Obama General Discussion, vol. 5 - Page 26 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-10-2015, 04:58 PM   #501
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Mrs. Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: pig farming in Bolivia
Posts: 7,325
Local Time: 06:36 PM
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...
__________________

Mrs. Garrison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2015, 05:00 PM   #502
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,585
Local Time: 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregoropa View Post
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.

Quote:
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
__________________

Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2015, 05:18 PM   #503
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 05:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregoropa View Post
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
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2015, 05:18 PM   #504
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,060
Local Time: 07:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison View Post
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?
Bluer White is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2015, 05:27 PM   #505
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Polish-American Stronghold PA
Posts: 4,144
Local Time: 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
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?
Oregoropa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2015, 05:30 PM   #506
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 05:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregoropa View Post
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
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2015, 06:31 PM   #507
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Polish-American Stronghold PA
Posts: 4,144
Local Time: 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
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."
Oregoropa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2015, 06:46 PM   #508
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 05:36 PM
Obama General Discussion, vol. 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregoropa View Post
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
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2015, 07:01 PM   #509
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: southwest USA
Posts: 3,302
Local Time: 11:36 PM
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
bobsaget77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2015, 07:17 PM   #510
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,060
Local Time: 07:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
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.
Bluer White is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2015, 07:18 PM   #511
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 05:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsaget77 View Post
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
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2015, 08:07 PM   #512
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,585
Local Time: 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
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.
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2015, 02:50 PM   #513
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 64,498
Local Time: 04:36 PM
I'm only posting this because it made me laugh very hard.

corianderstem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2015, 03:51 PM   #514
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 19,218
Local Time: 07:36 PM
I would wager that the majority of conservatives want nothing less than war with Iran.
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2015, 06:04 PM   #515
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,060
Local Time: 07:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
I would wager that the majority of conservatives want nothing less than war with Iran.
False choice.
Bluer White is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2015, 09:44 PM   #516
War Child
 
Caleb8844's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 662
Local Time: 06:36 PM
I have yet to hear a single, fully-fleshed out option other than those two, especially from those swearing it's a false dichotomy.
Caleb8844 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2015, 12:13 PM   #517
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 03:36 PM
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.
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2015, 12:57 PM   #518
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Polish-American Stronghold PA
Posts: 4,144
Local Time: 06:36 PM
Didn't Obama fail to back the Green Revolution during the 2009 Iranian election uprising?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Oregoropa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2015, 02:09 PM   #519
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 03:36 PM
there was a shot? and opening for regime change
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2015, 07:27 PM   #520
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Mrs. Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: pig farming in Bolivia
Posts: 7,325
Local Time: 06:36 PM
Good speech just now by the President.
__________________

Mrs. Garrison is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×