• 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!

P5 + 1- Iran Nuclear negotiations

Present end date for deal- July 2015- Negotiations fail?

  • New sanctions should be passed during negotiations -No

    Votes: 4 50.0%

  • New sanctions should be passed during negotiations -Yes

    Votes: 2 25.0%

  • Iran with Nukes a threat- Yes

    Votes: 3 37.5%

  • Iran with Nukes a threat- No

    Votes: 4 50.0%

  • Iran with Nukes can be contained –Yes

    Votes: 3 37.5%

  • Iran with Nukes can be contained -No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Negotiations fail- There will be War – Yes

    Votes: 1 12.5%

  • Negotiations fail- There will be War – No

    Votes: 5 62.5%

  • If War- Air –Sea only –No assets on the ground

    Votes: 1 12.5%

  • If War–All capability

    Votes: 3 37.5%
  • Total voters
    8
JANFU said:
Most they can do is 2 air attacks.
Click to expand...

Some say otherwise. Again, if Iran gets their Nuke.....the Saud says they will have theirs. In which I think the Saud already has things ready to go and set up with Pakistan. I wouldn't put it past the Pakistani to have a couple of planes loaded and ready to go.
 
MMC said:
Some say otherwise. Again, if Iran gets their Nuke.....the Saud says they will have theirs. In which I think the Saud already has things ready to go and set up with Pakistan. I wouldn't put it past the Pakistani to have a couple of planes loaded and ready to go.
Click to expand...

Neither would I -Bought and paid for.
Well off to bed my friend. Enjoy your evening.
Chat in the morning.
 
And here is the problem with hardliners on both side.
The agreement for negotiations calls for no new sanctions is one condition.
Both sides have hardliners that in my opinion, want the negotiations to fail.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/w...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

It has become an international game of chicken, with each country taunting the other to violate the terms of a 2013 pact that established the conditions under which the nuclear talks would take place.
 
JANFU said:
And here is the problem with hardliners on both side.
The agreement for negotiations calls for no new sanctions is one condition.
Both sides have hardliners that in my opinion, want the negotiations to fail.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/w...lumn-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

It has become an international game of chicken, with each country taunting the other to violate the terms of a 2013 pact that established the conditions under which the nuclear talks would take place.
Click to expand...

Remind us what was the timeframe of the original 2013 pact.
 
JANFU said:
And here is the problem with hardliners on both side.
The agreement for negotiations calls for no new sanctions is one condition.
Both sides have hardliners that in my opinion, want the negotiations to fail.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/w...lumn-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

It has become an international game of chicken, with each country taunting the other to violate the terms of a 2013 pact that established the conditions under which the nuclear talks would take place.
Click to expand...



Yep and Iran sure likes to taunt.....even when they get around sanctions.




Iran Is Ditching The Dollar In Foreign Trade.....

Iran is no longer using the US dollar in foreign-trade transactions and is replacing it with other currencies, the deputy governor at the Iranian Central Bank Gholami Kamyab said, according to Sputnik News. "In trade exchanges with the foreign countries, Iran uses other currencies including Chinese yuan, euro, Turkish lira, Russian ruble, and South Korean won," Kamyab reportedly said. He also reportedly added that Iran was considering bilateral currency-swap agreements, which would allow partners to exchange one foreign currency for the equivalent in the other currency. He did not explicitly name partners, however.

Although nuclear sanctions imposed on Iran over the years are meant to deter the state from building up its nuclear-arms program, they could also be the catalyst that is pushing Iran to look for new economic partners. As Ian Bremmer noted, the glaring drawback of using coercive sanctions (and other weaponizations of finance) is that the targeted countries can and will increasingly diversify away from the dollar.

Turkey ran an extensive gas-for-gold scheme with Iran, which ran from about March 2012 to fall 2013 and yielded Iran more than $13 billion amid crippling sanctions implemented by the US over the country's perceived nuclear program. "It's a huge amount of money, Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism-finance analyst at the US Department of the Treasury, told Business Insider last year. "You can't ignore the fact that the Turks helped Iran with a massive sanctions-busting scheme." ....snip~

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/iran-ditching-dollar-134700360.html
 
washunut said:
Remind us what was the timeframe of the original 2013 pact.
Click to expand...

Did you think such a complex set of negotiations would be settled quickly- Hardliners on each side.
Iran no matter what has the tech to build a bomb.
Now why do the want the bomb?
Riddle me that please.
 
JANFU said:
Did you think such a complex set of negotiations would be settled quickly- Hardliners on each side.
Iran no matter what has the tech to build a bomb.
Now why do the want the bomb?
Riddle me that please.
Click to expand...


Please answer the question.
 
JANFU said:
June 2014?
Click to expand...

So it would seem to some that we are already well beyond the period we promised to hold off on new sanctions. Sanctions are what brought Iran to the table, not sure why a provision that says if we don't get a deal there will be more sanctions.

It would appear that the folks against new sanctions are the ones who want the talks to fail.
 
washunut said:
So it would seem to some that we are already well beyond the period we promised to hold off on new sanctions. Sanctions are what brought Iran to the table, not sure why a provision that says if we don't get a deal there will be more sanctions.

It would appear that the folks against new sanctions are the ones who want the talks to fail.
Click to expand...
I disagree - I stated earlier these negotiations would be difficult.
 
JANFU said:
I disagree - I stated earlier these negotiations would be difficult.
Click to expand...

People knew going in what the parameters of a deal would look like. Similar to the Israeli and Palestinian negotiations. If both sides wanted a deal there was one that could have been had in six months. To say that we have a time limit of 18 months, not to stop negotiating but to use the stick as well as the carrot seems legitimate if you really are interested in a deal. We know the U.S. we sign to almost anything that is even close to something they can sell to the public, so you know we aren't being the tough negotiators but that Iran seems to be.

So if the above is close to correct, what would you do to close a deal if not up the pressure?
 
washunut said:
People knew going in what the parameters of a deal would look like. Similar to the Israeli and Palestinian negotiations. If both sides wanted a deal there was one that could have been had in six months. To say that we have a time limit of 18 months, not to stop negotiating but to use the stick as well as the carrot seems legitimate if you really are interested in a deal. We know the U.S. we sign to almost anything that is even close to something they can sell to the public, so you know we aren't being the tough negotiators but that Iran seems to be.

So if the above is close to correct, what would you do to close a deal if not up the pressure?
Click to expand...
That is your opinion.
The majority of sanctions are still in place- Yes.
Negotiations fail- how long for Congress to pass new sanctions- a few weeks?
From earlier with some questions.
Did you think such a complex set of negotiations would be settled quickly- Hardliners on each side?
Iran no matter what has the tech to build a bomb.
Now why do they want the bomb? Waiting for an answer. on this one
 
The Netanyahu Disaster - Defense One
For several years, Netanyahu and President Obama, despite their mutual loathing, worked more or less in tandem on this issue. Netanyahu traveled the world arguing for stringent sanctions, and Obama did much the same. In fact, Obama used Netanyahu’s tough posture to America’s advantage: On several occasions, Obama and officials in his administration played good cop/bad cop, telling other world leaders that toughening sanctions on Iran would be the only way to forestall an Israeli attack, and this line of argument often proved effective.

Another flaw: The Obama administration is trying to create conditions so that if the negotiations do collapse, it will be the Iranians who get the blame, not the Americans. Legislating new sanctions—even delayed, triggered sanctions—would give the Iranians the excuse to quit negotiations and blame the U.S. Such a situation would not help Obama maintain the strong international sanctions regime that has stayed in place through the past year of talks.
 
JANFU said:
That is your opinion.
The majority of sanctions are still in place- Yes.
Negotiations fail- how long for Congress to pass new sanctions- a few weeks?
From earlier with some questions.
Did you think such a complex set of negotiations would be settled quickly- Hardliners on each side?
Iran no matter what has the tech to build a bomb.
Now why do they want the bomb? Waiting for an answer. on this one
Click to expand...

I think they want a bomb for the same reason they have given Hezbollah tens of thousands of missiles. And the reason they are are in Syria, Iraq and now Yemen. They want to have control the middle east.
 
washunut said:
I think they want a bomb for the same reason they have given Hezbollah tens of thousands of missiles. And the reason they are are in Syria, Iraq and now Yemen. They want to have control the middle east.
Click to expand...

Fair answer. It also prevents an invasion.
 
iliveonramen said:
I'm not sure how to take this. Are you arguing that the neoconservative movement didn't start in the Democratic Party or are you curious why the early neocons left the Democratic Party?
Click to expand...

I'm saying if indeed the roots of neo-conservatism started in the Democratic Party - I'm curious as to why we (the American Public) doesn't see more typical neo-conservative policy, behavior or views in the Democratic party. The Blue Dogs are now I think extinct who were the moderates - what was considered a "classical" Liberal say in 1965 would now be considered typically conservative or even share views of the Tea Party. I guess my conclusion is that the Democrats have moved so far left in the past 50 years that there are no traces of such roots left in the Democratic Party.
 
Ockham said:
I'm saying if indeed the roots of neo-conservatism started in the Democratic Party - I'm curious as to why we (the American Public) doesn't see more typical neo-conservative policy, behavior or views in the Democratic party. The Blue Dogs are now I think extinct who were the moderates - what was considered a "classical" Liberal say in 1965 would now be considered typically conservative or even share views of the Tea Party. I guess my conclusion is that the Democrats have moved so far left in the past 50 years that there are no traces of such roots left in the Democratic Party.
Click to expand...

Just an interesting quote from an article of the neo-con movement.

Neoconservatism... originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ('Scoop') Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.' [After the end of the Cold War]... many 'paleoliberals' drifted back to the Democratic center... Today's neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.
Click to expand...
 
Amadeus said:
Neocons have been itching to strike Iran for decades. That's why they detest any deal that will close their window of opportunity.
Click to expand...

Every American should have wanted all along to remove the vile Islamist regime that has been controlling Iran for thirty-five years now. During that time, the Khomeinists in Tehran have sponsored attacks that have killed several thousand American civilians and servicemen. And their attempts to spread Iran's control into Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and now, apparently, Yemen, have done a lot to foment the violence we are seeing in the Middle East.

Only people who are willfully blind can imagine there is any way other than force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It's like imagining that the meetings of the League of Nations at Geneva in 1935, which produced a lot of hollow warnings and a few meaningless sanctions, would stop Mussolini from sending a force to invade Ethiopia. I think it's very likely Israel will bomb Iran's most important nuclear facilities once these talks end. What President Limpwrist does, if and when that happens--or if he does anything at all--remains to be seen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom