• 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!

Trump Withdraws U.S. From ‘One-Sided’ Iran Nuclear Deal

Perhaps, but I don't form my opinions based on who agrees with me. I would point out though, that quite a few people do agree with my assessment of that agreement, and many of them are in the Senate. That explains why the deal was never presented for ratification.

Besides, at one time nearly everyone agreed that the Earth was the center of the Solar system. Because they all agreed did not make the notion correct.

No, you just form them based on assumptions and a thorough lack of any verifiable information/intelligence. I don't take random internet posters' unsubstantiated guesses to be more credible than the international, regional, and national communities that exist to assess threats.

The current American administration would love few things more than to show the world that Iran is building a nuclear weapon. It simply isn't happening. But hey, we're each entitled to our "opinions", aren't we?
 
No, you just form them based on assumptions and a thorough lack of any verifiable information/intelligence. I don't take random internet posters' unsubstantiated guesses to be more credible than the international, regional, and national communities that exist to assess threats.

I doubt you've read or understood the agreement with Iran, or considered it's implications. If Iran wasn't (and isn't) working toward a nuclear weapon, then exactly what was the purpose of that agreement? Apparently, you don't know, but more than ample information has been made public that an intelligent and inquiring person could reach some reasonable conclusions, much like our Senate did.

The current American administration would love few things more than to show the world that Iran is building a nuclear weapon. It simply isn't happening. But hey, we're each entitled to our "opinions", aren't we?

It's rather Iran's refusal to offer complete transparency and disclosure that's not happening. We don't have to prove Iran is working on a nuclear weapon. It's up to Iran to prove that they aren't, which they steadfastly refuse to do. Iran was well aware that their agreement with the Obama administration was subject to a review by a following one.
 
I doubt you've read or understood the agreement with Iran, or considered it's implications. If Iran wasn't (and isn't) working toward a nuclear weapon, then exactly what was the purpose of that agreement? Apparently, you don't know, but more than ample information has been made public that an intelligent and inquiring person could reach some reasonable conclusions, much like our Senate did.



It's rather Iran's refusal to offer complete transparency and disclosure that's not happening. We don't have to prove Iran is working on a nuclear weapon. It's up to Iran to prove that they aren't, which they steadfastly refuse to do. Iran was well aware that their agreement with the Obama administration was subject to a review by a following one.

Your ****-eating tone suggests to me that you have some sort of personal stake in this conversation, which is both unknown and unimportant to me.

I don't know how much you know about this subject. I suggest you take the same rational approach when you discuss it with people you don't know. The purpose of the JCPOA is clear. Its results are what are under fire. Now, a super internet couninterintelligence expert named humbolt claims he knows what no one else in the world knows except some unnamed senators. I'm sure you'll forgive me when I inform you that I don't care.

Iran has never been obligated to provide what the far right in the US calls "complete transparency and disclosure", which we all know simply means espionage by consent. They're never going to give it nor should they. Let the world offer reasonable proof of suspicion to an impartial international body that can proceed with the sober minds that people like you and our president lack.
 
Iran has never been obligated to provide what the far right in the US calls "complete transparency and disclosure", which we all know simply means espionage by consent.

Which is exactly what US-USSR arms control agreements offered, which is why those agreements were credible and the Iran agreement was not.
 
Your ****-eating tone suggests to me that you have some sort of personal stake in this conversation, which is both unknown and unimportant to me.
You're the one assuming "airs" here. I'm responding in kind.

I don't know how much you know about this subject. I suggest you take the same rational approach when you discuss it with people you don't know. The purpose of the JCPOA is clear. Its results are what are under fire. Now, a super internet couninterintelligence expert named humbolt claims he knows what no one else in the world knows except some unnamed senators. I'm sure you'll forgive me when I inform you that I don't care.
What is the purpose of the JCPOA? What was the purpose of Stuxnet? Everything I've mentioned is part of the public record, so no expert counterintelligence effort is required in order to make a clear-eyed and rational assessment.

Iran has never been obligated to provide what the far right in the US calls "complete transparency and disclosure",

Nice try. Transparency must include the democrats who signaled the Obama administration they would not support a ratification vote for that reason, among others. Schumer's far right. :roll:
...which we all know simply means espionage by consent. They're never going to give it nor should they. Let the world offer reasonable proof of suspicion to an impartial international body that can proceed with the sober minds that people like you and our president lack.
So international inspectors would be conducting espionage? And you claim I have a ****-eating tone? You think Iran is trustworthy, and I don't. Leave it at that. See? I could've also said that I have a hell of a lot more evidence supporting the notion that we shouldn't trust Iran than you do that we should, but I didn't.
 
I recently pointed out to you that the Trump Justice department is taking a second look into how Hillary's email investigation was handled. Which part of that did you not understand?



It's absolutely relevant. His justice department ran a sham investigation that shielded Hillary rather then investigated her.



For someone who claims to not like Hillary, you seem to be going out of your way to defend her. Anyone with any objectivity at all has worked out that Hillary violated espionage laws by sending and receiving classified emails on a private unsecured server and illegally destroyed up to 30,000 emails during the so-called investigation to prevent discovery. You really need to start debating logically rather then emotionally.

The Trump Justice Department is also taking a look at how Trump, his family, and his associates acted during the 2016 election. Trump and his followers have a real problem with that.

If you and everyone else knows that Clinton committed crimes, why has she not been charged. You don't need a long investigation costing millions of dollars. We have already had numerous expensive investigations into Clinton. Numerous investigations into her emails. Charge her, or shut the hell up about it.

I'm not defending Clinton. I'm pointing out how pathetic it is that you and the other Trump devotees don't know you're being played by that fraud in the Oval Office, and the rest of the country doesn't want to get sucked into the sewer with you.
 
It us you and many like you that are being played. Hillary was investigated by the Republican controlled congress, however they had little more power then subpoenaing witnesses. Hillary was never truly investigated by the Clinton Justice Dept which had no intention of doing anything more then exonerating her. You cannot see that because you hate Trump more then you want to see justice for Hillary's crimes. In effect, you are attempting to exonerate her yourself by screeching about the Republicans not charging her. The Obama Justice dept should have.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom