If you like your atomic bomb, you can keep it.
- Thread starter Mr. Deez
- Start date
Mr. Fiesta
1,000+ Posts
Mr. Fiesta
1,000+ Posts
Paso, you're arguing against someone (deez a.k.a uninformed) who for years kept talking out of both sides of his keyboard -- supported W's stupid Iraq war while at the same time stating "opposition" to it. It took me about 4 years of consistent 'hounding' for him to finally offer a tepid "yeah the iraq war was a mistake" statement.
Back then it was just one avatar, now there is the "Deez" sock-puppet to deflect the obvious illusion.
So my question to Deez/Uninformed:
Do you support starting a war with Iran?
Back then it was just one avatar, now there is the "Deez" sock-puppet to deflect the obvious illusion.
So my question to Deez/Uninformed:
Do you support starting a war with Iran?
pasotex
2,500+ Posts
And to make perfectly clear I am against Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon right up to and including the use of American military force if needed. I do, however, think that all economic and diplomatic efforts need to be exhausted. This agreement appears to be a step in the right direction although the key will be the follow up.
I also think Iran is further from an actual bomb than the Dick Cheney's of the world believe. They remain several years away from having a functional weapon. I base this on American and Israeli intelligence sources not the politicians.
Finally, I get that you guys hate Obama. Diplomacy and agreements are about getting what you can and avoiding bad consequences. Does anyone not wish we would have negotiated some more with Iraq? Iraq was a really bad outcome.
I also think Iran is further from an actual bomb than the Dick Cheney's of the world believe. They remain several years away from having a functional weapon. I base this on American and Israeli intelligence sources not the politicians.
Finally, I get that you guys hate Obama. Diplomacy and agreements are about getting what you can and avoiding bad consequences. Does anyone not wish we would have negotiated some more with Iraq? Iraq was a really bad outcome.
Mr. Fiesta
1,000+ Posts
Why is it the left always says "you think this so you must hate obama"? That could be true for some but it isn't true for all and it could be reversed as well. For example, the Dick Cheney's of the world? C'mon, even the current administration thinks Iran is close but no one really knows the actual truth. Look at all the intelligence regarding Iraq, EVERYONE believed the intelligence although I am convinced Iraq just exported their weapons over to Syria. But, back to the agreement and as they say, you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. It's my opinion that a better deal could've been made because all this agreement did was to give Iran 6 months to continue their nuclear research while being being able to generate revenue again. Also, my feelings about Obama has nothing to do with my opinion of this agreement. I think we are going the same route that we did with North Korea. You can tell by the way Tehran is talking that they are thinking a little differently than the US regarding this agreement.
Mich
I hope and really want to believe you are not as cluless as that post would indicate.
On the actual topic what exactly did the West get versus what iran got? I am not expert on nukes but I am pretty sure iran getting to keep the plutonium is a bigger deal than what they gave up.
edit to add this opinion piece link from huffpo.The Link
So, in essence, Iran is being rewarded for resisting Western economic and political concessions, clandestinely building up its nuclear program, and lying about the nature and scope of its nuclear program by getting to keep what it has, but agreeing not to add to it. In 2003, Iran had fewer than 200 centrifuges; today it has more than 19,000. They get to keep their ability to process uranium and plutonium, they get to keep Arak in place, and they get to keep most of their existing centrifuges. Now I see what all the celebrating is about!
"I find myself wondering why, after all this time, there seemed to be such urgency to arrive at a deal with Iran. And, in doing so, why did the West agree to something that merely stops further progress, rather than either ratcheting down the program or removing key components? Was the West so desperate to halt Iran's march to the finish line that it was happy to settle for something that, for the time being at least, stops Iran's program where it is? Were the parties to the agreement wanting to 'declare victory' and call it a day?"
Where is this writer wrong
I hope and really want to believe you are not as cluless as that post would indicate.
On the actual topic what exactly did the West get versus what iran got? I am not expert on nukes but I am pretty sure iran getting to keep the plutonium is a bigger deal than what they gave up.
edit to add this opinion piece link from huffpo.The Link
So, in essence, Iran is being rewarded for resisting Western economic and political concessions, clandestinely building up its nuclear program, and lying about the nature and scope of its nuclear program by getting to keep what it has, but agreeing not to add to it. In 2003, Iran had fewer than 200 centrifuges; today it has more than 19,000. They get to keep their ability to process uranium and plutonium, they get to keep Arak in place, and they get to keep most of their existing centrifuges. Now I see what all the celebrating is about!
"I find myself wondering why, after all this time, there seemed to be such urgency to arrive at a deal with Iran. And, in doing so, why did the West agree to something that merely stops further progress, rather than either ratcheting down the program or removing key components? Was the West so desperate to halt Iran's march to the finish line that it was happy to settle for something that, for the time being at least, stops Iran's program where it is? Were the parties to the agreement wanting to 'declare victory' and call it a day?"
Where is this writer wrong
Mr. Fiesta
1,000+ Posts
Mr. Fiesta
1,000+ Posts
Wow. First ole Rog and now you. Not much debating without throwing out ridiculous generalities?
I would say making a better deal regarding the removal of sanctions and their keeping nuclear capabilities. I don't think this was a very good deal for us and a damn good deal for them.
D
dillohorn
Guest
^^^ Yeah. We got something................the shaft.
Mr. Fiesta
1,000+ Posts
The minute you said Cheney I should've bailed cause I'm wasting my time here.....
Clean,
The problem is that under this deal or any deal, we're having to trust Iran to behave. That issue is going to be there no matter what, so there's no point in being critical of this deal more than any other deal. Suppose we had gotten Iran to agree to fully and completely destroy all of its enriched uranium. How would we know that they had actually done that and hadn't lied about it or lied about how much enriched uranium they had? I see where Krauthammer (who's somewhat of a discredited neocon) is coming from, but what he'd like to see doesn't really address the problem any more than what Obama has done.
The bottom line is that as a country, avoiding a major war is more important to us than keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons. We just aren't going to engage a major war to stop it. They know it, and we know it. We didn't do anything to stop North Korea when we had a Republican in the White House and a far less war-weary public, and we sure as hell aren't going to do it to Iran with a Democrat in the White House with a public worn out after a decade in Iraq and Afghanistan. So if they want to get a bomb, they're going to get it whether Obama gets the agreement he wants or Krauthammer gets the agreement he wants. It really just isn't that consequential. The end result is that if they ever use a bomb, we might come after them if they use it on someone we give a damn about. If they don't, we won't. And none of that is Obama's fault or reflects badly on him. That's just where the public is after Iraq and Afghanistan, and it wouldn't make any difference if we had a Republican in the White House.
The problem is that under this deal or any deal, we're having to trust Iran to behave. That issue is going to be there no matter what, so there's no point in being critical of this deal more than any other deal. Suppose we had gotten Iran to agree to fully and completely destroy all of its enriched uranium. How would we know that they had actually done that and hadn't lied about it or lied about how much enriched uranium they had? I see where Krauthammer (who's somewhat of a discredited neocon) is coming from, but what he'd like to see doesn't really address the problem any more than what Obama has done.
The bottom line is that as a country, avoiding a major war is more important to us than keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons. We just aren't going to engage a major war to stop it. They know it, and we know it. We didn't do anything to stop North Korea when we had a Republican in the White House and a far less war-weary public, and we sure as hell aren't going to do it to Iran with a Democrat in the White House with a public worn out after a decade in Iraq and Afghanistan. So if they want to get a bomb, they're going to get it whether Obama gets the agreement he wants or Krauthammer gets the agreement he wants. It really just isn't that consequential. The end result is that if they ever use a bomb, we might come after them if they use it on someone we give a damn about. If they don't, we won't. And none of that is Obama's fault or reflects badly on him. That's just where the public is after Iraq and Afghanistan, and it wouldn't make any difference if we had a Republican in the White House.
If what Krauthammer wrote is true
" Think about this: half a dozen times, the Security Council has passed resolutions which said Iran has to stop all enrichment otherwise there’ll be no change in the sanctions, no relief. Which means six times China and Russia – not exactly hardliners on Iran – have signed on to this. '
And Russia and china did sign on why did we need to do anything?
How are We, the West better off from where we were?
Iran was under UN sanctions for not cooperating with IAEA.
Why now that they have gotten the economic sanctions lifted would we think they will all of a sudden allow inspections?
what will we do when they refuse to cooperate now?
" Think about this: half a dozen times, the Security Council has passed resolutions which said Iran has to stop all enrichment otherwise there’ll be no change in the sanctions, no relief. Which means six times China and Russia – not exactly hardliners on Iran – have signed on to this. '
And Russia and china did sign on why did we need to do anything?
How are We, the West better off from where we were?
Iran was under UN sanctions for not cooperating with IAEA.
Why now that they have gotten the economic sanctions lifted would we think they will all of a sudden allow inspections?
what will we do when they refuse to cooperate now?
Anyway, it will be interesting to see if Iran actually plays ball on the deal. This is not the first time we have struck a bargain with a rogue nation only to see them flaunt the agreement when it became inconvenient. There is nothing really historic in a lot of these historic deals as they tend not to be durable or enforceable should a counter-party lose interest in the arrangement.
If Israel wants to be taken seriously at all on nuclear matters and be able to pound their own fists without looking ridiculous, they need to sign the NPT and then allow inspectors to see their nuclear facilities and come completely clean on their nuclear bomb arsenal.
D
dillohorn
Guest
The more that this administration throws Israel under the bus and tries to put more distance between the U.S. and Israel, the likelihood of Israel going it alone is a gimme.
H
Hu_Fan
Guest
perhaps we should ask WTF?
If this report from an Iranian news source is true then iran is making an even bigger fool of BO than we thought. Or as usual BO is making a fool of himself
from link
"The Iranian Foreign Ministry on Tuesday called invalid a press release by the White House alleged to be the text of the nuclear agreement struck by Iran and the Group 5+1 (the US, Russia, China, Britain and France plus Germany) in Geneva on Sunday.
What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action (the title of the Iran-powers deal), and this fact sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the name of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true,” Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham said on Tuesday.The Link
of course everything Iran says is suspect, for that matter so is what Bo says. Since we gave iran everything they wanted you'd think they would be slightly more polite toward us.
this link goes on to post the full text of the agreement. This full agreement was given to the media
We know this will be scrutinized and hashed over and compared to what is on the White house Web site.
It will be interesting to see what if any differences there are between the WH version and the full version.
Would it surprise anyone to learn the ' modified" version on the WH website might need a "Reset"?
If this report from an Iranian news source is true then iran is making an even bigger fool of BO than we thought. Or as usual BO is making a fool of himself
from link
"The Iranian Foreign Ministry on Tuesday called invalid a press release by the White House alleged to be the text of the nuclear agreement struck by Iran and the Group 5+1 (the US, Russia, China, Britain and France plus Germany) in Geneva on Sunday.
What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action (the title of the Iran-powers deal), and this fact sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the name of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true,” Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham said on Tuesday.The Link
of course everything Iran says is suspect, for that matter so is what Bo says. Since we gave iran everything they wanted you'd think they would be slightly more polite toward us.
this link goes on to post the full text of the agreement. This full agreement was given to the media
We know this will be scrutinized and hashed over and compared to what is on the White house Web site.
It will be interesting to see what if any differences there are between the WH version and the full version.
Would it surprise anyone to learn the ' modified" version on the WH website might need a "Reset"?
Mr. Fiesta
1,000+ Posts
The silence is deafening....
Mr fiesta
Wouldn't you think is what BO posted on his web site WAS the fact and not the what seems to be the official actual doc posted by the Iranian source then BO would defend his report and prove that Iran was lying,
BO's silence may be more deafening than lack of supporters defending him
of course BO was likely distracted by pardoning the turkey
Wouldn't you think is what BO posted on his web site WAS the fact and not the what seems to be the official actual doc posted by the Iranian source then BO would defend his report and prove that Iran was lying,
BO's silence may be more deafening than lack of supporters defending him
of course BO was likely distracted by pardoning the turkey
Mr. Fiesta
1,000+ Posts
It's hard to believe anything this administration has to say. They have a history of distorting the truth......
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
New Jaguar TV Commercial!?
- Started by WorsterMan
- Replies: 3
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
