Democrats hope to prevent a 'no' vote on the Iran deal

[Followers4christ]

Washington (CNN)Democrats have picked up enough congressional support for the Iran nuclear deal that they are now hoping not merely to sustain any White House veto of a resolution rejecting the agreement but also to prevent the resolution from even reaching the President's desk.

All 54 Senate Republicans are expected to vote for a resolution in mid-September disapproving of the accord, but to clear a procedural hurdle so the chamber can move on the bill, they need six Democrats to join them.

So far, only two Democratic senators have said they will oppose the agreement: New York's Chuck Schumer and New Jersey's Bob Menendez. While enough senators remain undecided to reach 60 votes against -- only 23 of 44 have committed to backing the Iran deal so far -- the steady trickle of support is dwindling that pool by the day.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/22/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-senate-democrats-no-vote/

 

[Followers4christ]

Iran consistently threatens to annihilate the Jewish state, even though world powers insist the nuclear deal will make Israel safer. It seems that Obama cares more about pleasing Iran (which hates America and Israel) then the safety of our only ally in the Middle East. I hope that the Iran deal fails and that God gives our leaders wisdom.

 

[Vylo]

If the deal fails then Iran will steamroll ahead towards nukes, how is that a good thing?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Iran consistently threatens to annihilate the Jewish state, even though world powers insist the nuclear deal will make Israel safer. It seems that Obama cares more about pleasing Iran (which hates America and Israel) then the safety of our only ally in the Middle East. I hope that the Iran deal fails and that God gives our leaders wisdom.

If the deal fails then Iran will steamroll ahead towards nukes, how is that a good thing?

Indeed -- at this point, Iran's a few months away (at most) from their goal. This deal puts them back at least 10 years.

As nobody has offered a better alternative, this is it.

 

[Followers4christ]

Indeed -- at this point, Iran's a few months away (at most) from their goal. This deal puts them back at least 10 years.

As nobody has offered a better alternative, this is it.

The best solution sometimes is not the easiest. The best solution is let Israel go ahead with a surprises air strike that will halt the nuclear program as Israel has done in the past. Here are a couple of examples:

Operation opera was a air strike in 1981 on an Iraq nuclear reactor.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

Operation Orchard was an air strike in 2007 on a Syria nuclear reactor.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard

As we can see we don't have to make a deal that will give Iran that is run by terrorist nuclear power to stop them from getting nuclear power.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The best solution sometimes is not the easiest. The best solution is let Israel go ahead with a surprises air strike that will halt the nuclear program as Israel has done in the past. Here are a couple of examples:

Operation opera was a air strike in 1981 on an Iraq nuclear reactor.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

Operation Orchard was an air strike in 2007 on a Syria nuclear reactor.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard

As we can see we don't have to make a deal that will give Iran that is run by terrorist nuclear power to stop them from getting nuclear power.

If Israel wants a military strike, one that risks a wider war in the mideast, in order to set Iran back... what? 2 years? 3? 5 if they're lucky?... let them.

This could be the easiest solution... for America, that is. But only if we make it absolutely clear from the get-go that we're not going to be dragged into any war that Israel starts.

 

[Vylo]

As we can see we don't have to make a deal that will give Iran that is run by terrorist nuclear power to stop them from getting nuclear power.

We don't have to, but it is the most expedient, safest, and humane way to.

Global politics isn't a game of battleship where you simply bomb something and its over. We've been shown time and time again how that can play out. If Israel really wants to go through with bombing Iran, let them, but then count us out of bailing them out...again.

 

[bhsmte]

Indeed -- at this point, Iran's a few months away (at most) from their goal. This deal puts them back at least 10 years.

As nobody has offered a better alternative, this is it.

Do you think Iran would forgo being a few months away from their goal, to then have to wait 10 years?

 

[Paulos23]

Do you think Iran would forgo being a few months away from their goal, to then have to wait 10 years?

Given how they have suffered under the sanctions and how things are improving now that money is starting to come in, some in Iran would rather wait.

 

[bhsmte]

Given how they have suffered under the sanctions and how things are improving now that money is starting to come in, some in Iran would rather wait.

I could see how some may want to wait.

I am just curious how we will be able to confirm, they are indeed waiting.

 

[Paulos23]

I could see how some may want to wait.

I am just curious how we will be able to confirm, they are indeed waiting.

Inspections, assuming that they do open up for them. And that is the sticking point for most, there might not be any way to be sure we know all the production sites.

 

[bhsmte]

Inspections, assuming that they do open up for them. And that is the sticking point for most, there might not be any way to be sure we know all the production sites.

If we can not have a high degree of confidence in inspections, I personally struggle to determine why the deal would be beneficial.

 

[Paulos23]

If we can not have a high degree of confidence in inspections, I personally struggle to determine why the deal would be beneficial.

The thing I hope for is they find out that open trade is more beneficial than war.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Inspections, assuming that they do open up for them. And that is the sticking point for most, there might not be any way to be sure we know all the production sites.

Well, that's given no matter what we do: We can't know what we don't know.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If we can not have a high degree of confidence in inspections, I personally struggle to determine why the deal would be beneficial.

What's the alternative? Let Israel off its leash? If they strike at production sites, how can we know they they'll get them all?

They'd be risking a full-scale war in the Middle East (which we, of course, would blithely charge into) for nothing.

 

[Paradoxum]

The deal is good. The deal protects Israel.

No deal means no oversight.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The deal is good. The deal protects Israel.

No deal means no oversight.

Agreed -- this deal pushes Iran back at least a decade... what does no deal accomplish, hmmm?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Do you think Iran would forgo being a few months away from their goal, to then have to wait 10 years?

With the sanctions lifted, Iran gets 10 years of economic prosperity... or at least improvement.

That's worth waiting for on the nuke.

 

[TerranceL]

Indeed -- at this point, Iran's a few months away (at most) from their goal. This deal puts them back at least 10 years.

As nobody has offered a better alternative, this is it.

If the deal fails then Iran will steamroll ahead towards nukes, how is that a good thing?

Given how often Iran has been caught in non-compliance with the IAEA, what's the point anyway? Lets gift them billions of dollars to not do something in 10 years that we know they will do as soon as they can?

How well did that work with North Korea?

 

[TerranceL]

Given how they have suffered under the sanctions and how things are improving now that money is starting to come in, some in Iran would rather wait.

Why wait? Once they become a nuclear power, they have a huge leverage over the nations that wish to continue sanctions.