WEATHER »

Bad Deal


Sunday, December 1, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

In Geneva, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry surrendered to the Iranian terrorist regime, in a deal concerning its nuclear program. Never mind that Iran has secret underground nuclear sites, long-range missiles, and a drone program.

According to former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, in exchange for superficial concessions, Iran has bought time, gained legitimacy and broken the psychological momentum and effects of the international economic sanctions. Furthermore, this terrible agreement, throws Israel under the bus, opens trade for Iran, allows it to continue its nuclear enrichment, and only two nuclear sites will be inspected.

Once again, America has been sucker-punched by Barack Obama.

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

How about peace, or give peace a chance or how about we are the ones who have been burning the Iranians for the past 50 years, how about the Saudis who are the number one terrorist organization the world (right behind Israel) are the ones we need to attack, how about all you neocons go get a life on another planet, how about the "October Surprise" the second coup here in the US after the Kennedy assassination, how about the assassination of Mossedegh? You people who want war war war are a danger to the planet and need to called out for what you are predators!

contactjohn (anonymous profile)
December 1, 2013 at 2:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As I said in another thread. The biggest favor we did for Iran was to take out Saddam Hussein. It destroyed the regional balance among tyrants. What I can't understand is how you liberals think all these Iranian atrocities are justified. They recently brutally and violently oppressed the opposition in their most recent election. They committed genocide in the Iran-Iraq war. Their treatment of women and minorities is abysmal. The are unquestionably pursuing a nuclear bomb. And all this you are willing to forgive and forget because the CIA took out some other two-bit dictator 50 years ago? I'm not saying that we were right, but it sure doesn't absolve the Mullahs of all their atrocities.

Botany (anonymous profile)
December 1, 2013 at 2:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

John Bolton is a weak source since he was never confirmed as UN Ambassador by the US Senate, he's a super rightwinger (like you Ms. Thorn), and he seems to think confrontation with the Iranians will yield something for us and for peace in that region. Try glancing at our military interventions in Iraq (twice), and currently in Afghanistan, and tell me these military adventures have done anything but kill lots of people, keep tension going in the ME, and allow our military-industrial complex to make lots of billions more? If you have military-age adult children, tell us you are hoping they will volunteer for future combat against Iran, OK? Or maybe Don can go.
The Iranian "drone program" is laughable, and is based on one of ours that crashed on their territory last year.
"Throw Israel under the bus"! Hardly, Israel is ready to throw US under the bus, and Netanyahu can attack them anytime he pleases using mainly our equipment. He wants to do this, and only Obama has restrained him so far. I assume you would like a conflagration in the ME... really?
You are a broken record, you and your Thornbirds.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
December 1, 2013 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bolton was a RECESS APPOINTMENT of Bush 43, and Wikipedia notes "Bolton served as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 until December 2006 as a recess appointee by President George W. Bush. He resigned in December 2006, when the recess appointment would have otherwise ended, because he was unlikely to win Senate confirmation." Bolton has often equated "diplomacy" with surrender, and he as a fierce neo-con, howevermuch he now denies this. Fox News commentator, adviser to Mitt Romney on foreign policy...tells you plenty.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
December 1, 2013 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Iran came to the table ONLY because of the harsh sanctions that were implemented by the Obama administration. Obama kept asking Israel to wait and let sanctions work. Apparently, the sanctions worked.

And it is not a deal yet. They have to START working on a deal. The six months is just a testing ground that has no risks involved should it fail. The bulk of the harsh sanctions remain place.

"Secretary of State John Kerry said the determination was evidence that the US will continue to enforce its oil sanctions during the next six months as it works to reach a comprehensive agreement that would prove the Iranian nuclear program is being used for peaceful purposes."

Bolton is a buffoon who only understands bombing. Why did he not think of harsh sanctions on Iran?

tabatha (anonymous profile)
December 1, 2013 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Purdue University experts with experience in analyzing nuclear programs say the deal reached recently with Iran signifies an important milestone.

But experts say the deal, which requires Iran to submit to regular inspections and dilute its uranium stockpile in exchange for certain economic sanctions being lifted, is only the first step in reducing the risk of nuclear proliferation.

“People have said that this agreement is the most significant agreement between the U.S. and Iran since the Iranian revolution,” said Bryan Sims, a doctoral student in Purdue’s School of Nuclear Engineering who worked with former U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “There’s a tendency to get excited about it, but there is still a lot of work that needs to be done.”

http://www.jconline.com/article/20131...

tabatha (anonymous profile)
December 1, 2013 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany, as so often your enormous IGNORANCE is showing: Mr. Mossadegh was a famous Irano-Persian, and the open source Wikipedia [pretty easy for you to check, fella] states that he "was the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 until 1953, when his government was overthrown in a coup d'état orchestrated by the British MI6 and the American CIA."
Hear that, DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED... and WE took him out at the behest of the declining imperial British empire...uh, Iranians have not forgotten that. Try not to call him a "two-bit dictator", and try carrying out 20 seconds of easy open source web research... your abysmal ignorance here reflects Ms. Thorn's thoughtless remarks in this piece. It's surprising the Indy even puts her tired neo-con stuff on-line, again and again [BTW, she sends same stuff to the News-Suppress and they often print it, too].

DrDan (anonymous profile)
December 1, 2013 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

apologies, Ms. Thorn, Don wrote this.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
December 1, 2013 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This was from Bolton in January:

"But the waiver provisions simply increase the likelihood that the new sanctions will have little effect."

.......

"Now, however, there are only two possible outcomes: Either Iran gets nuclear weapons or it doesn’t. To ensure that it doesn’t, the only viable option is to break Iran’s weapons program militarily. This would surely be an unpleasant undertaking, and may well have undesirable short-term economic consequences. But which is worse: Iran as a permanent nuclear power, or the short-term risks that would arise from swift action to prevent that result?"

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01...

Comment - at least in the Independent, rebuttals are possible.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
December 1, 2013 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

funny, some are so quick to judge others while their own team's atrocities continue to make the world sicker and more dangerous. "America, ___ yeah!"

spacey (anonymous profile)
December 1, 2013 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Other than throwing around insults DD, you still haven't justified the Iranian atrocities you continue to ignore. But then again, maybe you'll throw around some cheap insults instead of addressing the point.

Botany (anonymous profile)
December 1, 2013 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

for Bolton in absentia, and the Thornbirds: there is not "swift action" available. Pakistan has A-bombs, it's also an unstable country, should we attack them, too? Osama bin laden had some clever propaganda going, still used by Al Qaeda, and he actually invaded Bush 43's mind and seemed to orchestrate some of that dunderhead's moves. If we continue at extreme loggerheads with Pakistan, now with Afghanistan (Karzai is very corrupt), Iraq is going under, then we smash Iran in an illegal surprise attack... the bin laden theory that the West "hates Islam and wants to destroy it" will make even more sense to the enormous numbers of poverty-stricken young Muslims spanning the entire ME. Bolton's approach is crazy and would set the ME ablaze: there is no possibility of "swift action", duh.
So Don, you want to sucker-punch Iran (or even more courageously, let the Israelis do it for us), and you think it will be quick...?! Contactjohn calls you Thornbirds "predators", but I can see you're simply out there in fiction-loving Tea Party land, believing in Fortress America (hey, that was in the 1930s).

DrDan (anonymous profile)
December 1, 2013 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Since when is the attempt at peace a sucker punch? backwards, upside down, sideshow, diversion, ignorant, stupid, (does Don know what kind of power we yield?) Just think of what humans could be capable of if they weren't fighting and spending on fighting. Stop worrying about Israel, if it goes down, you can bet Obama will be there with all his fire power. Never heard one of you war hawks want to go into Africa to fight against the atrocities that have taken place there (think about what that makes you).

spacey (anonymous profile)
December 1, 2013 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

you started with calling Mossadegh a "two-bit dictator" -- wanna address that, Botany. Fess up to your ignorance? Start there, old boy.
It was not an "insult" to call you ignorant, Botany, an insult would be to state you "lied" about the democratically elected PM of Iran whom we took out. Have you any idea what the Shah's brutal SAVAK secret police did to the opposition in Iran during the decades we propped up his corrupt rule? No, it does not make what the current Islamic Republic does OK, their oppression is terrible, too.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
December 1, 2013 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)


"apologies, Ms. Thorn, Don wrote this."

DrDan (anonymous profile)
December 1, 2013 at 11:59 a.m.

Di, Don, Der, Die, Das, (Williams) Dan...

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 2, 2013 at 1:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

On a serious note, DrDan brings up an excellent and almost-always ignored point about the Shah/SAVAK, I remember even back in high school (c.1978) reading about not only the 37,000 that SAVAK murdered, but the torture/interrogation tactics used)

No wonder the Ayatollah got into power. One extreme begets another.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 2, 2013 at 1:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Di, Don, Der, Die, Das, (Williams) Dan...

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 2, 2013 at 1:50 a.m.

Baba Ram Dass Williams?

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
December 2, 2013 at 1:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BC- "No wonder the Ayatollah got into power. One extreme begets another."

And just as ruthless, just as violent

Botany (anonymous profile)
December 2, 2013 at 7:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

All Praise Allah, the American Infidels have provided us with Six months to prefect Allah's Nuclear blessing to clean the Earth of their presence, the American Savior has grant Allah more time to ride the World of Infidels!

dou4now (anonymous profile)
December 2, 2013 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

All Praise Allah, the American Infidels have provided us with Six months to prefect Allah's Nuclear blessing to clean the Earth of their presence, the American Savior Obama, has grant Allah more time to rid the World of Infidels!

dou4now (anonymous profile)
December 2, 2013 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Senator Lindsey Graham and US military commanders fortunately obstructed Savior Obama's attempt to employ Allah's Nuclear blessing to clean Charleston, South Carolina of US citizen infidels recently. The explosion of an approximately 1-megaton atomic device was detected as a magnitutde 4.5 earthquake in the seabed off Charleston, Carolina.
by Russian observers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rK7nO7...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecLjm5...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAnttX...

14noscams (anonymous profile)
December 2, 2013 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

yawn.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
December 2, 2013 at 6:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dr.Dan, you should not make light of this, nucular power is a bad thing. Don't you know that one nucular bomb can ruin your whole day??

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
December 2, 2013 at 8:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This comment section looks like a trollapaloosa.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
December 2, 2013 at 9:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To say "according to John Bolton" to support your argument is pretty much admitting you really don't like anything with a pulse.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 3, 2013 at 12:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Iran has nothing to worry about as long as Iranian Communist, former Weathermen member Valerie Jarrett is Obama's Senior White House Advisor.

Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorne, close friends of Jarrett to this day, funded President Obama’s Harvard education. These facts have led many to believe that Valerie Jarrett is making the major decisions in the White House.
Could, or would, Jarrett ever embrace the Ayers philosophy or re-education camps and mass extermination for those whom they deem to be an enemy of the new American communism? The following paragraph is strongly suggestive of this possibility.

Communist sympathizer Valerie Jarrett, now serving as Barack Obama’s Senior White House Adviser, is strongly rumored, from multiple sources, that just prior to the recent general election, to have issued a clear threat against the rank and file members of the American public who do not support President Obama. Allegedly Jarrett said “After we win this election, it is payback time. For those who supported us, there will be rewards, for the ones who opposed us, they will get what they deserve. There will be hell to pay. Congress won’t be a problem for us this time. With no election to worry about, we have two judges ready to go.”

Although Jarrett certainly does have the pedigree of a committed communist bent on the destruction of the United States as we know it, her aforementioned actions and statements do not directly prove prosecuteable criminal activity, although they are strongly suggestive that the present Senior White House Advisor, is in violation of her oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic and should be removed from office.

http://thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/01...

14noscams (anonymous profile)
December 3, 2013 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

14, get over Jarett, and Ayers, and Dorne [sic], whose name you can't even spell for one so fretful about her...that is long gone.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
December 3, 2013 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

COmmie, Pinko, Muslim, terrorist, extremist, Yippie, anthrax, 9/11, and Ryan Seacrest!

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
December 3, 2013 at 9:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I guess that is why the Iran lovers imposed the harshest sanctions by any US admin on Iran.

That link (commonsense?) looks like the trashy tabloids displayed at check-out counters.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
December 4, 2013 at 12:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

14noscams: Jarrett was born of American parents in Iran, she is not ethnically Iranian. Having said that, it's reasonable to assume that your comment infers that her being Iranian makes her a Muslim. First of all, not all Iranians are Muslim. My grandmother was born in Iran, but she was Assyrian. I won't get into what that means but google "Assyrians" and you'll find out that Assyrians are--by definition--Christians.

Second point, maybe she is a Communist, maybe she is a Muslim, but she can't be both. Communists are anti-religious, ergo the two are mutually exclusive. (Same deal with Obama: Is he a Communist, or a Muslim?...make up your minds all you Obama-haters) I would remind y'all that the Soviets (Communists) got their kiesters handed to them by the Mujahideen. (Translation: "people doing Jihad)

For what it's worth, I'm not a Muslim, (and I promise you, I'm not a terrorist) not a Communist, nor do I support Obama. I just want people to see the contradiction in the throw-mud-and-see-if-it-sticks criticism of Obama and his cronies.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 4, 2013 at 7:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Multicultural Craft Program: Japan

Join us for the first session of our multicultural craft ... Read More