Iran nuclear agreement
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2015-09-02 11:11 AM |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: Iran nuclear agreement So today it is announced that Obama has the Senate support needed to override the Rhinos, er uhm, Republican effort to block the treaty. Fox is screaming the deal will bring on Armageddon, while CNN doesn't seem to be reporting that is that bad; they really don't appear to be behind it 100 percent either. Obviously we aren't getting all the details and a lot of the detail we are getting is being blown out of proportion. Is the treaty as you understand it, a good or bad thing? Iran with nuclear power and tech doesn't scare me. Iran with a nuclear weapon does. Will this deal prevent them from developing a weapon and bring them into the fold with other developed nations with nuclear technology? |
|
2015-09-02 1:21 PM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Iran nuclear agreement From what I have seen of Iran since the hostage crisis in the late 70's, and on through the supply and support of terrorist organizations today, I wouldn't negotiate for an ice cream cone with those bastards. They should be treated just like N. Korea as far as I'm concerned. |
2015-09-02 3:20 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Deep in the Heart of Texas | Subject: RE: Iran nuclear agreement Originally posted by Left Brain From what I have seen of Iran since the hostage crisis in the late 70's, and on through the supply and support of terrorist organizations today, I wouldn't negotiate for an ice cream cone with those bastards. They should be treated just like N. Korea as far as I'm concerned. We can simply ignore most of what N. Korea does because they have no sphere of influence, no natural resources, and little capability to cause real havoc (outside of what they get from Iran). Unfortunately, we are in a much different situation with Iran. Curbing Iran's nuclear program is an important aim and is advanced by this deal. Stopping Iran's nuclear program altogether is a non-starter as far as negotiations. Reagan's "trust but verify" won't work and it may be that the best we are going to get, at least right now, is "distrust and verify, verify again, and again..." While I can't say that the best possible deal was negotiated, I do think the deal is better than what we currently have and much better than waging another war in the middle east. Nothing I have seen, heard, or read convinces me that the world is worse off with this deal than with no deal at all.
|
2015-09-02 3:29 PM in reply to: Hook'em |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Iran nuclear agreement Originally posted by Hook'em Originally posted by Left Brain From what I have seen of Iran since the hostage crisis in the late 70's, and on through the supply and support of terrorist organizations today, I wouldn't negotiate for an ice cream cone with those bastards. They should be treated just like N. Korea as far as I'm concerned. We can simply ignore most of what N. Korea does because they have no sphere of influence, no natural resources, and little capability to cause real havoc (outside of what they get from Iran). Unfortunately, we are in a much different situation with Iran. Curbing Iran's nuclear program is an important aim and is advanced by this deal. Stopping Iran's nuclear program altogether is a non-starter as far as negotiations. Reagan's "trust but verify" won't work and it may be that the best we are going to get, at least right now, is "distrust and verify, verify again, and again..." While I can't say that the best possible deal was negotiated, I do think the deal is better than what we currently have and much better than waging another war in the middle east. Nothing I have seen, heard, or read convinces me that the world is worse off with this deal than with no deal at all. We're going to war again in the Middle East, count on it. The sanctions were hurting Iran and I'm for doubling up on them. Iran is our enemy, and always will be. I'm for treating them as such. |
2015-09-03 11:06 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Iran nuclear agreement The sad part is that most Iranians are not hard line cave men like the people in charge. I think the general population just wants to take off the burhka and evolve with the rest of the world. At least that is what I get from the Iranians I know or have met and talked to in the past. Funny how so few can lead so many in a direction they don't approve of. But yeah, I see munitions dropping all over Iran in the near future. I don't think the Israelis can afford to sit back and let them develop the bomb with our blessings. Be interesting to see where that scenario would put the US after signing off on this treaty. |
2015-09-03 11:19 AM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Iran nuclear agreement Originally posted by mdg2003 The sad part is that most Iranians are not hard line cave men like the people in charge. I think the general population just wants to take off the burhka and evolve with the rest of the world. At least that is what I get from the Iranians I know or have met and talked to in the past. Funny how so few can lead so many in a direction they don't approve of. But yeah, I see munitions dropping all over Iran in the near future. I don't think the Israelis can afford to sit back and let them develop the bomb with our blessings. Be interesting to see where that scenario would put the US after signing off on this treaty. I have had the same experience.......but there is a reason they are here and not there. The Iranian Govt. is a regime that supports/participates in terrorism. We don't negotiate with terrorists......until now. |
|
2015-09-03 11:24 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Iran nuclear agreement why can't we all just love eachother |
2015-09-03 11:26 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Iran nuclear agreement Originally posted by dmiller5 why can't we all just love eachother In this case, it's because one of the parties keeps stating that it wants to destroy the other and one of it's greatest allies. That's hard to get around in a loving way. |
2015-09-03 11:57 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota | Subject: RE: Iran nuclear agreement Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by mdg2003 The sad part is that most Iranians are not hard line cave men like the people in charge. I think the general population just wants to take off the burhka and evolve with the rest of the world. At least that is what I get from the Iranians I know or have met and talked to in the past. Funny how so few can lead so many in a direction they don't approve of. But yeah, I see munitions dropping all over Iran in the near future. I don't think the Israelis can afford to sit back and let them develop the bomb with our blessings. Be interesting to see where that scenario would put the US after signing off on this treaty. I have had the same experience.......but there is a reason they are here and not there. The Iranian Govt. is a regime that supports/participates in terrorism. We don't negotiate with terrorists......until now. Not true, just an example of one of those blanket statements that people "believe" but never fact check. The US has a long history of negotiating with terrorists (ex. Taft negotiated with Filipino terrorists). 3 recent examples: 1979: Iran Hostage Crisis 1985: The Iran-Contra Affair 2002: The GW Bush administration pays a $300,000 ransom to Abu Sayyaf, an Islamist extremist group in the southern Philippines, to secure the return of two American missionaries. |
2015-09-03 12:08 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Iran nuclear agreement Originally posted by ejshowers Originally posted by Left Brain Not true, just an example of one of those blanket statements that people "believe" but never fact check. The US has a long history of negotiating with terrorists (ex. Taft negotiated with Filipino terrorists). 3 recent examples: 1979: Iran Hostage Crisis 1985: The Iran-Contra Affair 2002: The GW Bush administration pays a $300,000 ransom to Abu Sayyaf, an Islamist extremist group in the southern Philippines, to secure the return of two American missionaries. Originally posted by mdg2003 The sad part is that most Iranians are not hard line cave men like the people in charge. I think the general population just wants to take off the burhka and evolve with the rest of the world. At least that is what I get from the Iranians I know or have met and talked to in the past. Funny how so few can lead so many in a direction they don't approve of. But yeah, I see munitions dropping all over Iran in the near future. I don't think the Israelis can afford to sit back and let them develop the bomb with our blessings. Be interesting to see where that scenario would put the US after signing off on this treaty. I have had the same experience.......but there is a reason they are here and not there. The Iranian Govt. is a regime that supports/participates in terrorism. We don't negotiate with terrorists......until now. LOL - yeah, because I never knew those existed. /sarc Yes, there have been other instances of stupidity by American Leadership. The policy is still no negotiations with terrorists.....or I should say, it was.....up until President Obama decided to change it. Edited by Left Brain 2015-09-03 12:13 PM |
2015-09-03 2:23 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Iran nuclear agreement Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by ejshowers Originally posted by Left Brain Not true, just an example of one of those blanket statements that people "believe" but never fact check. The US has a long history of negotiating with terrorists (ex. Taft negotiated with Filipino terrorists). 3 recent examples: 1979: Iran Hostage Crisis 1985: The Iran-Contra Affair 2002: The GW Bush administration pays a $300,000 ransom to Abu Sayyaf, an Islamist extremist group in the southern Philippines, to secure the return of two American missionaries. Originally posted by mdg2003 The sad part is that most Iranians are not hard line cave men like the people in charge. I think the general population just wants to take off the burhka and evolve with the rest of the world. At least that is what I get from the Iranians I know or have met and talked to in the past. Funny how so few can lead so many in a direction they don't approve of. But yeah, I see munitions dropping all over Iran in the near future. I don't think the Israelis can afford to sit back and let them develop the bomb with our blessings. Be interesting to see where that scenario would put the US after signing off on this treaty. I have had the same experience.......but there is a reason they are here and not there. The Iranian Govt. is a regime that supports/participates in terrorism. We don't negotiate with terrorists......until now. LOL - yeah, because I never knew those existed. /sarc Yes, there have been other instances of stupidity by American Leadership. The policy is still no negotiations with terrorists.....or I should say, it was.....up until President Obama decided to change it. So why is this an American problem? I have gradually shifted away from the "Minority Report" methodology of punishing everyone in the world based on what we think they're going to do. Oh, and I have absolutely no idea whats in the treaty but I guarantee you it has us sending them many billions of dollars. |
|
2015-09-03 7:29 PM in reply to: 0 |
New user 900 , | Subject: RE: Iran nuclear agreement We never entered into negotiations with the intent on keeping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. The administrations position is this, "No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons." as was stated by the president at Cairo University June 4, 2009. So, anyone who thinks anything comes out of this agreement other than Iran getting a weapon is sadly mistaken. Its sickening to see the president and his party sell us out. Edited by NXS 2015-09-03 7:31 PM |
2015-09-03 7:46 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Iran nuclear agreement Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by ejshowers Originally posted by Left Brain Not true, just an example of one of those blanket statements that people "believe" but never fact check. The US has a long history of negotiating with terrorists (ex. Taft negotiated with Filipino terrorists). 3 recent examples: 1979: Iran Hostage Crisis 1985: The Iran-Contra Affair 2002: The GW Bush administration pays a $300,000 ransom to Abu Sayyaf, an Islamist extremist group in the southern Philippines, to secure the return of two American missionaries. Originally posted by mdg2003 The sad part is that most Iranians are not hard line cave men like the people in charge. I think the general population just wants to take off the burhka and evolve with the rest of the world. At least that is what I get from the Iranians I know or have met and talked to in the past. Funny how so few can lead so many in a direction they don't approve of. But yeah, I see munitions dropping all over Iran in the near future. I don't think the Israelis can afford to sit back and let them develop the bomb with our blessings. Be interesting to see where that scenario would put the US after signing off on this treaty. I have had the same experience.......but there is a reason they are here and not there. The Iranian Govt. is a regime that supports/participates in terrorism. We don't negotiate with terrorists......until now. LOL - yeah, because I never knew those existed. /sarc Yes, there have been other instances of stupidity by American Leadership. The policy is still no negotiations with terrorists.....or I should say, it was.....up until President Obama decided to change it. So why is this an American problem? I have gradually shifted away from the "Minority Report" methodology of punishing everyone in the world based on what we think they're going to do. Oh, and I have absolutely no idea whats in the treaty but I guarantee you it has us sending them many billions of dollars. I don't think I agree with that. Over the years, I have learned to believe Muslim extremist's words. They haven't bluffed yet. So when they say they want Israel wiped off the face of the Earth, or death to the Great Satan (that's our country), I take them at their word. I think a Muslim extremist regime will use a nuclear bomb.......you know, the whole overrated virgin thing.
|
2015-09-03 9:31 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Iran nuclear agreement I've never understood the virgin thing... I mean, a little experience can go a long way right... |
2015-09-04 7:40 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Iran nuclear agreement Originally posted by dmiller5 I've never understood the virgin thing... I mean, a little experience can go a long way right... Agree......now, if I was going to be guaranteed 100 women in their mid to late 30's I'd be in my basement trying to develop my own bomb. |
2015-09-04 8:08 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: Iran nuclear agreement America freeing up lots of billions of dollars for Iran so Iran can increase and support its sphere of influence and proxies (aka Assad) is only adding fuel to a absolute human disaster. So now Assad will have the unlimited finances he needs to exterminate his citizens while Assad's brutality is used as an ISIS recruiting tool. If you think negotiating with terrorist which have left 100,000 dead Syrian civilians, 4 million refugees, and one drowned little boy found by a Turkish policeman is working, you haven't seen anything yet. |
|
2015-09-04 8:49 AM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Iran nuclear agreement Originally posted by mdg2003 The sad part is that most Iranians are not hard line cave men like the people in charge. I think the general population just wants to take off the burhka and evolve with the rest of the world. Iranians aren't Arabs and don't wear burqas. That said, it's pretty amazing to look back at old photos of Teheran, Tripoli, Beirut, and Baghdad and see what they used to be before the hard-liners took over. They were cosmopolitan, if not diverse, cities that were comparable to Casablanca and Istanbul today. It's hard to imagine Tripoli and Teheran as destinations for western tourists, but they used to be. |
2015-09-04 9:09 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Iran nuclear agreement I think Jackemy1 has it right.......before this is over, we will be looking at a humanitarian crisis of absolutely epic proportions. |
2015-09-04 9:41 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
New user 900 , | Subject: RE: Iran nuclear agreement Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by mdg2003 The sad part is that most Iranians are not hard line cave men like the people in charge. I think the general population just wants to take off the burhka and evolve with the rest of the world. Iranians aren't Arabs and don't wear burqas. That said, it's pretty amazing to look back at old photos of Teheran, Tripoli, Beirut, and Baghdad and see what they used to be before the hard-liners took over. They were cosmopolitan, if not diverse, cities that were comparable to Casablanca and Istanbul today. It's hard to imagine Tripoli and Teheran as destinations for western tourists, but they used to be. So true, Beirut was absolutely beautiful and a popular beach resort destination on the Mediterranean . |
2015-09-04 11:42 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Iran nuclear agreement Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by mdg2003 The sad part is that most Iranians are not hard line cave men like the people in charge. I think the general population just wants to take off the burhka and evolve with the rest of the world. Iranians aren't Arabs and don't wear burqas. Right. I was using the burqa to illustrate the general consensus of the Iranian population as I understand it. As in the burqa representing the shackles of hard line Islam. |
2015-09-04 11:47 AM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Iran nuclear agreement Originally posted by mdg2003 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Right. I was using the burqa to illustrate the general consensus of the Iranian population as I understand it. As in the burqa representing the shackles of hard line Islam. Originally posted by mdg2003 The sad part is that most Iranians are not hard line cave men like the people in charge. I think the general population just wants to take off the burhka and evolve with the rest of the world. Iranians aren't Arabs and don't wear burqas.
|
|
2015-09-04 7:05 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Iran nuclear agreement Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by mdg2003 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Right. I was using the burqa to illustrate the general consensus of the Iranian population as I understand it. As in the burqa representing the shackles of hard line Islam. Originally posted by mdg2003 The sad part is that most Iranians are not hard line cave men like the people in charge. I think the general population just wants to take off the burhka and evolve with the rest of the world. Iranians aren't Arabs and don't wear burqas.
Dude......even when I know you and I are probably not going to agree on this you still managed to crack me up. And then it got worse.....I ended up looking at all kinds of youtube videos of Michael not really dead and in all kinds of "disguises". LMAO |
2015-09-05 2:14 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Expert 2180 Boise, Idaho | Subject: RE: Iran nuclear agreement Economic sanctions were only effecting the ones who want peace in their lifetime just as badly as we do. How about we stop interfering in other countries internal struggles (most of which we've played a hand in causing) and quit giving generation after generation after generation a reason to want us dead. Regime change will come. It always does. Frankly, I'm weary of the US playing world Peacekeeper. Read the headlines-what right do we have to play the moral card to anyone. If we (this is a GLOBAL agreement, remember-not just Obama) can disrupt, delay, stall, or otherwise pose some kind of hindrance to Iran getting a nuke, then we're in better shape than we were before. The question yet to be answered is.. Do we have the fortitude to ENFORCE the conditions laid out in the agreement? We are NOT the country our forefather envisioned. And sadly, haven't been for a long, LONG time. |
2015-09-05 7:56 PM in reply to: jeffnboise |
New user 900 , | Subject: RE: Iran nuclear agreement Originally posted by jeffnboise Economic sanctions were only effecting the ones who want peace in their lifetime just as badly as we do. How about we stop interfering in other countries internal struggles (most of which we've played a hand in causing) and quit giving generation after generation after generation a reason to want us dead. Regime change will come. It always does. Frankly, I'm weary of the US playing world Peacekeeper. Read the headlines-what right do we have to play the moral card to anyone. If we (this is a GLOBAL agreement, remember-not just Obama) can disrupt, delay, stall, or otherwise pose some kind of hindrance to Iran getting a nuke, then we're in better shape than we were before. The question yet to be answered is.. Do we have the fortitude to ENFORCE the conditions laid out in the agreement? We are NOT the country our forefather envisioned. And sadly, haven't been for a long, LONG time. Thanks for the reminder that this administration's foreign policy is leading from behind. |
2015-09-05 8:31 PM in reply to: 0 |
Expert 2180 Boise, Idaho | Subject: RE: Iran nuclear agreement Originally posted by NXS Originally posted by jeffnboise Thanks for the reminder that this administration's foreign policy is leading from behind. Economic sanctions were only effecting the ones who want peace in their lifetime just as badly as we do. How about we stop interfering in other countries internal struggles (most of which we've played a hand in causing) and quit giving generation after generation after generation a reason to want us dead. Regime change will come. It always does. Frankly, I'm weary of the US playing world Peacekeeper. Read the headlines-what right do we have to play the moral card to anyone. If we (this is a GLOBAL agreement, remember-not just Obama) can disrupt, delay, stall, or otherwise pose some kind of hindrance to Iran getting a nuke, then we're in better shape than we were before. The question yet to be answered is.. Do we have the fortitude to ENFORCE the conditions laid out in the agreement? We are NOT the country our forefather envisioned. And sadly, haven't been for a long, LONG time. EVERY administration for the last 50 years has led from BEHIND. Except Jimmy Carter. History has shown his Middle East policies were better than he get's credit for. Edited by jeffnboise 2015-09-05 8:36 PM |
|