“The reality is that it is a painful agreement to make, but also necessary and wise,”

[cigaretteman]

“The reality is that it is a painful agreement to make, but also necessary and wise,” said R. Nicholas Burns, who drafted the first sanctions against Iran, passed in the United Nations Security Council in 2006 and 2007, when he was undersecretary of state for policy. “And we might think of it as just the end of the beginning of a long struggle to contain Iran. There will be other dramas ahead.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-us.html

 

[Joe Pine]

Only a fool would think it is a wise agreement.

 

[thewop]

“The reality is that it is a painful agreement to make, but also necessary and wise,” said R. Nicholas Burns, who drafted the first sanctions against Iran, passed in the United Nations Security Council in 2006 and 2007, when he was undersecretary of state for policy. “And we might think of it as just the end of the beginning of a long struggle to contain Iran. There will be other dramas ahead.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-us.html

While I didn't read the full article, I unfortunately agree with the two quotes in the post.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Only a fool would think it is a wise agreement.

Another "go to war" vote?

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Obama says to iran they can nuke us and Israel, then he lies to us and says it is a sanction agreement

 

[cigaretteman]

Another "go to war" vote?

And let our sanctions be meaningless while our allies and cosignees of the agreement drop theirs and resume trade with Iran. Oh, and lose out on the inspections as well!

 

[DrVenkman]

Doesnt it seem that almost any conclusion with Iran would be wrought with worry?

Not that it matters but i bet most countries over there feel the same about the US. That said, the current deal gives Iran an out and the option to follow the parameters of the deal without pushing them further into a severe economic corner.

Maybe it can work.

 

[22*43*51]

 

[22*43*51]

 

[22*43*51]

 

[22*43*51]

 

[86Hawkeye]

Should the agreement be changed to satisfy the changes that Iran now wants to the sanctions relief?

 

[naturalmwa]

“The reality is that it is a painful agreement to make, but also necessary and wise,” said R. Nicholas Burns, who drafted the first sanctions against Iran, passed in the United Nations Security Council in 2006 and 2007, when he was undersecretary of state for policy. “And we might think of it as just the end of the beginning of a long struggle to contain Iran. There will be other dramas ahead.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-us.html

I approve of this abbreviated posting format. Good job.

 

[Titanhawk2]

So Putin is propping up Syria, so Iran doesn't have to spend their money there. Putin sells them air defense missiles to protect the military facilities that are not included in the deal. We can put our sanctions back on anytime we want, but what about the EU and UN sanctions?

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Doesnt it seem that almost any conclusion with Iran would be wrought with worry?

Not that it matters but i bet most countries over there feel the same about the US. That said, the current deal gives Iran an out and the option to follow the parameters of the deal without pushing them further into a severe economic corner.

Maybe it can work.

You're not wrong. This seems to be nothing more than giving them rules, that we know they will break.
History will tell you what happens after that.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Let me help the tl;dr types with this executive summary:

The reason why we have to reject the Iran deal is because if the Republicans ever run things, they will screw it up.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

The question is, why do we REALLY not want them to get a weapon? Is it because they are a threat? Or is it because we won't be able to push them around as easily?
One gun doesn't change the fact that we have the worlds most powerful arsenal. As in, shoot us once, we blow you up ten times.
Iran is integral to Bush Srs and the NeoCons, Neo Libs, strategy to taking control of the region and ensuring they do business our way.
One way or another, we will see military action in Iran.

 

[rchawk]

The question is, why do we REALLY not want them to get a weapon? Is it because they are a threat? Or is it because we won't be able to push them around as easily?
One gun doesn't change the fact that we have the worlds most powerful arsenal. As in, shoot us once, we blow you up ten times.
Iran is integral to Bush Srs and the NeoCons, Neo Libs, strategy to taking control of the region and ensuring they do business our way.
One way or another, we will see military action in Iran.

It's not about Iran's nuclear threat to the U.S. It is about their threat to other countries. When religious-crazy-hateful people are running a country with nukes we should all be nervous. A million dead Israelis or Saudis (or some country that isn't Shiite) may not be Americans, but it would still be a very bad thing.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Another "go to war" vote?

This is nothing more than let's make an unrealistic agreement, wait for them to break it and then go to war.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

It's not about Iran's nuclear threat to the U.S. It is about their threat to other countries. When religious-crazy-hateful people are running a country with nukes we should all be nervous. A million dead Israelis or Saudis (or some country that isn't Shiite) may not be Americans, but it would still be a very bad thing.

Aren't the Israelis and Saudis the ones who have attacked us before?