Mother do you think they'll like this song.
 

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...

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.”

"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...ave-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.

"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.

"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" 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

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

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

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

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

"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

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


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

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.

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.