First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Iran Nuclear Deal
19572 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / missouri
Offline
Posted 9/11/15
why I don't care
1. Even an insane person wouldn't nuke Israel
2. There fighting with in Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia can defend itself and a world without one or the other would be a better place
3. The price of almond milk will go down
4. If there building one they've already built one.
why I do care
1.they publicly attack us and Israel
2. they are state sponsors of terrorism
3. there terrorists we've been fighting this war long enough the day we stop buying things from terrorist the sooner they stop buying guns from Russia and China.
4. Islam has always propagated through violence. Violence breeds more Violence.
19572 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / missouri
Offline
Posted 9/11/15
I don't see Iran having a snowballls chance at actually fighting the US, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, UK, France, Germany, Spain, ect.
Iran's about at threatening as a chiwawa is to a wolf. Ya they both have teeth but come on.
51156 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 9/11/15

plaidypuss wrote:

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.


Did you even read half of what I wrote or did you selectively look at certain words outside of their context and ignore everything else? I said that a friendlier Iranian government, as in one that we can actually do business with, has no chance of popping up any time soon. The current regime is known for lying and cheating. I don't understand how you can possibly believe someone who you know for a fact is lying and cheating in front of you is the first person that you should do business with. There's no explaining such illogical actions.

You accuse me of living in a fantasy world for trying to be realistic? I'm not the one sticking my feet in a shark tank saying "these sharks are nice. They won't hurt me."
9232 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 9/11/15

PhantomGundam wrote:

- Iran will have all of their sanctions removed before they can prove they'll even cooperate honestly.
- Iran will be allowed to play with nuclear energy all they want while pretending to go along with the restrictions imposed on them.
- Iran will have the authority to police themselves if they're ever suspected of building a bomb. The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) will be able to inspect them, but they have to wait until long after the evidence has already been tampered with.



So I quoted you for the part about the deal, what is left of your wall of text has little to do with the deal itself and more to do with politics which would need a post on itself. For your first point the sanctions will be lifted after the deal goes into effect and considering the sanctions have no effect on there ability to make a bomb that seems reasonable. On to your second point the part that reads "play with nuclear energy all they want' is really a large half-lie, because they will have enriched uranium still. But only 3% of what they have now, also it will only be enriched to 3.67%. That is really low, to show my point Research grade is at 20% and weapons grade is 90%. Plus they will have to give up 75% of its centrifuges for fissionable material but they do get to keep another 5% for research purposes only. Which means even if they decide one day to make a weapon after the deal goes through it would take several years compare to the current 3 month estimate. Your last point that they would be able to hide their atomic research is a lie or just ignorance on your part. This is already along post so I will just link you to vox so you can just read that along with my other source, it is mark as third point.

First point http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/21/world/middleeast/security-council-following-iran-nuclear-pact-votes-to-lift-sanctions.html?_r=0
Second point https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqvghou5m3U
Third point http://www.vox.com/2015/8/20/9182185/ap-iran-inspections-parchin
7547 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Offline
Posted 9/11/15 , edited 9/11/15

PhantomGundam wrote:




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:


You cited one of my links that refutes most of your claims. Byrnes speech is also factually inaccurate for reasons Hollande, Merkel and Cameron laid out in the WP article (Remember, they're the ones who helped construct the deal's framework, so unless you're aware of some super secret loopholes that they aren't...).

46397 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Maryland, USA
Online
Posted 9/11/15
This Iran thing will go down as the worst diplomatic deal of the century, or maybe the last couple centuries. We're making chamberlain look good.
142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 9/11/15 , edited 9/12/15
Popular misconception is Iran is a terrorist country which in reality it is not. It wants to develop with the rest of the world. Its not like Iran is an enemy of US more like Iran is independent in its opinion to put it into exact words "it does not want to suck up to the US like most of the countries" which US could not swallow. Same thing happened with India years ago and now US come to a situation to accept India. Israel is so against is because they can no longer flex their muscles because Iran is there to check it. First of all giving Israel a nuclear deal is a mistake. They have been abusing it for years under pretense of saying its a holy war started by Palestine. When issues could of been settled amicably they almost all the time choose the violent method letting this war go on and on..
80 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/11/15 , edited 9/12/15
I do not agree with the popular opinion;

1. Deal is about nuclear energy as much as I know, nuclear weapon research is still forbidden. Many say they will be left unchecked so they might build a Nuclear base but do not worry I am pretty sure those facilities will be spied on from the US Satellites orbiting around and Israeli Spydrones. US got wiretaps, spys and stuff so I doubt they ll ever get to fool USA. Seriously, you think US will leave them unchecked? Or be unable to check them? Really?

2. Israel did not announce that they did not have nuclear weapons and they probably have built them already. Even if Iran has nukes, it would be just nuclear determinant and neither side would be able to nuke each other. Like cold war.

3. There is a large muslim population and the holy site in Israel, they will not be able to nuke there easily even if they can.
51156 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 9/11/15

geauxtigers1989 wrote:

You cited one of my links that refutes most of your claims.



I went back to the first page and it looks like I really did miss you posting that link. It's weird that you used that link since it lays out the facts and dismisses your stance. It sums up how easy it is for Iran to cheat and not suffer much from it, as well as how difficult it'll be to punish them the way this deal describes. It even shows how the Obama administration admits we'd be giving Iran ten's of billions of dollars by lifting their sanctions. This is the amount AFTER taking their debts into account.

Basically, we'd be paying them to build a bomb. This deal not only gives them the money, but makes it so that they don't get punished for cheating.


Byrnes speech is also factually inaccurate for reasons Hollande, Merkel and Cameron laid out in the WP article (Remember, they're the ones who helped construct the deal's framework, so unless you're aware of some super secret loopholes that they aren't...).


More like they're the ones who are aware of stuff we aren't. All the information available to public points to this deal backfiring. Unless Hollande, Merkel, and Cameron know something about this deal that we don't, they have no reason to support it. Obviously they do support it, so unless they choose to blindly trust Iran, there must be something they're seeing that the rest of the world isn't allowed to see. However, that brings up the question of why so much is being kept secret if they insist so strongly that this deal is a positive thing.

Keep in mind the side deals were discovered by accident, meaning there was more to this deal that was being kept hidden from the public. If this deal works the way Obama says it does, why did he go through so much trouble to hide part of it from us? Even now these details are still being kept hidden.
72836 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Central KY.
Offline
Posted 9/11/15 , edited 9/11/15

PhantomGundam wrote:


geauxtigers1989 wrote:


AirMarshall wrote:



If you didn't notice, Iran has a very powerful, very well-funded military, easily a top-10 military power in the world. If they start using this nuclear energy the US allows them, and if they do attack a nation, even if all of NATO gangs up on them, there will be heavy casualties. Russia will aid them too, they're their arms dealer after all, and the US doesn't have good relations with them at the moment, and they are another top 10 military power.

So do you still think it's worth the risk sir?



They won't be able to build a weapon with only three percent of their uranium supply. And even if they tried, it would be near impossible tO do so undetected. They have no incentive to break the agreement.

Why would Russia aid Iran if Iran used a nuke? Russia helped us negotiate the deal, they don't want Iran to get a bomb either.


What? They have nothing to lose and everything to gain from breaking this agreement. Why wouldn't they break it? This deal specifically allows them to go undetected. The IAEA can't inspect them until after they've already had lots of time to mess with the evidence. That's the entire point of the analogy I left you with in an earlier post.

And did you forget Russia is Iran's closest ally? Of course they would help Iran. The very reason they agreed to this deal was because they know fully well that Iran will try to take advantage of it. The U.S., U.K. and the other western nations that agreed to it are placing too much trust in a regime that is currently shouting to the world right now that they're stab us in the back. What more will it take to convince you that this was a bad idea?


Pardon. I personally have nothing to contribute to this Thread, however I just wanted to say that I agree with each and every word You've said, Sir. You're quite inclined to opinion, and I'd be willing to wager that 99% of those You've made or more, are not only thoughts well developed, but most if not all of them are factually TRUE.
884 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 9/11/15
Even with a nuke, no country in the world has the balls to detonate one as an act of war. Iran especially, what with Russia (mother nuclear) being so damn close.
6169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / United States
Offline
Posted 9/13/15
If Iran can't have Nuclear weapons ,then why should Israel be able to keep theirs? If you ask me if you want Iran to not have nuclear weapons ,then tell Israel to get rid of theirs. I'm not saying Iran won't do anything with those weapons ,but the only reason a nation would have those weapons is if they are planning to use them in the near future. So what does that say about Israel?
6169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / United States
Offline
Posted 9/13/15
Why add Mexico? Mexico's Military is like a small police force compared to Islamic Iran lol.
6169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / United States
Offline
Posted 9/13/15
Lets not forget Israel is a state sponsor of terrorism as well. I mean think about it with all of these terror groups out there ,why haven't they attacked Israel yet? Isis has the fighters and the tactics to cause havoc in Israel ,so why are they still in Syria and Iraq ;and not Israel? My point is I think Isis is a made up organization created "not" by islamic nations ,but by Israel to destabilize the middle east even further to bend to their needs and ambitions.
Posted 9/13/15
Ah guys, maybe give this a go http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/opinion/thomas-friedman-if-i-were-an-israeli-looking-at-the-iran-dealhtml.html
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.