• 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!

Iranians See Victory, Hope for New Image in Nuclear Agreement

Seemingly you have a greater command of the situation than I.
I've been a hawk on this issue for quite a long time.

If I truly thought (at this juncture) that we are getting screwed, I would be screaming louder than anyone.

So far, I personally feel that the framework agreement has positive potential and I am not averse to negotiations continuing until 30 June.
 
Simpleχity;1064492834 said:
It is currently impossible to put Iran's nuclear genie back in the bottle. There are three viable options.

(1) Do not interfere. (2) Retard progress via diplomatic means. (3) Retard progress via military means.

No matter which option is utilized, the genie does not forever vanish.

The sensible choice then, is to pursue the least onerous option which is what the P5+1 is attempting to accomplish at Lusanne.



I'm down with destroying thier nuke **** until they have free and fair elections, stop it's interventionist meddling.
 
/facepalm

:D :lamo

Obama has done nothing good at all.

Except for the stock market, the economy, the unemployment rate, the national deficit, our respect around the world, and many other things that I'm sure I'll think of after I write this post? Totally! Oh, and your buddy W. Bush, whom you probably voted for in 2004? He hurt every one of these things, every single one. So you can speak your lies to the hand, because the face doesn't want to hear them. And quit watching Fox "News." It's literally bad for your intelligence and judgment.

Indeed. Warmongers think that good diplomacy is weakness.

Warmongering IS weakness. It reduces morality and problem solving to might-makes-right.
 
Simpleχity;1064492601 said:
Not according to the framework (JCPOA) agreement. Iran can only operate IR-1 centrifuges. These are their original models made from the blueprints of a dated Urenco European model stolen by A.Q Khan and sold to the Iranians. Their more advanced centrifuges will be mothballed and secured by the IAEA.

6,104 IR-1 centrifuge units will be barely enough to feed the generating reactor at Natanz and provide a bit extra LEU for research, medicine, industry, etc.

This all assumes they even adhere to the agreement, of course. I think it's very foolish to count on that.

Get your crying towel ready for when we hear that the Iranians have locked out inspectors. That starts a clock that gives us roughly a year to decide what to do before the Iranians have a weapon. And that assumes that we really know what's going on in Iran.

I think it's amusing the way people quote from that "framework" as if it will have any bearing at all on what the Iranians do. Fools.
 
:D :lamo

Except for the stock market, the economy, the unemployment rate, the national deficit, our respect around the world, and many other things that I'm sure I'll think of after I write this post? Totally!

Why don't you give Obama credit for us having so few tornadoes in March this year while you're at it?

The economy has improved somewhat despite everything that Obama did to hurt it, from more taxes to more regulations to killing the coal industry to badmouthing and threatening business leaders to giving more power to extortionist unions. He did manage to slow down recovery quite a bit, though.

The US is less respected around the world than I can ever remember. Obama is popular, though. I think the facts that the US is so disrespected and Obama is popular are connected.

Warmongering IS weakness. It reduces morality and problem solving to might-makes-right.

It's really the only way to solve some problems. It worked really well with Germany and Japan.

You might not be interested in war, but war may be interested in you. In that case the choices are to fight or to surrender.
 
like when Obama does it. noted.

Nope. I don't like the things that Obama has engaged in wrt to drones in Afghanistan.

That does not mean that what he is doing with respect to Iran is not correct. He is doing the right thing by engaging in these negotiations, and if you are indeed a pacifist then you should be happy this is happening because if this did not happen the very type of bombing that you don't like will very likely occur.
 
OK.

Is this agreement going to significantly reduce the chance that they'll build a bomb anyway? Or is this just unneeded window dressing that the Iranians wanted to give away anyway?

The goal here isn't to just get an agreement, the goal needs to be to prevent Iran from being able to build a bomb, period, or at least for a very, very long time.

The last thing that the Middle East needs, as unstable as it is right now and will be for the foreseeable future, is a nuclear arms race, with religious leaders with extremists ideologies with their fingers on the buttons.

So is this agreement going to achieve those goals? At best the answer comes back as 'we'll see', and nothing more solid than that. So really, even with the agreement in place and faithfully executed by all parties, the Middle Eat, and the rest of the world, isn't nearly out of the woods yet.

In fact, things have gotten worse, from the stand point that a known financial and material supporter of Islamic Militant Fundamentalist has stepped into the vacuum in the region left by Obama's shrinking away and withdrawing from that very region.

No this agreement is the part of a solution that provides the best chance that Iran does not build a bomb. Nothing, not even bombing Iran can absolutely guarantee that Iran will not build a bomb at this point. Again, this is because you cannot bomb knowledge, and Iran knows how to do it. The only way forward is to create the conditions such that they will not want to do it and that minimizes the chances that they are doing it. Inspections and limiting their enrichment capability minimizes the chances that they are doing it in order to give time so that the world can be convinced that their intention is not to build a weapon. While this confidence building is taking place, Iran needs to integrated into the international community. There are nations that have the capability to build nuclear weapons but who don't feel the need to do so. In the case of Germany and Japan, they were our bitter enemies at one point. But now, these nations feel no need to build a bomb, and no one suspects them of secretly doing so because they have been successfully integrated into the international system. That is what needs to happen with Iran. On the other hand, this view that violent coercion is the way forward will simply create the conditions such that it is more likely that Iran feels the need to have a nuclear weapon at some point.
 
Warmongering IS weakness. It reduces morality and problem solving to might-makes-right.

That is right. It is simply a mechanism that insecure people have devised to mask their insecurity.
 
Why don't you give Obama credit for us having so few tornadoes in March this year while you're at it?

The economy has improved somewhat despite everything that Obama did to hurt it, from more taxes to more regulations to killing the coal industry to badmouthing and threatening business leaders to giving more power to extortionist unions. He did manage to slow down recovery quite a bit, though.

The US is less respected around the world than I can ever remember. Obama is popular, though. I think the facts that the US is so disrespected and Obama is popular are connected.

Which talking heads on Fox "News" preached to you these "facts"?

It's really the only way to solve some problems. It worked really well with Germany and Japan.

You might not be interested in war, but war may be interested in you. In that case the choices are to fight or to surrender.

Name one war that the US got into since WWII that was truly worth getting into. Just one. (Hint: Gulf War I isn't one of them.)

I'll be waiting.
 
It's not a strawman, nor is it ignorant. it's an oppressive intolerant regime, you are in favor of benefiting them despite thier oppressive theocratic fascism. It's a country that's been hostile, built ied's that killed americans, and has pan-islamic caliphate aspirations.

Just like the arab spring, we are helping bad guys get what they want.

:lamo
Oh yup. Me, an atheist, left wing, democratic socialist, is in favor of a far right wing, non-secular, theocratic, fascism...
 
The US is less respected around the world than I can ever remember. Obama is popular, though. I think the facts that the US is so disrespected and Obama is popular are connected.


Some folks do have trouble with memory loss, but not everyone displays it so publicly.
From 2007 to 2013, Pew found that views of the United States improved in 22 countries. Eight nations’ favorable ratings increased by at least 20 percentage points; only four saw a decline. The median country’s views of the U.S. went up by 9 points.
In all fairness, approval of the U.S. has fallen. Do you think it's all the fault of ONE person? No response needed, it's a rhetorical question.
Gallup did find that approval of U.S. leadership — after improving upon Obama taking office — declined in many regions. From its Obama-era peak, approval has fallen 8 percentage points globally (although it’s still above where it stood at the end of the George W. Bush administration).

Romney, Obama And International Opinion | FiveThirtyEight
 
This all assumes they even adhere to the agreement, of course. I think it's very foolish to count on that.
Every treaty is an assumption that the participants will honor the terms. Most of the time it is effective, but there are events - such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine - where treaties are broken.

This doesn't mean treaties are a zero-sum fools game, it just means that treaties are only as good as the commitments to honor them.

I think it's amusing the way people quote from that "framework" as if it will have any bearing at all on what the Iranians do. Fools.
The current framework - The Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA) - guarantees IAEA verification.

If you have a better idea, I would love to hear it.
 
Which talking heads on Fox "News" preached to you these "facts"?

What horrible piece of trash taught you to write?

Name one war that the US got into since WWII that was truly worth getting into. Just one. (Hint: Gulf War I isn't one of them.)

I'll be waiting.

So you at least think WWII was worth it? Really? In what way did WWII meet your standards? If nothing else meets your standards I don't see how WWII could have.
 
Simpleχity;1064494679 said:
Every treaty is an assumption that the participants will honor the terms. Most of the time it is effective, but there are events - such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine - where treaties are broken.

This doesn't mean treaties are a zero-sum fools game, it just means that treaties are only as good as the commitments to honor them.


The current framework - The Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA) - guarantees IAEA verification.

If you have a better idea, I would love to hear it.

To the bolded.

To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran
By JOHN R. BOLTON MARCH 26, 2015
 
Simpleχity;1064494679 said:
Every treaty is an assumption that the participants will honor the terms. Most of the time it is effective, but there are events - such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine - where treaties are broken.

This doesn't mean treaties are a zero-sum fools game, it just means that treaties are only as good as the commitments to honor them.

And then there are people who would make agreements with nations that have always lied, have always violated their agreements up to and including the sanctity of foreign embassies in their territories. People who make agreements with such are fools.


The current framework - The Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA) - guarantees IAEA verification.

If you have a better idea, I would love to hear it.

Yeah, drop the whole thing and deal with the Iranians as the savages that they are.
 
Some folks do have trouble with memory loss, but not everyone displays it so publicly.

In all fairness, approval of the U.S. has fallen. Do you think it's all the fault of ONE person? No response needed, it's a rhetorical question.

So you compare the worst of Bush's administration with the best of Obama's. No unfairness there at all.

But now that I think about it, any President who does a good job of protecting America's interests will be unpopular with foreigners. Popularity in foreign countries during Obama's tenure isn't a plus for America -- it means that we are weak.

Obama initially boosted America's popularity with foreign countries by projecting an image of weakness. Thus he won the Nobel Peace Prize without doing anything. But then he proved to be capable of asserting America's interests in some ways, at least. He continued Bush era counter-terrorism measures, for example. He boosted troops in Afghanistan. He rained terror down upon Al Qaeda leadership with thousands of drone strikes. He totally failed to live up to the promise that the Nobel Prize Committee saw in him, which is a good thing.
 
So you compare the worst of Bush's administration with the best of Obama's. No unfairness there at all.

But now that I think about it, any President who does a good job of protecting America's interests will be unpopular with foreigners. Popularity in foreign countries during Obama's tenure isn't a plus for America -- it means that we are weak.

Obama initially boosted America's popularity with foreign countries by projecting an image of weakness. Thus he won the Nobel Peace Prize without doing anything. But then he proved to be capable of asserting America's interests in some ways, at least. He continued Bush era counter-terrorism measures, for example. He boosted troops in Afghanistan. He rained terror down upon Al Qaeda leadership with thousands of drone strikes. He totally failed to live up to the promise that the Nobel Prize Committee saw in him, which is a good thing.


Lol. Right cause advocating peace is such a bad thing.
 
Yeah, drop the whole thing and deal with the Iranians as the savages that they are.
That's no lasting solution. You can't simply bomb away nuclear knowledge.
 
Nope. I don't like the things that Obama has engaged in wrt to drones in Afghanistan.

That does not mean that what he is doing with respect to Iran is not correct. He is doing the right thing by engaging in these negotiations, and if you are indeed a pacifist then you should be happy this is happening because if this did not happen the very type of bombing that you don't like will very likely occur.



So instead we are going to create another N. Korea, and be assured no "bombing" will take place....
 
:lamo
Oh yup. Me, an atheist, left wing, democratic socialist, is in favor of a far right wing, non-secular, theocratic, fascism...



You can label yourself anything you want, but you are supporting a far right wing, non-secular, theocratic, fascist regime in helping them get things that prop up and maintain that regimes very existence. *shrug*
 
Left wingers already cheering victories for fascist regimes. no 3....2...1... needed.

Yep......at the same time that liberals in this country are screeching madly if a pizza joint will not cater a gay wedding, they are proclaiming victory laps for a fascist regime that stones homosexuals to death.
 
Not just the courage, but the patience and form to endure all republican attempts to derail it. It would appear that the republicans are opposed to the P5+1 preventing an Iranian nuclear weapons program. A missed opportunity for another ME war!

Who says that this agreement if it ever does come about will prevent the Iranian nuclear program from going forward? A similar agreement did not stop North Korea. They were cheating before the paperwork was dry and now have nukes.
 
Decades of USFP have destabilised the ME. From the 2006 NIE!!

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Baloney. What invasion led them to get extreme enough to crash two commercial jet liners into the world trade center and one into the pentagon? How about the attempt to bomb the towers in 1993? The bombing of the USS Cole? Khobar Towers, etc? No US invasion radicalized these nutcases. They just have a culture of death.
 
Back
Top Bottom