WHY IS OBAMA OPPOSING THE IRANIAN SANCTIONS TRIGGER?

There is bipartisan Congressional support for Iranian sanctions to be triggered should Obama's negotiations fail.

Why is Obama opposing this?

Anyone got a legitimate reason?

There is bipartisan support for Iranian sanctions to be triggered should Obama's negotiations fail.

Why is Obama opposing this?

Anyone got a legitimate reason? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Same shit.,different day to him. He always stands with the muslim world.

Keep them from nuking us?

For a change, the OP is exaggerating and spinning the plain truth. Surprise!

Did you listen to what POTUS said, fellas? About Iran? About ISIS?

The answer is in there, in plain English.

Did you listen to the SOTU address or read the transcript? Or are you just foaming at the mouth in your spare time?

Same shit.,different day to him. He always stands with the muslim world. Originally Posted by rioseco

From the sound of it, top ranking Democrat (Sen. Menendez) thinks Obama sympathizes too much with the Iranian POV:

Did you listen to what he said, fellas?

Or are you just foaming at the mouth in your spare time? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I listened, Obama didn't provide any legitimate reason NOT to have a sanction trigger if negotiations fail.

Tell us why you agree with Obama.

I listened, Obama didn't provide any legitimate reason NOT to have a sanction trigger if negotiations fail.

Tell us why you agree with Obama. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

He didn't say that, whir-LIE-turd. He asked that Congress allowed negotiations to succeed before imposing new sanctions. You're making shit up again.

Why do I agree with his strategy? I am not willing to provoke yet another middle eastern conflict without first making every possible effort to avoid it. I have no problem imposing additional sanctions if negotiations fail.

You appatently agree with POTUS too. Negotiate first. Sanction if it fails. Why do you oppose negotiating a settlement on this issue? Better put, why would you want to start another war?

Congress isn't proposing sanctions be in-place during negotiations...their proposal is an automatic sanction trigger should negotiations fail. Obama has warned Congress he opposes the trigger.

Again, what is the legitimate reason NOT to have this trigger (should Obama negotiations fail)?

He didn't say that, whir-LIE-turd. He asked that Congress allowed negotiations to succeed before imposing new sanctions. You're making shit up again.

Why do I agree with his strategy? I am not willing to provoke yet another middle eastern conflict without first making every possible effort to avoid it.

You apparently disagree. Why do you oppose negotiating a settlement on this issue? Better put, why would you want to start another war? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

There is bipartisan Congressional support for Iranian sanctions to be triggered should Obama's negotiations fail.

Why is Obama opposing this?

Anyone got a legitimate reason? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

He's trying to negotiate a settlement of the issue and keep us out of a war with Iraq? Sanctions aren't going to keep Iraq from developing a nuclear weapon. Neither are air strikes.....unless they are on a massive scale.

So? Ground invasion of Iran? Is that really the course we want to chart?

100 to 0 vote in the senate. Wonder if the dems will vote to override a veto....interesting.

Congress isn't proposing sanctions be in-place during negotiations...their proposal is an automatic sanction trigger should negotiations fail. Obama has warned Congress he opposes the trigger.

Again, what is the legitimate reason NOT to have this trigger (should Obama negotiations fail)? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

That's a distinction without a difference. Iran isn't going to be responsive to the "Do what we want you to do or these sanctions kick in." It doesn't work that way.


The sanctions legislation is a feel-good "look what we did" gesture being made for political purposes. It doesn't increase the likelihood that the ultimate issue--Iran going nuclear--is going to be successfully negotiated.

In my opinion, nothing is going to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon short of war. We have to decide which it is going to be.

Sanctions work and they are preferable to war.

The sanctions are what forced Iran to stop with key components of the nuclear program and brought Iran to the negotiation table.

Under the bipartisan congressional proposal there won't be any sanctions on Iran during the negotiation process but if negotiations fail, then sanctions are immediate........

How is that an automatic step towards war ?

Again, what is the legitimate reason for not having a sanction trigger in place?

Are you saying that Obama doesn't believe the US (world) should apply sanctions, even if negotiations don't work?

We won't strike Iran's nuclear capabilities, Israel will. Unless of course, Iran already has the bomb. Maybe Obama is like minded. He knows, the world can do nothing if they get the bomb, so might as well run out the clock on negotiations and let them achieve nuclear superiority in the region.

Obama has already drawn 2 lines in the sand in his negotiations with Iran; letting them come and go without doing anything (except weaken the sanctions).....no reason to think he won't do it a 3rd time with his June 2015 deadline. tick tick tick...obama runs out the clock and Iran goes nuclear.

He's trying to negotiate a settlement of the issue and keep us out of a war with Iraq? Sanctions aren't going to keep Iraq from developing a nuclear weapon. Neither are air strikes.....unless they are on a massive scale.

So? Ground invasion of Iran? Is that really the course we want to chart?

100 to 0 vote in the senate. Wonder if the dems will vote to override a veto....interesting. Originally Posted by timpage

Valarie Jarrett was trying to (unsuccessfully) explain Obama's position today. Hey! Wasn't she born in Iran and lived there her early life? She is Obama's top advisor and possible hot pocket. She comes from a left wing background as well and Chicago. Strange person to pick as a spox.

The sanctions legislation would make a deal with Iran more likely. But the fact that Obama doesn't want the bargaining chip is a "tell." A signal to Iran that Obama has no intention of playing hardball with Iran during the negotiations.

Thankfully, Democrats and Republicans in Congress aren't buying Obama's duplicitous bullshit and will likely support the bipartisan legislation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...ddc_story.html

Fuck 'em let's just piss off another nuclear power we don't have enough countries mad at us yet. Right wingers?

Why do I agree with his strategy? I am not willing to provoke yet another middle eastern conflict without first making every possible effort to avoid it. I have no problem imposing additional sanctions if negotiations fail.

You appatently agree with POTUS too. Negotiate first. Sanction if it fails. Why do you oppose negotiating a settlement on this issue? Better put, why would you want to start another war? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Fuck, I agree with you. But, Whirlaway is just pointing out we need to project a little more strength. Perhaps we are all close to the same page.
In spite of this detente, Assup, don't send me anymore instant message, OK?