• 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

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?

Remember Clinton Admin signs a no-nukes-for-North-Korea deal the next thing you know the NKs are detonating a bomb. Rational people see a pattern here.
 
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?

The biggest difference the way I see it, is that Iran is ruled by a radical extremist religion. NKs main motive for the bomb is to preserve the dictatorship/NK communist society. Iran's motive is for complete destruction of Irsael and to triumph over that centuries old shiite/sunni/tribal war.
 
The biggest difference the way I see it, is that Iran is ruled by a radical extremist religion. NKs main motive for the bomb is to preserve the dictatorship/NK communist society. Iran's motive is for complete destruction of Irsael and to triumph over that centuries old shiite/sunni/tribal war.
It is far too late to totally prevent Iran from mastering nuclear technology. They already possess the requisite nuclear knowledge and the expertise.

It is impossible to bomb-away knowledge.

The best that can be accomplished is to - retard/delay - such knowledge and expertise from becoming a physical reality.
 
With a stockpile of nuclear weapons, and a freak at the helm willing to bomb Iran, a vastly weaker nation militarily, how is it that Israel is under the Bus?

When has Israel ever said they were to going to wipe Iran off the map? Whereas Iran has repeatedly said they were going to wipe Israel off the map.
 
What does that mean? That you don't think Obama would use the military option if needed?

Not unless it just used drones or some very minor air power. IMO he won't seek regime change or boots on the ground.

I'm of the opinion Iran and it's proxies possess at least dirty bombs and other WMDs and probably have at least a crude nuke. They will use them if attacked which will lead to a much wider conflicts..quickly.
 
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?

No sense in continuing if you are going to be intellectually dishonest and demeaning. Hope your debating skills get better when you leave high school at get into college.
 
For context:

[video]http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/when-bill-clinton-praised-virtues-nuclear-deal-north-korea_909030.html[/video]
 
So...Obama is willing to give up the sanctions...which have worked, btw...for this "framework"??

Yep...Chamberlain would be proud of Obama.

The sanctions have not stopped the Iranians from going forward on their nuclear program so other than bringing them to the table, how have they worked?
 
The sanctions have not stopped the Iranians from going forward on their nuclear program so other than bringing them to the table, how have they worked?

Bringing them to the table is only part of it and Obama seems satisfied with accomplishing that much. Too bad he's not willing to force them to the next level, but will waste all the effort by ending sanctions and only getting...maybe...10 years of respite out of them.

Of course, by then he will be able to crow to the world how "well" he's done...his legacy will be assured. (Until those 10 years have passed, at least. Then the bill for his sell-out will come due.)
 
No,this is the 'framework' for a deal to be finalized in June.
Iran's MO is to stretch it out then renege at the last minute.

It only took 3 posts to return to that comfort zone of baseless speculation. Why discuss facts when baseless speculation is so much more interesting...
 
The biggest difference the way I see it, is that Iran is ruled by a radical extremist religion. NKs main motive for the bomb is to preserve the dictatorship/NK communist society. Iran's motive is for complete destruction of Irsael and to triumph over that centuries old shiite/sunni/tribal war.

Iran cannot destroy Isreal so that argument is moot. NK has repeatedly stated that it wants a war of annihilation and they have brainwashed their people for that. I have met Iranians overseas who are studying for medical degrees and they are not fanatics, they are a democracy.
 
Bringing them to the table is only part of it and Obama seems satisfied with accomplishing that much. Too bad he's not willing to force them to the next level, but will waste all the effort by ending sanctions and only getting...maybe...10 years of respite out of them.

Of course, by then he will be able to crow to the world how "well" he's done...his legacy will be assured. (Until those 10 years have passed, at least. Then the bill for his sell-out will come due.)

You are forgetting that the sanctions are not ours alone and without the rest of the powers participating they will be useless. The Europeans are at the end of their rope and China and Russia will certainly balk at continuing sanctions especially if the agreement is made and we fail to ratify it. This is the danger of involving politics in foreign policy. It is threatening to our safety and that of the whole world. Bubbi will never be satisfied unless we invade Iran for him. That is fine for an Israeli prime minister to say but the idea that your side is backing that ideology is distressing to say the least. It is dangerously bordering on treason not that you kind even care anymore. There was a reason that politics stopped at the border for so many years and you should be ashamed that your side are the ones to have broken it. It will not be forgotten.
 
Last edited:
You are forgetting that the sanctions are not ours alone and without the rest of the powers participating they will be useless. The Europeans are at the end of their rope and China and Russia will certainly balk at continuing sanctions especially if the agreement is made and we fail to ratify it. This is the danger of involving politics in foreign policy. It is threatening to our safety and that of the whole world. Bubbi will never be satisfied unless we invade Iran for him. That is fine for an Israeli prime minister to say but the idea that your side is backing that ideology is distressing to say the least. It is dangerously bordering on treason not that you kind even care anymore. There was a reason that politics stopped at the border for so many years and you should be ashamed that your side are the ones to have broken it. It will not be forgotten.

LOL!!

So...in your attempt to excuse Obama for bad negotiating you try to blame:

1. Other countries.
2. Republicans, if they don't ratify the crap deal Obama gives Iran.
3. "Bubbi".
4. Treasonous Republicans.
5. Politics.

I think you forgot to blame Bush this time around.
 
LOL!!

So...in your attempt to excuse Obama for bad negotiating you try to blame:

1. Other countries.
2. Republicans, if they don't ratify the crap deal Obama gives Iran.
3. "Bubbi".
4. Treasonous Republicans.
5. Politics.

I think you forgot to blame Bush this time around.

At least you made no attempt to rebut anything I said. That would have been dumb.
 
At least you made no attempt to rebut anything I said. That would have been dumb.

shrug...

No point in rebutting pathetic attempts to excuse Obama by blaming everything and everyone else. But when you are ready to discuss Obama's lack of negotiating skills...we can talk.
 
So now the Iranians are the honest ones? I thought they couldn't be trusted?

If we have a deal/framework, why is there disagreement? I don't trust Obama because this thing went way too fast, he's all about his legacy, and Kerry is an incompetent boob.
 
If we have a deal/framework, why is there disagreement?
Because there is as yet no final agreement - "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed."

If - and when - a final agreement is reached, it is critical that the agreement is minutely detailed and unambiguous in any language.

I don't want to hear any crap that a word means one thing in English but something entirely different in Farsi.
 
I have said it before...Israel is more of a threat to peace in the Middle East and American interests then Iran.

Far more.
 
I have said it before...Israel is more of a threat to peace in the Middle East and American interests then Iran.

Far more.

Over/under on how long before someone claims you're an anti-semite for saying this?

I tend to not agree with you, by the way.
 
Over/under on how long before someone claims you're an anti-semite for saying this?

I tend to not agree with you, by the way.

He's not an anti-Semite, not if we judge by his posts, but he's certainly an anti-Israeli buffoon.
 
He's not an anti-Semite, not if we judge by his posts, but he's certainly an anti-Israeli buffoon.
Throwing out insults is a telling indicator that youve lost the argument.
 
Throwing out insults is a telling indicator that youve lost the argument.

I'm sorry for insulting your colleague in the axis of evil, but there was no argument here.
 
Simpleχity;1064497476 said:
Because there is as yet no final agreement - "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed."

If - and when - a final agreement is reached, it is critical that the agreement is minutely detailed and unambiguous in any language.

I don't want to hear any crap that a word means one thing in English but something entirely different in Farsi.

That explains nothing. And you can support this **** till you're blue in the face, the fact of the matter is there's disagreement already about what is merely said publically and that bothers me. Especially given the rep of our President to claim victory when he's accomplished nothing. I don't buy into this quickly thrown together framework like you do.
 
Back
Top Bottom