• 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!

US, Iran nuclear deal spurs bipartisan concern in Congress

Mornin' USC. :2wave: Well truthfully this deal isn't even the complete deal. It is just the start of the deal. Which any deal has to be approved by Khamenei, himself.

What I am also looking at.....is that issue Obama and the Europeans like to talk about. The World's Market. Economy. You know.....how they talk about it is all tied together and whatnot. That this behind the scenes underlying factor is more relevant than what all have been led to believe. That desperation by those affected is now showing thru. Despite all the other rhetoric.

That these sanctions are not just crippling Iran. But everybody involved in the game.

Links, please. Then explain how Iran can deny this.
 
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Iran, 6 world powers reach deal on Iranian nuclear program

How does who finds them matter? :)

Progress is not the same as compliance-and per Clintons law regime change in Iraq was the policy of the US. Context matters here.

Agreed. The fact still remains that if the weapons inspectors were given more time to complete their work, we could save a lot of blood and money in that god awful country.

Edit: Something a teacher once told me when I challenged her on the matter of what do they have to hide, she responded that they might simply see the threat as a deterrent. I believe for this reason alone was why Saddam let the idea perpetuate about the possibility of WMDs.
 
"America should be able to defend itself against any threat, any enemy and any power that might try to do us harm. However, our continued policy of international policing, foreign invasions and nation building is not only no longer fiscally sustainable, it is wrong. It is simply un-American to pursue a policy of perpetual war. I propose ending our involvements in all current conflicts, severely limiting our use of sanctions, removing drone from all undeclared battle fields and empowering congress to reclaim the sole power it has to declare war."... Lucas Overby



I couldn't agree more. We can't afford to police the world. Sanctions are an act of war. Drone strikes are an act of war. And those that support actions like these, must understand, that there will always be retaliation for our actions. Which is what keeps our foreign policy, perpetual. Which we can't afford.

They don't hate us because we're free. In fact, they don't hate us at all. They distrust our government. Same as us.

I like Ron Paul's foreign policy. Trade and be friends with all WILLING nations. If they don't want to trade or be friends, then ignore them. If they are an actual threat, get a declaration of war from congress, blow the crap out of them. And then come home. And not stay over there rebuilding (at the tax payers expense for decades) what we were already taxed to destroy.
 
Last edited:
Links, please. Then explain how Iran can deny this.


Links to what? Every European Countries Economies? The Germans are the only ones that are stable and not in need of any bailout. That is a significant player I am talking about. As Norway or Switzerland. Aren't considered. Plus you already know our situation here at home.

Well, for one.....the Hard liners of Iran will confuse issues. As with this deal over Atomics and re-approachment with the US. Example:



Iran says talks only on nuclear issue, not US ties

Iran's foreign minister said Tuesday that bilateral discussions with the United States before a historic nuclear agreement were limited to the atomic issue and not rapprochement with Washington.

"Our discussions have been limited to the nuclear issue," Zarif said in English when asked about the revelation, without directly commenting on them or giving any details.

"All the speculations about discussions involving other issues are flatly wrong, as we've only concentrated on the nuclear issue," he said.

Zarif led the Iranian team at the talks with the P5+1 group of world powers in Geneva, which culminated in the landmark agreement elusive for the past decade in freezing parts of Iran's nuclear activities in exchange for limited sanctions relief.

Any decision on contacts with Washington, or eventual thaw in relations, rests in the hands of Iran's ultimate authority, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.....snip~

Iran says talks only on nuclear issue, not US ties
AFP – 17 hrs ago <<<<< More Here.
 
your understanding of history is weak
dicknbush were in the white house during the october 2006 detonation of north korea's initial nuclear test
why did they allow NK to violate the agreements that had been entered into?
2006 North Korean nuclear test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

which tells us that we should not elect another republican regime, because based on historic precedence, a GOP led white house will not enforce this agreement with iran

So to you it doesn't matter how they got to that point, only what year the final product was tested...MMMMMMMK....Wonder if you'll apply that logic to Obama on a range of subjects? Probably not....Thanks for playin'
 
So to you it doesn't matter how they got to that point, only what year the final product was tested...MMMMMMMK....Wonder if you'll apply that logic to Obama on a range of subjects? Probably not....Thanks for playin'

you appear to be missing a lot of words in your reading
there was an agreement with the north koreans
and when the dicknbush regime took over the white house, responsibility for monitoring and enforcing compliance where non-compliance was recognized fell to that republican administration
and they fumbled that ball after the hand off; quite badly
which then tells us that your attempts to paint events where sovereign powers fail to honor their agreements as weaknesses of liberal administrations to be a very bogus presentation
in short, reality kicked your argument in the ass
and it was my pleasure to give it an assist
 
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Iran, 6 world powers reach deal on Iranian nuclear program

False peace deals help nobody-and Israels outrage isn't a good thing-unless you hate israeli's.

I like Israeli's no more or less then any other humans (I NEVER judge people on their nationality). I think the recent Israeli leaders (especially Netanyahu) are terrible for the Middle East and the World.
 
Did you miss where I said only Western media is reporting this-not iran? And your link is 2 days old, this has developed subsequently. Focus please.

Let's see.. if Iran can be believed, then Obama has misrepresented the deal, or there may actually be no deal at all.
And if Iran can't be believed, then it will renege on the deal anyway.

so, either way, if you're right, it's back to square one.
 
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Iran, 6 world powers reach deal on Iranian nuclear program

Gwynne Dyer: Israeli officials condemn U.S.-Iran nuclear deal


'“WE ARE NOT blind, and I don’t think we are stupid,” said U.S. secretary of state John Kerry in response to fierce Israeli criticism after the first round of talks about Iran’s nuclear program earlier this month failed to reach a deal. Now the deal is done, and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is even harsher in his condemnation of Kerry’s handiwork.

“Israel has many friends and allies,” said Netanyahu, “but when they're mistaken, it's my duty to speak out....What was achieved last night in Geneva (November 24) is not a historic agreement, it was a historic mistake. Today the world has become a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world took a significant step towards obtaining the world's most dangerous weapon.”

What he meant was that the interim agreement implicitly recognizes Iran’s right to enrich uranium for peaceful uses. But that right is already enshrined in the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran has signed, and nobody ever thought that Iran was really going to renounce it. What was at issue was whether it would enrich its uranium to “weapons grade”— 90 percent pure—and make nuclear bombs.

The “Plan of Action” signed by Iran, the United States, Russia, Britain, France, Germany, and the European Union ensures that it will not, at least for the next six months. All uranium enrichment above five percent is to be halted, and Iran’s entire stockpile of 20 percent enriched material—the potential feedstock for a “dash” to weapons-grade material—is to be diluted or converted to a form not suitable for further enrichment.

Iran is not to install any more centrifuges (the machines used to enrich material), and large numbers of the existing banks of centrifuges are to be left inoperable. Even Iran's stockpile of 3.5 percent enriched uranium (for use in nuclear power reactors) is to remain the same between now and the end of the six-month period. And there will be no further work done on the Arak reactor, which might give Iran plutonium, and thus a second route to a nuclear bomb.

Iran will also allow more intrusive inspections by International Atomic Energy Agency officials, including daily access to the key enrichment sites at Natanz and Fordow. All it gets in return is $7 billion worth of relief (about $100 per Iranian) on the sanctions that are crippling its economy. All the main sanctions will stay in place until a final agreement has been signed—if it is—six months from now.

Iran can therefore make no further progress towards nuclear weapons while the detailed negotiations continue, if that is actually what Tehran ever had in mind. Yet Israeli officials are talking as if the United States has been both blind and stupid.

On Sunday, Israeli intelligence minister Yuval Steinitz said that “Israel cannot participate in the international celebration, which is based on Iranian deception and the world’s self-delusion.” And Naftali Bennett, Israel’s minister of trade and industry, warned: “If in five years a nuclear suitcase explodes in New York or Madrid, it will be because of the agreement that was signed this morning.”

This is so far over the top that you wonder whether the speakers even believe it themselves. Israel has talked itself into this obsession with Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons project—Israeli sources have been warning that Iran is two years away from a bomb at regular intervals for the past 20 years—but the constant talk about it has also served to draw attention away from Israel’s settlement policy in the Palestinian territories.

Israel’s basic position is that the Iranian regime is entirely composed of evil terrorist fanatics who should never be allowed to have refined uranium of any sort. The only recourse is therefore to tighten the sanctions more and more until Iran’s entire economy and government crumble and a completely different sort of people emerge from somewhere to take over the country. No deal can be a good deal.

Israel’s leaders are dismayed that they can no longer keep their allies and friends pinned in this extreme position, but endlessly quoting the ravings of former Iranian prime minister Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is not enough. They would have to demonstrate that Iran actually intends to attack Israel, and they cannot. So eventually their allies just moved without them.

As Israel's Finance Minister Yair Lapid told Time magazine, “We’ve lost the world’s ear. We have six months, at the end of which we need to be in a situation in which the Americans listen to us the way they used to listen to us in the past.” But the game is not over yet. Israel’s influence in the U.S. Congress is still immense, and its Congressional allies are already talking about heaping more sanctions on Iran (in order to kill the deal, though they don’t admit that).

President Obama could veto those new sanctions, of course, but he will find it a lot harder to get Congress to revoke the existing sanctions if the final deal is done six months from now. That’s why Iran gets so little relief from sanctions now in return for its concessions: Obama needs more time to work on Congress. But Israel may still win this tug-of-war.'

Gwynne Dyer: Israeli officials condemn U.S.-Iran nuclear deal | Georgia Straight
 
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Iran, 6 world powers reach deal on Iranian nuclear program

Gwenn Dyer is blind and naive. Iran will get the nuke just like Korea did then it will be too late to stop them.
 
you appear to be missing a lot of words in your reading
there was an agreement with the north koreans
and when the dicknbush regime took over the white house, responsibility for monitoring and enforcing compliance where non-compliance was recognized fell to that republican administration
and they fumbled that ball after the hand off; quite badly
which then tells us that your attempts to paint events where sovereign powers fail to honor their agreements as weaknesses of liberal administrations to be a very bogus presentation
in short, reality kicked your argument in the ass
and it was my pleasure to give it an assist

Nonsense.

The FBI reported in 1994 that North Korea had completed the CONSTRUCTION of two nuclear weapons.
How about posting historically accurate statements next time, instead of your goofy opinion.
 
Nonsense.

The FBI reported in 1994 that North Korea had completed the CONSTRUCTION of two nuclear weapons.
How about posting historically accurate statements next time, instead of your goofy opinion.

Wait, the FBI? What?
 
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Iran, 6 world powers reach deal on Iranian nuclear program

Agreed. The fact still remains that if the weapons inspectors were given more time to complete their work, we could save a lot of blood and money in that god awful country.

Edit: Something a teacher once told me when I challenged her on the matter of what do they have to hide, she responded that they might simply see the threat as a deterrent. I believe for this reason alone was why Saddam let the idea perpetuate about the possibility of WMDs.

Thats the type of deterrent tha may hold water with Saddams' arab neighbors and Iran-but not the US. Iraq is history now, but at the very least we have the 2nd democracy in the ME established, with a rising quality of life-its a billboard to the angry arabs there-that relative peace and prosperity are good things.
 
you appear to be missing a lot of words in your reading
there was an agreement with the north koreans
and when the dicknbush regime took over the white house, responsibility for monitoring and enforcing compliance where non-compliance was recognized fell to that republican administration
and they fumbled that ball after the hand off; quite badly
which then tells us that your attempts to paint events where sovereign powers fail to honor their agreements as weaknesses of liberal administrations to be a very bogus presentation
in short, reality kicked your argument in the ass
and it was my pleasure to give it an assist

Its almost like we were busy doing something early in W's first term. hmmm.
 
Let's see.. if Iran can be believed, then Obama has misrepresented the deal, or there may actually be no deal at all.
And if Iran can't be believed, then it will renege on the deal anyway.

so, either way, if you're right, it's back to square one.

Anything is possible at this point. Suffice to say Im not particularly trustful of either Obama or Iran.
 
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Iran, 6 world powers reach deal on Iranian nuclear program

Thats the type of deterrent tha may hold water with Saddams' arab neighbors and Iran-but not the US. Iraq is history now, but at the very least we have the 2nd democracy in the ME established, with a rising quality of life-its a billboard to the angry arabs there-that relative peace and prosperity are good things.

There are still lessons to be learned however from the first Iraq war. It was due to this war and the mess with the wmds that people weren't so gung-ho for hitting Syria, including myself. And why Americans are in overwhelming support of this peace plan, despite the hesitations and all the caveats.
 
Wait, the FBI? What?

February 9, 1993: The IAEA demands special inspections of two sites that are believed to store nuclear waste. The request is based on strong evidence that North Korea has been cheating on its commitments under the NPT. North Korea refuses the IAEA’s request.

March 12, 1993: Amid demands for special inspections, North Korea announces its intention to withdraw from the NPT in three months, citing Article X provisions that allow withdrawal for supreme national security considerations.

April 1, 1993: The IAEA declares that North Korea is not adhering to its safeguards agreement and that it cannot guarantee that North Korean nuclear material is not being diverted for nonpeaceful uses.

June 11, 1993: Following talks with the United States in New York, North Korea suspends its decision to pull out of the NPT just before the withdrawal would have become legally effective. North Korea also agrees to the full and impartial application of IAEA safeguards.

For its part, the United States grants assurances against the threat and use of force, including nuclear weapons. Washington also promises not to interfere with North Korea’s internal affairs.

July 19, 1993: After a second round of talks with the United States, North Korea announces in a joint statement that it is “prepared to begin consultations with the IAEA on outstanding safeguards and other issues” and that it is ready to negotiate IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities. The joint statement also indicates that Pyongyang might consider a deal with the United States to replace its graphite nuclear reactors with light-water reactors (LWRs), which are proliferation resistant.

Late 1993: The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Defense Intelligence Agency estimate that North Korea had separated about 12 kilograms of plutonium. This amount is enough for at least one or two nuclear weapons.

1994

January 1994: The director of the CIA estimates that North Korea may have produced one or two nuclear weapons.

February 15, 1994: North Korea finalizes an agreement with the IAEA to allow inspections of all seven of its declared nuclear facilities, averting sanctions by the United Nations Security Council.

March 1, 1994: IAEA inspectors arrive in North Korea for the first inspections since 1993.

March 21, 1994: Responding to North Korea’s refusal to allow the inspection team to inspect a plutonium reprocessing plant at Yongbyon, the IAEA Board of Governors approves a resolution calling on North Korea to “immediately allow the IAEA to complete all requested inspection activities and to comply fully with its safeguards agreements.”

May 19, 1994: The IAEA confirms that North Korea has begun removing spent fuel from its 5-megawatt nuclear research reactor even though international monitors were not present. The United States and the IAEA had insisted that inspectors be present for any such action because spent fuel can potentially be reprocessed for use in nuclear weapons."



CIA. sorry
 
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Iran, 6 world powers reach deal on Iranian nuclear program

There are still lessons to be learned however from the first Iraq war. It was due to this war and the mess with the wmds that people weren't so gung-ho for hitting Syria, including myself. And why Americans are in overwhelming support of this peace plan, despite the hesitations and all the caveats.

Fair enough, I remain open to that.
 
Its almost like we were busy doing something early in W's first term. hmmm.

yes, because we are without the ability to multi-task [/sarcasm for those who needed a hint]
 
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Iran, 6 world powers reach deal on Iranian nuclear program

Gwenn Dyer is blind and naive. Iran will get the nuke just like Korea did then it will be too late to stop them.

How will it get the nuke? 15+ strikes on independent facilities around that large nation?

If anything, it will be conventional.
 
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Iran, 6 world powers reach deal on Iranian nuclear program

There are still lessons to be learned however from the first Iraq war. It was due to this war and the mess with the wmds that people weren't so gung-ho for hitting Syria, including myself. And why Americans are in overwhelming support of this peace plan, despite the hesitations and all the caveats.

I believe that most people could care less about Iran or anyone else in the middle east. And the worse the economy gets, the less they will care. I, personally, could care less about the middle east, except for the jobs that American companies are outsourcing to and the our military that strung out all over the middle east, the money we spend on this ridiculous "war on terror"..

I think most people are more concerned with domestic policies than they are with foreign policies. We have problems over here, that the government isn't addressing. (I mean really addressing).
 
you appear to be missing a lot of words in your reading
there was an agreement with the north koreans
and when the dicknbush regime took over the white house, responsibility for monitoring and enforcing compliance where non-compliance was recognized fell to that republican administration
and they fumbled that ball after the hand off; quite badly
which then tells us that your attempts to paint events where sovereign powers fail to honor their agreements as weaknesses of liberal administrations to be a very bogus presentation
in short, reality kicked your argument in the ass
and it was my pleasure to give it an assist

Reality? Reality is that Clinton policy of containment was shown to be a failure long before Bush. Libs tend to be duped by ignoble parties in things like this, largely because they approach it with emotion and desire instead of using their brains...
 
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Iran, 6 world powers reach deal on Iranian nuclear program

I believe that most people could care less about Iran or anyone else in the middle east. And the worse the economy gets, the less they will care. I, personally, could care less about the middle east, except for the jobs that American companies are outsourcing to and the our military that strung out all over the middle east, the money we spend on this ridiculous "war on terror"..

I think most people are more concerned with domestic policies than they are with foreign policies. We have problems over here, that the government isn't addressing. (I mean really addressing).

Some yes, and that may prove dangerous in the long run...
 
Back
Top Bottom