• 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

nice slight of hand attempt. Iran, as we were talking about have been less than honest, and have been hostile to inspectors.
Indeed. But that was before Iran fully comprehended the crushing power of international sanctions.

They understand non-compliance consequences much better now.

not really, but lets say ok, still better than giving them the stuff they want to build bombas. *shrug*
That is the (Western) two-pronged point of the negotiations, 1) to negotiate terms that make it extremely difficult for Iran to construct a bomb and 2) to make detection of such activity much much easier.
 
Simpleχity;1064500531 said:
Indeed. But that was before Iran fully comprehended the crushing power of international sanctions.

They understand non-compliance consequences much better now.


Really? REALLY? as of 2012 they were plotting assasinations, 2011 making ieds. 2008 ied's made in iran killing Americans. Threats, supporting hezbollah, and other terrorist groups.


Now, they "learned thier lesson"?

are you for real? :lol:


That is the (Western) two-pronged point of the negotiations, 1) to negotiate terms that make it extremely difficult for Iran to construct a bomb and 2) to make detection of such activity much much easier.


This is really about Obama legacy building. given his past failures. I don't have much hope on this one.
 
Sanctions don't stop, they merely slow, development. And in an autocracy, sanctions don't hurt the leadership, they hurt the people. I don't think their reinstatement is going to get Iran to give up it's program.

That may be true, but we failed the help the uprising when we had a chance. Iran's population is young and with severe sanctions the young will take care of the leadership.
 
That may be true, but we failed the help the uprising when we had a chance. Iran's population is young and with severe sanctions the young will take care of the leadership.

That is unlikely. Even the Green Movement was in favor of the nuclear program, and outside pressure strengthens the autocrats hands inside the state. Unless we were preparing to force regime change, it's a poor strategy.
 
Simpleχity;1064500531 said:
That is the (Western) two-pronged point of the negotiations, 1) to negotiate terms that make it extremely difficult for Iran to construct a bomb

Make it extremely difficult, Iran had nuclear plant under ground that no one knew about.

to make detection of such activity much much easier.

Without inspectors having free and immediate access anytime anywhere there is no detection.
 
That is unlikely. Even the Green Movement was in favor of the nuclear program, and outside pressure strengthens the autocrats hands inside the state. Unless we were preparing to force regime change, it's a poor strategy.

If sanctions don't work why is Iran even talking. Iran would just keep doing what it is doing, getting their nukes.
 
Really? REALLY? as of 2012 they were plotting assasinations, 2011 making ieds. 2008 ied's made in iran killing Americans. Threats, supporting hezbollah, and other terrorist groups.
In 2012 the US was still fighting in Afghanistan. This is 2015. Things change.
 
If sanctions don't work why is Iran even talking. Iran would just keep doing what it is doing, getting their nukes.

President Rouhani is the former lead nuclear negotiator for Iran. During that time he developed and proposed a strategy to the Supreme Leader which proposed that Iran engage in regular, continual, ever-extended negotiations in order to keep political will for a strike from building in the West while Iran continues development.

Now he's President. And Iran is engaging in regular, continual, seemingly ever-extended negotiations, which are keeping political will for a strike from building in the West.... :thinking
 
Simpleχity;1064500624 said:
In 2012 the US was still fighting in Afghanistan. This is 2015. Things change.

Oh yes. No doubt they've all had a come to Jesus moment and realized that their earlier support for terrorism was bad.


Um. You can link to these major significant changes on the part of the Iranian leadership, can you not?
 
Um. You can link to these major significant changes on the part of the Iranian leadership, can you not?
You rather naively think I am either pro-Iran or pro-Obama. I fairly much detest both.

Nevertheless, I do try to avoid placing domestic politics and internal biases ahead of overarching US national interests.
 
Simpleχity;1064500650 said:
You rather naively think I am either pro-Iran or pro-Obama. I fairly much detest both.

Nevertheless, I do try to avoid placing domestic politics and internal biases ahead of overarching US national interests.

Then you should be able to tell us how "things have changed" to where we can now form a relationship built on trust with the Iranians. :)


Because, as near as I can tell, they and their proxies still rabidly hate us, and still see us in a zero sum competition over the region, regardless of what wool they can pull over our Presidents' eyes.
 
Then you should be able to tell us how "things have changed" to where we can now form a relationship built on trust with the Iranians. :)


Because, as near as I can tell, they and their proxies still rabidly hate us, and still see us in a zero sum competition over the region, regardless of what wool they can pull over our Presidents' eyes.

If the relationship was built on trust, we wouldn't be insisting on thorough inspections.
 
If the relationship was built on trust, we wouldn't be insisting on thorough inspections.

If we didn't trust them we wouldn't be willing to accede to their demands that inspections be planned and they be notified well in advance. :)

Though "trust" may be a bad phrasing - it may be well that the President frankly doesn't care, just so long as they don't do it on his watch. Or it may be that he doesn't care because he thinks he's going to rope them in and switch sides in the Middle East, abandoning Saudi Arabia for Iran.


But the posters' argument is that "the situation has changed" from when Iran was supporting proxies who wanted desperately to kill Americans. Now, from where I'm sitting, it sure looks to me like Iran is still supporting proxies who desperately want to kill Americans. So I'd like to see him break down what has changed within Iranian leadership, and why he thinks that is significant.
 
yet you seem gleeful and 100% trusting of irans "peaceful" desire for nuclear "power".
"Gleeful"? The only thing im "gleeful" about is that we are taking diplomatic measures instead of forcing something through the barrel of a gun. And no I do not "100% trust" Iran, why do you think I'm in favor of inspectors, and strict international oversight? If I was "trusting of Iran" I wouldnt even care about diplomatic negotiations, and I would just trust their word when they say "we have no nuclear weapons program and our program is 100% peaceful". But, no I do not "trust" why else would I be in favor of negotiations then?


Despite thier history of the opposite actions and desires even today.
What would that be?

This is support of benefitting a fascist regime.
Its not support...


thus you support it
Wow. Quite the strawman you have built there.
 
"Gleeful"? The only thing im "gleeful" about is that we are taking diplomatic measures instead of forcing something through the barrel of a gun. And no I do not "100% trust" Iran, why do you think I'm in favor of inspectors, and strict international oversight? If I was "trusting of Iran" I wouldnt even care about diplomatic negotiations, and I would just trust their word when they say "we have no nuclear weapons program and our program is 100% peaceful". But, no I do not "trust" why else would I be in favor of negotiations then?



What would that be?


Its not support...



Wow. Quite the strawman you have built there.




Iran has a hostility towards inspectors, and has been clear on it's goals, you all stick your heads in the sand and pretend that Iran suddenly has changed it's stripes.


By letting them get this nuclear power stuff, and lifting the sanctions, you are in support, of the mullahs, and keeping that government's status quo, which is a form of religious, oppressive, facsism.


You have no idea what a strawman is, it seems.
 
Iran has a hostility towards inspectors,
What kind of "hostility"? You mean not being completely transparent in the past?

and has been clear on it's goals,
In your opinion of course.. Iran could demolish every single nuclear site and let the international community view it and you probably still wouldnt be content.

you all stick your heads in the sand and pretend that Iran suddenly has changed it's stripes.
Nahhh..

By letting them get this nuclear power stuff,
:lamo "nuclear power stuff"

and lifting the sanctions, you are in support, of the mullahs, and keeping that government's status quo, which is a form of religious, oppressive, facsism.
Every country has the right to "nuclear power stuff" for peaceful means. Stating that they have the right to peaceful "nuclear power stuff" does not mean I support the regime. Its the basic reality.

You have no idea what a strawman is, it seems.
No I do. Let me play it out for you.
I am in favor of 1.)diplomatic negotiations over Irans nuclear energy sector. 2.)I am in favor of this deal/framework. 3.)I am in favor of Iran not getting a nuclear bomb. 4.)I do not suppor the Iranian governments political system, human rights record, etc. You think this means I support a theocratic regime like Iran. Now how did you reach that conclusion? You stated because I uphold the right for the Iranian state to use "nuclear stuff", and then you made a blind accusation that I support the Iranian government, so therefore I support the Iranian regime. That is a textbook defintion of a strawman, one you have used many times.
 
The sanctions regime will crumble if the US walks away from the deal, leaving ONLY a military response that will be internationally condemned, drive Iranians TOWARDS the theocratic regime, further destabilize the Middle East, and will ultimately be less effective than the deal proposed.

Congrats on being consistently terrible problem solvers, opponents of the deal.
 
President Rouhani is the former lead nuclear negotiator for Iran. During that time he developed and proposed a strategy to the Supreme Leader which proposed that Iran engage in regular, continual, ever-extended negotiations in order to keep political will for a strike from building in the West while Iran continues development.

Now he's President. And Iran is engaging in regular, continual, seemingly ever-extended negotiations, which are keeping political will for a strike from building in the West.... :thinking

OK so in your view the threat of the hammer is forcing Iran to the table to never ending negotiations. However everyone knows Obama has no intention on using the hammer or even the threat of it.
 
What kind of "hostility"? You mean not being completely transparent in the past?


From making IED's to supporting terrorism, to lying about inspections, to calling for the deaths of other nations. I posted a bunch of links in another post.


Way to minimize it tho, bro. :lol:


In your opinion of course.. Iran could demolish every single nuclear site and let the international community view it and you probably still wouldnt be content.


if it was completely open without strings, I'd feel much better about it. not shure y u said tat.



Sure you have. you even rationalize Irans past as you did in the above response.


:lamo "nuclear power stuff"

right, please provide correct terminology and vocabulary that is acceptable in this conversation, I'll make sure not to make light of it in the future.


Every country has the right to "nuclear power stuff" for peaceful means. Stating that they have the right to peaceful "nuclear power stuff" does not mean I support the regime. Its the basic reality.


Sure it does, by your posts, your hostile, religious, regime to move forward with this, you are supporting them. simple as that.

I mean it's a good thing they don't have an anti-gay marriage pizza shop or something. :lol:


No I do. Let me play it out for you.
I am in favor of 1.)diplomatic negotiations over Irans nuclear energy sector. 2.)I am in favor of this deal/framework. 3.)I am in favor of Iran not getting a nuclear bomb. 4.)I do not suppor the Iranian governments political system, human rights record, etc. You think this means I support a theocratic regime like Iran. Now how did you reach that conclusion? You stated because I uphold the right for the Iranian state to use "nuclear stuff", and then you made a blind accusation that I support the Iranian government, so therefore I support the Iranian regime. That is a textbook defintion of a strawman, one you have used many times.


incorrect. your positions are what show you as supporting the Iranian religious fascist regime. Your minimization of thier past hostility. your unwavering faith in inspectors ignoring irans hostility in the past to them.

your support for letting Iran persue nuclear power, even as the country oppresses it's people and calls for the death of other nations, is indeed support for fascism, as by lifting sanctions, and letting them get nuclear energy, they now have the means to continue thier government and oppression in a much more prosperous way.

You sir, by supporting this "deal", are indeed supporting fascism..
 
OK so in your view the threat of the hammer is forcing Iran to the table to never ending negotiations.

:shrug: it worked for Bush. Then he handed the process over to the Europeans instead and Iran laughed and started development right back up.

However everyone knows Obama has no intention on using the hammer or even the threat of it.

True. With this guy at the helm there isn't a good solution. Our best bet is to make that clear, let Israel take care of it as best they can, and then weather the administrations' hyperbolic snit-fit afterwards.
 
From making IED's to supporting terrorism, to lying about inspections, to calling for the deaths of other nations. I posted a bunch of links in another post.


Way to minimize it tho, bro. :lol:
What does that have to do with international inspectors? This is about a nuclear program.. Try to stay on topic.


if it was completely open without strings, I'd feel much better about it. not shure y u said tat.
"Without strings"? And yet you have a problem with the international community have full access to their program?

Sure you have. you even rationalize Irans past as you did in the above response.
"Rationalize Irans past"? Or was it just stating what happened...

right, please provide correct terminology and vocabulary that is acceptable in this conversation, I'll make sure not to make light of it in the future.
Nuclear program. Nuclear energy.


Sure it does, by your posts, your hostile, religious, regime to move forward with this, you are supporting them. simple as that.
:doh

I mean it's a good thing they don't have an anti-gay marriage pizza shop or something. :lol:
No, they just hang people for being gay.
incorrect. your positions are what show you as supporting the Iranian religious fascist regime.
No its not.

Your minimization of thier past hostility.
I "minimized their past hostility"? How so? All I have stated is these negotiations are about a nuclear program, not their state sponsoring of terrorism.

your unwavering faith in inspectors ignoring irans hostility in the past to them.
Your example of "past hostility" to them was not even an example about international inspectors...

your support for letting Iran persue nuclear power,
As they have a right to do so as long as its peaceful.

even as the country oppresses it's people and calls for the death of other nations,
Thats right. Even countries we dont agree with get to have that same right.

is indeed support for fascism,
Nope its not.

as by lifting sanctions,
Some of them that are related to their nuclear program.

and letting them get nuclear energy,
They already have nuclear energy bud..

they now have the means to continue thier government and oppression in a much more prosperous way.
They can continue to oppress their people even without nuclear energy, and have done so.

You sir, by supporting this "deal", are indeed supporting fascism..
No. I'm supporting diplomatic relations and a peaceful resolution to a international issue.
 
What does that have to do with international inspectors? This is about a nuclear program.. Try to stay on topic.



"Without strings"? And yet you have a problem with the international community have full access to their program?


"Rationalize Irans past"? Or was it just stating what happened...


Nuclear program. Nuclear energy.



:doh


No, they just hang people for being gay.

No its not.


I "minimized their past hostility"? How so? All I have stated is these negotiations are about a nuclear program, not their state sponsoring of terrorism.


Your example of "past hostility" to them was not even an example about international inspectors...


As they have a right to do so as long as its peaceful.


Thats right. Even countries we dont agree with get to have that same right.


Nope its not.


Some of them that are related to their nuclear program.


They already have nuclear energy bud..


They can continue to oppress their people even without nuclear energy, and have done so.


No. I'm supporting diplomatic relations and a peaceful resolution to a international issue.





You quote parsing is annoying.


You make exuses for Iran, minimize thier terrorist past, and are supporting measures that will help this fascist theocratic regime keep it's oppressive power.

Bottom line.
 
Could care less. Im responding to your points/accusations


No I dont.


No I dont.


No I dont. They already have nuclear power. Better for it to be monitored than it not.



Nope



*shrug* Praise Allah, just hope they don't open up an anti-gay pizza shop in tehran or something, then you'd really be conflicted.


My position is we shouldn't reward tyrannicall oppressive fascist regimes that are hostile, and warlike to it's neigbors, and to us. you are on the other end of the argument. Giving into fascists will bring a world of peace.... /sarcasm.
 
Back
Top Bottom