• 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!

Would obama make a deal with Iran to bolster himself

Would he really do a deal to bolster himself?

  • Yes

    Votes: 9 75.0%
  • No

    Votes: 3 25.0%

  • Total voters
    12

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
It's pretty clear since the pitfalls of his signature legislation are shinning thru, the democratic parties nuclear option on the senate, his own White House kicking the media photographers out, the pres had had a pretty lousy 15-30 days so would he make a deal with Iran just to turn the tide? Make him look all presidential again?

Before you say no way, what did billy jeff do after being caught with Monica?
 
The right wing is going to hate this deal no matter what happens.

But for me, as long as it keeps the peace, I'm fine with it.

We don't need to be involved in another war over there.
 
The right wing is going to hate this deal no matter what happens.

But for me, as long as it keeps the peace, I'm fine with it.

We don't need to be involved in another war over there.

Better NYC nuked than a war for sure. :roll:
 
It never ceases to amaze me what level of hyper-partisanship would lead someone to conclude that it's bad for the president to do something positive because it makes him look good.

It would really kill me if Obama, say, pushed for the return of Glass-Steagall because that might make me like him more.
 
Why would NYC be nuked as a result of this?

While I'm not psychic, I'm going to guess that Joko's use of the "rolly eyes" smiley may indicate sarcasm.
 
While I'm not psychic, I'm going to guess that Joko's use of the "rolly eyes" smiley may indicate sarcasm.

If I'm not mistaken the sarcasm was targeted towards Jetboogieman's comment not joko's own.
 
While I'm not psychic, I'm going to guess that Joko's use of the "rolly eyes" smiley may indicate sarcasm.

He was rolling his eyes at me.

When it comes to Obama, Joko is never sarcastic.

He's pretty rabidly partisan with him.
 
If I'm not mistaken the sarcasm was targeted towards Jetboogieman's comment not joko's own.

Targeted along with, not at. It's like laughing with someone instead of at someone.
 
The right wing is going to hate this deal no matter what happens.

But for me, as long as it keeps the peace, I'm fine with it.

We don't need to be involved in another war over there.

At the risk of sounding uneducated... what is the outline of this "plan" All the details I've found is that the Iranians like the deal and Israel hates it which to me, not knowing the details, doesn't seem good.
 
I sense the same euphoria over this deal as there was with North Koreas deal with billy. And that accomplished? It's almost like some want obama to have a success so bad that they can't even critically view the deal at all? Amazing these people would trust a nation that stones to death gay teenagers just to empower their chosen leader?
 
He was rolling his eyes at me.

When it comes to Obama, Joko is never sarcastic.

He's pretty rabidly partisan with him.

Really? Oh. In that light then his comment is pretty asinine.
 
Last edited:
I sense the same euphoria over this deal as there was with North Koreas deal with billy. And that accomplished? It's almost like some want obama to have a success so bad that they can't even critically view the deal at all? Amazing these people would trust a nation that stones to death gay teenagers just to empower their chosen leader?

this is only a interim deal, Iran will freeze development of its nuclear program for 6 months in exchange relief aid from sanctions. the long term deal has yet to be negotiated.
 
At the risk of sounding uneducated... what is the outline of this "plan" All the details I've found is that the Iranians like the deal and Israel hates it which to me, not knowing the details, doesn't seem good.

Read the White House fact sheet on Iran nuclear deal - World News

· Halt all enrichment above 5% and dismantle the technical connections required to enrich above 5%.
· Dilute below 5% or convert to a form not suitable for further enrichment its entire stockpile of near-20% enriched uranium before the end of the initial phase.
· Not install additional centrifuges of any type.
· Not install or use any next-generation centrifuges to enrich uranium.
· Leave inoperable roughly half of installed centrifuges at Natanz and three-quarters of installed centrifuges at Fordow, so they cannot be used to enrich uranium.
· Limit its centrifuge production to those needed to replace damaged machines, so Iran cannot use the six months to stockpile centrifuges.
· Not construct additional enrichment facilities.
· Not increase its stockpile of 3.5% low enriched uranium, so that the amount is not greater at the end of the six months than it is at the beginning, and any newly enriched 3.5% enriched uranium is converted into oxide.
· Not commission the Arak reactor.
· Not fuel the Arak reactor.
· Halt the production of fuel for the Arak reactor.
· No additional testing of fuel for the Arak reactor.
· Not install any additional reactor components at Arak.
· Not transfer fuel and heavy water to the reactor site.
· Not construct a facility capable of reprocessing. Without reprocessing, Iran cannot separate plutonium from spent fuel.

Etc....
 
this is only a interim deal, Iran will freeze development of its nuclear program for 6 months in exchange relief aid from sanctions. the long term deal has yet to be negotiated.

I'm assuming that weapons inspectors are going in to verify this stuff right?
 
This deal would be a good deal, if it was a good deal. We don't know if it is or not yet. The history of the Iranians is that they don't keep their deals. Like the one they didn't keep to the Bush Administration or the UN Security Council.

The next six months will tell the tale. But based on the historical record of Iran, I'm not optimistic.

As to OP's question? Of course he would. As would most other Presidents. Obamafile supporters proclamations to the opposite aside. This isn't a political anomaly for only Democrats. And lately, the proven proclivity for the current Administration to lie to the American people to get what they want and make themselves look good, is more than enough reason to at least have a little doubt.
 
Yes and no. The deal doesn't have IAEA level inspections, which would allow the Iranians to hide things.

Provide daily access by IAEA inspectors at Natanz and Fordow. This daily access will permit inspectors to review surveillance camera footage to ensure comprehensive monitoring. This access will provide even greater transparency into enrichment at these sites and shorten detection time for any non-compliance.
· Provide IAEA access to centrifuge assembly facilities.
· Provide IAEA access to centrifuge rotor component production and storage facilities.
· Provide IAEA access to uranium mines and mills.
· Provide long-sought design information for the Arak reactor. This will provide critical insight into the reactor that has not previously been available.
· Provide more frequent inspector access to the Arak reactor.
· Provide certain key data and information called for in the Additional Protocol to Iran's IAEA Safeguards Agreement and Modified Code 3.1.

Read the White House fact sheet on Iran nuclear deal - World News
 
Read the White House fact sheet on Iran nuclear deal - World News

· Halt all enrichment above 5% and dismantle the technical connections required to enrich above 5%.
· Dilute below 5% or convert to a form not suitable for further enrichment its entire stockpile of near-20% enriched uranium before the end of the initial phase.
· Not install additional centrifuges of any type.
· Not install or use any next-generation centrifuges to enrich uranium.
· Leave inoperable roughly half of installed centrifuges at Natanz and three-quarters of installed centrifuges at Fordow, so they cannot be used to enrich uranium.
· Limit its centrifuge production to those needed to replace damaged machines, so Iran cannot use the six months to stockpile centrifuges.
· Not construct additional enrichment facilities.
· Not increase its stockpile of 3.5% low enriched uranium, so that the amount is not greater at the end of the six months than it is at the beginning, and any newly enriched 3.5% enriched uranium is converted into oxide.
· Not commission the Arak reactor.
· Not fuel the Arak reactor.
· Halt the production of fuel for the Arak reactor.
· No additional testing of fuel for the Arak reactor.
· Not install any additional reactor components at Arak.
· Not transfer fuel and heavy water to the reactor site.
· Not construct a facility capable of reprocessing. Without reprocessing, Iran cannot separate plutonium from spent fuel.

Etc....

Thank you. I would of preferred something that didn't come from the white house and more... neutral? But at least it gets the basics of what it is. Honestly, I think I like it more that it's 6 months than a year or even two. And after the Israel computer virus, I'm shocked they'd allow weapon inspectors, but hey good for them. I'm willing to take a wait and see approach with it. And is it political? Of it is... but then again, what isn't?
 
At the risk of sounding uneducated... what is the outline of this "plan" All the details I've found is that the Iranians like the deal and Israel hates it which to me, not knowing the details, doesn't seem good.

After comments and hateful rhetoric over the years by Ahmadinejad I can understand why Israel would be upset by ANY deal with Iran.

But also don't forget, Bibi has to appease his domestic hardliners as well, he has less to lose by being hardline over the deal than accepting it within the context of Israeli domestic politics.

All in all... I'm not an expert on what the full implications are of this deal because well it's hard to say really...

These kinds of things are never clear in how they end and the fact so many turned their nose up instantly proves it's more to do with Obama than the deal itself...

Maybe it'll work... maybe it won't but all I do know is that at least it's SOMETHING!

After years of no movement at all we've finally got something and ultimately neither the Bush or Obama administrations saw value in military action because of how costly, devastating and long term implications it entailed it's not as if that was going to change anytime soon anyway.
 
It's pretty clear since the pitfalls of his signature legislation are shinning thru, the democratic parties nuclear option on the senate, his own White House kicking the media photographers out, the pres had had a pretty lousy 15-30 days so would he make a deal with Iran just to turn the tide? Make him look all presidential again?

Before you say no way, what did billy jeff do after being caught with Monica?

Obama would do this in a heart beat.

Remember, he's the one (among others) that told the world's biggest lie just to get ObamaCare, excuse me, Un-Affordable-Try-And-Get-Care, sneaked past the American people on totally false pretenses (basically criminal fraud).

Yeah, can't trust this guy as far as you can throw him. Seems that Israel and the Saudis can't trust him either. Not a reliable ally he.
 
Thank you. I would of preferred something that didn't come from the white house and more... neutral? But at least it gets the basics of what it is. Honestly, I think I like it more that it's 6 months than a year or even two. And after the Israel computer virus, I'm shocked they'd allow weapon inspectors, but hey good for them. I'm willing to take a wait and see approach with it. And is it political? Of it is... but then again, what isn't?

Well, sweet Jeebus, where do you think you're going to get the outline of the agreement to begin with??

And yes, we could certainly walk in and upload some more fun and exciting viruses onto their computers, and of course future negotiations would be rendered fubar. I don't see how sacrificing all credibility in future deals helps us.
 
It never ceases to amaze me what level of hyper-partisanship would lead someone to conclude that it's bad for the president to do something positive because it makes him look good.

It would really kill me if Obama, say, pushed for the return of Glass-Steagall because that might make me like him more.

When did he do something positive?
 
Back
Top Bottom