• 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

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,114
Reaction score
33,457
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Iran has fired 23 ballistic missiles since start of 2015 nuclear deal, explosive report shows | Fox News

WASHINGTON – Iran has aggressively pursued its ballistic missile program since agreeing to the 2015 nuclear deal, regularly launching nuclear-capable missiles in what critics consider a violation of the spirit of the deal, according to a report obtained by Fox News.




The report shows Iran has fired some 23 missiles since signing the deal, including as many as 16 of which were nuclear-capable. The controversial deal reached with the Obama administration did not include a ban on missiles, and Iran and European signatories to the agreement stress international inspectors have certified Iran in compliance.
Click to expand...

Oooops. :3oops: Guess we left something important out of the "agreement".
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Everything Iran did not want was left out of the agreement - the rest they felt that they could either work around or live with for 10 years.
Click to expand...

That's why Trump is 100% correct about this deal. But I'm not surprised since Obama and Kerry were playing Amateur Hour at the Iran meeting table. These two clowns, and their namby-pamby Euro cohorts, never had a foreign policy success.
 
zyzygy said:
How many ballistic missiles has the USA launched since 2015? I have no axe to grind here, I am just curious.
Click to expand...

Did The United States agree to not fire any?
 
American said:
Iran has fired 23 ballistic missiles since start of 2015 nuclear deal, explosive report shows | Fox News



Oooops. :3oops: Guess we left something important out of the "agreement".
Click to expand...

surprised you are just now finding out that it was a nuclear arms development agreement which was signed


it does not impose restrictions on ballistic missiles, small arms, chemical weapons, bio weapons, drones, weather balloons, or candy
why would one expect a nuclear arms agreement to also address ballistic missiles or anything other than nuclear arms
 
justabubba said:
surprised you are just now finding out that it was a nuclear arms development agreement which was signed


it does not impose restrictions on ballistic missiles, small arms, chemical weapons, bio weapons, drones, weather balloons, or candy
why would one expect a nuclear arms agreement to also address ballistic missiles or anything other than nuclear arms
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

I can understand why we would like to restrict testing missiles, but it seems a little ridiculous to force a country to refuse the testing and creation of any ballistic missile as ballistic missiles are a part of a lot of country's arsenals.
 
American said:
That's why Trump is 100% correct about this deal. But I'm not surprised since Obama and Kerry were playing Amateur Hour at the Iran meeting table. These two clowns, and their namby-pamby Euro cohorts, never had a foreign policy success.
Click to expand...

But they secured diplomatic agreements. How can that be worse than thermonuclear war or doing nothing which they will assert were the only other options? ;)
 
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, you initiated a thread to tell us that iran is doing the same thing our nation is doing - testing ballistic missiles
and you know the nuclear arms agreement did not impose a limitation on that
yet you find this news worthy
 
ttwtt78640 said:
But they secured diplomatic agreements. How can that be worse than thermonuclear war or doing nothing which they will assert were the only other options? ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah sure, war was imminent. :roll:
 
justabubba said:
so, you initiated a thread to tell us that iran is doing the same thing our nation is doing - testing ballistic missiles
and you know the nuclear arms agreement did not impose a limitation on that
yet you find this news worthy
Click to expand...

It seems to be a fuss about nothing.
 
justabubba said:
so, you initiated a thread to tell us that iran is doing the same thing our nation is doing - testing ballistic missiles
and you know the nuclear arms agreement did not impose a limitation on that
yet you find this news worthy
Click to expand...

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.
 
justabubba said:
so, you initiated a thread to tell us that iran is doing the same thing our nation is doing - testing ballistic missiles
and you know the nuclear arms agreement did not impose a limitation on that
yet you find this news worthy
Click to expand...

I believe American views any type of standing military in Iran or work by Iran towards its national defense as evidence that the Obama administration and Iran nuclear deal is inadequate, and that the only adequate deal would have been one where the Iranian military is dissolved.
 
American said:
Iran has fired 23 ballistic missiles since start of 2015 nuclear deal, explosive report shows | Fox News



Oooops. :3oops: Guess we left something important out of the "agreement".
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

You make it seem like that the purpose of a ballistic missile is to strictly deploy a nuclear warhead...but ballistic missile development and testing is widespread.
 
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...

I don't hate Israel.
 
American said:
That's why Trump is 100% correct about this deal. But I'm not surprised since Obama and Kerry were playing Amateur Hour at the Iran meeting table. These two clowns, and their namby-pamby Euro cohorts, never had a foreign policy success.
Click to expand...

Maybe Trump will tweet mean things at Iran, like a big adult would.

:lamo




Your comment is too hackish to bother with, beyond having to point out (yet again) that no President stopped Iran or NK from getting nukes because stopping them would require a huge war we do not have the political will for and which, frankly, is pointless. They aren't going to launch a first strike with nukes because they know we would obliterate them.

Nevermind that as Justabubba pointed out, you did not appear to know what the deal was actually about when you started the thread.
 
American said:
That's why Trump is 100% correct about this deal. But I'm not surprised since Obama and Kerry were playing Amateur Hour at the Iran meeting table. These two clowns, and their namby-pamby Euro cohorts, never had a foreign policy success.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
I believe American views any type of standing military in Iran or work by Iran towards its national defense as evidence that the Obama administration and Iran nuclear deal is inadequate, and that the only adequate deal would have been one where the Iranian military is dissolved.
Click to expand...

Yep, it has been decided by many that the best defense is having a good offense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom