rickyp wrote:fateNewsflash: the deal does away with sanctions
No it doesn't. The sanctions are loosed only upon verification of compliance to the deal.
If Iran is found in contravention the snap back of sanctions can occur with only the US, EU, France, Germany and UK voting... But Russia and China, even if they don't vote for the snap back, are committed to it...
We've discussed this before. The snapback provisions are a joke. All Iran has to do is not draw the full ire of the heavily economically-engaged French and Germans and we would lose any vote.
On the other hand if the current deal falls through, the US will have demonstrated, once again, that it is an unreliable partner and Russia and China will use that excuse to end their cooperation and participation in sanctions. (India and Japan too)
Hah-hah. Good one. Yes, the US under Obama is an unreliable partner--ask the Jordanians, the Ukrainians, the Kurds, the Syrian freedom fighters, the Egyptians, the Israelis, and I'm sure the list is much longer.
But, you are repeating yourself. Again.
You really don't understand the deal do you? (Perhaps its willful ignorance?)
No, perhaps we have a difference of opinion. You fawn over your savior and I don't. He's proven himself to be a feeble President in terms of foreign affairs.
FateSo, logically, it's pretty STUPID to give them $150B more to commit terror with without at least TRYING to restrict bad behavior, isn't it?
First, its their money. Its been seized with the compliance of the participating nations in order to force the agreement that's been reached. If the deal falls through, then a lot of the money will be released as a result of the collapse of the deal.
I don't care if it belongs to them. What will they do with it? (this is where you pretend you don't know, even though the Iranians have told us)
Reneging on the deal now, and keeping the money, is tantamount to simply stealing the money. (And Iran has complaints about the theft of oil revenues by the US and UK for years so this simply confirms the nature of the West to everyone in the Middle East.)
Meh. Give it to the Americans who have lost loved ones because of Iranian actions. Give it to the survivors of the 444 day hostage-taking. But, do not tell us that giving it to Hezbollah and other terrorist groups is no big thing.
Second, they have many needs for those funds. Mostly infrastructure improvements.
Hey buddy, they could be doing some of that now instead of funding terrorism. Why don't they?
Oh, because they think it is their religious duty to kill people?
Oh, okay, so let's give them a bigger bankroll!
Again, why isn't this in the deal???????
You've not answered this question. Why is that?
Third, according to you they've been sponsoring terrorism even without access to those funds. That's something they seem to do effectively on the cheap....
According to me????
Would you like to deny it?
Answer yes or no.
Fourth: Maybe they'll use some of the funds to help fight ISIS..... Since they are the only effective military in the region that opposes ISIS maybe that's not such a bad thing.
So, you're in favor of Iran being a regional hegemon? Yes or no.
The objective of the deal was to get Iran to commit to a verification process that ensures that they can't build nuclear weapons. The objective has been met.
"Can't"--you will eat that word.
FateWhat is a quart of Republicans?
A miserable, angry mass of old white men. Looks kinda like a bottle of curdled milk. Thinks as effectively as well.
Oh, that's so funny--except it's the Democratic nominees who are all OLD, and, with the exception of Hillary, white men.