• 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!

Do you agree with the nuclear deal with Iran?

Do you agree with the nuclear deal with Iran?


  • Total voters
    33
How is it wrong to state the obvious? Why else would we be hearing about this from a trial lawyer with no foreign policy credentials? My stepmother is Jewish by the way.

Wow, just...wow.

You've combined "just telling it like it is" with the equivalent of "I have a black friend."
 
Wow, just...wow.

You've combined "just telling it like it is" with the equivalent of "I have a black friend."

And you didn't answer my question either. Why is he suddenly a expert on treaties and foreign policy?
 
And you didn't answer my question either. Why is he suddenly a expert on treaties and foreign policy?

So first a person of Jewish ethnicity disagrees with the treaty because he's Jewish (seriously, that's no better than people who say that black people voted for Obama because they're black), and now you're inexplicably lumping me in with Dershowitz's opinion, even though I think the treaty was probably a positive step forward.

I think you need to take a time out.
 
And you didn't answer my question either. Why is he suddenly a expert on treaties and foreign policy?

I'll answer the question then: It doesn't. It doesn't make him any more a expert on treaties than Clinton was when it came to the middle east peace accord, or Reagan with the START treaties. This is why Presidents have cabinet positions; to fill with people who know these things and can represent his interests.
 

After reading your citation I remain sceptical.... It seems a 6 month agreement to agree to continue discussing an agreement should certain stipulations be fulfilled. Stipulations that will take longer than 6 months to develop a verifiable inspection system.

For me, This situation is very 'iffy' at best and may be a stalling tactic or a diversionary attempt to forestall an attack from S.A. and Isr.

I hope for the best; it seems unlikely to occur.

Thom Paine
 
After reading your citation I remain sceptical.... It seems a 6 month agreement to agree to continue discussing an agreement should certain stipulations be fulfilled. Stipulations that will take longer than 6 months to develop a verifiable inspection system.

For me, This situation is very 'iffy' at best and may be a stalling tactic or a diversionary attempt to forestall an attack from S.A. and Isr.

I hope for the best; it seems unlikely to occur.

Thom Paine

I don't have a problem with a six month trial period. It's long enough to figure out the kinks in the agreement, and short enough so that we're not stuck with a crappy one. If we have reason to believe that Iran is holding up their end of the bargain and if Iran decides it likes the economic incentives as a result of it, then we'll almost certainly extend the life of the agreement.
 
Does that really matter?
IOW ... isn't it more important to read how Iran chooses to interpret the thing?

Of course it is but we only have press releases from the WH. My scepticism reigns supreme in this matter. The administration's foreign policy expertise leaves me wanting.

Thom Paine
 
After reading your citation I remain sceptical.... It seems a 6 month agreement to agree to continue discussing an agreement should certain stipulations be fulfilled. Stipulations that will take longer than 6 months to develop a verifiable inspection system.

For me, This situation is very 'iffy' at best and may be a stalling tactic or a diversionary attempt to forestall an attack from S.A. and Isr.

I hope for the best; it seems unlikely to occur.

Thom Paine

You seem to think that Iran would be swayed to stop their nuclear program because of an attack by Israel. If it was that easy Israel would have done it years ago.
 
I don't have a problem with a six month trial period. It's long enough to figure out the kinks in the agreement, and short enough so that we're not stuck with a crappy one. If we have reason to believe that Iran is holding up their end of the bargain and if Iran decides it likes the economic incentives as a result of it, then we'll almost certainly extend the life of the agreement.

I sincerely hope you are correct and I am wrong.... (sigh...) time will tell.

Thom Paine
 
After reading your citation I remain sceptical.... It seems a 6 month agreement to agree to continue discussing an agreement should certain stipulations be fulfilled. Stipulations that will take longer than 6 months to develop a verifiable inspection system.

For me, This situation is very 'iffy' at best and may be a stalling tactic or a diversionary attempt to forestall an attack from S.A. and Isr.

I hope for the best; it seems unlikely to occur.

Thom Paine

I don't have a problem with a six month trial period. It's long enough to figure out the kinks in the agreement, and short enough so that we're not stuck with a crappy one. If we have reason to believe that Iran is holding up their end of the bargain and if Iran decides it likes the economic incentives as a result of it, then we'll almost certainly extend the life of the agreement.

I was discussing this with a friend and what I told him, when he expressed similar skepticism, is to look at the alternative. That is, if the plan falls through in six months, we are left with only two options when it comes to dealing with Iran: accept that they are going to have a nuclear program or launch a military attack and try to wipe them out. Given the alternative, I'd rather give peace a chance.
 
Of course it is but we only have press releases from the WH. My scepticism reigns supreme in this matter. The administration's foreign policy expertise leaves me wanting.

Thom Paine

We could be on the verge of a giant screw-job because Obama needs to regain stature and Iran is more than willing to be paid to blow 6 months of smoke over their nuke development.
Not a good mix.
 
I sincerely hope you are correct and I am wrong.... (sigh...) time will tell.

Thom Paine

What's there for me to be incorrect about? My position is that the points of the agreement appear positive on the face of it and that in six months we'll see how it works out. Now if you want to argue that the points are not, in fact, good, then that's one thing, but I don't think you can really argue that in six months time we'll find out.
 
You seem to think that Iran would be swayed to stop their nuclear program because of an attack by Israel. If it was that easy Israel would have done it years ago.

I think Iran may be concerned with Saudi Arabia and Israel modifying the Irani landscape by turning certain areas into glass paved parking lots for a Wal-Mart expansion program.

Thom Paine
 
I was discussing this with a friend and what I told him, when he expressed similar skepticism, is to look at the alternative. That is, if the plan falls through in six months, we are left with only two options when it comes to dealing with Iran: accept that they are going to have a nuclear program or launch a military attack and try to wipe them out. Given the alternative, I'd rather give peace a chance.

While I wouldn't exactly call Iran a burgeoning flower of democracy and progressivism, they have not expressed any desire I've found for war, but have instead acted consistently in the interests of self preservation. They cannot be considered irrational in the same way that the leadership of North Korea is. Point is, they don't war, let alone to be blown to kingdom come, any more than the next country.
 
The WHITE HOUSE fact sheet? LOL!

If you have an alternate source for what is contained in the agreement that you believe is more credible, let's have it.
 
What's there for me to be incorrect about? My position is that the points of the agreement appear positive on the face of it and that in six months we'll see how it works out. Now if you want to argue that the points are not, in fact, good, then that's one thing, but I don't think you can really argue that in six months time we'll find out.

There is no disagreement here. You believe it positive as do I. I am sceptical about what it will truly accomplish in the 6 month duration of the agreement. If we do not see continued and increased benefit in 6 months we may be only postponing inevitable confrontation of some type. I have not trusted the Iranis since the 1970s.

As I said before "I hope for the best" But I. don't expect good results
 
If you have an alternate source for what is contained in the agreement that you believe is more credible, let's have it.

Not as yet, but you shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket.
 
While I wouldn't exactly call Iran a burgeoning flower of democracy and progressivism, they have not expressed any desire I've found for war, but have instead acted consistently in the interests of self preservation. They cannot be considered irrational in the same way that the leadership of North Korea is. Point is, they don't war, let alone to be blown to kingdom come, any more than the next country.

Prior to the new administration in Iran, I would of had issue with that statement. For now though, the new prime minister seems open to more rational alternatives than his predecessors.
 
I'd rather put it as, "take a chance on peace." The framework of this deal is honestly the only chance there is for a peaceful resolution to the Iran Nuclear issue. Will know in six months if it's for real or not, until then I say it's a win for Obama,

Obama caved to the Iranians......You can't trust them.............This will come back to bite him in the ass mark my word. Peace thru strength not weakness.
 
We have stabbed Israel our best ally in the back with this deal........Don't you lefties who are swooning all over this deal know
that Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map. Wake up and smell the roses.
 
Out of curiosity, have you read what's in the deal?

No I haven't but judging from I have read and heard it throws Israel under the bus...That does not surprise me as I believe Obama like most Arabs hates Israel and the Jews.
 
Back
Top Bottom