• 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
Jetboogieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

At the very least, we should get an accurate picture of what point in the process they are at. and finally be able to settle the question "how close are they to a nuke" to rest.

That's so awesome that your avatar is Sisko.
 
apdst said:
When did he do something positive?
Click to expand...

It was under his watch that Bin Laden was killed... give him some credit for that right? Not an Obama fan, but i'll at least give him that. And he's been pretty aggressive with those drone strike in general and whacking terrorist baddies.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
It was under his watch that Bin Laden was killed... give him some credit for that right? Not an Obama fan, but i'll at least give him that. And he's been pretty aggressive with those drone strike in general and whacking terrorist baddies.
Click to expand...

Sure, I'll give him credit for killing UBL. He owns the debacle commonly known as Obamacare, too...yes?
 
CalGun said:
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?
Click to expand...

The deal has been in the works for months before the ACA stuff.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Everytime he pisses you off.

That's a positive in my book.
Click to expand...

Good thing we're dealing with Iran, at all...the Canadians don't have the balls to do it. You're welcome for your freedom.
 
Cardinal said:
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.
Click to expand...

First off, I was looking more for someone's analysis who's in the know. Obama, just like the republicans, are going to put their spin on it. The language of the fact sheet is after all, well thought out with how many different ways it says "temporary". And I wasn't recommending that we do something like that Virus, just complimenting the Iranians for being willing to go that far. Were I them... that be a hard pill for me to swallow.
 
apdst said:
Sure, I'll give him credit for killing UBL. He owns the debacle commonly known as Obamacare, too...yes?
Click to expand...

Preaching to the choir on that one. It's just I hate hearing absolutist statements like "When *did* he do something positive.

Maybe I'm just a glass half full guy though.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Preaching to the choir on that one. It's just I hate hearing absolutist statements like "When *did* he do something positive.

Maybe I'm just a glass half full guy though.
Click to expand...

Obamacare has overshadowed the one, or two things he managed to pull out of his ass.
 
Cardinal said:
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
Click to expand...

I just read almost the same thing on CNN's site after reading your post. Thanks for posting this.

Then I can't understand why the IAEA was on television saying that the deal didn't meet their normal standards of inspection? Maybe it's that they are involved, but not at the level they normally would be?

I don't know. I was just repeating what I heard an IAEA representative say in an interview on CNN; that's why I went to their site to see if I could find the clip. If I do, I'll post it so you can see where I was coming from.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
First off, I was looking more for someone's analysis who's in the know. Obama, just like the republicans, are going to put their spin on it. The language of the fact sheet is after all, well thought out with how many different ways it says "temporary". And I wasn't recommending that we do something like that Virus, just complimenting the Iranians for being willing to go that far. Were I them... that be a hard pill for me to swallow.
Click to expand...

Keep scrolling down in that link I gave you. Iran gets perks out of the deal.

As for an analysis, all you're really going to find are biases that are either laughably optimistic or pessimistic. The real analysis is in how this looks in six months time.

As for it being temporary, it's completely normal for contracts to be limited in duration so that after a trial period everyone can come back and put their two cents in on what does and doesn't work. I make contracts with distributers frequently and I've never created a "til death do us part" agreement.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I just read almost the same thing on CNN's site after reading your post. Thanks for posting this.

Then I can't understand why the IAEA was on television saying that the deal didn't meet their normal standards of inspection? Maybe it's that they are involved, but not at the level they normally would be?

I don't know. I was just repeating what I heard an IAEA representative say in an interview on CNN; that's why I went to their site to see if I could find the clip. If I do, I'll post it so you can see where I was coming from.
Click to expand...

I would be interested in seeing that.
 
Obama was promised 72 virgins to pull this deal off:lamo
 
CalGun said:
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?
Click to expand...

No, the president has been working on this since the first day he came into office. Although leery about the deal, personally I believe it is worth the try. Leaving things as is, Iran was moving towards the bomb and would have it soon. This deal doesn't prevent that, but it may lay the framework at a later time to stop Iran just short. One does not know what will happen, either those for or against. History will have to be the final arbitrator on this deal. But since Iran was going to have the bomb sooner or latter, months to a year, I think it is worth the try, the risk, etc. We really have nothing to lose, if we do nothing and leave the sanctions on, Iran gets the bomb. If we try this and it fails to lead to a second agreement, the president will look like another Neville Chamberlain and Iran gets the bomb. But if it works, another agreement follows this one, our relationship with Iran improves and they stop short of the bomb, miracles can happen and this deal would have lead the way.


So no, I don't think this deal was to take the public's attention off Obamacare. Even if it was, it wouldn't work. Obamacare isn't going away.
 
CalGun said:
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?
Click to expand...

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




Any deal that any president (Not just Obama.) makes with any countries (Not just Iran) that is good for the USA will make that president look good.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I just read almost the same thing on CNN's site after reading your post. Thanks for posting this.

Then I can't understand why the IAEA was on television saying that the deal didn't meet their normal standards of inspection? Maybe it's that they are involved, but not at the level they normally would be?

I don't know. I was just repeating what I heard an IAEA representative say in an interview on CNN; that's why I went to their site to see if I could find the clip. If I do, I'll post it so you can see where I was coming from.
Click to expand...
With regard to the bolded, I heard this morning that the IAEA access in many facilities is limited to cameras only in certain places. I can't verify that, but it sounds like a reservation I heard expressed yesterday from yet another unverifiable source. We'll see.
 
CalGun said:
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?
Click to expand...

You assume that one could just make a deal with Iran happen. What would you want us to do with Iran?
 
When billy made his deal with North Korea it was viewed as the greatest triumph for peace and made him look quite successful. 6 years later when the NKs ignored the deal there was very little fan fair or blame on billy Jeff for producing a deal that meant nothing. It's a big win for for this admin when it's needed most. If it is ignored by a radical extremist state of jihadist 4 years from now few will apply an ounce of blame upon this fool of a president. He knows this. Someone commented this has been in the works for months, and what a time to bring it to light? Compelling.


Perotista said:
No, the president has been working on this since the first day he came into office. Although leery about the deal, personally I believe it is worth the try. Leaving things as is, Iran was moving towards the bomb and would have it soon. This deal doesn't prevent that, but it may lay the framework at a later time to stop Iran just short. One does not know what will happen, either those for or against. History will have to be the final arbitrator on this deal. But since Iran was going to have the bomb sooner or latter, months to a year, I think it is worth the try, the risk, etc. We really have nothing to lose, if we do nothing and leave the sanctions on, Iran gets the bomb. If we try this and it fails to lead to a second agreement, the president will look like another Neville Chamberlain and Iran gets the bomb. But if it works, another agreement follows this one, our relationship with Iran improves and they stop short of the bomb, miracles can happen and this deal would have lead the way.


So no, I don't think this deal was to take the public's attention off Obamacare. Even if it was, it wouldn't work. Obamacare isn't going away.
Click to expand...
 
CalGun said:
When billy made his deal with North Korea it was viewed as the greatest triumph for peace and made him look quite successful. 6 years later when the NKs ignored the deal there was very little fan fair or blame on billy Jeff for producing a deal that meant nothing. It's a big win for for this admin when it's needed most. If it is ignored by a radical extremist state of jihadist 4 years from now few will apply an ounce of blame upon this fool of a president. He knows this. Someone commented this has been in the works for months, and what a time to bring it to light? Compelling.
Click to expand...

I remember when the Yom Kippur War started in 1973, there were Democrats accusing the Nixon administration of trying to take attention away from Watergate at the time. Die hards from either side have a hard time with almost anything that happens and will accuse political motivation. Billy boys deal with NK now looks like he was taken in, but no harm came from the try. I do not think even if this deal falls through and is an utter failure, the U.S. will not be worse off. But the president won't look too good. But no one knows where this might lead, we can all have our theories but no one will know the final outcome until it happens. Personally I do not have high hopes that it will succeed, but there is hope it might. So why not, only the president will come out looking naive if it fails and we have not lost anything. But if it works, we will be far, far ahead.
 
Perotista said:
I remember when the Yom Kippur War started in 1973, there were Democrats accusing the Nixon administration of trying to take attention away from Watergate at the time. Die hards from either side have a hard time with almost anything that happens and will accuse political motivation. Billy boys deal with NK now looks like he was taken in, but no harm came from the try. I do not think even if this deal falls through and is an utter failure, the U.S. will not be worse off. But the president won't look too good. But no one knows where this might lead, we can all have our theories but no one will know the final outcome until it happens. Personally I do not have high hopes that it will succeed, but there is hope it might. So why not, only the president will come out looking naive if it fails and we have not lost anything. But if it works, we will be far, far ahead.
Click to expand...

The irony is that every time we have to make an important decision, we're taking a gamble on the outcome. You'd think the universe would be more kindly disposed toward us, being the imperfect creatures we are, wouldn't you? Maybe the universe has an ornery streak? :mrgreen:

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:
 
polgara said:
The irony is that every time we have to make an important decision, we're taking a gamble on the outcome. You'd think the universe would be more kindly disposed toward us, being the imperfect creatures we are, wouldn't you? Maybe the universe has an ornery streak? :mrgreen:

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Yes we are taking a gamble, but what exactly do we have to lose. If we do nothing, Iran gets the bomb. I don't have the faintest idea how this will work out. We may end up looking like fools, at least the president might and the country too to a certain extent. But if by chance, abet a slim one, this does work then everyone is much better off to include our allies in the middle east. I am not putting that much hope in it, I mean that it will work and lead to a comprehensive agreement. But I think it is better than just sitting on one's butt and let the sanctions continue which is not really accomplishing anything as Iran goes ahead with getting nuclear capabilities. We'll see, time will tell. But what is that old saying? Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
 
As one with no respect for obama I agree with your assertion that those of us opposed to him will question every move - I do. However that aside will his supporters ever doubt any move like this one?


Perotista said:
I remember when the Yom Kippur War started in 1973, there were Democrats accusing the Nixon administration of trying to take attention away from Watergate at the time. Die hards from either side have a hard time with almost anything that happens and will accuse political motivation. Billy boys deal with NK now looks like he was taken in, but no harm came from the try. I do not think even if this deal falls through and is an utter failure, the U.S. will not be worse off. But the president won't look too good. But no one knows where this might lead, we can all have our theories but no one will know the final outcome until it happens. Personally I do not have high hopes that it will succeed, but there is hope it might. So why not, only the president will come out looking naive if it fails and we have not lost anything. But if it works, we will be far, far ahead.
Click to expand...
 
CalGun said:
As one with no respect for obama I agree with your assertion that those of us opposed to him will question every move - I do. However that aside will his supporters ever doubt any move like this one?
Click to expand...

"Like this one?" No, not like this one, not if we believe that it's probably a good direction to be moving in.
 
Iran has been projected by some in the US and Israel to be 1 year away from the bomb for 10 years. Every year some one has come out and said Iran is months away from the bomb, yet Iran does not have the bomb, and their is no evidence that Iran has enriched any uranium to the level required for building a bomb. Inspector have an inventory of Iran's uranium and none of it has has gone missing. Meaning it is all in 3-5 % or 20% concentration.

Will the American people be idiotic again and fall for the line of this country has WMD (Iraq's case it was the full NBC) of which at the time 2002 before the invasion it had none. In Iran's case the claim it is developing nuclear weapons when the US's own intelligence reports, under Bush and Obama both state Iran has not moved to make nuclear weapons from 2003.

Overall if the doomsayers were at all correct over the last 14 years, Iran would have had the bomb 13 years ago
 
CalGun said:
As one with no respect for obama I agree with your assertion that those of us opposed to him will question every move - I do. However that aside will his supporters ever doubt any move like this one?
Click to expand...

Probably not, There is no middle ground for the die hards on either side. President Obama is where he is today because it is of his own makings. If he had listened to the people back in March of 2010, this albatross known as the ACA wouldn't be hanging from his neck. I may agree with him on this deal, but I disagree with him on the ACA.

Trust is a funny factor, once earned it is hard to lose. Once lost it is hard to gain back and one will never fully recover the trust that was there before it was lost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom