domestic security agency, suggested that Israel's politicians were playing "with fears in a fearful society."

He praised the Vienna agreement as a useful measure to curb the Iranian threat.

"When negotiations began, Iran was two months away from acquiring enough material for a [nuclear] bomb. Now it will be 12 months," Ayalon said, adding that many of his compatriots were not seeing the strategic advantage of the deal. "Israelis are failing to distinguish between reducing Iran's nuclear capability and Iran being the biggest devil in the Middle East."

oh good....well that's reassuring

meanwhile...

19 Jul 2015

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei went into a conspiracy-laden tirade on Saturday, blaming the “arrogant powers” for getting in the way of the Muslim world’s mission to unite and destroy Israel.

In declaring victory over the U.S. in nuclear negotiations, he added, “today, they [world powers] have been forced to accept and stand the spinning of thousands of centrifuges and continuation of research and development in Iran, and it has no meaning but the Iranian nation’s might.”

Noticeably, Khamenei’s more-controversial comments were left out of a CNN story on his remarks.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/22/exclusive-army-chief-odierno-in-exit-interview-says-us-could-have-prevented/

Going to repost JohnR's mention of Army Chief Odierno's interview on FOX News as he also supports the Obama Iran deal.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/22/exclusive-army-chief-odierno-in-exit-interview-says-us-could-have-prevented/

Going to repost JohnR's mention of Army Chief Odierno's interview on FOX News as he also supports the Obama Iran deal.

He and Obama made the mistake of not having a plan to be ready
to bomb Isis as they came over the border from Syria into Iraq.
They could have been stopped then and there before reaching civilian populations.
Same old story with this Administration, wait and lock the barn door after the horse is stolen.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/22/exclusive-army-chief-odierno-in-exit-interview-says-us-could-have-prevented/

Going to repost JohnR's mention of Army Chief Odierno's interview on FOX News as he also supports the Obama Iran deal.

"While Odierno says he supports the recently announced nuclear deal with Iran, he warned that Iran will not change its behavior in the region."


which means the deal means what??

"While Odierno says he supports the recently announced nuclear deal with Iran, he warned that Iran will not change its behavior in the region."


which means the deal means what??
The deal is designed to prohibit Iran from going nuclear, it's not going to stop them from meddling in local affairs.

The deal is designed to prohibit Iran from going nuclear, it's not going to stop them from meddling in local affairs.

"When negotiations began, Iran was two months away from acquiring enough material for a [nuclear] bomb. Now it will be 12 months,"


sounds like Red Line....Deadline....

google "Iran deadline"

the joke is on you

this is great...

July 23, 2015 11:50 am

During Thursday’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the Iran nuclear agreement, Secretary of State John Kerry said the goal of the negotiations was never to dismantle Iran’s entire nuclear program but rather to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons(at least for 10 extra months), despite saying in 2013 the “whole point” of sanctions was to get Iran to “dismantle its nuclear program.”

“When we began our negotiations, Iran had enough fissile material for 10 to 12 bombs. They had 19,000 centrifuges, up from the 163 that they had back in 2003 when the prior administration was engaged in them on this very topic,” Kerry said Thursday. “So this isn’t a question of giving them what they want. It’s a question of how do you hold their program back. How do you dismantle their weapons program? Not their whole program.

“Let’s understand what was really on the table here. We set out to dismantle their ability to be able to build a nuclear weapon, and we’ve achieved that. (not sure they are aware of that)Nobody has ever talked about actually dismantling their entire program, because when that was being talked about, that’s when they went from 163 centrifuges to 19,000.”

In 2013, while testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Kerry said the purpose of the sanctions against the rogue regime was to “help Iran dismantle its nuclear program.”

“I don’t think any of us thought we were just imposing these sanctions for the sake of imposing them,” he said. “We did because we knew that it would hopefully help Iran dismantle its nuclear program. That was the whole point of the regime.”

"Nuclear program" could mean a peaceful operation or a militarized on. I've have to read the full transcripts but I'd wager your quotes are mixing meanings.

"Nuclear program" could mean a peaceful operation or a militarized on. I've have to read the full transcripts but I'd wager your quotes are mixing meanings.

"nuclear program" belonging to one of the top sponsors of terrorism in the world whose intentions are very well stated and repeated....

How many civilians has the U.S. Killed "by accident" since 9-11 ? And how many people had Iran killed from other countries besides its own people?
When you find the answer, decide who is more dangerous.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How many civilians has the U.S. Killed "by accident" since 9-11 ? And how many people had Iran killed from other countries besides its own people?
When you find the answer, decide who is more dangerous.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

no...you should definitely enlighten us as to who is more dangerous and why...:uhuh:

think on it for a while.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Scientific surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of the Iraq War found that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published in 2011, found that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the conflict since the invasion.

taken from a NY times article -

But experts say that the American death toll in Iraq that could be linked back to Iran is more accurately put in the hundreds, not the thousands. Add in those maimed, as Mr. Netanhayu did, and the statement inches closer to the truth.


So...... Who's the boogyman?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mr. Netanhayu did, and the statement inches closer to the truth.


So...... Who's the boogyman?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

clearly America is evil..."the great satan" as some like to say and Iran is practically a teddy bear...thanks for straightening me out on that one Eben :wavey:

If I was living next to a country that was just toppled from a war based on a bunch of lies, I'd probably think that. Yes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

clearly America is evil..."the great satan" as some like to say and Iran is practically a teddy bear...thanks for straightening me out on that one Eben :wavey:
The real quote uses the Farsii word "shaytan" which is a devil figure but also know as the trickster. I believe the context were the Western vices that the US installed Shah was helping to promote which were in opposition to Islamic beliefs.

Yep - America is the problem.

America, the Evil, which did the heavy lifting to stop the Great and Peace Loving Comrades of Socialist Brotherhood from paving the roads with roses from the worker's paradise to the English Channel.

America the Evil, which guarantees the peace of those evil Capitalists in Taiwan in the threat of the hundreds of ships, millions of troops, and thousands of short and intermediate range hug delivering missiles from the peaceful rising China. Add evil Japan, Philippines, Korea, and those Capitalist/Communists Vietnamese as the minions that run in fear of the running-lackey-dog USA.

America the Evil, oh, and the Joooos, don't forget the Jooooos. If not for the Joooos pulling America's puppet strings in order to oppress all of those peace loving suicide bombers and wipe the Jooos off the face of the earth regimes. The Jooos living the most peaceful and stable operating peace loving region in the world.

/sarc /rant

Nature abhors a vacuum. In a Single/Dual/Multi-Polar world, the absence of one is quickly filled by another. Name me ONE player on the world stage in the past 70 years that would have done a better job then the evil Americans. Name ONE. When the USA leaves space someone, and most often the bad guys, slip in to that vacuum. See Vacuum in Iraq last 6 years as exhibit A.

Yes, the US screws up pretty good some times, especially due to and as the result of politics.

Change "evil" for "oil sucker" and your getting somewhere.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yep - America is the problem.

America, the Evil, which did the heavy lifting to stop the Great and Peace Loving Comrades of Socialist Brotherhood from paving the roads with roses from the worker's paradise to the English Channel.

America the Evil, which guarantees the peace of those evil Capitalists in Taiwan in the threat of the hundreds of ships, millions of troops, and thousands of short and intermediate range hug delivering missiles from the peaceful rising China. Add evil Japan, Philippines, Korea, and those Capitalist/Communists Vietnamese as the minions that run in fear of the running-lackey-dog USA.

America the Evil, oh, and the Joooos, don't forget the Jooooos. If not for the Joooos pulling America's puppet strings in order to oppress all of those peace loving suicide bombers and wipe the Jooos off the face of the earth regimes. The Jooos living the most peaceful and stable operating peace loving region in the world.

/sarc /rant

Nature abhors a vacuum. In a Single/Dual/Multi-Polar world, the absence of one is quickly filled by another. Name me ONE player on the world stage in the past 70 years that would have done a better job then the evil Americans. Name ONE. When the USA leaves space someone, and most often the bad guys, slip in to that vacuum. See Vacuum in Iraq last 6 years as exhibit A.

Yes, the US screws up pretty good some times, especially due to and as the result of politics.

indeed....http://www.nationalreview.com/node/421484/print

The real quote uses the Farsii word "shaytan" which is a devil figure but also know as the trickster. I believe the context were the Western vices that the US installed Shah was helping to promote which were in opposition to Islamic beliefs.

"western vices that the Shah was helping to promote"... modernization, secularization, transforming Iran into a global power and modernizing the nation by nationalizing certain industries and granting women suffrage, recognition of Israel, banning of the communist Tudeh Party

Change "evil" for "oil sucker" and your getting somewhere.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

See, now I know you are joking because nobody protects Socialists from Communists like the good ole USA. :gh:


indeed....http://www.nationalreview.com/node/421484/print

Yay, more reading for tonight...

I'm just being the devils advocate.
To assume the good ol USA has a clean nose is really foolish. When you look at things objectively without any sort of "my team VS their team" bias, the picture is very clear that we have screwed up more times than we got it right and our priorities are more about protecting the almighty dollar vs protecting human rights, democracy, etc.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Scientific surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of the Iraq War found that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published in 2011, found that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the conflict since the invasion.

taken from a NY times article -

But experts say that the American death toll in Iraq that could be linked back to Iran is more accurately put in the hundreds, not the thousands. Add in those maimed, as Mr. Netanhayu did, and the statement inches closer to the truth.


So...... Who's the boogyman?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The boogyman is the one who killed the one million Iraqis. Most were killed by other than US military. During the war between Iraq and Iran the death toll has been estimated between a half million to one and a half million, none of which were killed by Americans. Saddam Hussein had over 100,000 Iraqis killed before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Iranians and Iraqis and "radical" Muslims have been killing thousands, including hundreds of Americans before and after the US invasion of Iraq. There are apparently several boogymen, and the US is not the most murderous and frightening one.

Isolated statistics (out of context as Spence might say) reveal very little, but can be used to make false points.

I'm just being the devils advocate.
To assume the good ol USA has a clean nose is really foolish. When you look at things objectively without any sort of "my team VS their team" bias, the picture is very clear that we have screwed up more times than we got it right and our priorities are more about protecting the almighty dollar vs protecting human rights, democracy, etc.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The US military should be about protecting Americans or American interests as well as steadfast allies. It should not be about protecting concepts such as human rights or democracy. In any case, what human rights are is in dispute. Even democracy is a label used to justify dictatorships. And further, if we, as Americans, cannot agree what our so-called human rights are, how could they be protected.

I would argue that one of the roles the USA has played that last 70 years was keeping the wars cold and little, not big and hot (or glowing). Yes, a country that politically changes course every 4 to 8 years is prone to upgefucht from time to time, especially when the domestic politik makes decisions in a vacuum or to gain political favor. So is the Bush debacle in the middle east worse than the the Johnson debacle in Indochina? At least Bush tried to win and establish some level of stability. Johnson tried to do the bare minimum to not loose and to get re-elected.

But what America has been marginal to barely good at for 70 years is prevent minor wars from going global. Keeping the lines of trade open, and generally doing a fair to good job on the global stage. I fear those days are coming to an end as the next decade will be much like that of 100 years ago except as a country we no longer have the ability to act in concert as we are too divided and chasing idols and special snowflakes while passing around the peace pipe. Though this time there will be nukes. And our kids will be of military age when this next round of global instability starts clearing her throat.

When you look at things objectively without any sort of "my team VS their team" bias, the picture is very clear that we have screwed up more times than we got it right and our priorities are more about protecting the almighty dollar vs protecting human rights, democracy, etc.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So to further your argument a little, riddle me this, Batman. If the US had not played its miserable role since 1945 - what would happened in the world? It is very easy to play devil's advocate and quite fun some times, but roll out some alternate history and tell me what would have happened if "our team" had not flown the Berlin Airlift or stick 2 Army Corps within a couple hundred miles of the InterGerman Border? Sacrificed thousands of young Americans in the early and mid-50s to stop the NKs before they got to the Tsushima Strait? The West -v- East in the 60s-late 80s? What would have happened if the US led from behind? I've been to the other side of the Iron Curtain before it fell. We would not be allowed to have this conversation.

What do you honestly feel the world would look like today if we pulled back 60, 50, or even just 30 years ago? Approach this as not some wine and cheese philosophical discussion but put on your Red Team hat and game this out for me, please.

Those were the times when we got it right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm just being the devils advocate.
To assume the good ol USA has a clean nose is really foolish. no one said or assumed this so I'm not sure who you're talking at here


When you look at things objectively without any sort of "my team VS their team" bias is this how you look at things?, the picture is very clear that we have screwed up more times than we got it right and our priorities are more about protecting the almighty dollar vs protecting human rights, democracy, etc.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

begging you to provide your historically objective very clear and accurate evidence for the last part

Have you ever heard the phrase " WW2 was the good war"?
That was the last war where it was abundantly clear that there was true "good vs evil" fighting happening.
All wars since then in my opinion are nowhere as morally pure in the fact that we had to do it to for the sake of us making the right choice for the right reasons without having to lie about it to hide hidden agendas.

Here's a good read.
http://www.ihr.org/news/weber_ww2_may08.html

"If the history of war and conflict teaches us anything, it is the danger of arrogance and hubris – that is, the danger of going to war because a nation's leaders are convinced of their own righteousness, or have persuaded themselves and the public that a foreign country should be attacked because its government or society is not merely alien, hostile or threatening, but "evil."

This is perhaps the most harmful legacy of America 's national mythology about World War II -- the notion that worthwhile or justifiable wars are fought against countries headed by supposedly "evil" regimes. And it is this very outlook that moved President George W. Bush to refer to his "war on terrorism" as a "crusade," and, in a major speech, to proclaim a US foreign policy dedicated to "ending tyranny in the world." / 39

A nation should go to war only after prudent consideration, after carefully weighing the possible consequences, and only for the most compelling of reasons, after all other alternatives have been exhausted, and as a last resort. This is especially true given the awesome destructive power of modern weaponry, and because – as World War II , the "Good War," so tragically attests -- wars rarely turn out the way anyone expects."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

sooo..revisionist history website?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

timeline of the use of American military

you'll see this a lot "American troops participated in operations to protect " whether the US sent troops to protect or foreign interests sought protection...don't see "protect oil or money" anywhere

supposedly "evil" regimes.....that's pretty funny

I don't expect you to see the world as open eyed as I do.

I am an artist after all. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't expect you to see the world as open eyed as I do.

I am an artist after all. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

some of the self-proclaimed "most tolerant, well educated and open eyed" folks that I know have a remarkably narrow view of things and even narrower historical perspective :rotf2:

I don't expect you to see the world as open eyed as I do.

I am an artist after all. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

True, but as an uber liberal I don't expect you to see the world as open minded. You are an artist (and a seriously cool one - I mean it) after all.

Open minded could allow you to see both sides of the coin, and what may or may not happen as a consequence after a series of actions or lack of actions.

Open minded could allow you to see both sides of the coin, and what may or may not happen as a consequence after a series of actions or lack of actions.

....after viewing the timeline of military actions can one still claim we get it wrong more than right?? particularly in the "context' of us VS Iran when it comes to moral imperative, I love Eben but this attempt to degrade the US and it's actions (even in a "devil's advocate" sense)over time to bring it to the level of what are very clearly "evil regimes" for the purpose of making some politically motivated point is pretty offensive....but it does seem to chic these days

Here's a good read.
http://www.ihr.org/news/weber_ww2_may08.html

You do have to wonder how the author could use more words to describe American troops shooting wounded Germans than to describe say, I don't know...the systematic murder of 6 million Jews.

It's a good thing the Russian's defeated Hitler just in time for Uncle Sam's boys to show up and make a few patriotic movies.

I'm sorry but do you guys realize who holds the biggest blame for helping Iran's current leader come to power?
THE UNITED STATES!

as I said.... I have screwed up this world in so many ways.

I'm simply trying to defend my argument here and I am not anti US or feel ashamed of our country. I'm just pointing out the facts. That doesn't mean I stand behind them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lol. I will leave that typo. :rotfl:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You do have to wonder how the author could use more words to describe American troops shooting wounded Germans than to describe say, I don't know...the systematic murder of 6 million Jews.

It's a good thing the Russian's defeated Hitler just in time for Uncle Sam's boys to show up and make a few patriotic movies.

Stalin couldn't win in the East if the Allies had not opened the second front in the west. Yes, Normandy and the allied invasion of France was the supporting attack, but the Russians could not defeat Germany on their own and it would be years before they could do their own bomb.

I'm sorry but do you guys realize who holds the biggest blame for helping Iran's current leader come to power?
THE UNITED STATES!


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"A cousin of mine has finished his freshman year in college; like most freshmen, he now knows absolutely everything. He took it upon himself, this week, to announce (to my brother, who is a very patient man) that Iran’s Islamist dictators were “a predictable consequence of American imperialism,” which manifested itself through “the CIA’s international pro-fascist crimes.”

That’s nonsense, of course, but it’s widely believed nonsense — and not just among college kids who’ve read the first chapter of a Noam Chomsky book. "

"Iran did not fall to the mullahs because of “the hated Shah,” as Ron Paul has said — it fell because the United States refused to defend progress from Islamism, in the same way we refused to protect our successes in Iraq from the rise of ISIS. The Shah’s government could have been saved, but we refused to save it.

So why do so many people believe the imperialist-calamity version of modern Persian history? Because the world is filled with freshmen and sophomoric adults."


timely article....sorry, not from a New Zealand or revisionist history website

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/421595/print


related http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2012/08/dispatch-a-surprising-rehabilitation-the-shah-in-the-eyes-of-young-iranians.html

read through the comments at the end ...many from Iranians...

seems Americans either blame America for doing too much or not doing enough...

...Iranias seem to blame themselves......... "Zarrin, I do not disagree with you that my generation was fooled and the completely misread Khomeini and the mullahs. We blew it. I am especially, mad at myself because I come from a family with mullahs among its members. I should have known that they care about only two things: What is between their legs and what is in their pockets. What worries me now is the current generation may be fooled by another dictator who looks good when out of power and of course completely changes his/her tune when in power. "

great exchange from the comments....

Mark •
I lived for a year in that country while it was ruled by that foreign imposed dictator. I can tell you this: no self-respecting American would ever tolerate such. Heck, we had a revolution back in the 1770s to get rid of ours. So did the Iranians, two hundred years later.


Sassan •
All one can do is laugh at this rhetoric trying to equate everything to America. :)

Your comparison of the 1979 bloodthirsty, Islamic totalitarian reaction in Iran, to the American Revolution of 1776 is laughable. America's revolution was inspired by freedom and democracy, whereas the Iranian reactionary event of 1978-1979 was motivated by pushing back all the positive social and economic gains made during the Pahlavi period. It can be argued that the current Islamic system in Iran is a foreign imposed dictatorship advancing a state ideology (Islam) founded in Arabia. It is undisputed that the "akhunds" (mullahs) have made every attemt at destroying Iran's native glorious pre-Islamic culture and history.

You living in Iran for one year, hardly makes you an expert. It is obvious that you are an apologist for the Islamic dictatorship. How unfortunate that people like you have such disregard for peoples intelligence. Most people know that the Shah was a true patriot and loved Iran deeply. After thirty-three years of ineffective and harmful rule by the akhunds, Iranians have had it. We want a true revolution that is inspired by freedom, democracy, and a secular society.



Seb Masri •

Ah yes, but you're forgetting that Mark doesn't believe Iranians deserve democracy or freedom. He also doesn't see them as intelligent enough to understand what freedom is. Mark is an apologist, who clearly has issues with his own government in America, and therefore sees Iran as a beacon of human rights, liberalism and freedom - actually, that's wrong - Mark also once said that Iranians don't want liberalism, as if liberalism is something they don't understand.

Scott. You said. "It wasn't because we did this. It was because we did this". ;)
Sorry try again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Scott. You said. "It wasn't because we did this. It was because we did this". ;)
Sorry try again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I never said we didn't do anything nor what we did or didn't do...you always have to weigh the potential absent our involvement, you just like to put all of the blame(or the biggest) on America which is pretty silly....

"I'm sorry but do you guys realize who holds the biggest blame for helping Iran's current leader come to power?
THE UNITED STATES!"

"So...... Who's the boogyman?"

I never said we didn't do anything nor what we did or didn't do...you always have to weigh the potential absent our involvement, you just like to put all of the blame(or the biggest) on America which is pretty silly....

"I'm sorry but do you guys realize who holds the biggest blame for helping Iran's current leader come to power?
THE UNITED STATES!"

"So...... Who's the boogyman?"

Haha - very true, the biggest installer of the Shah was the USA and the biggest installer of the Mullahs was, you'll never guess, the USA.

But contrary to the historical understanding of all good Prolesters (if Orwell had Hipsters?) only Imperialcorpratists America is the evil and every other peace loving people in the world (Russia/China) are being repressed by the USA from bringing the enlightenment.

What really pisses me off is how much this alternate reality has solidified its roots. It is very easy to machinize political non-conformity conforming alternate realities under the protections and sacrifice provided by the US government, the Constitution, and the American service-member. This gives these thought activists the breathing room necessary to create the ultimate self-licking-ice-cream-cone: the hate America Unicorn Fart Double Rainbow crowd.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/22/exclusive-army-chief-odierno-in-exit-interview-says-us-could-have-prevented/

Going to repost JohnR's mention of Army Chief Odierno's interview on FOX News as he also supports the Obama Iran deal.

Dear Representatives Boehner and Pelosi and Senators McConnell and Reid:



As you know, on July 14, 2015, the United States and five other nations announced that a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has been reached with Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. In our judgment as former senior military officers, the agreement will not have that effect. Removing sanctions on Iran and releasing billions of dollars to its regime over the next ten years is inimical to the security of Israel and the Middle East. There is no credibility within JCPOA’s inspection process or the ability to snap back sanctions once lifted, should Iran violate the agreement. In this and other respects, the JCPOA would threaten the national security and vital interests of the United States and, therefore, should be disapproved by the Congress.

The agreement as constructed does not “cut off every pathway” for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. To the contrary, it actually provides Iran with a legitimate path to doing that simply by abiding by the deal. JCPOA allows all the infrastructure the Iranians need for a nuclear bomb to be preserved and enhanced. Notably, Iran is allowed to: continue to enrich uranium; develop and test advanced centrifuges; and continue work on its Arak heavy-water plutonium reactor. Collectively, these concessions afford the Iranians, at worst, a ready breakout option and, at best, an incipient nuclear weapons capability a decade from now.

The agreement is unverifiable. Under the terms of the JCPOA and a secret side deal (to which the United States is not privy), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be responsible for inspections under such severe limitations as to prevent them from reliably detecting Iranian cheating. For example, if Iran and the inspectors are unable to reach an accommodation with respect to a given site, the result could be at least a 24-day delay in IAEA access. The agreement also requires inspectors to inform Iran in writing as to the basis for its concerns about an undeclared site, thus further delaying access. Most importantly, these inspections do not allow access to Iranian military facilities, the most likely location of their nuclear weapons development efforts. In the JCPOA process, there is substantial risk of U.S. intelligence being compromised, since the IAEA often relies on our sensitive data with respect to suspicious and/or prohibited activity.

While failing to assure prevention of Iran’s nuclear weapons development capabilities, the agreement provides by some estimates $150 billion dollars or more to Iran in the form of sanctions relief. As military officers, we find it unconscionable that such a windfall could be given to a regime that even the Obama administration has acknowledged will use a portion of such funds to continue to support terrorism in Israel, throughout the Middle East and globally, whether directly or through proxies. These actions will be made all the more deadly since the JCPOA will lift international embargoes on Iran’s access to advanced conventional weapons and ballistic missile technology.

In summary, this agreement will enable Iran to become far more dangerous, render the Mideast still more unstable and introduce new threats to American interests as well as our allies. In our professional opinion, far from being an alternative to war, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action makes it likely that the war the Iranian regime has waged against us since 1979 will continue, with far higher risks to our national security interests. Accordingly, we urge the Congress to reject this defective accord.

SIGNATURES

1. Admiral David Architzel, US Navy, Retired

2. Admiral Stanley R. Arthur, US Navy, Retired

3. General William Begert, US Air Force, Retired

4. General J.B. Davis, US Air Force, Retired

5. Admiral William A. Doughert, US Navy, Retired

6. Admiral Leon A. “Bud” Edney, US Navy, Retired

7. General Alfred G. Hansen US Air Force, Retired

8. Admiral Thomas Hayward, US Navy, Retired

9. Admiral James Hogg, US Navy, Retired

10. Admiral Jerome Johnson, US Navy, Retired

11. Admiral Timothy J. Keating, US Navy, Retired

12. Admiral Robert J. Kelly, US Navy, Retired

13. Admiral Thomas Joseph Lopez, US Navy, Retired

14. Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons, US Navy, Retired

15. Admiral Richard Macke, US Navy, Retired

16. Admiral Henry Mauz, US Navy, Retired

17. General Lance Smith, US Air Force, Retired

18. Admiral Leighton Smith, US Navy, Retired

19. Admiral William D. Smith, US Navy, Retired

20. General Louis C. Wagner, Jr., US Army, Retired

21. Admiral Steve White, US Navy, Retired

22. General Ronald W. Yates, US Air Force, Retired



23. Lieutenant General Teddy G. Allen, US Army, Retired

24. Lieutenant General Edward G. Anderson, III, US Army, Retired

25. Lieutenant General Marcus A. Anderson, US Air Force, Retired

26. Lieutenant General Spence M. Armstrong, US Air Force, Retired

27. Lieutenant General Harold W. Blot, US Marine Corps, Retired

28. Vice Admiral Michael Bowman, US Navy, Retired

29. Lieutenant General William G. “Jerry” Boykin, US Army, Retired

30. Vice Admiral Edward S. Briggs, US Navy, Retired

31. Lieutenant General Richard E. “Tex” Brown III, US Air Force, Retired

32. Lieutenant General William J. Campbell, US Air Force, Retired

33. Vice Admiral Edward Clexton, US Navy, Retired

34. Vice Admiral Daniel L. Cooper, US Navy, Retired

35. Vice Admiral William A. Dougherty, US Navy, Retired

36. Lieutenant General Brett Dula, US Air Force, Retired

37. Lieutenant General Gordon E. Fornell, US Air Force, Retired

38. Lieutenant General Thomas B. Goslin, US Air Force, Retired

39. Lieutenant General Earl Hailston, US Marine Corps, Retired

40. Vice Admiral Bernard M. Kauderer, US Navy, Retired

41. Lieutenant General Timothy A. Kinnan, US Air Force, Retired

42. Vice Admiral J. B . LaPlante, US Navy, Retired

43. Vice Admiral Tony Less, US Navy, Retired

44. Lieutenant General Bennett L. Lewis, US Army, Retired

45. Vice Admiral Michael Malone, US Navy, Retired

46. Vice Admiral John Mazach, US Navy, Retired

47. Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney, US Air Force, Retired

48. Lieutenant General Fred McCorkle, US Marine Corps, Retired

49. Vice Admiral Robert Monroe, US Navy, Retired

50. Vice Admiral Jimmy Pappas, US Navy, Retired

51. Vice Admiral J. Theodore Parker, US Navy, Retired

52. Lieutenant General Garry L. Parks, US Marine Corps, Retired

53. Lieutenant General Everett Pratt, US Air Force, Retired

54. Vice Admiral John Poindexter, US Navy, Retired

55. Lieutenant General Clifford "Ted" Rees, Jr., US Air Force, Retired

56. Vice Admiral William Rowden, US Navy, Retired

57. Vice Admiral Robert F. Schoultz, US Navy, Retired

58. Lieutenant General E.G. “Buck” Shuler, Jr., US Air Force, Retired

59. Lieutenant General Hubert 'Hugh" G. Smith, US Army, Retired

60. Vice Admiral Edward M. Straw, US Navy, Retired

61. Lieutenant General David J. Teal, US Air Force, Retired

62. Vice Admiral D.C. "Deese" Thompson, US Coast Guard, Retired

63. Lieutenant General William E. Thurman, US Air Force, Retired

64. Lieutenant General Billy Tomas, US Army, Retired

65. Vice Admiral John Totushek, US Navy, Retired

66. Vice Admiral Jerry Tuttle, US Navy, Retired

67. Vice Admiral Jerry Unruh, US Navy, Retired

68. Vice Admiral Timothy W. Wright, US Navy, Retired

69. Rear Admiral William V. Alford, Jr., US Navy, Retired

70. Major General Thurman E. Anderson, US Army, Retired

71. Major General Joseph T. Anderson, US Marine Corps, Retired

72. Rear Admiral Philip Anselmo, US Navy, Retired

73. Major General Joe Arbuckle, US Army, Retired

74. Rear Admiral James W. Austin, US Navy, Retired

75. Rear Admiral John R. Batzler, US Navy, Retired

76. Rear Admiral John Bayless, US Navy, Retired

77. Major General John Bianchi, US Army, Retired

78. Rear Admiral Donald Vaux Boecker, US Navy, Retired

79. Rear Admiral Jerry C. Breast, US Navy, Retired

80. Rear Admiral Bruce B. Bremner, US Navy, Retired

81. Major General Edward M. Browne, US Army, Retired

82. Rear Admiral Thomas F. Brown III, US Navy, Retired

83. Rear Admiral Lyle Bull, US Navy, Retired

84. Major General Bobby G. Butcher, US Marine Corps, Retired

85. Rear Admiral Jay A. Campbell, US Navy, Retired

86. Major General Henry D. Canterbury, US Air Force, Retired

87. Major General Carroll D. Childers, US Army, Retired

88. Rear Admiral Ronald L. Christenson, US Navy, Retired

89. Major General John R.D. Cleland, US Army, Retired

90. Major General Richard L. Comer, US Air Force, Retired

91. Rear Admiral Jack Dantone, US Navy, Retired

92. Major General William B. Davitte, US Air Force, Retired

93. Major General James D. Delk, US Army, Retired

94. Major General Felix Dupre, US Air Force, Retired

95. Rear Admiral Philip A. Dur, US Navy, Retired

96. Major General Neil L. Eddins, US Air Force, Retired

97. Rear Admiral Paul Engel, US Navy, Retired

98. Major General Vince Falter, US Army, Retired

99. Rear Admiral James H. Flatley, US Navy, Retired

100. Major General Bobby O. Floyd, US Air Force, Retired

101. Major General Paul Fratarangelo, US Marine Corps, Retired

102. Rear Admiral Veronica "Ronne" Froman, US Navy, Retired

103. Rear Admiral R. Byron Fuller, US Navy, Retired

104. Rear Admiral Frank Gallo, US Navy, Retired

105. Rear Admiral Albert A. Gallotta, Jr., US Navy, Retired

106. Rear Admiral James Mac Gleim, US Navy, Retired

107. Rear Admiral Robert H. Gormley, US Navy, Retired

108. Rear Admiral William Gureck, US Navy, Retired

109. Major General Gary L. Harrell, US Army, Retired

110. Rear Admiral Donald Hickman, US Navy, Retired

111. Major General Geoffrey Higginbotham, US Marine Corps, Retired

112. Major General Kent H. Hillhouse, US Army, Retired

113. Rear Admiral Tim Hinkle, US Navy, Retired

114. Major General Victor Joseph Hugo, US Army, Retired

115. Major General James P. Hunt, US Air Force, Retired

116. Rear Admiral Grady L. Jackson, US Navy, Retired

117. Major General William K. James, US Air Force, Retired

118. Rear Admiral John M. “Carlos” Johnson, US Navy, Retired

119. Rear Admiral Pierce J. Johnson, US Navy, Retired

120. Rear Admiral Steven B. Kantrowitz, US Navy, Retired

121. Major General Maurice W. Kendall, US Army, Retired

122. Rear Admiral Charles R. Kubic, US Navy, Retired

123. Rear Admiral Frederick L. Lewis, US Navy, Retired

124. Major General John D. Logeman, Jr., US Air Force, Retired

125. Major General Homer S. Long, Jr., US Army, Retired

126. Major General Robert M. Marquette, US Air Force, Retired

127. Rear Admiral Robert B. McClinton, US Navy, Retired

128. Rear Admiral W. J. McDaniel, MD, US Navy, Retired

129. Major General Keith W. Meurlin, US Air Force, Retired

130. Rear Admiral Terrence McKnight, US Navy, Retired


131. Major General John F. Miller, Jr., US Air Force, Retired

132. Major General Burton R. Moore, US Air Force, Retired

133. Rear Admiral David R. Morris, US Navy, Retired

134. Rear Admiral Ed Nelson, Jr., US Coast Guard, Retired

135. Major General George W. "Nordie" Norwood, US Air Force, Retired

136. Major General Everett G. Odgers, US Air Force, Retired

137. Rear Admiral Phillip R. Olson, US Navy, Retired

138. Rear Admiral Robert S. Owens, US Navy, Retired

139. Rear Admiral Robert O. Passmore, US Navy, Retired

140. Major General Richard E. Perraut, Jr., US Air Force, Retired

141. Rear Admiral W.W. Pickavance, Jr., US Navy, Retired

142. Rear Admiral L.F. Picotte, US Navy, Retired

143. Rear Admiral Thomas J. Porter, US Navy, Retired

144. Major General H. Douglas Robertson, US Army, Retired

145. Rear Admiral W.J. Ryan, US Navy, Retired

146. Rear Admiral Norman Saunders, US Coast Guard, Retired

147. Major General John P. Schoeppner, Jr., US Air Force, Retired

148. Major General Edison E. Scholes, US Army, Retired

149. Rear Admiral Hugh P. Scott, US Navy, Retired

150. Major General Richard Secord, US Air Force, Retired

151. Rear Admiral James M. Seely, US Navy, Retired

152. Major General Sidney Shachnow, US Army, Retired

153. Rear Admiral William H. Shawcross, US Navy, Retired

154. Rear Admiral Bob Shumaker, US Navy, Retired

155. Major General Willie Studer, US Air Force, Retired

156. Major General Larry Taylor, US Marine Corps, Retired

157. Rear Admiral Jeremy Taylor, US Navy, Retired

158. Major General Richard L. Testa, US Air Force, Retired

159. Rear Admiral Robert P. Tiernan, US Navy, Retired

160. Major General Paul E. Vallely, US Army, Retired

161. Major General Kenneth W. Weir, US Marine Corps, Retired

162. Major General John Welde, US Air Force, Retired

163. Rear Admiral James B. Whittaker, US Navy, Retired

164. Major General Geoffrey P. Wiedeman, Jr., MD, US Air Force, Retired

165. Rear Admiral H. Denny Wisely, US Navy, Retired

166. Brigadier General John R. Allen, Jr., US Air Force, Retired

167. Brigadier General John C. Arick, US Marine Corps, Retired

168. Brigadier General Loring R. Astorino, US Air Force, Retired

169. Rear Admiral Robert E. Besal, US Navy, Retired

170. Brigadier General William Bloomer, US Marine Corps, Retired

171. Brigadier General George P. Cole, Jr., US Air Force, Retired

172. Brigadier General Richard A. Coleman, US Air Force, Retired


173. Brigadier General James L. Crouch, US Air Force, Retired

174. Rear Admiral Marianne B. Drew, US Navy, Retired

175. Brigadier General Philip M. Drew, US Air Force, Retired

176. Brigadier General Larry K. Grundhauser, US Air Force, Retired

177. Brigadier General Thomas W. Honeywill, US Air Force, Retired

178. Brigadier General Gary M. Jones, US Army, Retired

179. Brigadier General Stephen Lanning, US Air Force, Retired

180. Brigadier General Thomas J. Lennon, US Air Force, Retired

181. Rear Admiral Bobby C. Lee, US Navy, Retired

182. Brigadier General Robert F. Peksens, US Air Force, Retired

183. Brigadier General Joe Shaefer, US Air Force, Retired

184. Brigadier General Graham E. Shirley, US Air Force, Retired

185. Brigadier General Stanley O. Smith, US Air Force, Retired

186. Brigadier General Hugh B. Tant III, US Army, Retired

187. Brigadier General Michael Joseph Tashjian, US Air Force, Retired

188. Brigadier General William Tiernan, US Marine Corps, Retired

189. Brigadier General Roger W. Scearce, US Army, Retired

190. Brigadier General Robert V. Woods, US Air Force, Retired

What, they could only find 190 Flag Officer/General Officers willing to sign in opposition?

/sarc

I think the "calculus" is when do you want to go war with Iraq and how well armed will they be when you have to go to war. Right now a whole bunch of folks seem to want as much intel as the deal on the table will provide for when the decision has to be made. That and they would like to keep the war non-nuclear.

That and trying to buy time for an internal regime change, but I don't think there is enough time in the math for that.

What, they could only find 190 Flag Officer/General Officers willing to sign in opposition?

/sarc



Pfft-What do Generals and Admirals know anyway?
They are out of touch, unlike Harvard Grads. :)