American Jews overwhelmingly SUPPORT Iran deal, despite all-out assault by Netanyahu & AIPAC

by Guest Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:12 am

When an historic nuclear agreement with Iran was announced on July 14, Israel's Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, immediately lambasted it as a "historic mistake." He then warned that Israel would not be bound by it, and pledged to lobby Congress to oppose it. And he did so after claiming that this opposition was on behalf of "the entire Jewish people."

Soon after, a host of American Jewish organizations, including those pluralistic institutions which are supposed to represent the broader American Jewish community, took up Netanyahu's mantle, pledging to oppose the Iran deal on account of the (claimed) danger it poses to Israel. Unsurprisingly, so too did AIPAC, which so far has raised $30 million for its massive lobbying effort to kill the agreement, including television spots in 40 states.

When J Street expressed support for the deal, Jeffrey Goldberg—who has long predicted Israel would bomb Iran and views the deal as "morally dubious"—wondered aloud if those Jews who support it could be considered 'pro-Israel,' given the Israeli government's opposition.

From Netanyahu to AIPAC to Goldberg, the unspoken assumption was that the American Jewish community – and certainly those Jews who care about Israel – overwhelmingly opposed the deal. And those who supported it? Well, they were anything from not sufficiently 'pro-Israel' to self-hating Jews who want to see Israel destroyed.

But guess what? A poll just released, overseen by the country's preeminent sociologist and pollster who focuses on the Jewish community, Steven M. Cohen, shows that the overwhelming majority of U.S. Jews support the Iran deal.

Below are two graphics showing just how strong support for this deal is within the American Jewish community, with 53 percent wanting Congress to approve it (versus 35 percent):

American Jews overwhelmingly SUPPORT Iran deal, despite all-out assault by Netanyahu & AIPAC 19766835159_3ecb4e0f3c_c

American Jews overwhelmingly SUPPORT Iran deal, despite all-out assault by Netanyahu & AIPAC 19766835159_3ecb4e0f3c_c

American Jews overwhelmingly SUPPORT Iran deal, despite all-out assault by Netanyahu & AIPAC 19332544363_302859162f_c

With the vast majority of American Jews supporting President Obama's diplomatic initiative, and viewing it as adding to Israel's security, it can only mean one thing: the vast majority of Jews in this country must be self-hating.

Or something.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/23/1405169/-American-Jews-overwhelmingly-SUPPORT-Iran-deal-despite-all-out-assault-by-Netanyahu-AIPAC

Netanyahu's propaganda ain't working.

by Guest Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:58 am

Or they just believe Obama has been succesful in bringing about peace.
Has nothing to do with any hate for Israel, how absurd.
Though as seen now Saudi is looking to obtain Nukes itself and like I said this deal has not convinced other Arab nations who fear Iran having Nukes. So where there was some control over nations not looking to advance Nucleur weaponary, watch this space as many will seek to arm themselves to counter this threat they perceive in the next decade or so. So Jews in America may well view this as a good deal, it just shows how naive they are to the problem.
Also this was polled in regards to 500 Jews out of nearly 7 million.
Not only that you would need far more Polls to even start to make any sort of consensus view on this deal. One Poll is not going to give you much idea and even more when we saw how wrongt h e Polls were in the UK for the election.

by Guest Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:33 pm

LA Jewish Journal Survey

American Jews want Congress to approve the Iran deal. That’s the headline from the first independent survey of America-Jewish opinion conducted in the days after the Iran nuclear deal was announced.

The L.A. Jewish Journal, an independent, nonprofit media company based in Los Angeles, sponsored the survey in order to provide a precise, thorough portrait of American-Jewish and national opinion at a time of intense concern and debate. Our hope is that the numbers and analyses presented below will provide a better understanding of how this crucial sector views the controversial deal between the United States, Russia, China, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Iran.

As the analyses by professor Steven M. Cohen, who oversaw the survey, and our senior political editor, Shmuel Rosner, indicate, the findings have far-reaching implications and meanings for American Jewry, Israel and the United States.

They demonstrate a significant divide between the positions of major Jewish groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and many Jewish Federations, which have publicly opposed the deal, and the majority of American Jews. The thousands of American Jews publicly protesting congressional approval of the deal obscures the reality that most American Jews want Congress to approve it.

As Rosner points out, the results also depict a continuing divide between American-Jewish and Israeli-Jewish opinion. In terms of their expressed support for the deal, the two groups are almost mirror opposites of each other.

Our hope is that this survey will provide the basis for a thoughtful, honest and civil discussion among our communities on an issue crucial to us all.

— Rob Eshman, Publisher & Editor-in-Chief

by Guest Fri Jul 24, 2015 2:58 pm

So two.
Keep going Sassy you need plenty more.

by Original Quill Fri Jul 24, 2015 4:11 pm

American Jews are overwhelmingly liberal in America. One of the most liberal organizations in the US is the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, a decidedly Jewish political action organization responsible for many of the more liberal lawsuits bringing about social change in areas of race, gender relations, gay rights, rights of the accused, and voting rights, among other things.

Comes now Netanyahu, and thinks he can rely upon the strength of American Jews...to back his larceny and violation of civil rights of Palestinians??? He thinks American Jews will risk a war with Iran over nukes, just because he doesn't like the deal? Oh, and um...did I mention that American Jews tend to be extremely intelligent, and among the most highly educated in America?

Fat fuckin' chance. American Jews overwhelmingly SUPPORT Iran deal, despite all-out assault by Netanyahu & AIPAC Adminfingerx

American Jews overwhelmingly SUPPORT Iran deal, despite all-out assault by Netanyahu & AIPAC Adminfingerx

by veya_victaous Fri Jul 31, 2015 6:18 am

by Raggamuffin Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:11 am

This was the mistake:

And he did so after claiming that this opposition was on behalf of "the entire Jewish people."

He had no business speaking on behalf of all Jewish people. He can speak on behalf of Israelis, although even that could backfire if they don't all agree with him.

British Prime Ministers often speak on behalf of the British people, and I immediately want to say they don't speak for me - even if I agree with what they're saying. Laughing

by Guest Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:13 am

Two Disparate Polls on Jewish Support for Iran Deal

J Street, in the midst of a multi-million dollar campaign to support the Iran nuclear deal, has just released the results of its poll claiming to show that "a large majority of Jews support the agreement recently reached between the United States, world powers, and Iran." Yet at the same time, a poll on behalf of The Israel Project claims to show the opposite.

What is the source of such disparity in the results?

While the political affiliations of respondents seems to be very similar in both the J Street and the Israel Project polls, their knowledge about the Iran deal sharply differs.

J Street Poll: To begin with, 68% of respondents had heard some information to nothing at all about the deal, while only 32% claimed to have heard a great deal about it. Respondents were then provided with a single positive assessment of the deal before being asked an either or question: whether they support or oppose the agreement.

Israel Project Poll: To begin with, 57% of respondents had seen, read or heard some information to nothing at all about the deal, while 42% had been exposed to a lot of information about it — i.e. 10 per cent more Israel Project respondents than J Street respondents already knew a fair bit about the deal. Respondents were then provided with both a positive and a negative assessment of the deal before being asked to choose which assessment they agreed with more.

Additional questions introducing more context had respondents consider the agreement's pros, as described by supporters, and its cons, as described by opponents, before being asked to choose which assessment they agreed with more.

Comparison of J Street and Israel Project poll questions and results

1a) J Street Poll Questions

The largely uninformed respondents were provided with the following positive, if somewhat misleading, assessment of the deal, before being asked whether they support or oppose it.

As you may know, the U.S. and other countries have announced a deal to lift economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for Iran agreeing not to produce nuclear weapons. International inspectors would monitor Iran's facilities, and if Iran is caught breaking the agreement economic sanctions would be imposed again.

Critics have pointed out that under the deal: a) international inspectors could not monitor anywhere at anytime but would be monitoring only those nuclear facilities declared by Iran, which could not prevent cheating at its undeclared military facilities. They also contend that the time frame to resolve disputes over site access gives Iran significant time to cheat; b) economic sanctions could only be re-imposed "in the event of significant non-performance" but would leave no consequences for incremental cheating. But the J Street poll only presented respondents with one side of the debate and did not provide any of the arguments against the deal before asking respondents which side they support.

The pollsters continued with the following information, before respondents were asked another somewhat misleading question that oversimplified the purpose of a congressional vote:

As you may know, Congress will vote on whether to approve or disapprove the agreement reached between the United States, Britain, Germany, France, China, Russia, and Iran. Do you want your Member of Congress to vote to approve or disapprove the agreement?

The implication is that Congress is being asked to endorse an agreement negotiated by the US and the five other countries with Iran. But, in fact, that was already done by the United Nationas Security Council, where members voted on a resolution introduced by the Obama administration to endorse the Iran nuclear deal. Much to the consternation of many Congressmen, President Obama asked for the UN Security Council vote before bringing the agreement to Congress for review and debate. Following the positive UN vote, US congressman are now being asked to vote on whether to lift US sanctions on Iran under the deal.

1b) J Street Poll Results

60% of respondents said they supported the deal: 18% strongly and 42% just somewhat, while 40% opposed the deal: 24% strongly and 16% just somewhat.

60% of respondents said they want their Member of Congress to approve the deal, while 40% said they want their Member of Congress to disapprove the deal.

2a) Israel Project Poll Questions

Here, a more accurately formulated question about whether Congress should vote to approve or reject the lifting of sanctions was posed first, before additional context was given about the deal. The question:

Now that an agreement with Iran has been reached between the negotiators, the US Congress will be given 60 days to review the deal and vote whether or not to lift US sanctions on Iran under this deal. In your opinion, do you think that Congress should vote to approve the deal and lift sanctions on Iran or to reject the deal and NOT lift sanctions on Iran?

Respondents were then exposed to the following differing assessments of the deal, one supportive and one opposing it, before being asked which viewpoint they agreed with more, even if neither is exactly right:

1) Some/Other people say that the deal with Iran is good progress and will limit Iran's nuclear program.
2) Some/Other people say that the deal with Iran is not tough enough and will eventually lead to the Iranians getting a nuclear weapon.

Finally, respondents were asked to weigh the specific merits of the agreement, as put forth by the White House, against its specific drawbacks, as put forth by critics of the deal and were asked which perspective they agreed with more.

2b) Israel Project Poll Results

Before context was given, when asked whether or not Members of Congress should vote to lift sanctions, 45% of respondents answered no, compared to 40% who answered yes.

When asked which assessment of the deal they agreed with more, 56% of respondents agreed more with the negative assessment vs. 33% who agreed more with the positive assessment of the deal.

And when asked to weigh the specific merits of the deal against its specific drawbacks, far greater numbers of respondents agreed more with specific criticisms of the deal expressed by opponents than than with the specific benefits of the deal put forth by the White House.

Conclusion

A comparison of these two very recent polls about American Jews' attitudes toward the Iran deal seems to indicate that the vaguer the knowledge is about the Iran deal, the more support there is for it, while the more people are aware of the specifics of the deal, the more they are opposed to it.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=24&x_article=3064

by Guest Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:26 am

Israel's consul general in Philadelphia sent classified telegram to Jerusalem with grave warning about sentiments in U.S. Jewish community toward Israel's campaign against nuclear accord.

Israel’s consul general in Philadelphia, Yaron Sideman, warned Jerusalem this week that the American Jewish community is divided over the nuclear agreement with Iran, and does not stand united behind Israel in the controversy.

Sideman sent a classified, sensitive telegram to Jerusalem on Tuesday with a grave warning about the sentiments in the Jewish community toward Israel’s campaign against the deal.

“At this crucial point of the Iranian issue – which for years has been at the core of Israeli foreign policy and was described countless times by the Israeli leadership as an existential threat – the Jewish community in the United States is not standing as a united front behind Israel and important parts of it are on the fence,” Sideman wrote in the telegram, a copy of which reached Haaretz.

Sideman’s telegram reflects what Israeli diplomats in North America and the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem are reluctant to say out loud. Many diplomats feel that the American Jewish community is caught in a vise between Israel’s fight against the agreement with Iran and the internal American political conflict over it.

Sideman wrote that a CEO of one of the Jewish federations in the Philadelphia region told him that in his view, Israel’s status vis-à-vis the Obama administration is at a low point, which could adversely affect the Jewish community.

He cited the Jewish leader telling him, “In the next year and a half (until the end of President Barack Obama’s term) Israel’s and the Jewish communities’ maneuvering space regarding advancing Israel’s interests is extremely limited to non existent.” Thus, Sideman continued, “He isn’t interested in taking steps that would worsen the situation and harm the Jewish community’s status even more.”

The consul general said the CEO, who is inclined to support the deal with Iran, objects to exerting pressure on Democratic lawmakers in the federation’s jurisdiction, for fear it would harm the Jewish community. “The practical meaning is that certain lawmakers don’t hear from him and from other key figures in the Jewish community within their frame of reference,” he wrote.

Sideman, who has been serving for several years as consul general in Philadelphia, was formerly director of the consulate’s department in charge of relations with the U.S. Congress. His diplomatic reports in the past also reflected his evaluations courageously and candidly.

For example, before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress some two weeks before the Israeli election, Sideman warned of the growing criticism of the speech in the Jewish community and among Israel’s non-Jewish friends.

Israeli Foreign Ministry officials said that the sentiments expressed in Sideman's telegram are brought up again and again by Jewish leaders across the U.S. According to the officials, the majority of the American Jewish community identifies with President Obama and with the Democratic Party, and therefore, even those who agree with Israel's position on the Iran nuclear deal, are very reluctant to oppose the president on the accord, and are asking themselves what can possibly be done at this stage.

Senior Israeli diplomats argue that the confrontation between Israel and the U.S. on the subject of the Iran nuclear deal has placed large sections of the American Jewish community in great distress, who fear a real internal rift. The fear among major Jewish organizations that they will be drawn into the domestic U.S. political fray over the nuclear deal is prominent in statements released by both the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the American Jewish Committee (AJC). Both organizations have refrained from strongly attacking the nuclear agreement and defining it as a disaster, instead leading the public to believe that they instead have misgivings over large parts of the agreement, and that they hope that Congress will review it in depth. The U.S. Reform movement, too, issued a convoluted statement that fell short of taking a decisive stance on the agreement.

Jerusalem believes that, in light of the complex and sensitive situation that Jewish American leaders and rabbis find themselves in, especially in Reform and Conservative communities – who comprise a majority of U.S. Jewry – the most that Israel can hope for is for them to "sit on the fence": not support the agreement publicly, nor oppose it.

http://www.haaretz.com/beta/.premium-1.668607?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Facebook

by Raggamuffin Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:30 am

People seem to be talking at each other in this thread, rather than to each other. Rolling Eyes

by Guest Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:33 am

I'm simply adding the latest information that Haarretz got exclusively yesterday, from the Israeli American Ambassador, and it's his job to know the truth about it.

by Raggamuffin Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:40 am

I think that sometimes a summary in your own words is best - with a link added to back up what you're saying. All these walls of copy and paste are offputting.

by Guest Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:43 am

Well I don't, I prefer straight from the horse's mouth. It's so easy for it to descend into chinese whispers.

by Guest Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:48 am

Raggamuffin wrote:People seem to be talking at each other in this thread, rather than to each other.

Which is a very fair point.
The reality is is difficult to guage anyway how jews fell one way or another on this and its not just them. Many Arabs are also uncomfortable with the deal and like I say this could create a new arms race.

by Raggamuffin Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:56 am

sassy wrote:Well I don't, I prefer straight from the horse's mouth. It's so easy for it to descend into chinese whispers.

It's difficult to know what you actually think about a subject sometimes because you just copy stuff from elsewhere and make no comment - other than some random one expressing disapproval. You have a brain - use it to write your own thoughts.

by Guest Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:06 am

I give my own thoughts where necessary, but post the facts when necessary too. You do it your way, I'll do it mine thanks. In fact there is nothing piisses me off more than someone's 'summary' with a link, then I read the link and find they have missed out salient facts and wish they had just posted the bloody article in the first place.

Nothing put on here takes more than a couple of minutes to read at the most, unless you are a very slow reader. You call it a 'wall' of writing, I call it 'oh goody, a little bit to read'.

by Raggamuffin Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:09 am

sassy wrote:I give my own thoughts where necessary, but posts the facts when necessary too. You do it your way, I'll do it mine thanks. In fact there is nothing piisses me off more than someone's 'summary' with a link, then I read the link and find they have missed out salient facts and wish they had just posted the bloody article in the first place.

Nothing put on here takes more than a couple of minutes to read at the most, unless you are a very slow reader.

Please yourself then. I would have thought it would be good practice for your next election campaign, but hey ...

by Guest Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:10 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
sassy wrote:I give my own thoughts where necessary, but posts the facts when necessary too. You do it your way, I'll do it mine thanks. In fact there is nothing piisses me off more than someone's 'summary' with a link, then I read the link and find they have missed out salient facts and wish they had just posted the bloody article in the first place.

Nothing put on here takes more than a couple of minutes to read at the most, unless you are a very slow reader.

Please yourself then. I would have thought it would be good practice for your next election campaign, but hey ...

Election campaigns are about talking, not writing, and I do enough writing elsewhere thanks.

by Raggamuffin Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:12 am

sassy wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Please yourself then. I would have thought it would be good practice for your next election campaign, but hey ...

Election campaigns are about talking, not writing, and I do enough writing elsewhere thanks.

Well writing or typing on a forum is a form of talking isn't it? We can't talk to each other literally, so we talk to each other on a forum.

by Irn Bru Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:10 pm

veya_victaous wrote:

I nearly chocked on my ham sandwich when I looked at that.

Laughing

by Original Quill Fri Jul 31, 2015 4:34 pm

by Guest Sat Aug 01, 2015 8:41 am

Retired Harvard Professor Ruth Wisse Takes on the Iran Deal in WSJ

In an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, retired Harvard professor Ruth Wisse draws a clear connection between anti-Semitism and oppression, writing, “Anti-Jewish aggression is always aimed at the self-accountable way of life that the Jews represent. ‘Death to the Jews!’ is a call to arms against Western liberal democracies; that is why in Iran the cry is often accompanied by ‘Death to America!’”

On the proposed nuclear deal with Iran, Wisse writes:

The Iranian regime is currently the world’s leading exponent of anti-Jewish racism. Comparisons to Nazi Germany are always a last resort, since even with all the evidence before us it is hard to fathom the evil the Nazis perpetrated. Yet Iran’s frank genocidal ambition dwarfs its predecessor’s. Whereas Adolf Hitler and Reinhard Heydrich had to plot the “Final Solution” in secrecy, using euphemisms for their intended annihilation of the Jews of Europe, Iran’s Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei tweets that Israel “has no cure but to be annihilated.” Iran’s leaders, relishing how small Israel is, call it a “one bomb state,” and until the time arrives to deliver that bomb, they sponsor anti-Israel terrorism through Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militias.
[…]
Yet when it comes to the world’s most widespread and ideologically driven racism, President Obama seems to have a blind spot, initiating a nuclear deal with the fanatical anti-Jewish regime in Tehran, despite what he calls Iran’s “bad behavior.” The euphemism this time is his, not that of the perpetrators, and it camouflages their intentions even if they won’t.

Wisse cuts to the bottom line on the agreement, “This is the first time the U.S. will have deliberately entered into a pact with a country committed to annihilating another people—a pact that doesn’t even require formal repudiation of the country’s genocidal aims.”

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2015/07/retired_harvard_professor_ruth.html

by Original Quill Sat Aug 01, 2015 5:31 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Retired Harvard Professor Ruth Wisse Takes on the Iran Deal in WSJ

In an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, retired Harvard professor Ruth Wisse draws a clear connection between anti-Semitism and oppression, writing, “Anti-Jewish aggression is always aimed at the self-accountable way of life that the Jews represent. ‘Death to the Jews!’ is a call to arms against Western liberal democracies; that is why in Iran the cry is often accompanied by ‘Death to America!’”

On the proposed nuclear deal with Iran, Wisse writes:

The Iranian regime is currently the world’s leading exponent of anti-Jewish racism. Comparisons to Nazi Germany are always a last resort, since even with all the evidence before us it is hard to fathom the evil the Nazis perpetrated. Yet Iran’s frank genocidal ambition dwarfs its predecessor’s. Whereas Adolf Hitler and Reinhard Heydrich had to plot the “Final Solution” in secrecy, using euphemisms for their intended annihilation of the Jews of Europe, Iran’s Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei tweets that Israel “has no cure but to be annihilated.” Iran’s leaders, relishing how small Israel is, call it a “one bomb state,” and until the time arrives to deliver that bomb, they sponsor anti-Israel terrorism through Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militias.
[…]
Yet when it comes to the world’s most widespread and ideologically driven racism, President Obama seems to have a blind spot, initiating a nuclear deal with the fanatical anti-Jewish regime in Tehran, despite what he calls Iran’s “bad behavior.” The euphemism this time is his, not that of the perpetrators, and it camouflages their intentions even if they won’t.

Wisse cuts to the bottom line on the agreement, “This is the first time the U.S. will have deliberately entered into a pact with a country committed to annihilating another people—a pact that doesn’t even require formal repudiation of the country’s genocidal aims.”

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2015/07/retired_harvard_professor_ruth.html

I’ve read Wisse’s article, as well as other papers by her. She really doesn’t add anything to the debate, save some rich adjectives.

Let's see...Have we heard about Iran’s anti-Jewish racism? Check. Have we seen the comparisons to the Nazis? Check. Have we heard the argument that “Iran’s frank genocidal ambition dwarfs its predecessor’s”? Check. Have we heard “President Obama seems to have a blind spot”? Check. Have we heard he is “initiating a nuclear deal with the fanatical anti-Jewish regime in Tehran?” Check.

What is missing in her article is any proffer of an answer. We know that sanctions haven’t worked. We know the agreement is leaky. We know that the agreement can be expected to forestall an Iranian nuclear device for some 10-15 years, at best. Yet, without sanctions, and without an agreement, what does she offer?

War! Well, we’ve had that and we won’t have it any more. Bush, Cheney and the Republicans wasted that option with a silly, erectile dysfunction that ended up being the longest conflict in US history. US involvement in any future Middle East adventures? It ain’t gonna happen.

BUT…Israel need not abide by any agreement with which it disagrees. I don’t even know what Natanyahu (let's get to the real voice here) is bitching about. Why on earth is he trying to influence a decision solely within the US? What we do is apart from his only real option.

Sanctions don’t work. No agreement. What do you think he is envisioning?

by Guest Sat Aug 01, 2015 9:24 pm

The Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) is a top-tier military command that oversees the United States’ largest intergovernmental military alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO's composed of 28 independent member countries and an additional 22 countries who participate in the associate Partnership for Peace program.
NATO’s first commander was World War II hero and future President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1950. Among his successors can be found a future secretary of state, a national security adviser, and a presidential candidate. Yet, when former SACEUR U.S. Navy Admiral James Stavridis recently expressed quotable concerns over a topic receiving considerable news media coverage, the Iran nuclear deal, hardly any major media outlets reported them.
In an interview with MSNBC’s Morning Joe talk show on July 29, 2015, Stavridis—who served as SACEUR under President Obama from 2009 to 2013—commented on the agreement concluded July 14 between the United States, Russia, China, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the Islamic Republic of Iran over the latter’s purported nuclear program violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Stavridis said the deal as structured may allow for Iranian cheating to go undetected. He found the proposed verification procedures particularly troubling:
“I think the top [issue] is the verification regime, which is starting to roughly resemble Swiss cheese,” Stavridis charged that “you can drive a truck through some of the holes. I am very concerned about that.”
The retired U.S. military commander said Iran’s side deal with the International Atomic Energy Administration (IAEA) over inspections also posed problems. “Reportedly, it [the side deal] puts Iran in the position of actually procuring samples as opposed to having them taken by the IAEA.”
His biggest worries, however, were over what he called “the teeth of the alligator”—the $100 to $150 billion in sanctions relief that the proposed arrangement would give to Tehran. These are funds other military leaders like out-going U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey have stated are likely to be used by the mullahs to fund terrorism and Shiite militias currently fueling instability in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and Syria.
The admiral’s comments—including his dismissal of assertions by President Obama and others that the only option besides the proposed deal was war—were nowhere to be found in most major media outlets such as USA Today, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and others.
However, both The Jerusalem Post (“Top US general distances himself from choice of Iran deal,” July 29) and The Washington Free Beacon (“Ret. Admiral Stavridis: ‘You Can Drive a Truck Through’ Holes in Iran Deal,” July 29) covered Stavridis’ comments and in the case of The Post—recent remarks by Gen. Dempsey also dismissing the assertion war with Iran or this deal were the only options.
With a former head of NATO offering serious criticism of the widely-reported Iran deal, now being considered by Congress, where was the coverage?
A clip of the Admiral’s remarks can be found here.—Sean Durns

by Original Quill Sun Aug 02, 2015 5:18 am

Yes, I watched Stavridis' appearance on MSNBC on Wednesday. He has no answers. "Sanctions relief" is merely another term for what would be happening with the Iranian economy if they didn't have sanctions. What Stavridis is tacitly admitting is that the sanctions are not working; he has abandoned the argument that sanctions will deter nuclear development, and shifted to the rather weak argument, without substantiation, that a robust Iranian economy would fund terrorism.

This is a pathetic argument. Terrorist activities today are being conducted by ISIS. Iran, a Shi'ite country, is opposed to ISIS, which is a Sunni movement. Iran backs the current Shi'ite Iraqi government, which is doing its damnedest to fight ISIS. If anything, Iran is currently poised to move against ISIS terrorism militarily.

The only alternative to the agreement--senior military advisers notwithstanding--is war. Wringing hands and saying it isn't so is no answer; the only proper answer would be to point up a feasible alternative. Yet, no one offers an alternative, least of all the military hawks.

And of course the military wants war. Then they get money. These were the appropriations for the last Iraq war:

Wkik wrote:*FY2003 Supplemental: Operation Iraqi Freedom: Passed April 2003; Total $78.5 billion, $54.4 billion Iraq War
*FY2004 Supplemental: Iraq and Afghanistan Ongoing Operations/Reconstruction: Passed November 2003; Total $87.5 billion, $70.6 billion Iraq War
*FY2004 DoD Budget Amendment: $25 billion Emergency Reserve Fund (Iraq Freedom Fund): Passed July 2004, Total $25 billion, $21.5 billion (estimated) Iraq War
*FY2005 Emergency Supplemental: Operations in the War on Terror; Activities in Afghanistan; Tsunami Relief: Passed April 2005, Total $82 billion, $58 billion (estimated) Iraq War
*FY2006 Department of Defense appropriations: Total $50 billion, $40 billion (estimated) Iraq War.
*FY2006 Emergency Supplemental: Operations Global War on Terror; Activities in Iraq & Afghanistan: Passed February 2006, Total $72.4 billion, $60 billion (estimated) Iraq War
*FY2007 Department of Defense appropriations: $70 billion(estimated) for Iraq War-related costs
*FY2007 Emergency Supplemental (proposed) $100 billion
*FY2008 Bush administration has proposed around $190 billion for the Iraq War and Afghanistan
*FY2009 Obama administration has proposed around $130 billion in additional funding for the Iraq War and Afghanistan.
*FY2010 Obama administration proposes around $159.3 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars

The 2003 war cost about $3-trillion all total, and drove the deficit of the US up to $17-trillion.

.
It is said that many in the Pentagon wanted the 2003 war because they wanted to test the many advancements in military hardware that were available, but untested. In other words, fun for the fun of it. The last people I would trust when it comes to a question of war, are the warriors. It is not their job to ask why they are there. It was Bush who kept saying he would listen to the Generals about the conduct of the war; look what that got him.

A nuclear Iran is inevitable. It's just a question of when. An agreement today slows down the inevitable. Besides, even if we do not approve it, its going to happen. Sanctions will be lifted at least by Russia and China, and perhaps Germany and France. What we see repeatedly by the opposition to the agreement is a lot of whinging, but no alternatives...no answers.

What opponents to the agreement offer is a virtual promise to reverse us right into a third catastrophic war in the Middles East. If y'all want that, go for it. Leave us out of it. We are half way around the world, and it's not our problem.

by Guest Sun Aug 02, 2015 7:39 am

Typical lefty with his head buried in the sand making unfounded claims that no points were made from the articles when they were. That is not debating Quill, its just you thinking your view is right, when you are not even making a case for your viiew point. On each article main points were raised which you have ignored. When you do this you are not going to get a debate and its clear how removed you arfe from reality on this.
There better options and in the future Obama will regret his decision here which has allowed billions to be funded to terrorism.
An Iran with nukes will mean a nuke war, which you fail to grasp, but you only racially care about Americans and nobody else, so we know your real reasoning is appeasement, which is nothing short of the Munich aggreement again.

by Original Quill Sun Aug 02, 2015 5:13 pm

Cuchulain wrote:Typical lefty with his head buried in the sand making unfounded claims that no points were made from the articles when they were. That is not debating Quill, its just you thinking your view is right, when you are not even making a case for your viiew point. On each article main points were raised which you have ignored. When you do this you are not going to get a debate and its clear how removed you arfe from reality on this.

You'd fare better if you address the point, and not your correspondent. When you change the subject and attack the messenger, you concede the point...save only that you look like a sore loser.

Cuchulain wrote:There better options and in the future Obama will regret his decision here which has allowed billions to be funded to terrorism.

If there were better options, we would still be talking about options. You overlook that. If there were better options, you would be arguing them. No, the impasse in the discussion seems to be the failure of sanctions and the inability of the RW to swallow their pride and talk with Iran. The US RW and Israel, in particular, are on something of an arrogant power trip, in which they think they shouldn't have to come to the mountain. The reality is you are not going to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear power. If you don't like that, you are pissing in the wind...or, as RWers call it, Blame Obama...he's one of them!

Frankly, Obama is only a part of the picture. Other participants in the negotiations are China, Russia, France, Germany and the UK, along with Iran. The appearance that this is Obama's solution is created by the political situation with the US Congress right now. With a 'do-nothing' Republican Senate and House of Representatives--which criticizes Obama for the character of his leadership, but won't even pass a declaration of war on ISIS--of course the attention falls upon the US. That is where the fireworks are.

Cuchulain wrote:An Iran with nukes will mean a nuke war, which you fail to grasp, but you only racially care about Americans and nobody else, so we know your real reasoning is appeasement, which is nothing short of the Munich aggreement again.

Que sera sera. Iran is going to obtain nukes under any scenario. As far as my only caring about America...look, the US has carried the world on it's back long enough. Everyone has an opinion, but when it comes to action they look over their shoulders at America to do something. We carried the ball during the Cold War, we picked up after France in Indochina, we were called upon to try and fix an age-old Balkan problem in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the breakup of Yugoslavia, and we have twice been called upon to fix the Middle East.

Maybe if bringing on 'World Pressure' meant the whole world would speak, it would be more effective. As it is, it means American bringing in aircraft carriers, tanks and boots, spending another $17-trillion, and being blamed for the death of babies and accused of having 'ambitions'. I don't really blame the UK because they are usually the little sister to the US in these matters. But the rest of Europe has to step up and not only bear the burden, but engage their brains and come up with solutions. They own this problem as well.

And amid the whole world wringing their hands over an Iran with nukes, it not amusing to see Netanyahyu sneaking out the back door and building apartments for Israelis in the West Bank. That kind of corrupt spirit is what we get when the rest of the world leaves it to America, and goes to the beach for the weekend.

by Guest Sun Aug 02, 2015 5:16 pm

Oh my gooedness what appeasement and trying to get America out of responsibility.
Typical left wing yank, clueless

by Original Quill Sun Aug 02, 2015 5:31 pm

Cuchulain wrote:Oh my gooedness what appeasement and trying to get America out of responsibility.
Typical left wing yank, clueless

Appeasement would have been the US backing down after Pearl Harbor. The Chamberlain argument is a uniquely British dilemma, as Churchill realized, and you have forgotten. Churchill knew he had to work, and work hard to get American into Europe's war. Amid a series of American Neutrality Acts, he spent much of the year 1941 living in the White House, trying to plot with Roosevelt on how to get America in to the War.

Europe is your problem, not ours. And because the Middle East threatens Europe and not America, that is your problem as well. If some nation sends six aircraft carriers and a fleet of aircraft to bomb Hawai'i or Puerto Rico, then that will be our problem. Then, our inaction will meaningfully be labeled appeasement. In the meantime, for America Chamberlain is a curiosity in the history books.

by Guest Sun Aug 02, 2015 5:34 pm

What nonesense, you offer appasement and thus back that.
End of story

by Original Quill Sun Aug 02, 2015 5:36 pm

Cuchulain wrote:What nonesense, you offer appasement and thus back that.
End of story

American Jews overwhelmingly SUPPORT Iran deal, despite all-out assault by Netanyahu & AIPAC 570b4__8741616636_40b5121db1_z

by Guest Sun Aug 02, 2015 5:38 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:What nonesense, you offer appasement and thus back that.
End of story

No just show left wing reason is appeasement

by Irn Bru Tue Aug 04, 2015 12:27 am

Stavridis absolutely supports a nuclear deal with Iran. He may have some misgivings over the compliance programme whilst admitting that he hasn't seen the side issues and the precise detail.

He says that the time is right now for a nuclear to be done with Iran..

by Guest Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:01 am

Irn Bru wrote:Stavridis absolutely supports a nuclear deal with Iran. He may have some misgivings over the compliance programme whilst admitting that he hasn't seen the side issues and the precise detail.

He says that the time is right now for a nuclear to be done with Iran..

American Jews overwhelmingly SUPPORT Iran deal, despite all-out assault by Netanyahu & AIPAC Neville+Chamberlain+_+a+piece+of+paper+in+our+time

by Guest Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:13 am

On October 18, 1994, at 5:09 PM in the White House Briefing Room, President Bill Clinton announced an agreement with North Korea which he said “agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and to accept international inspection of all existing facilities.” He declared the deal would help put “an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.”
Experts believe North Korea now has at least ten nuclear weapons.
Most of the mainstream media has ignored the striking similarity to the Iran situation or only briefly referenced it.
Below are President Clinton’s remarks at the time. As you read, mentally swap out “North Korea” for “Iran” and “South Korea” for Israel.

Good afternoon. I am pleased that the United States and North Korea yesterday reached agreement on the text of a framework document on North Korea's nuclear program. This agreement will help to achieve a longstanding and vital American objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.
This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world. It reduces the danger of the threat of nuclear spreading in the region. It's a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community.
I want to begin by thanking Secretary Christopher and our chief negotiator, Ambassador at Large Bob Gallucci, for seeing these negotiations through. I asked Bob if he'd had any sleep, since he's going to answer all your technical questions about this agreement, and he said that he had had some sleep. So be somewhat gentle with him. After meeting with my chief national security advisers, and at their unanimous recommendation, I am instructing Ambassador Gallucci to return to Geneva on Friday for the purpose of signing an agreement.
The United States has been concerned about the possibility that North Korea was developing nuclear weapons since the 1980's. Three administrations have tried to bring this nuclear program under international control. There is nothing more important to our security and to the world's stability than preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. And the United States has an unshakeable commitment to protect our ally and our fellow democracy South Korea. Thirty-eight thousand American troops stationed on the Peninsula are the guarantors of that commitment.
Today, after 16 months of intense and difficult negotiations with North Korea, we have completed an agreement that will make the United States, the Korean Peninsula, and the world safer. Under the agreement, North Korea has agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and to accept international inspection of all existing facilities.
This agreement represents the first step on the road to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. It does not rely on trust. Compliance will be certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The United States and North Korea have also agreed to ease trade restrictions and to move toward establishing liaison offices in each other's capitals. These offices will ease North Korea's isolation.
From the start of the negotiations, we have consulted closely with South Korea, with Japan, and with other interested parties. We will continue to work closely with our allies and with the Congress as our relationship with North Korea develops.
Throughout this administration, the fight against the spread of nuclear weapons has been among our most important international priorities, and we've made great progress toward removing nuclear weapons from Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and from Belarus. Nuclear weapons in Russia are no longer targeted on our citizens. Today all Americans should know that as a result of this achievement on Korea, our Nation will be safer and the future of our people more secure.

by Irn Bru Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:17 am

Cuchulain wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:Stavridis absolutely supports a nuclear deal with Iran. He may have some misgivings over the compliance programme whilst admitting that he hasn't seen the side issues and the precise detail.

He says that the time is right now for a nuclear to be done with Iran..

So Stavris is now an appeaser and not the guy you thought he was?

Oh dear Didge. You should have checked him out before upholding him as an anti nuclear deal supporter Laughing

by Guest Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:18 am

Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

So Stavris is now an appeaser and not the guy you thought he was?

Oh dear Didge. You should have checked him out before upholding him as an anti nuclear deal supporter

Yes like you he is an appeaser Irn.

Laughing

by Irn Bru Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:23 am

Cuchulain wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

So Stavris is now an appeaser and not the guy you thought he was?

Oh dear Didge. You should have checked him out before upholding him as an anti nuclear deal supporter

Yes like you he is an appeaser Irn.

Sources Didge. Like I say, always check sources Laughing

by Guest Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:24 am

Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Yes like you he is an appeaser Irn.

Sources Didge. Like I say, always check sources

I am not obsessed like you Irn or have the time, so you will forgive me if i mistook someone to be as gutless and an appeaser like you. Razz

by Original Quill Tue Aug 04, 2015 6:13 am

Cuchulain wrote:On October 18, 1994, at 5:09 PM in the White House Briefing Room, President Bill Clinton announced an agreement with North Korea which he said “agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and to accept international inspection of all existing facilities.” He declared the deal would help put “an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.”
Experts believe North Korea now has at least ten nuclear weapons.
Most of the mainstream media has ignored the striking similarity to the Iran situation or only briefly referenced it.
Below are President Clinton’s remarks at the time. As you read, mentally swap out “North Korea” for “Iran” and “South Korea” for Israel.
Good afternoon. I am pleased that the United States and North Korea yesterday reached agreement on the text of a framework document on North Korea's nuclear program. This agreement will help to achieve a longstanding and vital American objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.
This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world. It reduces the danger of the threat of nuclear spreading in the region. It's a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community.
I want to begin by thanking Secretary Christopher and our chief negotiator, Ambassador at Large Bob Gallucci, for seeing these negotiations through. I asked Bob if he'd had any sleep, since he's going to answer all your technical questions about this agreement, and he said that he had had some sleep. So be somewhat gentle with him. After meeting with my chief national security advisers, and at their unanimous recommendation, I am instructing Ambassador Gallucci to return to Geneva on Friday for the purpose of signing an agreement.
The United States has been concerned about the possibility that North Korea was developing nuclear weapons since the 1980's. Three administrations have tried to bring this nuclear program under international control. There is nothing more important to our security and to the world's stability than preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. And the United States has an unshakeable commitment to protect our ally and our fellow democracy South Korea. Thirty-eight thousand American troops stationed on the Peninsula are the guarantors of that commitment.
Today, after 16 months of intense and difficult negotiations with North Korea, we have completed an agreement that will make the United States, the Korean Peninsula, and the world safer. Under the agreement, North Korea has agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and to accept international inspection of all existing facilities.
This agreement represents the first step on the road to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. It does not rely on trust. Compliance will be certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The United States and North Korea have also agreed to ease trade restrictions and to move toward establishing liaison offices in each other's capitals. These offices will ease North Korea's isolation.
From the start of the negotiations, we have consulted closely with South Korea, with Japan, and with other interested parties. We will continue to work closely with our allies and with the Congress as our relationship with North Korea develops.
Throughout this administration, the fight against the spread of nuclear weapons has been among our most important international priorities, and we've made great progress toward removing nuclear weapons from Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and from Belarus. Nuclear weapons in Russia are no longer targeted on our citizens. Today all Americans should know that as a result of this achievement on Korea, our Nation will be safer and the future of our people more secure.

Well didge, as you say it's only a "similarity". In fact, the only common entailment to the analogy is the fact that it was a discontinuity in a nation's nuclear development. North Korea was supposed to "freeze" a nuclear program; with Iran, we are far more realistic...it is a pause, no more.

I'll leave aside all the other inconsistencies that make it an incoherent comparison--some of which I have addressed above. This agreement is only common sense. We don't have expanded expectations about what we can achieve. We are being realistic. That leaves the Right to pick apart what they feel is wrong with it, neglecting the fact that those 'wrongs' were never corrigible in the first place. Face facts...things didn't work out with North Korea for a reason. Those impediments still exist.

The King can't order the waves to stop. If the Right wants to push the impossible...like I say, they are only too happy to 'back-door' us into another war. If you think the agreement is appeasement, by all means get into the ring. We'll watch.

by Guest Tue Aug 04, 2015 6:42 am

Well considering the majority of the Arab nations are at odds with the US decision and that there is now going to be a new Nuke arms race in the Middle East, i would say that this deal has completely backfired. Let alone the billions now in use for Iran to fudn further terrorism, is nothing short of a disater. Still there is one saving grace it has brough Israel's enemies closer to them for support.

by Guest Tue Aug 04, 2015 8:30 am

Iran Deal Enforcement Hoax Revealed in, Yes, NY Times

Even the New York Times sometimes gets it right. In this case, not with its reporting but by bucking the editorial pages’ usual practice and running an Op-Ed that doesn’t wholeheartedly embrace Obama administration arguments.
In “The Iran Deal’s Dangerous Precedent,” former American Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton writes about the extremely flawed enforcement provisions in the proposed Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action:

If Iran is caught transgressing, Mr. Obama’s plan is not to use force, but to apply “snapback sanctions.” His administration has argued repeatedly that such sanctions (or even new sanctions) will deter or punish violations, keeping the deal on track and Iran clear of nuclear weapons. This rationale conforms to the underlying logic for the talks themselves: If sanctions brought Iran to the table, then sanctions will keep the deal viable once implementation begins.
Unfortunately, the mechanism to address violations is as flawed as the deal’s underlying logic. For the president’s predictions of Iranian behavior to come true (and they are central to successful implementation), Tehran must recognize the inevitability of the pain their country will suffer for straying from compliance.
Yet the very language of the Vienna deal demonstrates the opposite. In two provisions (Paragraphs 26 and 37), Iran rejects the legitimacy of sanctions coming back into force. These passages expressly provide, in near identical words, that “Iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA” — Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — “in whole or in part.”
Thus the inexorable pattern will not be: Iran violates the deal; sanctions snap back; Iran resumes compliance. Quite the reverse. The far more likely future is: Iran violates the deal; sanctions snap back; Iran tells us, using a diplomatic term of art, to take our deal and stuff it.
Abrogating the deal, of course, would come only after Iran had reaped the economic benefits of having its assets unfrozen and the sanctions ended.

The Times has a documented practice of tilting its opinion pages against Israel, and has embraced the proposed Iran deal which Israeli leaders across the political spectrum believe poses a serious, even existential threat to Israel. At least in this case, the paper has freed a few column inches for a real opposing point of view.

by Guest Tue Aug 04, 2015 4:15 pm

Americans Oppose Iran Deal 2 to 1

USA Today has reported on a new Quinnipiac University poll:

American voters oppose the Iran nuclear agreement by a two-to-one margin, with 57% in opposition and just 28% in support, according to the latest Quinnipiac University poll released today.
A similar margin, 58%, said the pact will make the world less safe.
[…]
“There’s not a lot of love for the proposed nuclear deal with Iran. Only a bare majority of Democrats support the pact,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

The detailed release on the poll shows that an overwhelming majority of both men and women disapprove of the deal and believe it will make the world less safe:
American Jews overwhelmingly SUPPORT Iran deal, despite all-out assault by Netanyahu & AIPAC Quinnipiac%20poll

American Jews overwhelmingly SUPPORT Iran deal, despite all-out assault by Netanyahu & AIPAC Quinnipiac%20poll

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2015/08/americans_oppose_iran_deal_2_t_1.html

by Original Quill Tue Aug 04, 2015 5:03 pm

Cuchulain wrote:Well considering the majority of the Arab nations are at odds with the US decision and that there is now going to be a new Nuke arms race in the Middle East, i would say that this deal has completely backfired. Let alone the billions now in use for Iran to fudn further terrorism, is nothing short of a disater. Still there is one saving grace it has brough Israel's enemies closer to them for support.

All nations have their own interests. What Obama has done is return to critical thinking about the interests of the west. No more craziness in America's devotion to Israel.

As far as a nuclear arms race, it's happened before and it will happen again when the conditions are right. You can't curse the winds...they are what they are. Holding back nuclear power is impossible. Imagine if someone tried to forestall the 'evils' of the internal combustion engine, or steam power, or the occult of the wind captured in ships' sails. The knowledge is in every textbook and the raw materials are under every rock.

We in the west have to learn: Let the Muslim world go through its maturation process. All god's chillan gots to grow up on they own.

by Original Quill Tue Aug 04, 2015 5:07 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Americans Oppose Iran Deal 2 to 1

USA Today has reported on a new Quinnipiac University poll:
American voters oppose the Iran nuclear agreement by a two-to-one margin, with 57% in opposition and just 28% in support, according to the latest Quinnipiac University poll released today.
A similar margin, 58%, said the pact will make the world less safe.
[…]
“There’s not a lot of love for the proposed nuclear deal with Iran. Only a bare majority of Democrats support the pact,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

The detailed release on the poll shows that an overwhelming majority of both men and women disapprove of the deal and believe it will make the world less safe:

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2015/08/americans_oppose_iran_deal_2_t_1.html

Polls are all in the asking. Gallop and Pew asked more complex questions that place the issue into context, and got different answers. Quinnipiac's wording was much simpler: "Q: Do you support or oppose the nuclear deal with Iran?" Even I would rather not consider a nuclear issue.

Ask American respondents if they favor another war in the Middle East in lieu of a nuclear pact.

Then get back to me.

by Raggamuffin Tue Aug 04, 2015 5:27 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:
Americans Oppose Iran Deal 2 to 1

USA Today has reported on a new Quinnipiac University poll:

The detailed release on the poll shows that an overwhelming majority of both men and women disapprove of the deal and believe it will make the world less safe:

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2015/08/americans_oppose_iran_deal_2_t_1.html

Polls are all in the asking. Gallop and Pew asked more complex questions that place the issue into context, and got different answers. Quinnipiac's wording was much simpler: "Q: Do you support or oppose the nuclear deal with Iran?" Even I would rather not consider a nuclear issue.

Ask American respondents if they favor another war in the Middle East in lieu of a nuclear pact.

Then get back to me.

by Original Quill Tue Aug 04, 2015 5:40 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Polls are all in the asking. Gallop and Pew asked more complex questions that place the issue into context, and got different answers. Quinnipiac's wording was much simpler: "Q: Do you support or oppose the nuclear deal with Iran?" Even I would rather not consider a nuclear issue.

Ask American respondents if they favor another war in the Middle East in lieu of a nuclear pact.

Then get back to me.

Precisely.

by Guest Tue Aug 04, 2015 5:54 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:
Americans Oppose Iran Deal 2 to 1

USA Today has reported on a new Quinnipiac University poll:

The detailed release on the poll shows that an overwhelming majority of both men and women disapprove of the deal and believe it will make the world less safe:

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2015/08/americans_oppose_iran_deal_2_t_1.html

Polls are all in the asking. Gallop and Pew asked more complex questions that place the issue into context, and got different answers. Quinnipiac's wording was much simpler: "Q: Do you support or oppose the nuclear deal with Iran?" Even I would rather not consider a nuclear issue.

Ask American respondents if they favor another war in the Middle East in lieu of a nuclear pact.

Then get back to me.

Has nothing to do with going to war in regards to how Americans feel about this deal.
That is a copout as seen there are other alternatives where again many view this as poor.,
Best you get used to the fact many Americans disagree with you

by Original Quill Tue Aug 04, 2015 6:12 pm

Didge wrote:Has nothing to do with going to war in regards to how Americans feel about this deal.
That is a copout as seen there are other alternatives where again many view this as poor.,
Best you get used to the fact many Americans disagree with you

So we're back to the issue of alternatives, are we? Have you found any yet? Last time you couldn't articulate any.

by Guest Tue Aug 04, 2015 6:27 pm

Articulate?

lol

There is plenty on here already, just open your eyes me lad.

by Sponsored content