• 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

Greetings, Montecresto. :2wave:

Was Obama there? All I saw was Kerry representing the US. Of the countries negotiating, four of the six were the elected leaders of their countries - I don't know who Jinping is.

Howdy Polgara. Well, Kerry is representing Obama. No president can be everywhere. I can't understand though why it is that while it's the five permanent members of the UNSC and Germany that's compelling Iran, it's constantly framed as a unilateral Obama ambition?
 
Iran has repeatedly vowed to annihilate Israel. Israel should attack with everything they got, nuclear weapons included. The alternative is for all Jews to flee Israel. Now.

Fear mongering. Iran isn't making nuclear weapons, and the P5+1 intend to keep it that way. And advocating the use of nuclear weapons on Iran, with the numbers of civilians that would be killed, is twisted dude.
 
Howdy Polgara. Well, Kerry is representing Obama. No president can be everywhere. I can't understand though why it is that while it's the five permanent members of the UNSC and Germany that's compelling Iran, it's constantly framed as a unilateral Obama ambition?

Greetings, Montecresto. :2wave:

I don't understand that either, since I thought Iran was the one that wanted to meet to see what was required to get the sanctions lifted. ?? Maybe it will become more clear as time goes on. It's just strange that they've met for months and nothing was agreed upon, and two nights ago they resolved everything in one night?

How can talks drag on and on and on anyway? It seems that since the entire world was against this from the beginning, including the UN, it should only have taken about 15 minutes to lay out the terms, or sanctions would be increased! What game is this being played? No one seems to believe that Iran can be trusted to abide by any agreement. That's the reason sanctions were put on them in the first place - they broke an earlier deal!
 
Greetings, Montecresto. :2wave:

I don't understand that either, since I thought Iran was the one that wanted to meet to see what was required to get the sanctions lifted. ?? Maybe it will become more clear as time goes on. It's just strange that they've met for months and nothing was agreed upon, and two nights ago they resolved everything in one night?

How can talks drag on and on and on anyway? It seems that since the entire world was against this from the beginning, including the UN, it should only have taken about 15 minutes to lay out the terms, or sanctions would be increased! What game is this being played? No one seems to believe that Iran can be trusted to abide by any agreement. That's the reason sanctions were put on them in the first place - they broke an earlier deal!

Perhaps I can help you folks to understand why this is considered a U.S. centric deal. That is because it has been Kerry holding one on one conversations with the Iranians. If you remember heads of three delegations left earlier in the week when the deadline expired.

Lets be real, at least when it comes to the Chinese, Russians and EU, they would have signed off on day one giving Iran the bomb tomorrow, they could care less. France cares a bit more but in the end they all folded like cheap whores, taking any deal so they could do more business in Iran.
 
Greetings, Montecresto. :2wave:

I don't understand that either, since I thought Iran was the one that wanted to meet to see what was required to get the sanctions lifted. ?? Maybe it will become more clear as time goes on. It's just strange that they've met for months and nothing was agreed upon, and two nights ago they resolved everything in one night?

How can talks drag on and on and on anyway? It seems that since the entire world was against this from the beginning, including the UN, it should only have taken about 15 minutes to lay out the terms, or sanctions would be increased! What game is this being played? No one seems to believe that Iran can be trusted to abide by any agreement. That's the reason sanctions were put on them in the first place - they broke an earlier deal!

Well, the earlier deal didn't have the historically rigorous monitoring apparatus that the Obama administration insists any deal this time around will have. And I'm sure you weren't serious that such a deal could be laid out in fifteen minutes. But if Iran disagrees with a point, then it has to be restructured, reworded to appease Iran, yet still meet the P5+1's goals. There's six nations involved in this. Also, in case you didn't know this, countries negotiating the framework, and ultimately any deal, have more than just an interest in preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons. They're also jockeying for trade with Iran. It's much more complex than a 15 minute meeting could iron out. Consider this too Polgara, Obama has been clear from jump street that any deal reached will have two basic premises. One, Iran will be denied production of any nuclear weapons, and B, there will be very intrusive and historically rigorous inspections to verify number one. And too, Obama has said that should they fail to reach an agreement, or should Iran fail to meet their obligations, that the military option remains in place, and plans for dealing with Iran's nuclear issue militarily are already drawn up! So, I believe the handwringing is just political posturing.
 
Perhaps I can help you folks to understand why this is considered a U.S. centric deal. That is because it has been Kerry holding one on one conversations with the Iranians. If you remember heads of three delegations left earlier in the week when the deadline expired.

Lets be real, at least when it comes to the Chinese, Russians and EU, they would have signed off on day one giving Iran the bomb tomorrow, they could care less. France cares a bit more but in the end they all folded like cheap whores, taking any deal so they could do more business in Iran.

Any deal reached by definition will have the support of the P5+1, and if they decide to make it a UNSCR it will be binding whether the republican congress likes it, or not.
 
Iran has repeatedly vowed to annihilate Israel. Israel should attack with everything they got, nuclear weapons included. The alternative is for all Jews to flee Israel. Now.

This is just silly. Iran is all talk, Isreal doesnt make threats but instead just attacks with impunity and can annihilate Iran anytime it wants to. North Korea makes threats all the time and they have nukes but you neocons always ignore them. Why the double standard?
 
Wrong, Obama has repeatedly stated that should no deal be reached or Iran fail to meet its obligations to a deal reached, there's still the military option.

Like Israel, the United States has already drawn up plans to dismantle Iran's nuclear infrastructure through military means. And the United States could almost certainly count on the help of Gulf states, which consider the United States, as opposed to Israel, one of their strongest allies.

Nuclear talks: Could force still be used against Iran? - CNN.com

Not under Obama's watch...NO WAY!

But hey, try and color me surprised.
 
North Korea has its own ties to terrorism too but you seem to ignore it.... but the moment Iran gets mentioned all the right wingers start frothing at the mouth.

And let's not forget about US actions in the Mideast bringing about ISIS and AQ...

Notice, because NK is nuclear armed, no one talks about messing with them beyond some toothless sanctions.

Do we want the same condition with Iran? Or do we already know they have the bomb?
 
Not under Obama's watch...NO WAY!

But hey, try and color me surprised.

What does that mean? That you don't think Obama would use the military option if needed?
 
SAUDI ARABIA'S DUBIOUS DENIALS OF
INVOLVEMENT IN INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
Saudi Arabia - Terrorism

Saudi Arabia’s New King Helped Fund Radical Terrorist Groups
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/saudi-arabias-new-king-helped-fund-radical-terror-groups/

WikiLeaks cables portray Saudi Arabia as a cash machine for terrorists
Hillary Clinton memo highlights Gulf states' failure to block funding for groups like al-Qaida, Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-terrorist-funding

This country is our ally, while Iran is our enemy, lol.
 
Last edited:
This is just silly. Iran is all talk, Isreal doesnt make threats but instead just attacks with impunity and can annihilate Iran anytime it wants to. North Korea makes threats all the time and they have nukes but you neocons always ignore them. Why the double standard?

One would assume the government believes Iran but doesn't believe N Korea. That is understandable.
 
Any deal reached by definition will have the support of the P5+1, and if they decide to make it a UNSCR it will be binding whether the republican congress likes it, or not.

Lest you forget, this is still the U.S. You really believe that UNSCR creates actions that bind us? That is nuts.
 
Lest you forget, this is still the U.S. You really believe that UNSCR creates actions that bind us? That is nuts.

What? If the P5 passes a binding UNSCR, it will bind Iran silly.
 
What? If the P5 passes a binding UNSCR, it will bind Iran silly.

Are you trying out for comedy central, with that other guy blowing up? You think Iran gives a rats a** about the P5, or the UN. Russia will be selling reactors to Iran, China will be buying their oil (at a discount) France and the UK would sell their sisters for economic growth and the EU gets to stick it to the Joos again. The P5 loves it. They would have signed up if Iran had promised to wait the weekend to make a bomb.
 
Do we want the same condition with Iran? Or do we already know they have the bomb?
Iran already has a nuclear weapon in the knowledge sense and you can't bomb away nuclear knowledge.

The best you can do is retard turning such knowledge into a physical reality.
 
Are you trying out for comedy central, with that other guy blowing up? You think Iran gives a rats a** about the P5, or the UN. Russia will be selling reactors to Iran, China will be buying their oil (at a discount) France and the UK would sell their sisters for economic growth and the EU gets to stick it to the Joos again. The P5 loves it. They would have signed up if Iran had promised to wait the weekend to make a bomb.

Iran doesn't want to be Iraqed! And if the P5 passes a UNSCR, it will be binding on Iran. In the event of a failure on Iran's part to meet its obligations, I'm sure the next republican president will have no trouble enforcing it militarily. No worries mate.
 
Iran doesn't want to be Iraqed! And if the P5 passes a UNSCR, it will be binding on Iran. In the event of a failure on Iran's part to meet its obligations, I'm sure the next republican president will have no trouble enforcing it militarily. No worries mate.

Unless Hillary changes parties, there won't be a republican president for at least 10 years. Iran will have nuclear weapons by then. Lets face it, the majority of the world is on your side. They could care less if Iran has the bomb. And if you or they are honest, could care less if they or an ally of theirs uses it against Israel.

No worries mate, we understand your desires on this issue.
 
Unless Hillary changes parties, there won't be a republican president for at least 10 years. Iran will have nuclear weapons by then. Lets face it, the majority of the world is on your side. They could care less if Iran has the bomb. And if you or they are honest, could care less if they or an ally of theirs uses it against Israel.

No worries mate, we understand your desires on this issue.

Perhaps it's escaped you, but I have been a continual advocate of global nuclear eradication (peaceful included). Its in my interest that the P5+1 succeeds in denying Iran nuclear weapons, with any luck, all republican and Israeli attempts to derail those efforts, fail!
 
Perhaps it's escaped you, but I have been a continual advocate of global nuclear eradication (peaceful included). Its in my interest that the P5+1 succeeds in denying Iran nuclear weapons, with any luck, all republican and Israeli attempts to derail those efforts, fail!

People can post whatever. While I think you are deliberately naive regarding Iran I doubt you are that stupid.
 
People can post whatever. While I think you are deliberately naive regarding Iran I doubt you are that stupid.

What do you mean, people can post whatever. Are you suggesting I'm not an advocate of global nuclear eradication? I suppose you think all those people in China, Russia, Germany, France and the UK and US that are working on preventing a nuclear powered Iran are naive, too?
 
What do you mean, people can post whatever. Are you suggesting I'm not an advocate of global nuclear eradication? I suppose you think all those people in China, Russia, Germany, France and the UK and US that are working on preventing a nuclear powered Iran are naive, too?

Do you really think the motive of Russia, China and the EU was to make sure Iran got no nukes. I would bet their number one goal was to increase trade (and when the talks started to get Iranian oil at a discount).

As to eradicating nuclear weapons, that is for dreamers. They are held by too many. Eventually as the number of nations increases (as this deal will insure) who hold them there will be a horrible incident.
 
Do you really think the motive of Russia, China and the EU was to make sure Iran got no nukes. I would bet their number one goal was to increase trade (and when the talks started to get Iranian oil at a discount).

As to eradicating nuclear weapons, that is for dreamers. They are held by too many. Eventually as the number of nations increases (as this deal will insure) who hold them there will be a horrible incident.

First, you don't know that of this deal, sense no deal has been agreed to. Secondly, there are dozens of countries actively working for global nuclear eradication. And yes, a big part of the negotiations involve participating nations trade interests. But they've all made clear that a nuclear weapons powered Iran is in nobodies interests. So what's your schtick, the Bolton, McCain, Netanyahu plan?
 
Back
Top Bottom