Reply With Quote
Sure we do, but the devil will be in the details over the coming months.
You always end up with the ad hominems.
Does that make you feel like you have balls?
Sure we do, but the devil will be in the details over the coming months.
I feel good for them
speak for yourself. There's plenty info out there.
CC, what in your opinion is a credible alternative here?
In 2003, Iran had 200 centrifuges. They now have 19000 despite sanctions. They are ready to handover two-thirds of this to the IAEA. They are also ready to reduce their stock of enriched uranium by 9700 kg. The core of their plutonium reactor will be removed, and spent fuel from this reactor will be handed over. These are upfront actions whose progress can be verified. Even if Iran reneges on other promises like not to enrich uranium beyond 3.7%, not building new facilities, converting Fordow into an R&D facility, allowing inspection across the supply chain etc, this deal still has 2 clear benefits:
1. Reduction of their current capability
2. Longer breakout period, that gives the world more time to respond to Iran's broken promises
Wouldn't you agree that this deal is better than the status quo, even if Iran doesn't follow through on later promises?
We just legitimized Iran having nukes. Congrats Obama: keeping the tradition of screwing up. Now go out and look the other way while Egypt, and Saudia Arabia start their nuclear future.
How were they illegitimate?
You've read the actual framework? Please share then.
Seriously? CD, I thought you were an adult by now...
I mean they have always had a nuclear program.
Israel has nukes, but we're OK with that because why?
Seriously?
What's your alternative? Status quo, which has resulted in Iran having multiple nuclear reactors and a massive inventory of centrifuges, will certainly result in them getting a nuke. Bombing them will trigger a war that will make Iraq and Afghanistan seem like a walk in the park.
Those are two different issues. They've had a program, but never the bomb. Are you ok with Iran having nukes? Are you really ok with the lives of entire groups of people in jeopardy because you don't want to be called unfair?
Give them a chance to dismantle and if not...Destroy their nuclear program. "walk in the park" idea would be if we went in to nation build. Just take out their facilities. We don't need to invade. We don't need to fix their government. Just destroy their facilities. It'll take them a decade before it comes up again.
Even if you think its a good idea to bomb their facilities (which I disagree with), why wouldn't you do it after they reduce their centrifuges / uranium stock / plutonium core? Shouldn't this make it easier to take out their nuclear assets in the future?
then why did you bring up utility bills rising?
I mean ffs, brokiller, you have two listed causes for your position in this thread.
1) You don't trust Obama as opposed to the Iranians.
2) Your gas bill might go up.
Making a point and then abandoning it completely at the first sign of rebuttal is rank intellectual cowardice.
1. You're assuming they'd do that. and 2. it takes away all of the sanctions-giving Iran( a country involved in multiple proxy wars) hundreds of billions. It's win-win.
We have done the isolation sanction thing for 35 years. It hasn't slowed them down in Israel, Yemen, Lebanon or anywhere else.
If they don't take the initial steps of turning over centrifuges and fissile material, there is a case for using force. Till then, put away the warmongering.
If funding proxy wars is a criterion, Saudi Arabia is much, much worse than Iran. Almost all Islamic terror is of Sunni origin, particularly based on the Wahabi-Salafi doctrine that is Saudi Arabia's biggest export after oil. Iran is Shia, and actually has taken some steps to combat ISIS. This is the reason Saudi Arabia is joining Israel in opposing this deal.
The American people have 2 options in terms of who to trust on this deal:
1. An international coalition comprising the US, the UK, France, Germany, Russia, China and most of the developed world backing them
2. A coalition of 3 parties:
- The Republican party which has a vested interest in not allowing a Democratic president to attain foreign policy success, not to mention the funding that the GOP gets from the US defense companies and oil firms.
- Netanyahua and Likud, who have been crying wolf about Iranian nukes for over 2 decades now
- the House of Said, which seeks to defeat Shia Islam
You all might hate Obama, but there is no way 2 is more credible than 1.
There is nothing in the agreement about Iran turning over fissile material to anyone.
There is nothing in the agreement about Iran turning any centrifuges over to the IAEA.
Fugin Pakistan has nukes. Seriously we may be making too much about access to nukes tbh
Maybe fissile material is the wrong term, but Iran is agreeing to turn over spent uranium fuel that could be used to produce plutonium
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debat...eal-back-home/
http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8336219/...-plain-english
Seriously.
You're OK with that why?
Straw man.
What do you want to do about it?
Who is in jeopardy?
ing around and talking tough didn't do anything to stop North Korea. They have a bomb. What are you going to do about that?
Are you trolling now? Have you read any news source apart from the Free Beacon?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...al-key-details
The embedded PDF ... First paragraph, second page
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
