Could Obama Have Gotten More From Iran With Additional, Crippling Sanctions?

[Crabtownboy]

It will make no difference to his critics that they, the critics are wrong, on this one.

WASHINGTON – Critics of the nuclear deal that major world powers struck with Iran this week have largely based their case on a counterfactual. Had President Barack Obama imposed sanctions on Iran that were more aggressive -- “crippling,” even -- then, the theory goes, he would have extracted more favorable concessions.

This argument is meant, in part, to reinforce the idea that a third option existed between the two Obama outlined -- that is, between military confrontation and the agreement that was ultimately struck. But would it actually have been practical?

According to experts in the subject, including those who worked on Iran sanctions, the answer is basically no.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-iran-sanctions_55a8099fe4b0c5f0322cba80?

 

[targus]

What was wrong with the then status quo?

Especially compared to where we ended up which is much worse!

 

[church mouse guy]

What was wrong with the then status quo?

Especially compared to where we ended up which is much worse!

Obama wanted a legacy even if it meant that Obama was responsible for a nuclear attack on Jerusalem because Obama's main sympathies lies with Islamists and sharia law--it is Christians, in Obama's mind, who caused all this by defending themselves during the crusades. Obama hates both Jews and Christians.

 

[Revmitchell]

It will make no difference to his critics that they, the critics are wrong, on this one.

Iran is a terrorist state. They are responsible for the deaths of Americans in Iraq and they are currently holding Americans in their prisons. They are to this day threatening America and Israel. They chant death to America and death to Israel from their streets. We have no business negotiating a one sided deal they have no intention of honoring anyway.

Obama's critics are wrong on this one? I don't thing so skipper.


What is wrong with people?

 

[targus]

Obama is always setting up straw men like this.

Who ever suggested war - other than him?

 

[righteousdude2]

It will make no difference to his critics that they, the critics are wrong, on this one.

There goes that awesome intellectual spin of one of our academically superior liberals, again. Tell us how great this deal is, and while you're at it, be sure to compliment our kings new clothes, we'd hate to see him in his birthday suit. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Crabtownboy]

Iran is a terrorist state. They are responsible for the deaths of Americans in Iraq and they are currently holding Americans in their prisons. They are to this day threatening America and Israel. They chant death to America and death to Israel from their streets. We have no business negotiating a one sided deal they have no intention of honoring anyway.

Obama's critics are wrong on this one? I don't thing so skipper.


What is wrong with people?

Do a bit of research Rev. Israel has attacked and killed US military. Does that also make them a terrorist state.

See y'all next week.

Blessings to all.

 

[Revmitchell]

Do a bit of research Rev. Israel has attacked and killed US military. Does that also make them a terrorist state.

See y'all next week.

Blessings to all.

Such questions shows you know nothing of this subject. Also, I did not say that the killing of Americans in and of itself is what makes them a terrorist state.


Again, what is wrong with people?

 

[InTheLight]

Obama has a slight point when he says, "what's the alternative?" but then he gives the false choice of saying "it's either this treaty or it's war."

But what are conservatives saying? "Let the sanctions work. They're working."

Yet, when the left was saying that back in late 90's, early 2000's about Saddam Hussein and Iraq, conservatives would laugh at the notion that sanctions were working.

 

[Revmitchell]

Obama has a slight point when he says, "what's the alternative?" but then he gives the false choice of saying "it's either this treaty or it's war."

But what are conservatives saying? "Let the sanctions work. They're working."

Yet, when the left was saying that back in late 90's, early 2000's about Saddam Hussein and Iraq, conservatives would laugh at the notion that sanctions were working.

So what. If they are or are not working in one country then it has to be the same elsewhere. To many variables to come to such conclusions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Zaac]

Obama has a slight point when he says, "what's the alternative?" but then he gives the false choice of saying "it's either this treaty or it's war."

But what are conservatives saying? "Let the sanctions work. They're working."

Yet, when the left was saying that back in late 90's, early 2000's about Saddam Hussein and Iraq, conservatives would laugh at the notion that sanctions were working.

Yep, just another reason why politics of the left or right should not be confused with God's right.

 

[Revmitchell]

Asked about the consequences of lifting sanctions against the terror-supporting nation of Iran, National Security Advisor Susan Rice uttered a single sentence that laid her boss’ entire plan on the table for everyone to see.

“We should expect that some portion of that money would go to the Iranian military and could potentially be used for the kinds of bad behavior that we have seen in the region up until now,” she said.

http://conservativetribune.com/1-sh...k&utm_medium=TPNNPages&utm_content=2015-07-17

 

[poncho]

Iran is a terrorist state. They are responsible for the deaths of Americans in Iraq and they are currently holding Americans in their prisons. They are to this day threatening America and Israel. They chant death to America and death to Israel from their streets. We have no business negotiating a one sided deal they have no intention of honoring anyway.

Obama's critics are wrong on this one? I don't thing so skipper.


What is wrong with people?

ter·ror·ism - the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

By this definition the USA is a "terrorist state". As it uses violence and intimidation against other nations in the pursuit of political aims all the time all over the world.

We read about Washington DC's use of intimidation and violence in the pursuit of political aims in the newspapers everyday.

The USA funds and arms terrorists (see Libya and Syria) for use as proxy "regime change" agents, the USA is allied with a terrorist state . . . Saudi Arabia that funnels money and weapons to terrorists.

What you seem to be suggesting is that the "terrorist state" of the USA should be using more state sponsored "terrorism" against Iran because Iran is a "terrorist state".

I fail to see how that makes sense to you. Unless you think the USA has an exclusive right to use state sponsored terrorism in pursuit of it's political aims.


The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan – Lt. General William Odom said:

By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation.

The Washington Post reported in 2010:

The United States has long been an exporter of terrorism, according to a secret CIA analysis released Wednesday by the Web site WikiLeaks.

The head and special agent in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles office said that most terror attacks are committed by our CIA and FBI.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/01/by-any-measure-the-u-s-is-the-worlds-largest-sponsor-of-terror.html

You know what they say about people who live in glass houses doncha Rev? I never did understand the whole "do as I say not as I do" mentality.