Do you agree with the 200 Retired Generals and Admirals that want Congress to say "No" to the Iran Deal?

SSgt Alex Robinson I support the nearly 200 Retired Generals and Admirals that want Congress to say "No" to the Iran Deal. President Obama and his administration realize that he has no crowning achievement in foreign policy and is probably jealous that President Jimmy Carter was instrumental to the signing of the Camp David Agreement. I don't know the depths of the motivations of President Obama vis-à-vis the Iranian Nuclear agreement; but, I doubt he is thinking about what is best for the world let alone the USA.
Iran is a complicated situation to say the least. I was a soldier during the 1979 Hostage Crisis in Tehran under President Jimmy Carter. Prior to the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Iran under Shah Pahlavi was a strong allie of ours. During the Iran-Iraq War, coincident with one of the efforts of Saddam to exterminate the shia in southern Iran, in a covert arrangement to support freedom in Nicaragua, arms were made available to Iran. During this same decade, U.S. support for the Afghan mujahideen was occurring during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan included support to bin Laden. Over the next decade he turned from being an enemy of our enemies to a enemy of this nation. [I expect the details about that won't be downgraded for at least 50 years].
The Iranian peoples [there are more than one group in Iran] have a long history of support for the USA. The Revolutionary Guards have a history of hating us since they were conceived of in Paris in the 1970s. Whether the Revolutionary Guards and especially their quds force are operating in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, or Iraq they are actively opposed to virtually everything this nation has stood for - what this nation stands for is in flux right now. COL Mikel J. Burroughs, LTC Stephen C., Capt Seid Waddell, GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad, SGM Steve Wettstein, SGT Randal Groover, SGT Robert Hawks, SGT Forrest Stewart, SMSgt Minister Gerald A. Thomas

POTUS is going to do whatever POTUS wants to do and warnings be damned.

I value their opinion and expertise. I believe Iran will f up, and will do it soon. The failure won't be in the interpretation of this accord, butbhow we ACT when Iran screws up yet again. Why do you think we have submarines exclusively assigned to Iran and N Korea? Not for the food.

Absolutely.

No. After 2 tours Babysitting Iran. While I will give the Persians credit for being the Kings of Bubblegum Wrapper, Paperclip Repair Work. They are no Real Threat. Anyone saying otherwise is just blowing air up your skirt and sucking up to someone's political agenda.

Yes.

With 200 General Officers suggesting that the deal is bad probably means that it is a bad deal. The 200 GOs have more than enough experience to know when something is not right. This may lead us down a road we do not want to go down from a tactical standpoint. In order for me to provide an accurate assessment I will have to do some more research.

I very much agree with them. All I need to know about this deal is that the Iranians love it and the Israelis hate it. Combine that with the fact that Iran gets to use it's own inspectors and have a 24 day warning prior to any inspections, and it all adds up to a bad deal.

It seems that President Obama is hell bent on upholding the grand tradition of the United States in mucking up foreign affairs. As others in this discussion thread have ably pointed out, it is a tradition with long legs. Wouldn't it be nice if someone put a stop to it?

Others have referred to the disagreement over the proposed agreement with Iran as a mere difference of opinion. Some flag offices for and some against. Some portion of the electorate against and some for. Well, let's put opinion aside for a moment and examine the agreement (or as much of it as we are allowed to know). I doubt that anyone would argue with the assumption that an agreement is, like a contract, a meeting of the minds, and both President Obama and the leaders of Iran (whomever they may be) have a meeting of the minds. So what's the problem?

The problem is that a significant number of Americans don't trust President Obama any more than we trust the Iranians. Indeed, if they are in agreement, we are in trouble. Well, at least that's how it appears to me.

Ostensibly, the purpose of the "agreement" is to prevent Iran from becoming armed with nuclear weapons. Why then does the "agreement" provide Iran with funding which would give a significant boost to a program of developing and building nuclear weapons? Why does the "agreement" provide them with the secrecy needed to develop and build nuclear weapons?

Yes, this is noting more than a difference of opinion, isn't it?

If anybody things this deal will stop Iran from developing nukes then they are completely incompetent at critical thinking and life.