• 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!

What's in the Iran nuclear deal? 7 key points

jmotivator said:
And? Who spearheading this deal?

I am fully aware that a year or two from now the Democrats will be blaming this disastrous deal on Bush.
Click to expand...

Germany, Russia, France, China and the UK are all a part of this negotiation. If a deal is reached, it will be a P5+1 deal, not an Obama deal. If the other five don't agree, then there is no deal. And if there is a deal reached that prevents Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons power, you can bet your ass that the democrats will NOT be giving the republicans the credit for it.
 
Last edited:
Apocalypse said:
How original and funny... not.
The article I was referring to is an Ha'aretz article asserting that they have an email a CIA member sent to another talking about Israel having ties with Jundallah.
Hence unreliable.

Funny how you're more than enthusiastic to embrace baseless assertions such as this when they are carrying an anti-Western/American/Israeli agenda but when the only reasonable conclusion is that Iran wishes to produce nuclear weapons you go "there is no proof for that, they want it for peaceful reasons". :lol:
Goes to show how hypocritical and disconnected you and those who share that evil agenda (because there's no better label for the support of pretty much every murderous agenda on this planet) of yours are.
Click to expand...

Those of us seeking a peaceful, diplomatic approach to the Iranian nuclear program "support every murderous agenda on the planet", lol. You just can't stand the thought of missing an opportunity for another Middle Eastern war on another Muslim country. Your bias and hatred out front.
 
Montecresto said:
Those of us seeking a peaceful, diplomatic approach to the Iranian nuclear program "support every murderous agenda on the planet", lol. You just can't stand the thought of missing an opportunity for another Middle Eastern war on another Muslim country. Your bias and hatred out front.
Click to expand...

Well let's see:

- You support Iranian nukes; you've claimed Iran somehow has a right to hold nuclear weapons in one thread. In another, you've referred to a link claiming that if the murderous Iranian regime gets nuclear weapons it will do good to the region's stability.

- You support the butcher from Syria; you've claimed that there is no evidence that al-Assad is targeting civilians or that he had targeted civilians with chemical weaponry.

- You never waste an opportunity to show support for the homophobic tyrant, Putin, and the Russian regime he leads.

Yet when it comes to America, Israel and the West in general it's always "these murderous crazies are targeting civilians". Right.

Seems to me like I nailed it.
Your dishonest approach here seems to be fooling like, what? One person? So not really effective.
 
Apocalypse said:
Well let's see:

- You support Iranian nukes; you've claimed Iran somehow has a right to hold nuclear weapons in one thread. In another, you've referred to a link claiming that if the murderous Iranian regime gets nuclear weapons it will do good to the region's stability.

- You support the butcher from Syria; you've claimed that there is no evidence that al-Assad is targeting civilians or that he had targeted civilians with chemical weaponry.

- You never waste an opportunity to show support for the homophobic tyrant, Putin, and the Russian regime he leads.

Yet when it comes to America, Israel and the West in general it's always "these murderous crazies are targeting civilians". Right.

Seems to me like I nailed it.
Your dishonest approach here seems to be fooling like, what? One person? So not really effective.
Click to expand...

Wrong, I support global nuclear eradication. There's no such thing as a "right" for Iran or any other nation to have nuclear weapons. They are far too indiscriminate, and as such, illegitimate.

As to Syria, I'm opposed to the US's long term ambition of regime change there as I was in Iraq, Egypt, Libya and Iran.

I've only spoken about Putin with regards to the Middle East and Ukraine. That's a fraction of Russian FP, and speaks nothing to their DP.

YOU PUT "these murderous crazies are targeting civilians". You'll need to dredge that quote up.

I'm trying to fool nobody at DP. I'm expressing my opinion without regards to popularity. Do you think your blathering is a part in a contest here, lol.
 
Montecresto said:
Wrong, I support global nuclear eradication. There's no such thing as a "right" for Iran or any other nation to have nuclear weapons. They are far too indiscriminate, and as such, illegitimate.
Click to expand...

Quite weird then that you have stated in a previous thread that Iran actually has a right to hold nuclear weapons and had posted a link to an article claiming that Iranian nukes will have a positive influence on the world. Dishonesty.

As to Syria, I'm opposed to the US's long term ambition of regime change there as I was in Iraq, Egypt, Libya and Iran.
Click to expand...

Why aren't you referring to your statements of support for Bashar al-Assad? Claiming that "there is no evidence" for his use of chemical weapons? For his targeting of his own civilian populations? Yet more dishonesty.

I've only spoken about Putin with regards to the Middle East and Ukraine. That's a fraction of Russian FP, and speaks nothing to their DP.
Click to expand...

So you're opposed to Putin's tyrannical regime? Your posts strongly contradict that notion.

YOU PUT "these murderous crazies are targeting civilians". You'll need to dredge that quote up.
Click to expand...

Really? Do I? Every second post of yours has "Israel/America/the West are targeting civilians" statement in it, or some reference to some guy who claims that the US constantly engages in terrorism or whatever. What makes you believe you can simply deny that? :lol:

I'm trying to fool nobody at DP. I'm expressing my opinion without regards to popularity. Do you think your blathering is a part in a contest here, lol.
Click to expand...

It's not an issue with popularity, I seriously doubt anyone who can manage to operate an average computer is stupid enough to believe that events on these boards carry more meaning than simply existing on the virtual realm. It's an issue with not being honest about your actual opinions so you can continue to hold these deranged world view of yours, supporting medieval regimes and opposing Western democracies, while not being confronted.
 
iguanaman said:
So now the Iranians are the honest ones? I thought they couldn't be trusted?
Click to expand...

No there too much disagreement between both parties immediately after the meetings, so something is amiss.
 
Simpleχity;1064500579 said:
The US has done most of the "heavy-lifting", but all P5+1 nations and the EU must sign-off on it
Click to expand...

Which I never disputed. The Obama administration "heavy lifting" is for an agreement that Iran has no intention of following and is actively working against in public. Sorry for the spoilers, but Iran is simply following the North Korean model and will have a nuclear weapon well before the 10 year have elapsed and the feckless P5+1 will do nothing. I wouldn't be surprised if the Iranians are in testing phase by next fall while the P5+1 are still debating on whether or not Iranian non-compliance is sufficient to reinstate sanctions.

That ... is sheer hyperbole and quite impossible.
Click to expand...

I would have thought so and yet the Democrats still manage to blame Bush for everything anyway.
 
DA60 said:
As bad as that was, it worked out a whole lot better then Reagan's backing of the Mujahideen and bin laden way back when.
Click to expand...

How can you compare the two? Over the course of time, Reagan's act has completely played out and the world knows the full result. Egypt, Syria and Libya as well of the entire ME, are just getting started down the highway to hell.

And the Reagan support of the Muj to defeat the USSR should have taught Obama the US can't appease radical islam. Obama is enabling history to repeat itself.......this time with nukes.
 
jmotivator said:
Which I never disputed. The Obama administration "heavy lifting" is for an agreement that Iran has no intention of following and is actively working against in public. Sorry for the spoilers, but Iran is simply following the North Korean model and will have a nuclear weapon well before the 10 year have elapsed and the feckless P5+1 will do nothing. I wouldn't be surprised if the Iranians are in testing phase by next fall while the P5+1 are still debating on whether or not Iranian non-compliance is sufficient to reinstate sanctions.



I would have thought so and yet the Democrats still manage to blame Bush for everything anyway.
Click to expand...

Is your post an example of how Conservatives use facts to back up their views? I couldn't find a single one.
 
American said:
No there too much disagreement between both parties immediately after the meetings, so something is amiss.
Click to expand...

Then there will be no agreement so what are you worried about? It seems alot of the right wing are jumping to conclusions. It is almost like they want this to fail and Iran to go on developing nuclear weapons unabated. What is you reasoning for that since you claim it is not because you want a war with Iran.
 
iguanaman said:
Is your post an example of how Conservatives use facts to back up their views? I couldn't find a single one.
Click to expand...

I am making an observation based on past mistakes in US diplomacy. Really, the game Iran is playing right now is common. Let your opponent trumpet the conditions of the treaty then deny your own obligations. By denying your obligations you create a situation where the own verifiable obligations are those of your opponent who admitted what they agreed to in the process of detailing the agreement.

The North Korean treaties to stop nuclear weapon development netted the North Korean government billions in aid if they promised to not enrich uranium and not develop a bomb. The North Koreans then took that aid and made a bomb.

Sorry for the spoilers.
 
jmotivator said:
I am making an observation based on past mistakes in US diplomacy. Really, the game Iran is playing right now is common. Let your opponent trumpet the conditions of the treaty then deny your own obligations. By denying your obligations you create a situation where the own verifiable obligations are those of your opponent who admitted what they agreed to in the process of detailing the agreement.

The North Korean treaties to stop nuclear weapon development netted the North Korean government billions in aid if they promised to not enrich uranium and not develop a bomb. The North Koreans then took that aid and made a bomb.

Sorry for the spoilers.
Click to expand...

so it would be better to not have an agreement.. not have inspectors on the ground.. and simply let Iran develop nuclear weapons until the point that Israel attacks them and then be involved in a nuclear war...

Honestly.. whats the downside to this agreement.?

Its seems that if IRAN really wants to have nuclear weapons.. they are going to get them.. especially if they are isolated and cut off from the world.
 
jmotivator said:
I am making an observation based on past mistakes in US diplomacy. Really, the game Iran is playing right now is common. Let your opponent trumpet the conditions of the treaty then deny your own obligations. By denying your obligations you create a situation where the own verifiable obligations are those of your opponent who admitted what they agreed to in the process of detailing the agreement.

The North Korean treaties to stop nuclear weapon development netted the North Korean government billions in aid if they promised to not enrich uranium and not develop a bomb. The North Koreans then took that aid and made a bomb. Iran certainly will continue its development if there is no agreement now.

Sorry for the spoilers.
Click to expand...

LOL So you believe Cotton and his statement that the agreement Clinton made was the reason N. Korea got the bomb? The facts are that the agreement was terminated under GW Bush and then they made a bomb. There is no guarantee that a new President will abide by this agreement either but that hardly makes it not worth doing.

We’re not going to do a Pinocchio Test here, but Cotton cited North Korea for the wrong reasons. The failure of the Agreed Framework, not the deal itself, led to North Korea building and testing nuclear weapons.

Yet the North Korea example certainly demonstrates how a new administration, skeptical of such an arms-control agreement, could take steps to undermine and eventually terminate it. For obvious political reasons, Clinton chose not to obtain congressional approval. But without an early buy-in from congressional Republicans, once a president from a different party was elected, the North Korea accord was set on a path to failure.
Click to expand...

Cotton’s misguided history lesson on the North Korean nuclear deal - The Washington Post
 
Last edited:
Kerry says the plan will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. In the next breath, he says the breakout time will be one year. The two ideas directly contradict each other.
 
iguanaman said:
Then there will be no agreement so what are you worried about? It seems alot of the right wing are jumping to conclusions. It is almost like they want this to fail and Iran to go on developing nuclear weapons unabated. What is you reasoning for that since you claim it is not because you want a war with Iran.
Click to expand...

WTH are you talking about, the people opposed to this think that's exactly what the framework/agreement/whatever allows.
 
American said:
WTH are you talking about, the people opposed to this think that's exactly what the framework/agreement/whatever allows.
Click to expand...

How can they do that with inspectors at every facility? Do you actually think the inspectors are going to help them build a bomb? I wouldn't be surprised given your other posts.
 
ggwilder said:
Kerry says the plan will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. In the next breath, he says the breakout time will be one year. The two ideas directly contradict each other.
Click to expand...

Iran is currently estimated to have a 2 month breakout. Iran knows how to build them and that won't change but their incentive to build one can. That is why there will be constant inspections and other safeguards. As long as the agreement holds there will be no bomb for at least 10 years. Is that better than 2 months?
 
jaeger19 said:
so it would be better to not have an agreement.. not have inspectors on the ground.. and simply let Iran develop nuclear weapons until the point that Israel attacks them and then be involved in a nuclear war...

Honestly.. whats the downside to this agreement.?

Its seems that if IRAN really wants to have nuclear weapons.. they are going to get them.. especially if they are isolated and cut off from the world.
Click to expand...

Yes, it would be better to not commit the US government to anything so cockamamie as an agreement with Iran on anything.

The downside of this agreement is that it gives a brutal regime wads of cache to fund their terrorist programs on the promise that they will build their nuclear weapons program slower.

A deal with Iran should include the public acknowledgement of the state of Iran, and complete withdraw of aid to terrorist organizations and political reform.

The Nuclear weapon is actually a secondary concern with the state of Iran. Nuclear weapons are only a world concern because the Iranian state is a bat-guano crazy hate-filled dictatorship that preaches the death of other nation states.

If these conditions are not acceptable to Iran then up the sanctions until the conditions are acceptable to the state of Iran. They shouldn't be given a dime until they de-crazy themselves.
 
ggwilder said:
Kerry says the plan will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. In the next breath, he says the breakout time will be one year. The two ideas directly contradict each other.
Click to expand...

No.. not really. It means that he thinks that the incentives to not build one will prevent them from building one... and in a worse case scenario.. if they break the agreement it will take a year before they can get one.

which makes sense. Its diplomacy.. you aren't making anyone do actually anything.. its an AGREEMENT... if Iran agrees to this.. and we get inspectors and they initially abide by the agreement.. it will reduce their capacity to engage in nuclear weapons... maybe they will abide by it forever... but if they don't.. it will still increase the time that they need to develop one.
 
jmotivator said:
Yes, it would be better to not commit the US government to anything so cockamamie as an agreement with Iran on anything.

The downside of this agreement is that it gives a brutal regime wads of cache to fund their terrorist programs on the promise that they will build their nuclear weapons program slower.

A deal with Iran should include the public acknowledgement of the state of Iran, and complete withdraw of aid to terrorist organizations and political reform.

The Nuclear weapon is actually a secondary concern with the state of Iran. Nuclear weapons are only a world concern because the Iranian state is a bat-guano crazy hate-filled dictatorship that preaches the death of other nation states.

If these conditions are not acceptable to Iran then up the sanctions until the conditions are acceptable to the state of Iran. They shouldn't be given a dime until they de-crazy themselves.
Click to expand...

So in other words.. the way to deal with Iran is to not deal with Iran? That makes no sense whatsoever.

And the agreement hinges on them complying with the agreement. The agreement stipulates that they have to endure inspections.. it reduces the amount of nuclear material they can have. Reduces the number of centrifuges etc.

The idea that Iran has to renounce everything doesn't make sense.

The reality is that what keeps the crazies in power in Iran is isolationism. What else do the people have to turn to? The hardliners in Iran are praying to Allah right now that the US rejects this deal. That would be the best thing to keep the hardliners in power.
 
jaeger19 said:
So in other words.. the way to deal with Iran is to not deal with Iran? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...

No, it means the way to deal with Iran is to first not forget who Iran is.

And the agreement hinges on them complying with the agreement. The agreement stipulates that they have to endure inspections.. it reduces the amount of nuclear material they can have. Reduces the number of centrifuges etc.
Click to expand...

Which means nothing. North Korea agreed to all these things as well and still ended up with a bomb. You put way to much trust in inspections.

The idea that Iran has to renounce everything doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Oh, it doesn't? You don't find sense in demanding that Iran stop funding terrorist groups and acknowledge the state of Israel? Straaange.

The reality is that what keeps the crazies in power in Iran is isolationism. What else do the people have to turn to? The hardliners in Iran are praying to Allah right now that the US rejects this deal. That would be the best thing to keep the hardliners in power.
Click to expand...

Nope. What keeps the crazies in power in Iran is that they are crazy and have tanks and are willing to kill their own citizens to remain in power. You seem to forget that the current brutal regime came when the Islamic radical mullahs replaced the reform president Mohammad Khatami with the bat-guano crazy Ahmadinejad. 1997 to 2005 saw a very moderate Iran with growing ties to the US. By your argument that should have lead to good times, but it ended with Ahmadinejad and a failed populist student uprising in 2009.
 
jmotivator said:
No, it means the way to deal with Iran is to first not forget who Iran is.
Click to expand...

And also to remember that if Iran really wanted a bomb there is nothing we could do to stop them short of invasion and they know that too. The only thing we can do is try to change their priorities.

jmotivator said:
Which means nothing. North Korea agreed to all these things as well and still ended up with a bomb. You put way to much trust in inspections.
Click to expand...

We made a deal with North Korea that we broke. One wonders what might have happened had we lived up to our end of the bargain.
 
Napoleon said:
And also to remember that if Iran really wanted a bomb there is nothing we could do to stop them short of invasion and they know that too. The only thing we can do is try to change their priorities.



We made a deal with North Korea that we broke. One wonders what might have happened had we lived up to our end of the bargain.
Click to expand...

1. Unfortunately, Obama is too much of a chicken-**** to do what it takes to stop Iran from getting the bomb.

2. I think you should re-visit the N. Korea history about who broke what deal.
 
Mycroft said:
1. Unfortunately, Obama is too much of a chicken-**** to do what it takes to stop Iran from getting the bomb.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe you should enlist so we can parachute you over Tehran with the rest of the troops.

Mycroft said:
2. I think you should re-visit the N. Korea history about who broke what deal.
Click to expand...

North Korea was complying with the deal until it became clear that the United States had no intention of holding up its end of the bargain.
 
iguanaman said:
How can they do that with inspectors at every facility? Do you actually think the inspectors are going to help them build a bomb? I wouldn't be surprised given your other posts.
Click to expand...

Oh, you think there will inspectors at each facility. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom