• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Celebrity Video Urges Congress to Back Iran Deal.....

Ok, let me illustrate the problem this way by posing a hypothetical - If you don't own child pornography, why don't you let the FBI investigate your personal computer and your internet browsing history?

And I would imagine that the reasons you would object are because of the "way too vague" reasons that such an investigation is invasive and disruptive, in addition to violating your right to privacy without justification.

I'm still waiting for the precise descriptions of exactly what about an inspection regime would be intrusive and disruptive to Iran compared to having sanctions lifted. It seems for all the world that anything other than having sanctions lifted for Iran is disruptive and intrusive. Let me tell you, having a nuke detonate in your back yard is somewhat intrusive and disruptive. So I am waiting for your explanation. Still. Waiting.
 
The right course would have been for the U.S. to destroy all the significant facilities in Iran's nuclear weapons program from the air, and also all the sites where its ballistic missiles are produced and deployed. A small fraction of this country's air power could have done that quickly and effectively, without much risk to our forces and without killing many civilians. And the U.S. should have struck quite a few years ago. Iran could not have done much to retaliate in any case. And if the jihadists who rule it had been warned that any attempt to retaliate would prompt an even larger bombing campaign against all sorts of other military targets, a blockade, or both, they probably would not have dared try.

Either way, the humiliation likely would have cost the Khomeinist regime its hold on power, leaving the Iranian people free to choose a government that was much better for them, and much friendlier to us. But because we did not have a leader who could muster the public support for this kind of action, the jihadists kept right on pursuing their atom bombs. For fearing to run a fairly small risk, we now are confronted with a far larger one. One of the more dangerous consequences of this shameful appeasement is that it puts Israel in an intolerable position, and one it may well have no way to get out of except by using nuclear weapons.

Israel knows its area and population are small enough that even a single atom bomb set off in Tel Aviv, or maybe some other city, would probably create so much physical, social, and economic damage as to finish it as a nation. Even letting Iran hold that sword held over its head could weaken Israel indirectly, by causing many of its people gradually to become so weary and demoralized that they left for safer countries. I believe Israel will do whatever it feels is needed to avoid all that--even if that means attacking Iran's nuclear facilities by itself. Iran's leaders have been foolish to talk about how once they get the atom bomb, they plan to use it to eliminate a nation that already has a couple hundred of those bombs, with the missiles to deliver them. Regular bombs of two-and-on-half tons may not be strong enough to destroy a deeply buried nuclear weapons facility, but a nuclear bomb of twenty thousand tons would make very sure of it.
 
Meh. Celebrity endorsements never did much for me one way or the other, unless said celebrity had some other qualification in the field about which they are speaking (which very few do, but there are a couple).
 
The right course would have been for the U.S. to destroy all the significant facilities in Iran's nuclear weapons program from the air, and also all the sites where its ballistic missiles are produced and deployed. A small fraction of this country's air power could have done that quickly and effectively, without much risk to our forces and without killing many civilians. And the U.S. should have struck quite a few years ago. Iran could not have done much to retaliate in any case. And if the jihadists who rule it had been warned that any attempt to retaliate would prompt an even larger bombing campaign against all sorts of other military targets, a blockade, or both, they probably would not have dared try.

Either way, the humiliation likely would have cost the Khomeinist regime its hold on power, leaving the Iranian people free to choose a government that was much better for them, and much friendlier to us. But because we did not have a leader who could muster the public support for this kind of action, the jihadists kept right on pursuing their atom bombs. For fearing to run a fairly small risk, we now are confronted with a far larger one. One of the more dangerous consequences of this shameful appeasement is that it puts Israel in an intolerable position, and one it may well have no way to get out of except by using nuclear weapons.

Israel knows its area and population are small enough that even a single atom bomb set off in Tel Aviv, or maybe some other city, would probably create so much physical, social, and economic damage as to finish it as a nation. Even letting Iran hold that sword held over its head could weaken Israel indirectly, by causing many of its people gradually to become so weary and demoralized that they left for safer countries. I believe Israel will do whatever it feels is needed to avoid all that--even if that means attacking Iran's nuclear facilities by itself. Iran's leaders have been foolish to talk about how once they get the atom bomb, they plan to use it to eliminate a nation that already has a couple hundred of those bombs, with the missiles to deliver them. Regular bombs of two-and-on-half tons may not be strong enough to destroy a deeply buried nuclear weapons facility, but a nuclear bomb of twenty thousand tons would make very sure of it.

Greetings, matchlight. :2wave:

Very well said, and unfortunately factual. :shock: What Israel haters seem to overlook is the fact that they were not given the opportunity to pick and choose where they would settle. They were basically told "here is your land - take it or leave it." Why the "powers that be" decided that things would work out when they were surrounded by people who had hated them for thousands of years is a mystery, but if prophecy is taken into consideration, I guess it makes sense. Nostradamus covered that when he talked about end times while in his trances in the late 1500s and much of it has already come true, so the rest of it should not come as a surprise if and when it comes to pass, I guess. His quatrains also included future happenings in other countries, which have also mostly occurred, with some still yet to happen. Time will tell, and whether people choose to believe or not is immaterial, but it sounds like it won't be pleasant. :afraid: .. :scared:
 
Corny. But the frisbee comment made me laugh.

Republicans just need to calm down. If Iran doesn't uphold its end of the deal then we just re-institute the sanctions. Nothing lost, and we will have the moral high ground.

After you give them all their money back. Why would you think Iran would care after they have what they want?
 
Sanctions is what made them come to the table to negotiate. (Also knowing we might come and get rid of the problem). As they knew, it was crippling their economy. If these talks didn't take place they would have continued to spiral down. Then maybe the people of Iran would have risen up and changed their way of allowing their country to be governed.

Since this is true, why did the US give them everything they wanted?

Where are the hostages? If Iran was the anxious party to get rid of the sanctions, why did the US fold?
 
Since this is true, why did the US give them everything they wanted?

Where are the hostages? If Iran was the anxious party to get rid of the sanctions, why did the US fold?

Well Mason, you would have to look at the so called Leadership. Most of the Top Democrats are feckless, useless, incompetent, people that have made more about themselves than what was actually there from the start. More interested in being Hollywood Entertainers.

Like BO peep.....some think he is highly intelligent. He is nowhere close.

Its why you see him run from those that would tear him down, while playing with his intelligence and showing just how much his smart powers are lacking. They shield him from those that he can't handle.
 
This White House has an insane marketing budget.

Whatever happened to politicians lying to us themselves? Isn't that what we pay them for?!?
 
I'm still waiting for the precise descriptions of exactly what about an inspection regime would be intrusive and disruptive to Iran compared to having sanctions lifted. It seems for all the world that anything other than having sanctions lifted for Iran is disruptive and intrusive. Let me tell you, having a nuke detonate in your back yard is somewhat intrusive and disruptive. So I am waiting for your explanation. Still. Waiting.

How many other countries are subjected to any time and any place inspections of their top secret military facilities by the international community?

Once you've realized the answer is "zero," I want you to consider for yourself why do you suppose that is? Is it because the international community doesn't want to know? Is it because the international community trusts every other country in the world? Is it because these countries have offered such inspections and the international community just said, "no thanks?"

It is because they are highly confidential and top secret military bases and subjecting themselves to anytime, any place investigations is intrusive and disruptive. If that is "too vague" for you, then let's talk about some minimal steps necessary to investigate a base like this.

You will need to bring in outside investigators. These investigators may insist on having their own security detail and weaponry. You obviously don't want them to just take over your military base, so you have to insist on supplying your own protection for them. But they don't like this, so you have to compromise in some way. And then, when they are inside the base, they have to conduct tests that will probably disrupt any assembly lines or experiments that your experts and scientists are currently investigating. This disruption may set those workers back several hours or days. And, of course, there are probably military operations being undertaken at these bases that are completely irrelevant to the type of investigation that is supposed to be on-going. So, you understandably will have to try and cordon off the investigators who are there to look at your nuclear energy program from, for example, getting information about the new submarines that you are developing. And then, when they do complete their investigation, they have to file reports. But what if their report contradicts something you know to be factual? Now you have to spend time disputing the report and proving your side of the case.

Does any of that help to explain why any time and any place inspection can be disruptive and invasive?
 
I'm still waiting for the precise descriptions of exactly what about an inspection regime would be intrusive and disruptive to Iran compared to having sanctions lifted. It seems for all the world that anything other than having sanctions lifted for Iran is disruptive and intrusive. Let me tell you, having a nuke detonate in your back yard is somewhat intrusive and disruptive. So I am waiting for your explanation. Still. Waiting.

th
 
How many other countries are subjected to any time and any place inspections of their top secret military facilities by the international community?
How many other NPT countries hid a nuclear complex (Natanz) from the IAEA for three years?
 
Simpleχity;1064879208 said:
How many other NPT countries hid a nuclear complex (Natanz) from the IAEA for three years?

Setting aside the fact that there are probably a dozen countries with nuclear complexes that are hidden or off-limits from the IAEA, I would just note that I understand that Iran is not necessarily a trustworthy country and indeed, Iran suffered billions of dollars in sanctions and trade embargoes because of those actions.

That does not explain why Iran must now agree to any time, and any place investigations for every facility it operates.
 
How many other countries are subjected to any time and any place inspections of their top secret military facilities by the international community?

Once you've realized the answer is "zero," I want you to consider for yourself why do you suppose that is? Is it because the international community doesn't want to know? Is it because the international community trusts every other country in the world? Is it because these countries have offered such inspections and the international community just said, "no thanks?"

It is because they are highly confidential and top secret military bases and subjecting themselves to anytime, any place investigations is intrusive and disruptive. If that is "too vague" for you, then let's talk about some minimal steps necessary to investigate a base like this.

You will need to bring in outside investigators. These investigators may insist on having their own security detail and weaponry. You obviously don't want them to just take over your military base, so you have to insist on supplying your own protection for them. But they don't like this, so you have to compromise in some way. And then, when they are inside the base, they have to conduct tests that will probably disrupt any assembly lines or experiments that your experts and scientists are currently investigating. This disruption may set those workers back several hours or days. And, of course, there are probably military operations being undertaken at these bases that are completely irrelevant to the type of investigation that is supposed to be on-going. So, you understandably will have to try and cordon off the investigators who are there to look at your nuclear energy program from, for example, getting information about the new submarines that you are developing. And then, when they do complete their investigation, they have to file reports. But what if their report contradicts something you know to be factual? Now you have to spend time disputing the report and proving your side of the case.

Does any of that help to explain why any time and any place inspection can be disruptive and invasive?

How many other countries have publicly stated they are going to destroy another country if given the chance?
 
How many other countries are subjected to any time and any place inspections of their top secret military facilities by the international community?

Once you've realized the answer is "zero," I want you to consider for yourself why do you suppose that is? Is it because the international community doesn't want to know? Is it because the international community trusts every other country in the world? Is it because these countries have offered such inspections and the international community just said, "no thanks?"

It is because they are highly confidential and top secret military bases and subjecting themselves to anytime, any place investigations is intrusive and disruptive. If that is "too vague" for you, then let's talk about some minimal steps necessary to investigate a base like this.

The above is all very true. However, we are not talking about other countries. We are talking about Iran, the single nation who happens to be a huge sponsor of international terrorism, funder of proxy wars destabilizing entire countries in the region, and a nation that has vowed to destroy us.

You will need to bring in outside investigators. These investigators may insist on having their own security detail and weaponry. You obviously don't want them to just take over your military base, so you have to insist on supplying your own protection for them. But they don't like this, so you have to compromise in some way. And then, when they are inside the base, they have to conduct tests that will probably disrupt any assembly lines or experiments that your experts and scientists are currently investigating. This disruption may set those workers back several hours or days. And, of course, there are probably military operations being undertaken at these bases that are completely irrelevant to the type of investigation that is supposed to be on-going. So, you understandably will have to try and cordon off the investigators who are there to look at your nuclear energy program from, for example, getting information about the new submarines that you are developing. And then, when they do complete their investigation, they have to file reports. But what if their report contradicts something you know to be factual? Now you have to spend time disputing the report and proving your side of the case.

Does any of that help to explain why any time and any place inspection can be disruptive and invasive?

Ahhhhh, no. I bolded your speculative assumptions. If Iran is engaged in entirely peaceful nuclear activities, they would be transparent about those activities, and any need for what you speculate could be intrusive and disruptive inspections would be minimal. Realize that Iran has maintained that their nuclear programs are peaceful in nature while developing the means to produce weapons, which is why you hear the phrase "breakout period" mentioned. As I post this response, Iran can have sufficient material to produce a nuclear weapon in a matter of months. I'm not concerned about any inconvenience to Iran in their effort to develop this weapon. I'm concerned about a nuclear armed ME and the possibility such weapons will be in the hands of brutal, theocratic megalomaniacs.
 
The above is all very true. However, we are not talking about other countries. We are talking about Iran, the single nation who happens to be a huge sponsor of international terrorism, funder of proxy wars destabilizing entire countries in the region, and a nation that has vowed to destroy us.

Precisely why they are being subjected to the most invasive and intrusive inspection regime of the world.

Ahhhhh, no. I bolded your speculative assumptions. If Iran is engaged in entirely peaceful nuclear activities, they would be transparent about those activities, and any need for what you speculate could be intrusive and disruptive inspections would be minimal. Realize that Iran has maintained that their nuclear programs are peaceful in nature while developing the means to produce weapons, which is why you hear the phrase "breakout period" mentioned. As I post this response, Iran can have sufficient material to produce a nuclear weapon in a matter of months. I'm not concerned about any inconvenience to Iran in their effort to develop this weapon. I'm concerned about a nuclear armed ME and the possibility such weapons will be in the hands of brutal, theocratic megalomaniacs.

My presumptions are written in non-dogmatic language because non-dogmatic statements are much more likely to be correct. With that said, ALL of my statements would apply just as well even if you are engaging in peaceful nuclear programs, but still developing military technology that does not rely on nukes. For example, many submarines are nuclear powered and that is a combination of military and nuclear technology that does not involve the development of nukes.

As for the phrase that I bolded, I just wanted to note that it is probably a good thing that the nuclear agreement forces Iran to ship out the vast majority of their nuclear stockpile and to disengage the vast majority of their centrifuges and to re-purpose several of their nuclear facilities.
 
How many other countries have publicly stated they are going to destroy another country if given the chance?

Plenty, but these are precisely part of the reason that Iran WILL be subjected to the most invasive and intrusive inspection regime in the world.
 
Precisely why they are being subjected to the most invasive and intrusive inspection regime of the world.

Oh, I'm not certain about the above at all. Nobody on our negotiating team seems to know precisely what the inspection regime actually entails.



My presumptions are written in non-dogmatic language because non-dogmatic statements are much more likely to be correct. With that said, ALL of my statements would apply just as well even if you are engaging in peaceful nuclear programs, but still developing military technology that does not rely on nukes. For example, many submarines are nuclear powered and that is a combination of military and nuclear technology that does not involve the development of nukes.

As for the phrase that I bolded, I just wanted to note that it is probably a good thing that the nuclear agreement forces Iran to ship out the vast majority of their nuclear stockpile and to disengage the vast majority of their centrifuges and to re-purpose several of their nuclear facilities.

I'm not willing to risk non-specific language with regard to nuclear weapon proliferation, and nobody with any sense would. What makes you think that Iran has declared all that comprises their nuclear stockpile? In fact, even the touted breakout period is in itself purely speculation based on assumed knowledge. (With regard to nuclear submarines, Iran can buy a current nuclear powered submarine for far less money than it costs to develop one). Iran has agreed to disengage some centrifuges, disallowed inspection of some of the very facilities that house them (particularly the advanced ones), and has also agreed to not develop nuclear weapons as a signatory to the NPT. None of this inspires confidence that the negotiations conducted particularly to prevent Iran from developing and acquiring nuclear weapons have been successful, and certainly not worth the lifting of sanctions and the release of at least $120 billion. In declaring that a position such as mine is not reasonable you are losing sight of the essential truth that Iran is not a reasonable or trustworthy negotiation partner at the outset.
 
The above is all very true. However, we are not talking about other countries. We are talking about Iran, the single nation who happens to be a huge sponsor of international terrorism, funder of proxy wars destabilizing entire countries in the region, and a nation that has vowed to destroy us.

Ahhhhh, no. I bolded your speculative assumptions. If Iran is engaged in entirely peaceful nuclear activities, they would be transparent about those activities, and any need for what you speculate could be intrusive and disruptive inspections would be minimal. Realize that Iran has maintained that their nuclear programs are peaceful in nature while developing the means to produce weapons, which is why you hear the phrase "breakout period" mentioned. As I post this response, Iran can have sufficient material to produce a nuclear weapon in a matter of months. I'm not concerned about any inconvenience to Iran in their effort to develop this weapon. I'm concerned about a nuclear armed ME and the possibility such weapons will be in the hands of brutal, theocratic megalomaniacs.

Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:

:agree: Iran's latest statement "only countries that share diplomatic relations with us may send inspectors" is clever! I wonder who thought of that one? :mrgreen: We'll see who they are, and who signs on if they aren't............
 
Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:

:agree: Iran's latest statement "only countries that share diplomatic relations with us may send inspectors" is clever! I wonder who thought of that one? :mrgreen: We'll see who they are, and who signs on if they aren't............

I still wonder at Iran's determination to dictate to other countries what they will and will not permit. Our ability to maintain any semblance of order in that region is nearly completely gone, and we were the only world power with any desire to do that until recently. The message to countries in the ME is now that they are on their own. That lays and fertilizes the ground for an arms race. Iran will be buying ICBMs from Russia and China eventually, and Europe and the US will be on the target list. I'd say that if you want to put all nations on the same playing field things are going swimmingly well. Of course, that allows no differentiation between a maniacal regime and a rational and civilized one, but nobody in this administration and within the ranks of their supporters seems capable of making that differentiation.
 
Of course there are points in the immediate continuum between "sign the deal" and "war," but it also probably still correct to note that (as Kerry did), that the inevitable result of not signing the deal would be war.

So, in effect, everyone can claim to be correct. There are other options, but the most likely end result is still war.
Who do you believe would start this war? Iran or the United States?
 
My fears are very real--that DEMs at their town halls won't be ready for these scurrilous and despicable sabotages .
They can deny a problem exists but will look into it after the election.
 
I don't think we would, although I would agree that it's been a very long time since we've had what could be characterized as a unified and coherent foreign policy. We've suffered this lack especially since the end of the Cold War, but before that in fits and starts going back decades and decades. The single most unifying element of foreign policy is the desire for peace and order. Peace and order is not achieved by wishing it so. It is imposed. You know this.
Yes, with the exception of Jimmy Carter all US presidents followed lines along the advice given by George Kennan in 1947, and it worked well.

But there is no 'containment' policy now and although Iraq was won that victory was soon abandoned by the next president. At least in the case of Carter the American people of the day were sophisticated enough to realize their error. With Obama they compounded it.
 
Meh. Celebrity endorsements never did much for me one way or the other, unless said celebrity had some other qualification in the field about which they are speaking (which very few do, but there are a couple).
They are designed for the Low Information Voter, and no one else.
 
How many other countries are subjected to any time and any place inspections of their top secret military facilities by the international community?
How many other countries are sponsoring international terrorism and threatening death to the USA and Israel? Do you think we're dealing with Norway here?
 
Back
Top Bottom