• 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!

Iran has fired 23 ballistic missiles since start of 2015 nuclear deal, explosive report shows

American said:
Yeah sure, war was imminent. :roll:
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't.

What was imminent was the realization that despite decades of sanctions, Iran was only a very short period of time away from constructing and fielding nuclear weapons.

The JPoA was nothing more than the United States realizing that containment of Iranian influence and efforts had failed, and Iran's growing ties in the international community made isolating Tehran increasingly impossible.

Everyone knew the JPoA was a short term deal. It was never meant to be a long lasting solution. What it was supposed to do was lay the eventual ground work for resuming normal relations with Iran in the not-so-distant future; plans that have been put on hold ever since Trump took office.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
No, it wasn't.

What was imminent was the realization that despite decades of sanctions, Iran was only a very short period of time away from constructing and fielding nuclear weapons.

The JPoA was nothing more than the United States realizing that containment of Iranian influence and efforts had failed, and Iran's growing ties in the international community made isolating Tehran increasingly impossible.

Everyone knew the JPoA was a short term deal. It was never meant to be a long lasting solution. What it was supposed to do was lay the eventual ground work for resuming normal relations with Iran in the not-so-distant future; plans that have been put on hold ever since Trump took office.
Click to expand...

Obama's nuke deal didn't change that.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
No, it wasn't.

What was imminent was the realization that despite decades of sanctions, Iran was only a very short period of time away from constructing and fielding nuclear weapons.

The JPoA was nothing more than the United States realizing that containment of Iranian influence and efforts had failed, and Iran's growing ties in the international community made isolating Tehran increasingly impossible.

Everyone knew the JPoA was a short term deal. It was never meant to be a long lasting solution. What it was supposed to do was lay the eventual ground work for resuming normal relations with Iran in the not-so-distant future; plans that have been put on hold ever since Trump took office.
Click to expand...

A pipe dream.
 
MTAtech said:
Do you really think there would higher compliance for what the U.S. wanted if there was no deal at all?

The reality is that a "deal" requires both sides to agree to the terms. You seem to have the impression that the U.S. can simply dictate the terms. There is no missile ban in the nuclear agreement because finding a common ground on nuclear development, that both sides could agree was hard enough, without adding extra complexity.

If you think that our "deal-maker-in-chief" can do a better job than Obama and Kerry, let's see what he can do. So far, he's done nothing but shoot his mouth off -- something that he excels at.
Click to expand...

Did this go through the Senate?
 
American said:
To this and the original question. It's irrelevant if we fire them, we don't them firing them. I don't give a **** about Iran's rights or to establish some moral high ground about this. I want Iran to fail to develop nukes, period by any means.
Click to expand...

And Iran doesnt give a **** about what you want.
 
American said:
That was one of the chief complaints about it right after, and it has always been known. It's just that the subject has come up again.
Click to expand...

So we're also supposed to tell them that they aren't allowed to test any of their other armaments either now?
Lotsa luck getting ANY NATION to agree with that, any nation at all, EVER...for ANY reason.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
So?

I'm not sure if you noticed, but while Iran has sponsored and to some degree still does sponsor terrorism, Saudi Arabia was the source of most of the 9/11 hijackers...and is the home of the Wahabbi Sunni sect whose teachings ISIS took and cranked up to 11 on a 1-to-10 scale as they tried to impose their "Caliphate" in what's supposed to be Iraq and Syria...so you have to ask yourself who, really, cost America more in terms of blood and treasure. Here's a hint: it ain't Iran. The only reasons that we stay so friendly with Saudi Arabia are to keep their oil flowing, and to keep them purchasing our weapons systems (depending on whose word you take, Saudi Arabia spends either slightly less or significantly more on defense than freaking Russia).

If we were smart, we'd do like China - be friendly to both Saudi Arabia and Iran, sell to both, and when they go to war (as they eventually will since they hate each other FAR more than they hate either America or Israel - yes, they do), we sit on the sidelines with a bag of popcorn and wait to do business with the winner.

One last thing - neither one will attack Israel even with nukes since Israel has 200+ nukes of their own, and would certainly incur the wrath of America and much of the rest of the world. They won't attack each other with nukes because neither one dare threaten their holy site of Mecca...and they both know that whoever uses a nuclear weapon against anyone else will be immediately ostracized, its borders closed to all, its economy ruined, and its leaders declared war criminals...and that's if we ourselves don't go in guns a-blazing.

So relax - MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) works between smaller nations, too. The only real threat is terrorist attacks using nuclear weapons (whether as nuclear bombs or "dirty bombs") - and the degree to which Iran tests ballistic missiles has no bearing on their current inability (thanks to the agreement signed and supported by NATO, Russia, China, and America) to develop nuclear weapons. In fact, the only real reason y'all hate the agreement so much isn't because of how effective it is or isn't, but because it was that hated black guy in the White House who made it happen, who actually got NATO, Russia, and China to all support the agreement.
Click to expand...

THANK YOU, it's called MAD for a reason, and it spells out "containment" quite handily too.
And unlike the uncharted territory we're in now, with both Iran AND North Korea, it has managed to prevent all out nuclear war for...let's see...since WE last used a nuclear weapon.
Let me know when saber rattling and egging on a mad man can claim a seventy year record like that.
 
American said:
No, I initiated a thread to show what a lousy deal it was. I'm not surprised that haters of Israel arrive on the scene to provide cover for a brutal Muslim nation.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh, "brutal Muslim nation", now we can see where this is all coming from, the big lies of the US government on and after 911. US proprietary nanothermite in WTC dust tells us all we need to know about who performed the "attacks" on 9-11.

Iran has never illegally invaded any country nor murdered tens of millions like the USA has. Iran didn't plan and knowingly carry out a brutal genocide against the people of Iraq in the 1990s.
 
American said:
To this and the original question. It's irrelevant if we fire them, we don't them firing them. I don't give a **** about Iran's rights or to establish some moral high ground about this. I want Iran to fail to develop nukes, period by any means.
Click to expand...

Shall we premptively nuke them?

Attempt targetted airstrikes against their nuke facilities, and hope we get them all (and know where they all are?)

Shall we invade and occupy Iran?

The effective means are pretty limited. Are you sure you're up for whatever?

Do you have an actual proposal, or are you just banging the fear gong?
 
American said:
Iran has fired 23 ballistic missiles since start of 2015 nuclear deal, explosive report shows | Fox News
Click to expand...

Tubed field artillery are nuclear capable as well.

American said:
No, I initiated a thread to show what a lousy deal it was. I'm not surprised that haters of Israel arrive on the scene to provide cover for a brutal Muslim nation.
Click to expand...

Before it was a "brutal Muslim nation" it was a brutal dictatorship backed by the US.

Jredbaron96 said:
What was imminent was the realization that despite decades of sanctions, Iran was only a very short period of time away from constructing and fielding nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

What kind of nuclear weapons?

Iran has been "a very short period of time away from constructing and fielding nuclear weapons" for more than 30 years.
 
apdst said:
Obama's nuke deal didn't change that.
Click to expand...

Obama's nuke deal didn't end Iranian nuclear capabilities, of course not. It never would.

The JPoA was a stop gap measure which limited Iran's ability to quickly produce a nuclear weapon, not remove it entirely. It was based around the idea that in the event of hostilities between Iran and the US, US forces in the region would have close to a year rather than just a month to prepare for the possible employment of nuclear weapons by the Iranians.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Obama's nuke deal didn't end Iranian nuclear capabilities, of course not. It never would.

The JPoA was a stop gap measure which limited Iran's ability to quickly produce a nuclear weapon, not remove it entirely. It was based around the idea that in the event of hostilities between Iran and the US, US forces in the region would have close to a year rather than just a month to prepare for the possible employment of nuclear weapons by the Iranians.
Click to expand...

But, that's not how it was sold. Obama lied?
 
apdst said:
But, that's not how it was sold. Obama lied?
Click to expand...

You're going to believe that regardless of what I say, but I'll give it a shot.

Not really lying per se. Obama repeatedly implied this would be part of a continuous effort to alter the current relationship with Iran, something he most likely thought because he assumed that a Democrat would take officer after him.

Obviously that didn't happen. The problem now is that the deal was meant to be part of a warming of relations with Iran that will not happen under the Trump Administration.

Which is stupid, because we can't keep pretending Iran is still an isolated, ravaged third world country.
 
From the OP Article... "violation of the spirit of the deal"... okay... <crickets>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom