Tom Reed’s Neo-colonialism

catoThis unfair proposal puts Americans here and around the world in very real danger.–Tom Reed

How can an agreement freely negotiated between two parties be unfair to either? Is Tom suggesting that our elected American government doesn’t represent the American people’s interests? How can an agreement restricting weapon development by Iran put Americans here and around the world in very real danger?

People’s lives are at risk if the United States adopts this proposal.

Yes, and what if we don’t? Tom doesn’t say.

We have no guarantee that the leading state sponsor of terror would not give this technology to terrorists to detonate on American soil.

What guarantee is possible in international relations? What would Tom offer in exchange for a guarantee if that were possible?

He cited a variety of reasons for his opposition to the proposal, including allowing the Iranians to keeping their nuclear centrifuges active, lifting bans on the development of ballistic missile technology and the sale of Iranian oil internationally.

Is Tom suggesting a “receivership” where Iran would turn over it’s military and foreign policy to foreigners? That would be tough to negotiate.

“In exchange for empty promises, this agreement immediately gives the Iranians the means to develop weapons and finances their research,” said Reed. “We are even giving them the means to deploy this technology beyond their borders and it will all be funded with oil sales to American consumers.”

“Empty promises?” How would Tom know that? Oil sales to American consumers? Really, Tom? You have claimed we are on the path to self-sufficiency. Oil sales to China are more likely.

If Tom “ran the zoo,” what would he do? His position on Iran seems to be NO; he offers no reasonable alternative. Does he favor another costly and futile war in the Middle East? Would he war with every foreign nation that he disapproves?

Tom says he wants input from constituents, but why? Hasn’t he already made up his mind?

http://reed.house.gov/press-release/reed-opposes-iran-deal

Advertisements

About whungerford

* Contributor at NewNY23rd.com where we discuss the politics, economics, and events of the New New York 23rd Congressional District (Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, (Eastern) Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben,Tioga, Tompkins, and Yates Counties) Please visit and comment on whatever strikes your fancy.
This entry was posted in Reed's Views, War and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Tom Reed’s Neo-colonialism

  1. josephurban says:

    Mr Reed is all BS on so many issues. You can easily lose count. If he does not want the US to buy Iranian oil the answer is simple. Propose a law in Congress preventing the US companies and citizens from buying Iranian oil. As in his votes against the ACA and his false charges about Medicare, Mr Reed has no solutions. He is the poster boy for the “Party of No”.
    The fact is the the sanctions against Iran are going to be lifted by the Europeans, the Russians and the Chinese whether this agreement holds or not. The international community will open trade with Iran. There is money to be made and they will make it. The US will not stop that. So that is not even an issue.
    And Iran will not have their assets unfrozen UNTIL they can show the international inspectors that they are complying. So, the idea that this deal automatically just unfreezes the assets is another Tom Reed piece of “misinformation” (I am being kind). And remember, the money being withheld belongs to Iran. It is not a taxpayer gift or foreign aid.
    Furthermore, the US may, at any time in the future UNILATERALLY end the agreement if Mr Obama or a future POTUS does not think Iran is living up to the agreement. No negotiations on that point. We can simply end it without cause.
    Is the agreement perfect from the US point of view? Of course not. Only a child thinks that when a number of nations negotiate each one will get everything they want. It is a matter of getting the best deal for now.
    In a Congress full of BS manufacturing, ill-informed and extremely partisan representatives Mr Reed stands out as one the most ill-informed and most partisan. . Always a whiner, never offering a solution.

  2. The United States conceded “nothing” in this deal. The alternative is “no deal” and “no sanctions” while they continue the status quo…enriching uranium. The “no deal” alternative would result in the U.S. losing credibility with the other international countries that helped over the past four years achieve this deal. The “no deal” alternative would decisively lead to destabilization of the Middle East and then reliably lead to war. If the U.S. Goes to war as a result of congress negating the deal, we would not have the confidence and trust of the other nations who contributed to the deal’s framework.
    The GOP is attempting to undermine the public’s confidence of the Obama Administration’s negotiations that led to this historic agreement in order to win the next election. This flim flam con is illustrative of the GOP’s complete failure to assess the consequences of their actions in light of the fact that there are extremely high stakes at risk…all in the name of ultimately controlling the U.S. government in all three houses. We already know where that leads. The public needs to be reminded that the GOP controlled all three houses which led to the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the country’s near bankruptcy and financial collapse of the Finanace, Insurance, and Real Estate Sector in 2007-2008.

    • BOB McGILL says:

      ” The “no deal” alternative would decisively lead to destabilization of the Middle East and then reliably lead to war. ” you say. What the hell do you think is going on NOW ?

  3. pystew says:

    Reed has said, “Obama’s Iran deal is politically motivated as the President is seeking a deal for the sake of simply reaching an agreement for the purposes of his personal legacy.”

    It seems that Reed and buddies are more concern with continuing there quest of making sure that nothing good happens while Obama is leading our country.

    They can not let President Obama’s diplomatic solutions succeed. It is important that the NEO-Con’s “attack now, find reasons later ” philosophy prevail.

    They are putting their party’s future above our our country security again.

    • whungerford says:

      Jeb Bush wrote in a fundraising letter: Perhaps the most challenging task our next President will face is rebuilding the respect of our allies and instilling fear in our enemies. Both have been lost under the failed policies of President Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. As for respect, President Obama seems to be greatly admired in many countries, so much so that his leadership led to this agreement with Iran. As for instilling fear in our enemies, is that really our goal?

      This is a fundraising letter so Jeb’s attack on his rival, Hillary Clinton, is understandable, but unjustified. Which of President Obama’s policies have failed and why Jeb thinks they have failed, he doesn’t say. Bush claims “vast experience” with foreign policy–he even claims to have visited Estonia.

      • josephurban says:

        Hey Jeb. Listening? Since 2008 (last year of brother George) attitudes toward the US by Germans…up 22%..by French..up 22%..by British…up 5%…by Italians…up 23%…by Russians..up 5%…by Turks…up 9%…by Israelis…up 12% …by Japanese …up 19%…by Mexicans…up 19%. Now it is true that the Egyptians and Chinese don’t like Obama as much as they liked Bush, but otherwise US prestige is high all across the world. Guess Jeb will have to pin that on Secretary of State Clinton !
        http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/07/18/chapter-1-attitudes-toward-the-united-states/

      • BOB McGILL says:

        http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/13/12184262-survey-worlds-opinion-of-us-obama-slips%3FliteJun 13, 2012 … Global overall confidence in and attitudes toward the United States have slipped since the beginning of President Barack Obama’s presidency, …

        • pystew says:

          First the facts are not current—the Pew Study and the article is from 2012, before Obama’s re-election over Romney and little if anything to do with the article. Mr. Urban’s data is more up to date. Both use the Pew Research polls.

          You probably didn’t want us to read the following from the article:

          “It is worth keeping in mind when talking about Obama and America’s image, he is still considerably higher than during (the presidency of George W.) Bush,” Wike said. “In 2009, we generally saw a real improvement in America’s image (and) in general that pattern still holds.”

          With Obama’s presidency, the biggest improvements in the United States’ image occurred among Europeans, with people in France, Spain, and Germany registering a positive view of the U.S. that is at least 20 percentage points higher than in 2008, the study showed.

        • josephurban says:

          Bob…from YOUR OWN SOURCE…
          “”It is worth keeping in mind when talking about Obama and America’s image, he is still considerably higher than during (the presidency of George W.) Bush,” Wike said. “In 2009, we generally saw a real improvement in America’s image (and) in general that pattern still holds.”

        • whungerford says:

          If global overall confidence in and attitudes toward the United States have slipped since the beginning of President Barack Obama’s presidency, it is likely the fault of irresponsible representatives in Congress.

  4. Deb Meeker says:

    Weakness and cowardice personified. Tom Reed hides behind a slick grin and hollow rhetoric.
    We know Tom Reed knows where Israel is – but could he find Iran on a map?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s