Posted on Aug 12, 2015
Dozens of retired generals, admirals back Iran nuclear deal. Are They Right In Doing So?
15K
146
108
6
6
0
How do you feel about the Generals supporting the Iran Nuclear plan. Do you think they understand the agreement better because they are Generals? My thoughts are, if they can understand the agreement and Obama's plan for the long haul, they're smarter than all of us.
Three dozen retired generals and admirals released an open letter Tuesday supporting the Iran nuclear deal and urging Congress to do the same.
Calling the agreement “the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons,” the letter said that gaining international support for military action against Iran, should that ever become necessary, “would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/retired-generals-and-admirals-back-iran-nuclear-deal/2015/08/11/bd26f6ae-4045-11e5-bfe3-ff1d8549bfd2_story.html
Three dozen retired generals and admirals released an open letter Tuesday supporting the Iran nuclear deal and urging Congress to do the same.
Calling the agreement “the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons,” the letter said that gaining international support for military action against Iran, should that ever become necessary, “would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/retired-generals-and-admirals-back-iran-nuclear-deal/2015/08/11/bd26f6ae-4045-11e5-bfe3-ff1d8549bfd2_story.html
National Security
Politics
Iran
Nuclear
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 35
1
1
0
Does this deal (actually treaty) have anything to do with the reality that Iran is already killing our military personnel through their proxies of Hezbollah and Hamas? These people have sworn our destruction. What makes ANYONE think they can be trusted for anything, and that they will not lie and cheat? Remember, they are an Islamic state. This isn't about national security. It is about politics. It is about this president's legacy, and it is going to result in a lot of deaths. I'll tell you how you associate with these people. You tell them, no nuclear weapons ever. You tell them they will stop killing out military through their proxies. You tell them they will release all political prisoners. You tell them, if they can convincingly demonstrate this, you might talk.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SFC Graig Yarbrough, You would have to ask our fearless leader. I agree it's all about his legacy. I'm also amazed at how many RP members agree with the decision.
(1)
(0)
SFC Graig Yarbrough
I'm reminded of an old proverb. "Don't give anything sacred to dogs, or throw your pearls in front of pigs, because they'll crush them under foot and tear you to pieces."
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Very suspicious all of it. This deal may have stopped the creation of the weapon now, but has open the door to uncontrolled development of a delivery system. So, when this deal expires, Iran goes from zero to 1000% having the nuke and a very efficient method of delivery over night.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see), I can't understand the logic in doing this. It's not a healthy way to keep our enemies at bay. Instead, it sounds like we're helping them be successful in their nuke program. What really discusses me is no attempt was made for a deal to release the prisoners. Now, there is no leverage anymore. Pitiful.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Keith, neither can I... none of it makes any sense. I guess if we were looking at this through left-liberal filter it might be logical? The crazy thing is ALL these politicians were around when Iran overtook the embassy 1979 - right? That alone would make this all a non-starter. And the crap I have seen Iran do as a State sponsor of terrorism?!?!?! I do know there is a very young group of Iranians who want western influence, but not at the cost of a nuke!
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I agree with the upper echelon on this one, for they are more privy to information than even the ones in the field. They are armed with daily/hourly status reports on the situation depending upon their job and their "need to know" status. They know things they won't and sometimes can't even discuss with the common service member. Use their experience and knowledge to our greatest success is what I say.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I see that these Generals and Admirals have done their research and made a decision based on probabilities and common sense as oppose to ignorance and fear; it is a good decision.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
SGT (Join to see), no just because a service member is selected to be a Flag officer does not mean they necessarily have the wisdom, background on Iranian ..., and a solid understanding about nuclear weapons technology and how it relates to nuclear energy.
As many have already pointed out on this discussion, 200 other retired flag officers have come out against this Iranian nuclear agreement. Sheer numbers are not important; however, there is much to be said for Congress to rethink blinding following Secretary Kerry's and President Obama's lead to get an agreement with Iran.
Holding Iran to continued economic sanctions and enforcing those restrictions on European and American companies to keep them from skirting the restrictions could go a long way to slowing down their nuclear ambitions. Iran is hell-bent to develop nuclear weapons so that they can exert their influence over Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq and Syria and threaten the existence of Israel. Thank you LTC Jason Strickland for tagging me into this discussion.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/27/retired-generals-admirals-urge-congress-reject-ira/
As many have already pointed out on this discussion, 200 other retired flag officers have come out against this Iranian nuclear agreement. Sheer numbers are not important; however, there is much to be said for Congress to rethink blinding following Secretary Kerry's and President Obama's lead to get an agreement with Iran.
Holding Iran to continued economic sanctions and enforcing those restrictions on European and American companies to keep them from skirting the restrictions could go a long way to slowing down their nuclear ambitions. Iran is hell-bent to develop nuclear weapons so that they can exert their influence over Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq and Syria and threaten the existence of Israel. Thank you LTC Jason Strickland for tagging me into this discussion.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/27/retired-generals-admirals-urge-congress-reject-ira/
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
I venture to say that we have at least two submarines near Iran and near Korea. The fact is they know we can bring a lot of pain directly onto their nuclear infrastructure. If you let Iran fail, which I believe they will. Then the strongest sanctions will be vilified.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
What makes you think we have subs near Korea and Iran? It wouldn't be a good thing to bring a lot of pain to Iran. That would give the N.Chinese, N.Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan, maybe Russia, a reason to get involved. Iraq and Afghanistan government may act like they appreciate our help, but they're still Muslim countries and I believe they would jump on the Muslim/Communist bandwagon to kick our ass.
(0)
(0)
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
SPC George Rudenko. You are a very sharp man and you are very Right. 2 Westpacs to the Persian Gulf and while the Vast Majority of my Ribbons and Medals officially say "For Operations Against Iraq" The truth was a little further South and East. For as Long as I can remember there has always been a Carrier Battle Group in the Persian Gulf and the Typical Carrier Battle Group Includes 2 Fast Attack Submarines Along with The Carrier, 2 or 3 Cruisers, 3 Destroyers all of which do a lot of Donuts very close to Iran.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I would bet money that had these generals come out and stated that this was a bad deal this would’ve still been posted, but the respondents this post would say that we should listen to them because their generals. I especially like the part how everybody keeps saying that the deal is secret, and you cannot find it, but I was able to find it on the White House website in about five minutes. Here is the link:
https://medium.com/the-iran-deal/joint-comprehensive-plan-of-action-5cdd9b320fd
I especially like how everybody keeps saying that it's going to be the end of the United States, but even famous people who criticize it will admit they haven't read it, it's only 159 pages, and if it's as bad as all of you been saying it is it would be worth learning what is actually in its you can articulate your point.
https://medium.com/the-iran-deal/joint-comprehensive-plan-of-action-5cdd9b320fd
I especially like how everybody keeps saying that it's going to be the end of the United States, but even famous people who criticize it will admit they haven't read it, it's only 159 pages, and if it's as bad as all of you been saying it is it would be worth learning what is actually in its you can articulate your point.
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — The Iran Deal
Vienna, 14 July 2015
(1)
(0)
Sgt Tom Cunnally
Obama needs 34 Senators to sustain his most likely veto. It could be close & who really trusts Iran to abide by these parameters that were set in April??..
Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran's...
Below are the key parameters of a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear program that were decided in Lausanne, Switzerland. These elements form the foundation upon which the final text of the JCPOA will be written between now and June 30, and reflect the significant progress that has been made in discussions between the P5+1, the European Union, and Iran. Important implementation details...
(0)
(0)
Cpl Chris Rice
Sgt Tom Cunnally - You are proving my point, you post an article by a military general stating that this is a bad idea, the original discussion was that we should not see generals as experts on these matters. You are picking and choosing your experts to match the opinion that you already have, and there is nothing wrong with having that opinion. My statement was about the need for substance, and that everybody should take an opportunity to learn about the actual deal so they can articulate their own opinions; whether that is positive or negative.
Allow me to recap your argument; you said that Sen. Chuck Schumer (as does Sen. Bob Menendez [D-NY] since your looking for liberals to agree with) disagreed with the deal, and that you don’t trust Iran (the exact same thing Pres. Obama said when he announced the deal). You then told me that you remember the Beirut bombing in 1982 (it actually happened in 1983), and that you do not trust Iran or Pres. Obama. You then said that hardliners, and the Revolutionary guard in Iran don’t like the deal either (at this point your siding with two Democratic Senators and the hardliners in Iran…just saying). You then said again you don’t trust Iran. Now most recently you’ve decided that we should not like the deal because a general said it was a bad deal, even though the entire discussion again was predicated on generals telling us it was a good deal and how individuals think that should not count for anything.
It all returns to the question of why in a substantive manner do you think this is a bad deal, can you point to anything within the deal that makes it a bad deal? At this point you as an individual have not pointed to anything that makes this a good or bad deal, you've only pointed to other people.
Allow me to recap your argument; you said that Sen. Chuck Schumer (as does Sen. Bob Menendez [D-NY] since your looking for liberals to agree with) disagreed with the deal, and that you don’t trust Iran (the exact same thing Pres. Obama said when he announced the deal). You then told me that you remember the Beirut bombing in 1982 (it actually happened in 1983), and that you do not trust Iran or Pres. Obama. You then said that hardliners, and the Revolutionary guard in Iran don’t like the deal either (at this point your siding with two Democratic Senators and the hardliners in Iran…just saying). You then said again you don’t trust Iran. Now most recently you’ve decided that we should not like the deal because a general said it was a bad deal, even though the entire discussion again was predicated on generals telling us it was a good deal and how individuals think that should not count for anything.
It all returns to the question of why in a substantive manner do you think this is a bad deal, can you point to anything within the deal that makes it a bad deal? At this point you as an individual have not pointed to anything that makes this a good or bad deal, you've only pointed to other people.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Tom Cunnally
Cpl Chris Rice...Here's what I said about the Beirut Bombing on Sunday 23 October 1983 at exactly 0622...
"We later learned Iran had planned this bombing and used one of their paid terrorist to drive that Mercedes back in 10/23/1983 0622...We lost 300 servicemen"
I repeat again: "Cpl Rice My point is basically... I don't trust Iran..they have been responsible for too many of our troops being killed in Lebanon and Iraq"..
To summarize for the final time The Iranian Nuclear Agreement is a bad deal because of one word "TRUST"..... Iran cannot and should not be trusted...
"We later learned Iran had planned this bombing and used one of their paid terrorist to drive that Mercedes back in 10/23/1983 0622...We lost 300 servicemen"
I repeat again: "Cpl Rice My point is basically... I don't trust Iran..they have been responsible for too many of our troops being killed in Lebanon and Iraq"..
To summarize for the final time The Iranian Nuclear Agreement is a bad deal because of one word "TRUST"..... Iran cannot and should not be trusted...
(0)
(0)
Cpl Chris Rice
We have to make war or peace with those that we do not trust. If the Iranians violate the agreement we can bomb them, invade them, and rebuild them. We have to make deals with our enemies, simply saying that our enemies are bad is not acceptable, not inappropriate use of American lives. Contracts and deals are usually not struck between two parties that have great levels of trust in each other. According to your reasoning we should never have made peace with Germany, Korea, or Vietnam because they have cost is far more American lives and they could never of been trusted. I know that I may sound like a pain in the ass liberal now but if this is mismanaged and down the road I send my child into this war I will become 10 times the pain in the ass that I am today.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google