First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Iran Nuclear Deal
7597 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Offline
Posted 9/10/15 , edited 9/11/15

PhantomGundam wrote:

And yet Israel has been the largest critic of this deal because it gives their worst enemy nuclear weapons. If this deal really does keep nuclear weapons out of Iran's hands, that would mean Israel is safe. Everybody who is going along with this deal is placing too much trust in a regime that is constantly talking about nuking Israel as a direct result of this deal as I type this. There's also the fact that this deal clearly states Iran will be a nuclear power in 10-15 years by the time these false restrictions have been lifted.

Why do you think Obama had to resort to threatening his own party with war in order for them to not oppose this deal?

If this deal stopped Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, Israel would be the most vocal supporter of this deal whereas Iran would never agree to such terms. Don't fall for Obama's propaganda. He claims the sky the green and the grass is blue with this deal. Taking his word for it is a terrible way to assess the effectiveness of this deal. Iran is being given far too much freedom here and it's Israel and the U.S. that are paying the price. Obama only has a year and 4 months left in office so of course he's not concerned about his own safety. When Iran has been discovered to have completed a bomb, he'll be in Hawaii laughing his ass off at the problem he left for his successor.



http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/08/israeli-military-brass-support-iran-deal.html

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/in-israel-some-support-the-iran-deal/?_r=0

I'm certainly not going to trust Netanyahu over Hollande, Merkel and Cameron, who actually helped construct the deal. I'll ask again, what do you know about the deal that they're not aware of?
13153 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 9/10/15 , edited 9/10/15

PhantomGundam wrote:

What I've gathered from this conversation:

Some of you would trust a notorious murderer with a weekly delivery package full of rounds for their assault rifle just because they wrote on a piece of paper that they won't use it for a year. Clearly such a person is trustworthy and has no intention of secretly killing people during the huge windows of opportunity you're giving them. If you feel like they've violated the terms of the contract, you can always just have a local police officer take a look at their stash of bullets when the murderer says they can, because obviously this guy wouldn't lie after having a history of being deceptive... What could possibly go wrong with such a well regulated system?


This "notorious murderer" already has the capability to make a weapon in a few months. What you are doing in this deal is taking away the vast majority of their "ammunition" as well as their ease of acquiring more as well as monitoring their main methods of acquiring more 24/7. In return they get some money (some of which they would have gotten anyways).

Yes, they may still use other methods of acquiring "ammunition", but the initial deal still makes a net positive over the conditions without a deal as their ability to produce weapons is at least slowed (assuming they don't follow the deal) and if they are found to be breaking the conditions of the deal, the sanctions will go back up.

The potential loss (assuming the deal is broken without the US' knowledge) over a state in which no deal was met is that Iran trades 97% of its Uranium, and a good deal of its ability to create Uranium and Plutonium for a lift of sanctions. I'd call that a net benefit.
46359 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / End of Nowhere
Offline
Posted 9/10/15

PhantomGundam wrote:

What more will it take to convince you that this was a bad idea?


A better idea?

Right now Iran is on a very short path to a nuclear weapon. Well, many nuclear weapons. This attempts to fix that. Will it fail? I will be cynical here and say yes it likely will. But that is not proven and this is a new approach. It is possible something might happen that will make this work with Iran.

The Bush / Cheney administration did nothing. Because they do not negotiate with evil, they defeat it. Except that Iran went from almost 0 centrifuges in 2001 to nearly 6,000 in 2009. That does not seem like a very defeated nation. Or perhaps Cheney meant "We do not negotiate with evil, we defeat it by doing nothing so we can complain when another administration tries to fix our mess". Bush and Cheney did pretty much nothing with Iran and this is the result. A mess and a very poor hand to try to negotiate anything.

And a hammer is only a useful negotiation tool if you can get your opponent to believe it will be used. And Iran knows that the US will not get UN authorization to attack it and a Republican congress will never authorize President Obama to attack Iran without it (or likely at all barring a direct attack on the US) so the threat of war is meaningless and thus not a good negotiation tool.

I personally support this not because I think it will work. I think it will fail too. Heck, I am sure the Obama administration expects it will fail too, they just cannot say it. However, it has not been tried. Since our only other options are war or continuing to do nothing (we have so many sanctions on Iran for so long that anything more is meaningless since there really is not much more left to sanction...maybe we can stop rain from falling on Iran and dam rivers...). But doing the same thing time and time again and expecting different results is the very definition of insanity. So trying something new at least has the novelty of being a different approach.

Since doing nothing or going to war both will put us at the same end point eventually, which is war, I support an option that at least gives a tiny chance at working. If it does not, well, war is always still on the table. At least we tried.
39040 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Houston, Texas
Offline
Posted 9/10/15
/crosses fingers

All I can say is hope for the best. Regardless they have the means already.
This isn't the end either as more advance it will be even easier for all this
proliferation. Its not like know one knew it would come to this.

I worry more about India and Pakistan trading Nuclear blows over bordered
disputes. Think about it? Pakistan has nukes... How much do you trust THEM?
Without US money and a strong arm government where do you think Pakistans
nukes would be today? And your worried about Iran? funny stuff...
15796 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/10/15
tbh i'd just love to see what happens if it does go through. Honestly, i don't think anyone would be stupid enough to be the first to launch a nuclear attack on a country, especially if it's a brand new weapon to them. Hopefully this'll pan out like they'd hoped and iran can get some cleaner energy. I mean its a long way from any sort of development, but its a start (albeit a drastic one).
51567 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 9/10/15

geauxtigers1989 wrote:

I'll ask again, what do you know about the deal that they're not aware of?


It's not a matter of what I know about the deal that others don't know. We all have access to the same information, with the exception of the side deals which are being intentionally kept away from the public's eye.

The issue here is whether or not you trust Iran. If something is grabbing a loudspeaker and shouting out that they're going to shoot me if I give them a gun, why would I ever trust them? That's exactly what Iran is doing right now. They're publicly announcing that this deal gives them nuclear weapons and they'll attack Israel as a direct result. Only a madman would trust someone who publicly states they plan on stabbing them in the back.

I'll say this again, if you're waiting for Obama to go out in public and state the obvious, it'll never happen. Obama is not god. His word is not law. Just because he says you can trust the people who say they want to kill you doesn't mean he's right. The only people in his own party that honestly support this deal are doing so just because Obama told them to. We were so close to having both parties reject this "give Iran free bombs" scheme but then he had to turn this into a partisan issue.

I'm seriously concerned about your common sense(or lack thereof) if you don't see the problem with giving a repeat criminal offender the power to police themselves.

As for the argument that Iran would develop a bomb without this deal, maybe they would. But this deal guarantees it by putting restrictions on the people in charge of inspecting Iran.
3058 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Denton, TX
Offline
Posted 9/10/15 , edited 9/11/15
It's a good thing that you opened this discussion with a non-biased perspective PhantomGundam. o____O
7597 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Offline
Posted 9/10/15

PhantomGundam wrote:


geauxtigers1989 wrote:

I'll ask again, what do you know about the deal that they're not aware of?


It's not a matter of what I know about the deal that others don't know. We all have access to the same information, with the exception of the side deals which are being intentionally kept away from the public's eye.

The issue here is whether or not you trust Iran. If something is grabbing a loudspeaker and shouting out that they're going to shoot me if I give them a gun, why would I ever trust them? That's exactly what Iran is doing right now. They're publicly announcing that this deal gives them nuclear weapons and they'll attack Israel as a direct result. Only a madman would trust someone who publicly states they plan on stabbing them in the back.

I'll say this again, if you're waiting for Obama to go out in public and state the obvious, it'll never happen. Obama is not god. His word is not law. Just because he says you can trust the people who say they want to kill you doesn't mean he's right. The only people in his own party that honestly support this deal are doing so just because Obama told them to. We were so close to having both parties reject this "give Iran free bombs" scheme but then he had to turn this into a partisan issue.

I'm seriously concerned about your common sense(or lack thereof) if you don't see the problem with giving a repeat criminal offender the power to police themselves.

As for the argument that Iran would develop a bomb without this deal, maybe they would. But this deal guarantees it by putting restrictions on the people in charge of inspecting Iran.


The deal does not permit Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, as the links I provided earlier clearly established. Have you actually read any of the details of the agreement?
g_f 
26169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / South Carolina
Offline
Posted 9/10/15
Iran is a small fry. The U.S does not have even a shared border because Iran is so far away. Have you seen the huge nuclear arsenal that Russia owns? And it is a real treat. It is just a few miles form Alaska. is The U.S worried? Are the Congress worried? Where is the economical sanctions? And yes, Russia has economical sanctions, but for different reason. Anyway, It is very hypocritical that unnatural view about Iran, that even the Congress cannot hold. Europe is unwilling to cooperate for an eventual war agains Iran because U.S is just too pussy and one side for the things. Also, Europe can benefit with business with Iran, and It calls Oil and Capitalism.
So why does common people should be worry about Iran for ten years?
that the same congress are going to sleep for long time until real stuff with Russia or China happens.
14470 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Houma
Offline
Posted 9/10/15 , edited 9/10/15
Think about it with the assumption that they intend to develop and use a nuclear arsenal.

1. They do not accept the deal, continue as planned
2. They accept the deal and their potential nuclear production is severely hampered

With that assumed goal in mind lifting of sanctions is not a good trade-off for the decreased capability and more surveillance. It wouldn't make sense to accept with that goal in mind.

The only reason I would even think about opposing this from an American standpoint is that the jobs in Louisiana would continue to suffer if more foreign oil enters the market. The price drops in the first place were meant to crash the market and drive the US out of production. The local economy right now sucks and as a plumbing contractor for new construction I haven't had much work recently.

Even then it is my belief we need to crush the stupid laws preventing ISP competition in the area and attract some tech industries. Louisiana needs to adapt.
17434 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Oregon
Offline
Posted 9/11/15
Diplomacy with Iran is a no-brainer. I am not sure why people get worked up over this. We need a diplomatic partner in the Middle East, and they are the only option available. Iraq is in shambles. Afghanistan is in shambles. Pakistan and India have nukes and insane tension. Isis is forcing a mass exodus of Kurds to Eastern Europe. Israel is a diplomatic liability whose military the US continues to provide $3 billion a year to (or roughly a tenth of our foreign aid budget). Why not ball with the only reliably stable country in the region? Because of the fear-mongering of Republicans earlier in the millennium? The axis of evil that Bush 2.0 sold us on? Remind me again about those imminent threats of Iraq and North Korea. Then sell me on Iran.
51567 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 9/11/15

crunchychickens wrote:

It's a good thing that you opened this discussion with a non-biased perspective PhantomGundam. o____O


Nice sarcasm. It's pretty hard not to sound biased when we're talking about a deal as one sided as this. I don't know about you, but I would never willingly put a gun in the hands of a man who admits he plans on killing me with that gun. It's just common sense, not rocket science.


geauxtigers1989 wrote:

Have you actually read any of the details of the agreement?


Have you? If you haven't, here's a quick cheat sheet that describes the facts of the deal, what it says on paper, whether or not those expectations are realistic, and how easy it is for Iran to cheat and not get punished. All while causing the U.S. more trouble.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/sep/08/politifact-sheet-6-things-know-about-iran-nuclear-/

It also describes the issues with the "snap back" sanctions when Iran chooses to break the agreement.

I just found this speech from a representative who made several valid points that imo are impossible to refute unless you actually refuse to listen.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/09/congressman_byrne_iran_deal_ma.html

Most notably he made a point about there being alternatives that don't involve war. We could hit Iran with harsher sanctions, or maybe we can even negotiate a deal that actually allows Iran to be monitored. If Iran refuses to allow outsiders to inspect any one of their suspicious facilities from day 1, that alone should be enough to tell you they never intended to cooperate to begin with.

He also said that Congress should listen to the concerns of Americans instead of blindly following their political parties, which is what a lot of the democrats did today.

In case you don't want to click the link, here's the speech:
51567 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 9/11/15

plaidypuss wrote:

Diplomacy with Iran is a no-brainer. I am not sure why people get worked up over this. We need a diplomatic partner in the Middle East, and they are the only option available. Iraq is in shambles. Afghanistan is in shambles. Pakistan and India have nukes and insane tension. Isis is forcing a mass exodus of Kurds to Eastern Europe. Israel is a diplomatic liability whose military the US continues to provide $3 billion a year to (or roughly a tenth of our foreign aid budget). Why not ball with the only reliably stable country in the region? Because of the fear-mongering of Republicans earlier in the millennium? The axis of evil that Bush 2.0 sold us on? Remind me again about those imminent threats of Iraq and North Korea. Then sell me on Iran.


Your view of Iran is far different from reality.

Iran is the last country in the Middle East that we should be diplomatic partners with. We already have Turkey as an ally. Iraq and Afghanistan, while unstable, aren't hellbent on trying to nuke America and its allies. We have no problems getting along with India. Pakistan... our relationship is a little shaky but no where near as bad as Iran.

You know what the difference is between Iran and all the other Middle Eastern nations that have nukes? Iran is the only one that proudly broadcasts on their state-run media that they plan on starting a nuclear war. Pakistan and India don't nuke each other for the same reason the U.S. and Russia don't nuke each other. None of us are crazy enough to start a nuclear genocide, let alone against a nation that also has nukes.

I don't know where you got the idea that Iran would be friendly with America and are the most economically stable nation in the Middle East, but both of those ideas couldn't be any farther from the truth.

I fully support being diplomatic towards Iran and trying to ease the tension between us. I'm entirely against handing them the very means to start nuclear war, which is what this deal guarantees them. The current Iranian regime is among the largest anti-American, pro-terrorism sponsor in the world. Until that regime has been overthrown by a more open-minded and peaceful government, making fully functional anti-nuke deals with them is a fantasy.
17434 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Oregon
Offline
Posted 9/11/15 , edited 9/11/15
Iran is absolutely the first country we should be diplomatic with. We just destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan for being the threats they weren't and subsequently created a power vacuum in the region. If we establish diplomacy with Iran, we afford ourselves an opportunity for relations with Jordan and Syria, if it can be saved. I don't know what fantasy world you live in thinking that a "peaceful government" would or could overthrow the current Iranian government. Iran is not so nearly the threat you imagine. Your embrace of propaganda is priceless.
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 9/11/15
Fuck it, let Iran get nukes.

Let the whole middle east get them.

190 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / London
Offline
Posted 9/11/15
The thing about nukes is they're all for defense. Did Pakistan and India nuke each other as soon as they got the power to? No they did not despite western media and right wing think pieces claiming they would for years in advance. In fact, neither India nor Pakistan gained any standing at all in the line up of world powers- they were just less likely to be invaded.

Iran is not a superpower and it is not likely to be, they will make threats but unlike North Korea the people that are in charge of Iran are not completely unstable enough that they would destroy the planet in order to make a point (despite being anti american). This deal basically destabilises whatever nuclear programme they have and gives the rest of the world more power to check up on them.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.