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

SSgt Alex Robinson — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 21:41:04 -0400

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/iran-nuclear-deal-national-security-congress/2015/08/26/id/672071/

Almost 200 Retired Generals, Admirals Tell Congress: Vote Down the Iran Deal

Nearly 200 retired U.S. military generals and admirals sent a letter to Congressional leaders Wednesday, asking them to vote down the Iran nuclear deal.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Aug 28 at 2015 1:51 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 01:51:10 -0400

Yes.

Response by SPC George Rudenko made Aug 28 at 2015 1:55 AM

SPC George Rudenko — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 01:55:19 -0400

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.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Aug 29 at 2015 5:49 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 05:49:49 -0400

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.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Aug 29 at 2015 6:20 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 06:20:43 -0400

Looks like an Honest Difference of Opinions. Some Admirals and Generals say Yes some say No.

Document: Open Letter from Former U.S. Generals and Admirals on the Iran Nuclear Deal - USNI News...

The following was issued in Aug. 11, 2015 from a group of retired U.S. flag and general officers in support of Iran nuclear deal.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Aug 29 at 2015 2:48 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 14:48:48 -0400

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

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Aug 29 at 2015 3:05 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 15:05:47 -0400

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

Response by SGT Forrest Stewart made Aug 29 at 2015 3:06 PM

SGT Forrest Stewart — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 15:06:35 -0400

Unequivocally!

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Aug 29 at 2015 3:34 PM

Sgt Kelli Mays — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 15:34:51 -0400

Absolutely agree 100%!!

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 29 at 2015 3:47 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 15:47:53 -0400

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

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Aug 29 at 2015 4:17 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 16:17:28 -0400

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?

Response by Cpl Chris Cargile made Aug 30 at 2015 3:33 PM

Cpl Chris Cargile — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 15:33:54 -0400

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.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 1 at 2015 5:43 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 05:43:14 -0400

Absolutely.

Response by 1SG Eric Rice made Sep 1 at 2015 8:40 AM

1SG Eric Rice — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 08:40:16 -0400

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.