• 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!

Do you agree with the nuclear deal with Iran?

Do you agree with the nuclear deal with Iran?


  • Total voters
    33
Yes. We must try to solve things peacefully first. Not everything must lead to war.
 
So, basically Dershowitz's professional opinion is that the deal with Iran could be successful. Or not. Wow, that's really...insightful.


Iran wants a nuke Get that through your head.
 
Obama caved to the Iranians......You can't trust them.............This will come back to bite him in the ass mark my word. Peace thru strength not weakness.

LOL......yeah....that worked so well under GWB. Talking tough just doesn't cut it NP.
 
We have stabbed Israel our best ally in the back with this deal........Don't you lefties who are swooning all over this deal know
that Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map. Wake up and smell the roses.

Yeah, and President Obama believes that we're not going to have any casualties.... Oh wait, that was the last administration:

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." - President Bush, discussing the Iraq war with Christian Coalition member Pat Robertson.
 
How is it wrong to state the obvious? Why else would we be hearing about this from a trial lawyer with no foreign policy credentials? My stepmother is Jewish by the way.

She would not be to proud of you if she saw your post on the subject.
 
Yes. We must try to solve things peacefully first. Not everything must lead to war.

If your dealing with a sane country that is true....That is not the case with Iran.
 
I don't believe Saddam posed the danger to this country that this nut in Iran does.
 
i can't proove it because i don't know how much uranium is needed to make a bomb.

and i think it is safe to say you don't know either.

Unlike you I did not make the statement...You did my left wing friend.........Now just admit as usual you were wrongl.
 
If your dealing with a sane country that is true....That is not the case with Iran.

Even when dealing with Iran this is true. Their populace is not that crazy, they don't want war and their government is becoming less crazy. This is the prime time to negotiate to avoid war.
 
Even when dealing with Iran this is true. Their populace is not that crazy, they don't want war and their government is becoming less crazy. This is the prime time to negotiate to avoid war.

The deal is not enough......we are not allowed to inspect many areas where they might be expanding their program........You don't want to negotiate with fanatics who just last week said they wanted to wipe Israel off the map.
 
Even when dealing with Iran this is true. Their populace is not that crazy, they don't want war and their government is becoming less crazy. This is the prime time to negotiate to avoid war.

Talking is always better than war. I am leery about the deal, but what do we really have to lose? If we kept the sanction in place and did nothing, Iran will get their bomb. If this deal works and we get the big deal in the future we will be fair better off and might even start to move towards more friendlier relations with Iran. If it fails, we really are no worse off than we are the day. I think the gamble is well worth it although I think the odds of it working aren't all that great. Even so, I really see no down side.
 
The deal is not enough......we are not allowed to inspect many areas where they might be expanding their program........You don't want to negotiate with fanatics who just last week said they wanted to wipe Israel off the map.

That guy isn't in power anymore; time to move on from that horrid statement.

Having this kind of deal a few years ago was so out of the question this is great progress. We can inspect things everyday and really, what do we have to lose? Not going to war? How is this bad at all?
 
Even when dealing with Iran this is true. Their populace is not that crazy, they don't want war and their government is becoming less crazy. This is the prime time to negotiate to avoid war.

So.... we should go along with a relative psycho who is polite and suave, as opposed to the one who at least wears his heart on his sleeve?


Not saying Rouhani is actually a psycho - but the man is working with a different set of assumptions and goals than we are, that people will dismiss as "oh well that's crazy so obviously they don't want that" unless they remember that by doing so they are projecting their own cultural values. For many in the West, negotiations are the assumed norm, and can be an end in and of themselves. For the Iranians, and especially for Rouhani, negotiations are what you do as a delaying tactic while you pursue your policy goals by other means.
 
So.... we should go along with a relative psycho who is polite and suave, as opposed to the one who at least wears his heart on his sleeve?


Not saying Rouhani is actually a psycho - but the man is working with a different set of assumptions and goals than we are, that people will dismiss as "oh well that's crazy so obviously they don't want that" unless they remember that by doing so they are projecting their own cultural values. For many in the West, negotiations are the assumed norm, and can be an end in and of themselves. For the Iranians, and especially for Rouhani, negotiations are what you do as a delaying tactic while you pursue your policy goals by other means.

Better to try negotiations rather than just prepare for war.
 
Talking is always better than war.

I wonder if the Czechs have any particularly interesting takes on that.

I am leery about the deal, but what do we really have to lose? If we kept the sanction in place and did nothing, Iran will get their bomb. If this deal works and we get the big deal in the future we will be fair better off and might even start to move towards more friendlier relations with Iran.

:lol: In the Middle East you are never friends. You are either strong and a partner, strong and an enemy, or weak and despised. We just proved that we are weak.

If it fails, we really are no worse off than we are the day.

Sadly not true. The Iranians are running a marathon, and every day that it is busy failing is a day they come closer to the finish line.
 
This could be the worse deal Obama ever made cow tailing to the Iranians....To make a deal like this you have to trust them.

Let's say that I'm highly skeptical, however, if we tell countries that they can change their behavior and come to the table and get on a path to normalization, then I think when there are signs that is possible we are obligated to try it. The caveat to that of course being that we need to continue our due diligence and verification so that we are not suckered.

Otherwise, what is the point of telling countries that there is another path if in fact we are unwilling to accept the other path ourselves? Let's give them a little rope to hang themselves with, and then we'll be all the more justified in doing something should this turn out to be a fake.
 
Better to try negotiations rather than just prepare for war.

Negotiations can absolutely be part of your package - however, you do not reduce your pressure just in order to give someone a reward for agreeing to take what they already have. Which is what we just did.

You also need to recognize what the oppositions' goals is. In this case, it is to draw out negotiations long enough to get the bomb. In which case when you enter into negotiations, you keep the pressure on that we have.

The worst part about this is that everyone agrees why the Iranians were willing to enter into negotiations over their nuclear program - because the sanctions were killing them. So we take away their only incentive to negotiate (outside of fear of a strike, which they now know isn't coming from us, at least) at the same time that we get from them..... nothing. :doh This is akin to walking into a car dealership and saying that you want to buy a car, but you refuse to pay anything more than 10% over the sticker price. We are negotiating in the wrong direction.
 
Let's say that I'm highly skeptical, however, if we tell countries that they can change their behavior and come to the table and get on a path to normalization, then I think when there are signs that is possible we are obligated to try it. The caveat to that of course being that we need to continue our due diligence and verification so that we are not suckered.

Otherwise, what is the point of telling countries that there is another path if in fact we are unwilling to accept the other path ourselves? Let's give them a little rope to hang themselves with, and then we'll be all the more justified in doing something should this turn out to be a fake.

Hooray but by then they will have the Bomb and if we try to hang them they can kill millions of people and plunge the middle east into nightmare and chaos, meaning that they are effectively lynch-proof.
 
Hooray but by then they will have the Bomb and if we try to hang them they can kill millions of people and plunge the middle east into nightmare and chaos, meaning that they are effectively lynch-proof.

It's a **** situation either way you look at it.
 
Back
Top Bottom