d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > The Iran Nuclear Deal
Prev11314151617Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 75,902
Joined: Dec 16 2011
Gold: 113,036.23
Sep 2 2015 12:36pm
Quote (Pollster @ Sep 2 2015 10:41am)
Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski just became the 34th Senate Democrat to voice support for the deal, which now means Obama's reached veto-proof support assuming everyone votes as they've indicated so far. Now the only thing left to watch is whether or not the Republicans will even be able to get a measure of disapproval to his desk.

On another interesting note, apparently even Ron Paul came out in support of this deal back in July: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/248414-ron-paul-supports-iran-deal



another great victory for Obama and peace






Member
Posts: 34,649
Joined: Jul 2 2007
Gold: 273.37
Sep 2 2015 12:40pm
It's too late to renegotiate, we're stuck with this as the result.

History will judge Obama on this, if it fails to achieve its aim (as is likely) he'll just be another Jimmy Carter.
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Sep 2 2015 01:54pm
Quote (bogie160 @ Sep 2 2015 12:40pm)
It's too late to renegotiate, we're stuck with this as the result.

History will judge Obama on this, if it fails to achieve its aim (as is likely) he'll just be another Jimmy Carter.


Considering it's being praised by everybody from the Israeli intelligence agencies to nuclear physicists to just about every ally we have, I'd say we're fine. You really can't get a better deal than "we get to inspect every centrifuge you have, every facility that could be used to build new centrifuges, and every facility that could even possibly be used to build a facility that could build centrifuges".

As far as Israel goes, Carter negotiated peace between Israel and Egypt. I'd say that was a pretty amazing pro-Israel result of his presidency.

Quote (Pollster @ Sep 2 2015 08:41am)
Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski just became the 34th Senate Democrat to voice support for the deal, which now means Obama's reached veto-proof support assuming everyone votes as they've indicated so far. Now the only thing left to watch is whether or not the Republicans will even be able to get a measure of disapproval to his desk.

On another interesting note, apparently even Ron Paul came out in support of this deal back in July: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/248414-ron-paul-supports-iran-deal


That's because Ron Paul is honest. Anybody who is being honest knows this was an unprecidented success and probably the best deal imaginable. The only ones against it are talking heads like Netanyahu who rely on fear to get reelected and the drones that eat every word they say.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Sep 2 2015 01:56pm
Member
Posts: 10,566
Joined: May 31 2013
Gold: 0.76
Sep 2 2015 02:07pm
thanks Obama



:banana:
Member
Posts: 38,317
Joined: Jul 12 2006
Gold: 20.31
Sep 10 2015 05:21pm
Well this one is effectively over. The Democrats effectively kept a measure of disapproval from even getting out of the Senate, which is something no one thought would happen even just a few weeks ago.

Things look even more disorganized for the Republicans in the House. After a complete revolt from the fringe portion of the caucus they settled on a strategy to break the disapproval vote into three separate votes. They're essentially arguing with their second vote that because information they made up in their head wasn't provided to them the 60-day window for oversight never actually began, so they're free to blow past the September 17th deadline to act without acting and without being seen as having not acted. They're just setting themselves up for another frivolous lawsuit. They know they've lost the vote and now they're just trying everything they can to push the consequences of it out and keep it off their record.
Member
Posts: 363
Joined: Nov 9 2012
Gold: 0.00
Sep 12 2015 05:15am
Iran has the right to defend itself. If everyone had nuclear weapons the world would be a much better place.
Member
Posts: 34,649
Joined: Jul 2 2007
Gold: 273.37
Sep 13 2015 01:19am
Quote (Thor123422 @ Sep 2 2015 02:54pm)
Considering it's being praised by everybody from the Israeli intelligence agencies to nuclear physicists to just about every ally we have, I'd say we're fine. You really can't get a better deal than "we get to inspect every centrifuge you have, every facility that could be used to build new centrifuges, and every facility that could even possibly be used to build a facility that could build centrifuges".


Inspections will be on Iranian terms, with significant room to avoid or delay inconvenient requests. All they need to do is obfuscate and delay for a decade. Once sanctions collapse there will be limited political will to reinstate them.

At this point it's a fait accompli that Iran will eventually acquire nuclear weapons. At that time Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other Arab states will seek nuclear proliferation.
Member
Posts: 38,317
Joined: Jul 12 2006
Gold: 20.31
Sep 13 2015 01:49am
Quote (bogie160 @ Sep 13 2015 12:19am)
Inspections will be on Iranian terms, with significant room to avoid or delay inconvenient requests. All they need to do is obfuscate and delay for a decade. Once sanctions collapse there will be limited political will to reinstate them.

At this point it's a fait accompli that Iran will eventually acquire nuclear weapons. At that time Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other Arab states will seek nuclear proliferation.


Bold: Yeah no, that's just fundamentally not true. That nonsense was immediately debunked back when AP blew that story. Not only is it fully the IAEA's show but Iran's already agreed to IAEA authority and access to inspect sites merely if there's any suspicion of activity. The idea that Iran is setting those terms is laughable, and it suggests you're still unaware of the basic framework of the agreement.

Your speculation on what would happen in the event of a violation is bizarre. The P5+1 is under no illusions to how the deal is being viewed, in spite of the fact that we gave up remarkably little and gained massive concessions from Iran. If Iran went back on the agreement it would immediately line up the opposition, and make a few of those members take the threat Iran poses far more seriously than they did previously. This would be particularly beneficial to the U.S., because then we wouldn't have to bear the total brunt in a response the way we assuredly would have had this deal never happened. Not only would the appetite for sanctions go way up but so would other potential punishments.
Member
Posts: 34,649
Joined: Jul 2 2007
Gold: 273.37
Sep 13 2015 01:23pm
Quote (Pollster @ Sep 13 2015 02:49am)
Bold: Yeah no, that's just fundamentally not true. That nonsense was immediately debunked back when AP blew that story. Not only is it fully the IAEA's show but Iran's already agreed to IAEA authority and access to inspect sites merely if there's any suspicion of activity. The idea that Iran is setting those terms is laughable, and it suggests you're still unaware of the basic framework of the agreement.

Your speculation on what would happen in the event of a violation is bizarre. The P5+1 is under no illusions to how the deal is being viewed, in spite of the fact that we gave up remarkably little and gained massive concessions from Iran. If Iran went back on the agreement it would immediately line up the opposition, and make a few of those members take the threat Iran poses far more seriously than they did previously. This would be particularly beneficial to the U.S., because then we wouldn't have to bear the total brunt in a response the way we assuredly would have had this deal never happened. Not only would the appetite for sanctions go way up but so would other potential punishments.


I have read the agreement.

Access to sites is contingent on notification and delay. If necessary, requests for inspections will go before a panel before Iran is required to comply.

There are no assurances that Iran will allow unfettered access to key military sites, and they almost certainly will not.

Iran only needs to delay for a short period before their nuclear technology is sufficiently far along to make a race for the bomb. No country with nuclear weapons will be attacked, Iran has made this a fait accompli.
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Sep 13 2015 01:27pm
Quote (bogie160 @ Sep 13 2015 01:23pm)
I have read the agreement.

Access to sites is contingent on notification and delay. If necessary, requests for inspections will go before a panel before Iran is required to comply.

There are no assurances that Iran will allow unfettered access to key military sites, and they almost certainly will not.

Iran only needs to delay for a short period before their nuclear technology is sufficiently far along to make a race for the bomb. No country with nuclear weapons will be attacked, Iran has made this a fait accompli.


They are years from a nuke even if they are racing for it. Mossad even admits this. They can only delay for 24 days and if they are delaying too much we will start reinstating sanctions.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev11314151617Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll