• 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!

Khamenei outlines demands for Europe to preserve Iran nuclear deal

j-mac said:
What do you mean "resume"..... They never stopped...
Click to expand...

I'm so thankful that there are people on DP who have access to inside information that is not available to the intelligence agencies of the US, the UK, France, Germany, Israel, and China.

You are to be congratulated for having such marvellous information that even the US government isn't privy to.
 
I never believed that my very own country, would be the one that violated a World Treaty just to satisfy a president and his base in their quest to de-legitimize a prior US president and the legitimacy of the United Nations and our allies, as well.

But, then again, I never thought America would vote an idiot into the White House either!

And then again, we couldn't have done it without Russia's help!
 
Mycroft said:
I can see the EU going along with this nonsense, since they care more about making money than about stabilizing the Middle East.
Click to expand...

hehe...if they are making money, I'm sure they will feel the ME is stabilized enough. Since the money goes both ways, having good trade in place is a pretty good defense. Why bomb your best customers?
 
OlNate said:
hehe...if they are making money, I'm sure they will feel the ME is stabilized enough. Since the money goes both ways, having good trade in place is a pretty good defense. Why bomb your best customers?
Click to expand...

Oh, that just means Iran is stabilize. The rest of the ME? Not so much.
 
fishnthec said:
I never believed that my very own country, would be the one that violated a World Treaty just to satisfy a president and his base in their quest to de-legitimize a prior US president and the legitimacy of the United Nations and our allies, as well.

But, then again, I never thought America would vote an idiot into the White House either!

And then again, we couldn't have done it without Russia's help!
Click to expand...

What World Treaty?
 
Mycroft said:
Oh, that just means Iran is stabilize. The rest of the ME? Not so much.
Click to expand...

I think the goal of this agreement is to stabilize Iran. I don't this deal was ever meant to stabilize the rest, was it? Still much work to be done in places like Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.
 
OlNate said:
I think the goal of this agreement is to stabilize Iran. I don't this deal was ever meant to stabilize the rest, was it? Still much work to be done in places like Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.
Click to expand...

Obama disagrees with you.

Obama spent about a quarter of interview attempting to assure Netanyahu and Israelis in general that this deal makes their country and the region safer, particularly since it extends Iran’s breakout time for a nuclear bomb to a year.

https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/O...ybody-messes-with-you-US-will-be-there-396267
Click to expand...

In any case, the Iran deal actually enabled Iran...with time and money...to further destabilize the region.
 
Mycroft said:
Obama disagrees with you.



In any case, the Iran deal actually enabled Iran...with time and money...to further destabilize the region.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how bringing a rogue nation into dependence upon a global economy destabilizes anything. I would think the opposite to be true...

(PS: Thanks for clearing up my misconception on the deal's intended impact, I was legitimately asking, not putting it up as a rhetorical).
 
fishnthec said:
I never believed that my very own country, would be the one that violated a World Treaty just to satisfy a president and his base in their quest to de-legitimize a prior US president and the legitimacy of the United Nations and our allies, as well.
Click to expand...

First it isn't a "treaty".

Second it doesn't involve "the world".

Third it wasn't "violated".

Fourth, it wasn't the US that pulled the plug.

Fifth, the JCPOA had nothing to do with the UN.

Other than those minor points, you are quiet correct.

fishnthec said:
But, then again, I never thought America would vote an idiot into the White House either!
Click to expand...

Which, since it puts you into the same group as THESE PEOPLE puts you in pretty good company.

fishnthec said:
And then again, we couldn't have done it without Russia's help!
Click to expand...

Oh come on now Americans can do anything that they really put their minds to doing.
 
OlNate said:
I don't understand how bringing a rogue nation into dependence upon a global economy destabilizes anything. I would think the opposite to be true...

(PS: Thanks for clearing up my misconception on the deal's intended impact, I was legitimately asking, not putting it up as a rhetorical).
Click to expand...

Rewarding a rogue nation for destabilizing behavior by giving them access to the global economy...without demanding they stop their destabilizing behavior at the very best turns a blind eye to such behavior. At worst, it encourages such behavior.

This only results in further destabilization.
 
Mycroft said:
Rewarding a rogue nation for destabilizing behavior by giving them access to the global economy...without demanding they stop their destabilizing behavior at the very best turns a blind eye to such behavior. At worst, it encourages such behavior.

This only results in further destabilization.
Click to expand...

You know, if the US government would offer an agreement whereby it bound itself to cease interfering in the internal politics of other countries AND bound itself not to use its armed forces to topple the governments of other countries in return for an Iranian agreement whereby it bound itself to cease interfering in the internal politics of other countries AND bound itself not to use its armed forces to topple the governments of other countries I'd be willing to bet my lunch money that the Iranians would accept.

Now if the Iranian government would offer an agreement whereby it bound itself to cease interfering in the internal politics of other countries AND bound itself not to use its armed forces to topple the governments of other countries in return for an American agreement whereby it bound itself to cease interfering in the internal politics of other countries AND bound itself not to use its armed forces to topple the governments of other countries I'd be willing to bet the rent that the Americans would not accept.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
First it isn't a "treaty".

Second it doesn't involve "the world".

Third it wasn't "violated".

Fourth, it wasn't the US that pulled the plug.

Fifth, the JCPOA had nothing to do with the UN.

Other than those minor points, you are quiet correct.



Which, since it puts you into the same group as THESE PEOPLE puts you in pretty good company.



Oh come on now Americans can do anything that they really put their minds to doing.
Click to expand...

Thanks!

But, without the United Nations Security Council drafting the resolutions to the JCPOA, and thereby endorsing the PCPOA, it would have never come to be.

And Semantics gets caught up in the interpretation of the Constitution in many cases and issues.

The term Treaty, is interpreted by our Constitution by some as having to be approved by Congress.

But, many people do not agree on both sides of the aisle.

It was John McCain, that said, "This is a treaty- you can call it a banana- But, it is a treaty!

Thank you very much!
Do not take this as an argument, as I just wanted to re-iterate
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
You know, if the US government would offer an agreement whereby it bound itself to cease interfering in the internal politics of other countries AND bound itself not to use its armed forces to topple the governments of other countries in return for an Iranian agreement whereby it bound itself to cease interfering in the internal politics of other countries AND bound itself not to use its armed forces to topple the governments of other countries I'd be willing to bet my lunch money that the Iranians would accept.

Now if the Iranian government would offer an agreement whereby it bound itself to cease interfering in the internal politics of other countries AND bound itself not to use its armed forces to topple the governments of other countries in return for an American agreement whereby it bound itself to cease interfering in the internal politics of other countries AND bound itself not to use its armed forces to topple the governments of other countries I'd be willing to bet the rent that the Americans would not accept.
Click to expand...

Iran would never consider such an agreement.
 
Mycroft said:
Iran would never consider such an agreement.
Click to expand...

Knowing that the US government would flatly reject the offer, I wouldn't be so sure that the Iranians wouldn't consider making it.

After all, if I offer you $1,000,000 for something that you don't want to sell AND which has an assessed value of $100,000,000 does it really matter if I have the ability to pay the $1,000,000 or not?

Consider the PR value of making an offer which commits you to a course of action that "everyone" wants you to take when you know that it is going to be rejected thus leaving you free to continue on the course of action that "everyone" doesn't want you to take.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom