bgl Loc: Brooklyn,New York

This topic has certainly stirred up some strong feelings. Unfortunately, it has taken on some very partisan overtones and that's a real shame because National security is so important it should only be looked at as what is the threat and what are our options to eliminate or deter that threat. Each option has to be considered in light of it's consequences. For example, if we reject the deal, does that mean we have to use a military option pretty soon since it has been reported that the Iranians only need a few more months to build a bomb. And if we go the military route, how would we accomplish that? Would troops be involved? Would we have casualties on our side? How extensive would the "collateral damage be and so on. How much would a military strike accomplish? Would a deal lead to further diplomatic progress with this very intransigent country? I, for one, am ambivalent at this point and would like to be persuaded on way or the other.

donolea Loc: Nashville, TN

The Saudi’s apparently have no faith in Obama either. The media in Saudi Arabia are openly calling for the Persian Gulf kingdom to use the next decade to develop nuclear weapons, paralleling the timeframe of nuclear restrictions the U.S. and five world powers agreed upon in the deal with Iran reached earlier this month.

I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion. ~ Alexander the Great

bgl Loc: Brooklyn,New York

If we keep things in perspective, there are a couple of points that come to mind, 1st, our National self interest is not the same as the Saudis and they only became allies when we needed the oil they controlled, remember when they nationalized their oil business, remember the oil embargo in the early seventies?. 2nd, Israel's self-interest is not our self-interest either even though there is a lot of overlap. 3rd, Obama won't be in office during most of term of the agreement.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

I think it's probably a good thing, although I have no way of being certain. Beyond that it sounds as though you have looked into it at least as much as I have so I won't be trying to convince you. Sometimes there are no good options but you have to pick one. When that happens we should turn to reason not emotion.

green Loc: 22.1749611,-159.646704,20

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

Hear! Here!

I agree (about reason, not emotion)!

bgl Loc: Brooklyn,New York

It would simplify things if reason and emotion were the only factors in play but that is not the case. There is also political partisanship which is playing a huge role here. There is also, sad to say, interference by the administration of a foreign country in our domestic politics to an unprecedented extent (I am treading gingerly here as this country is also an important and highly valued ally).

donolea Loc: Nashville, TN

So when did it become "reasonable" to deal with Iran — the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism? Meanwhile, back in realville ... Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program is subject to NO RESTRICTIONS at all! It’s wasn't even part of the negotiations.

Why is Iran building them? You don’t build ICBMs in order to deliver sticks of dynamite. Their only purpose is to carry nuclear warheads. Iran sure doesn't need an ICBM to hit Riyadh or Tel Aviv. Intercontinental missiles are for reaching, well, other continents. North America, for example. Sure hope you don't live in N.Y. or L.A., since we all know they are targets!

How many of you guys are aware of this little gem: The “ObamaDeal” explicitly states that the United States and the other P5+1 powers can help Iran deflect and even “respond” to sabotage and nuclear threats to its nuclear sites.

The damming evidence that the "ObamaDeal" directly allows Western powers to help Iran to protect its nuclear sites, and possibly even to stage a counter-attack on the source of the threat. Don't believe me? It is clearly stated in Annex III of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Of course, you have to read all the way through to page 142 "Section D" to find this hidden gem.

So how's that for reason?!

bgl Loc: Brooklyn,New York

[quote=donolea]So when did it become "reasonable" to deal with Iran — the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism? Meanwhile, back in realville ... Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program is subject to NO RESTRICTIONS at all! It’s wasn't even part of the negotiations.

Why is Iran building them? You don’t build ICBMs in order to deliver sticks of dynamite. Their only purpose is to carry nuclear warheads. Iran sure doesn't need an ICBM to hit Riyadh or Tel Aviv. Intercontinental missiles are for reaching, well, other continents. North America, for example. Sure hope you don't live in N.Y. or L.A., since we all know they are targets!

No one thinks Iran is reasonable or that you can reason with them in the usual sense. The point is for us to use reason in figuring out what to do. We all know that Iran's leaders are treacherous, deceitful, murderous, etc. With that in mind, should we do the deal or take the military option NOW. If we don't do the deal, it's a good bet they will rush to make the bomb. And if it's a military approach, what kind? Will an aerial attack alone do the job? Do we have to risk military lives? What about the civilian casualties that can't be avoided? In other words we have to reason this out among OURSELVES.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

On the world stage the Saudis are probably responsible for much more terror than Iran. They are responsible for radical Sunni Islam. 911 was primarily Saudis and because of teachings from Saudi "religious schools" and if you have any concern about women's rights and human rights, Saudi is a much worse offender than Iran. A woman is not even allowed to drive in Saudi. The Saudis made a deal with radical clerics years ago in order to stay in power and have sponsored "radical Islamic schools all over the world. I'm sure glad we don't deal with them.

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

When one responds with emotion rather than reason, it endorses partisanship.

This site is almost 100% emotional and unthinking. Any issue is first addressed as liberal versus conservative, leading to no understanding.

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

Think of it this way. Iran falls someplace between our friend and our enemy, closer to our enemy. Still, we can attempt to work out issues between us based upon mutual needs, without special affection or respect for their actions.

They have things they want or need, and we have things we want or need, and if we can get together on those issues, we can create a framework that serves both of us.

We don't have to be in love.

We have an agreement which is a big improvement over the path to war. It's worth a try. If it fails, we're no worse off than we were.

We are not endorsing their activities or beliefs; they don't endorse ours.

No matter.

If the deal holds, we're better off. If it fails, republicans get to go to war.

What's not to like?

RixPix Loc: Miami, Florida

I think it was a bad idea. I think we should let the Middle East blow itself up.

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

There's already an answer, isn't there? Just look at it.

Vietnam.

Korea.

Iraq.

Afghanistan.

Nothing over there is in our national interest. We'll pay for the oil. Drop it off.

We were attacked only when we asked for it.

We accomplished nothing except Billions and Billions for Dick Cheney and Haliburton.

Let's stay home and argue on UHH!

donolea Loc: Nashville, TN

I agree with you completely about the Saudi's — I'm certainly not arguing on their behalf. I'm trying to expose the massive faults with this nuke deal on behalf of the American people! I'm not arguing liberal or conservative, I'm arguing about what's right and wrong for the future of my kids and grand-kids. I would hope that all reasonable thinking people would see those distinctions as well!