Obama General Discussion, vol. 5

[Mrs. Garrison]

TRUMP! was saying something the other day to the extent that if someone were to attack Iran, in accordance with this deal, the United States would have to defend them. I don't even know if this is true or not...

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

Only 21% of Americans support the Iran deal. It seems very lopsided to me.

Well, the anti-deal propaganda has been strong before anyone even knew any details of the deal. Truly, it seems that many Republicans seem opposed to any diplomacy with Iran. And I would wager that most of the Americans opposed to the deal know very little about the actual specifics of it.

We get very little out of it.

Says who?

http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.672241

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...059_story.html

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

Only 21% of Americans support the Iran deal. It seems very lopsided to me. We get very little out of it. The rhetoric from Iran has not changed because of it. If things go south in the future the Democrats will own the consequences.

Pew: Iran deal now supported by … just 21% of Americans « Hot Air

Like the Republicans own all the consequences of arming Saddam and Iran?

What do you know about the deal?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison

TRUMP! was saying something the other day to the extent that if someone were to attack Iran, in accordance with this deal, the United States would have to defend them. I don't even know if this is true or not...

In July Secretary Kerry testified that the United States might have a role in protecting Iran's nuclear program from cyber attacks, but not physical attacks.

When pressed on the possibility of a cyber attack on Iran from a country like Israel, Kerry didn't give a direct answer. Remember Stuxnet?

[Oregoropa]

Originally Posted by BVS

Like the Republicans own all the consequences of arming Saddam and Iran?

What do you know about the deal?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

What do you know about the deal?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

What do you know about the deal?

I haven't called it lopsided or made any claims of its benefits yet.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Oregoropa]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Well, the anti-deal propaganda has been strong before anyone even knew any details of the deal. Truly, it seems that many Republicans seem opposed to any diplomacy with Iran. And I would wager that most of the Americans opposed to the deal know very little about the actual specifics of it.
Says who?

I respect your intelligence and the links you provided good context to the deal as it is written. I don't want to get into a link battle, but there are just as many credible articles that take the opposing viewpoint. Thus my claim of a lopsided deal. And these aren't articles from say conservative circles such as Nat'l Review, Weekly Standard, or Breitbart.

Is it wrong to negotiate? Absolutely not, trying to defuse the nuclear stand-off with Iran has been an on-going issue over several administrations.

In 2009 Iran walked away from a deal in Geneva that would have given them civilian fuel enriched outside of the country for peaceful energy purposes. Since then they have tirelessly played a cat and mouse game with the IAEA getting moving production to secret-military locations. One can only conclude from these actions and proclaimed aspirations that they do want the bomb and have already become experts at concealment from inspectors. Under the new plan a side-deal with the IAEA would allow Iran's own nuclear experts to carry out their own inspections. This seems like a step-backwards if we seek more stringency in the inspection game.

It's not just Republicans who are opposed. Take Democratic Senator Robert Menendez who summed his opposition with the following quote.

"Of course if the Iranians violate the agreement and try to make a dash for a nuclear bomb, our solace will be that we will have a year's notice instead of the present three months. So in reality we have purchased a very expensive alarm system. Maybe we’ll have an additional nine months, but with much greater consequences in the enemy we might face at that time."

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

I respect your intelligence and the links you provided good context to the deal as it is written. I don't want to get into a link battle, but there are just as many credible articles that take the opposing viewpoint. Thus my claim of a lopsided deal. And these aren't articles from say conservative circles such as Nat'l Review, Weekly Standard, or Breitbart.



Is it wrong to negotiate? Absolutely not, trying to defuse the nuclear stand-off with Iran has been an on-going issue over several administrations.



In 2009 Iran walked away from a deal in Geneva that would have given them civilian fuel enriched outside of the country for peaceful energy purposes. Since then they have tirelessly played a cat and mouse game with the IAEA getting moving production to secret-military locations. One can only conclude from these actions and proclaimed aspirations that they do want the bomb and have already become experts at concealment from inspectors. Under the new plan a side-deal with the IAEA would allow Iran's own nuclear experts to carry out their own inspections. This seems like a step-backwards if we seek more stringency in the inspection game.



It's not just Republicans who are opposed. Take Democratic Senator Robert Menendez who summed his opposition with the following quote.



"Of course if the Iranians violate the agreement and try to make a dash for a nuclear bomb, our solace will be that we will have a year's notice instead of the present three months. So in reality we have purchased a very expensive alarm system. Maybe we’ll have an additional nine months, but with much greater consequences in the enemy we might face at that time."

I haven't seen many credible articles as you state.

So what part of Menendez' summary makes sense to you? So we make a deal where we have a built in "alarm", but what do you see as an alternative? War? Wouldn't you want an alarm than no warning?!


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[bobsaget77]

My first question about the Iran nuke deal is whether there are any penalties imposed on Iran if they break the rules?
Basically Iran gets a slap on the wrist and moves on if they violate the contract and if it's only a small-mid size violation, nothing will happen at all. Moreover, they get a maximum of 24 days to delay an inspection. A lot of cover up can happen in 24 days, this gives the leverage to Iran.
Furthermore, the U.S. is agreeing to helping Iran progress as a nation, yet they are unwilling to progress in their treatment of people. Women still won't have rights, gays and Christians will still get executed, and they will continue to hate us and Israel. Yet, we're committed to help assist in developing their energy, finance, technology, and trade. That will only make Iran stronger 15 years from now. They chant "death to America", yet America is supporting them. Makes no sense whatsoever. If you want to continue to weaken stability in the Middle East, then this deal would be great.
So in the short run, it may temporarily ease the threat of nuclear war, but Iran isn't going to suddenly start loving America more 15 years from now and they'll be even stronger because of us.
How exactly does America benefit from this?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Well, the anti-deal propaganda has been strong before anyone even knew any details of the deal. Truly, it seems that many Republicans seem opposed to any diplomacy with Iran. And I would wager that most of the Americans opposed to the deal know very little about the actual specifics of it.

Wager accepted

Unfortunately all academic at this point.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by bobsaget77

My first question about the Iran nuke deal is whether there are any penalties imposed on Iran if they break the rules?
Basically Iran gets a slap on the wrist and moves on if they violate the contract and if it's only a small-mid size violation, nothing will happen at all. Moreover, they get a maximum of 24 days to delay an inspection. A lot of cover up can happen in 24 days, this gives the leverage to Iran.
Furthermore, the U.S. is agreeing to helping Iran progress as a nation, yet they are unwilling to progress in their treatment of people. Women still won't have rights, gays and Christians will still get executed, and they will continue to hate us and Israel. Yet, we're committed to help assist in developing their energy, finance, technology, and trade. That will only make Iran stronger 15 years from now. They chant "death to America", yet America is supporting them. Makes no sense whatsoever. If you want to continue to weaken stability in the Middle East, then this deal would be great.
So in the short run, it may temporarily ease the threat of nuclear war, but Iran isn't going to suddenly start loving America more 15 years from now and they'll be even stronger because of us.
How exactly does America benefit from this?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Do you believe that with development and accessibility to technology will come education which will help ease these human rights violation(which btw could be taken care of by other vehicles). The idea that deals like this are suppose to cure all ills is naive at best.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

Wager accepted



Unfortunately all academic at this point.

That may be true. My point about the poll is not that anyone opposed to the deal is uninformed, but that these kinds of polls don't really reflect the truth or merit of the matter as much as they show the efficacy of the narratives being pushed from both sides.

[corianderstem]

I'm only posting this because it made me laugh very hard.

[PhilsFan]

I would wager that the majority of conservatives want nothing less than war with Iran.

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

I would wager that the majority of conservatives want nothing less than war with Iran.

False choice.

[Caleb8844]

I have yet to hear a single, fully-fleshed out option other than those two, especially from those swearing it's a false dichotomy.

[deep]

How about Persian Spring, backed by CIA and our only true ally in the region that has intelligence agents in country?
Put in a 'friendly leader and government' and in a few years we can put some military bases in to keep peace in that region of the world.

[Oregoropa]

Didn't Obama fail to back the Green Revolution during the 2009 Iranian election uprising?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[deep]

there was a shot? and opening for regime change

[Mrs. Garrison]

Good speech just now by the President.