Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

I'm all for diplomacy instead of war but what's the point of making a deal with a state sponsor of terror? We just basically said don't build a bomb and we're going to leave you alone and throw some cash at you.


I haven't read the details did we at least get our prisoners back?

Quote:I'm all for diplomacy instead of war but what's the point of making a deal with a state sponsor of terror? We just basically said don't build a bomb and we're going to leave you alone and throw some cash at you.


I haven't read the details did we at least get our prisoners back?

You didn't read the details of it but know how to summarize it?

 

I'm sure it's a little more complicated than just saying "pretty please don't build bombs mister". I will wait for the full story before making a judgement on it rather than praising or denouncing it based on the parties involved.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/14/politics/i...lear-deal/

 

This line scares me:

 

"The U.S. estimates that the new measures take Iran from being able to assemble its first bomb within 2-3 months, to at least one year from now."

 

I like the principle behind the deal. Anything that loosens the US/Israel tie a little bit while normalizing things with other Middle Eastern countries is, imo, a much needed boost for foreign policy, but a deal that looks to be pretty loose, allows Iran to stockpile 300kg of uranium and merely pushes back Iran's nuclear weapons capability by nine months is worrisome. Did we give up too much to get the deal done?

 

300kg of uranium-235 is enough to make about 300 Hiroshima bombs, btw. I don't know if U-235 is what they'll be stockpiling or not, nor do I profess to be an expert on nuclear weapons, but that little tidbit concerns me. I'm not saying that Iran would (or could) make 300 Hiroshima bombs, but the input of an expert who can say exactly what kind of nuclear weapons capability 300kg of uranium would give Iran would be very welcome right now.

Quote: 

 

The nearly 100-page accord announced Tuesday aims to keep Iran from producing enough material for an atomic weapon for at least 10 years and imposes new provisions for inspections of Iranian facilities, including military sites.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mid...story.html

And I'll lay you a dollar to a donut they're violating it already. We didn't even get our people back that's ini their jail.

Quote:I'm all for diplomacy instead of war but what's the point of making a deal with a state sponsor of terror? We just basically said don't build a bomb and we're going to leave you alone and throw some cash at you.


I haven't read the details did we at least get our prisoners back?

 

There is no such thing as diplomacy when it comes to avowed enemies.

 

To answer your question, no the issue of our citizens being held in their prisons was not even addressed.  One of them is in prison simply for being a Christian.  Noodle that for a bit.

 

 

Quote:http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/14/politics/i...lear-deal/

 

This line scares me:

 

"The U.S. estimates that the new measures take Iran from being able to assemble its first bomb within 2-3 months, to at least one year from now."

 

I like the principle behind the deal. Anything that loosens the US/Israel tie a little bit while normalizing things with other Middle Eastern countries is, imo, a much needed boost for foreign policy, but a deal that looks to be pretty loose, allows Iran to stockpile 300kg of uranium and merely pushes back Iran's nuclear weapons capability by nine months is worrisome. Did we give up too much to get the deal done?

 

300kg of uranium-235 is enough to make about 300 Hiroshima bombs, btw. I don't know if U-235 is what they'll be stockpiling or not, nor do I profess to be an expert on nuclear weapons, but that little tidbit concerns me. I'm not saying that Iran would (or could) make 300 Hiroshima bombs, but the input of an expert who can say exactly what kind of nuclear weapons capability 300kg of uranium would give Iran would be very welcome right now.

 

Can you explain why regarding the part in bold?

 

Make no mistake, this deal on the surface appears to be a very bad thing.

Quote:There is no such thing as diplomacy when it comes to avowed enemies.

 

To answer your question, no the issue of our citizens being held in their prisons was not even addressed.  One of them is in prison simply for being a Christian.  Noodle that for a bit.

 

 

 

Can you explain why regarding the part in bold?

 

Make no mistake, this deal on the surface appears to be a very bad thing.

 

Why is it a bad deal - on the surface. What does that mean? It's either good or bad.

 

It's a nuclear deal, not a deal about other aspects regarding Iranian or American foreign policy. Of course, Republicans and Democrats had their statements ready before the deal was signed, so I don't expect too much enlightenment from the politicians.

 

If someone was expecting an Iranian capitulation they'll see it as a bad deal. I'll read up on it and expect it to be the result of real negotiations - i.e., some give and take, some good and bad.

Quote:Can you explain why regarding the part in bold?

Probably not on this board. Certain things are so intertwined with that situation that you can't discuss one without discussing the other.

Quote:Why is it a bad deal - on the surface. What does that mean? It's either good or bad.

 

It's a nuclear deal, not a deal about other aspects regarding Iranian or American foreign policy. Of course, Republicans and Democrats had their statements ready before the deal was signed, so I don't expect too much enlightenment from the politicians.

 

If someone was expecting an Iranian capitulation they'll see it as a bad deal. I'll read up on it and expect it to be the result of real negotiations - i.e., some give and take, some good and bad.

 

O.K. I'll rephrase my position, it's a bad deal.  The only reason I used the phrase "on the surface" is because I haven't actually read what the whole deal is yet.

 

One key thing regarding this, lifting the sanctions against Iran means that they will receive billions of dollars that were previously frozen assets, along with the ability to sell more oil on the market.  Where does this money go?  Straight to terrorist groups bent on "erasing Israel" and imposing sharia law.  It also goes towards purchasing more technology and ability to produce not only nuclear weapons, but also long range weapons including ICBM's.  Tell me, why would a country like Iran need or want the ability to develop ICBM's?

 

Another thing to think about.  What is Iran's track record regarding obeying provisions of any deal like this?  Does anyone really think that they will allow UN inspectors to monitor what they are doing?  I seem to recall a certain dictator that promised the same thing and ended up not doing so in recent history.  I wonder how that turned out?

Quote:Probably not on this board. Certain things are so intertwined with that situation that you can't discuss one without discussing the other.

 

If you can't post your thoughts publicly, you can PM me.  I'm certainly interested in your perspective.

 

One other thought, think about what I just wrote above.

Quote:O.K. I'll rephrase my position, it's a bad deal.  The only reason I used the phrase "on the surface" is because I haven't actually read what the whole deal is yet.

 

One key thing regarding this, lifting the sanctions against Iran means that they will receive billions of dollars that were previously frozen assets, along with the ability to sell more oil on the market.  Where does this money go?  Straight to terrorist groups bent on "erasing Israel" and imposing sharia law.  It also goes towards purchasing more technology and ability to produce not only nuclear weapons, but also long range weapons including ICBM's.  Tell me, why would a country like Iran need or want the ability to develop ICBM's?

 

Another thing to think about.  What is Iran's track record regarding obeying provisions of any deal like this?  Does anyone really think that they will allow UN inspectors to monitor what they are doing?  I seem to recall a certain dictator that promised the same thing and ended up not doing so in recent history.  I wonder how that turned out?

 

And if the Congress manages to reject the deal, which is unlikely, what would be your prediction for what happens then?   Does Iran go ahead and develop nuclear weapons unconstrained by ongoing negotiations?   And does Israel then attack them, and ask us to come in and help them?   And does the Middle East choose up sides and all of them go to war?   Do you think that, absent this agreement, we are capable of keeping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon if it wants one? 

 

What happens if Congress manages to override the President and reject the deal?    

And where have we heard this [BAD WORD REMOVED] before?

 

Oh yeah...

 

A few Words from President Clinton:

 

"This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world. It reduces the danger of the threat of nuclear spreading in the region. It's a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community.

Today, after 16 months of intense and difficult negotiations with North Korea, we have completed an agreement that will make the United States, the Korean Peninsula, and the world safer. Under the agreement, North Korea has agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and to accept international inspection of all existing facilities.

This agreement represents the first step on the road to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. It does not rely on trust. Compliance will be certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The United States and North Korea have also agreed to ease trade restrictions and to move toward establishing liaison offices in each other's capitals. These offices will ease North Korea's isolation. "

 

Same [BAD WORD REMOVED] party, same [BAD WORD REMOVED] results.

 

Quote:And if the Congress manages to reject the deal, which is unlikely, what would be your prediction for what happens then?   Does Iran go ahead and develop nuclear weapons unconstrained by ongoing negotiations?   And does Israel then attack them, and ask us to come in and help them?   And does the Middle East choose up sides and all of them go to war?   Do you think that, absent this agreement, we are capable of keeping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon if it wants one? 

 

What happens if Congress manages to override the President and reject the deal?    

 

Very good questions, and I'll attempt to address each one.

 

The first, regarding Congress, I can see a very partisan battle going on, especially since we are getting into campaign season.  The key factor will be the Senate being able to garner a 2/3 majority to override a veto by The President.  As far as that goes, The President "fired the first shot" stating that he would veto anything against this deal (so much for "compromise" or "reaching across the aisle").

 

I expect a bill, or a multitude of bills to pass through The House and The Senate.  The bills will pass Congress mostly along party lines, and I expect them to get vetoed.  The key to any bill getting through will ultimately depend on having enough votes to override a veto from The President.  I don't see that happening, especially when "campaign season" is getting cranked up.  So Congress won't "object" to the deal in a meaningful way.

 

Iran is going to continue it's development of nuclear weapons, and they have been given more funds to do so.  If anyone thinks that they will follow this "deal" honorably, then they have no idea about how this regime (the Iranians) works.

 

I can't speak or speculate on what Israel will do, but I will say that if they see an increasing threat, they will in fact put a stop to the threat by any means necessary including military force.  If Israel does choose to use military force to stop the threat to them, in my mind we should "have their back".  The current administration will not do so, and what would happen is further chaos in the Middle East.  This scenario is a very real scenario that the incoming administration is going to have to address.

 

If Israel does choose to use military power against Iran, it will be a "scramble" to get any of the countries in the region to form any meaningful alliance, especially since the narrative and projection of our current administration has been very "passive".  Keep in mind, in the area we are viewed as being "weak".

 

If this agreement never happened, then yes, I do believe that we could prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.  Withholding cash to them via sanctions works (somewhat) and assurance that we would back Israel is another huge deterrent.  The other thing that many people don't think about or consider is our ability to "silently disrupt the program" (stuxntet).

 

Finally, if Congress did manage to override the President, it would be a good thing.  If that happens, then Iran doesn't get yet another "win" in the Middle East.  We used to be "feared" and now we are viewed as "weak".

Quote:And where have we heard this [BAD WORD REMOVED] before?

 

Oh yeah...

 

A few Words from President Clinton:

 

"This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world. It reduces the danger of the threat of nuclear spreading in the region. It's a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community.

Today, after 16 months of intense and difficult negotiations with North Korea, we have completed an agreement that will make the United States, the Korean Peninsula, and the world safer. Under the agreement, North Korea has agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and to accept international inspection of all existing facilities.

This agreement represents the first step on the road to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. It does not rely on trust. Compliance will be certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The United States and North Korea have also agreed to ease trade restrictions and to move toward establishing liaison offices in each other's capitals. These offices will ease North Korea's isolation. "

 

Same [BAD WORD REMOVED] party, same [BAD WORD REMOVED] results.

 

I suspect that you will only hear crickets with your response.

I have always thought that Hillary was the worst ever Secretary of State.  I do believe that John Kerry has "bettered" himself regarding that recognition.

John "I was in Vietman" Kerry never retracted the things he said about America (in Senate hearings back in the early 70's). He's an America Hater just like the current POTUS.

Quote:John "I was in Vietman" Kerry never retracted the things he said about America (in Senate hearings back in the early 70's). He's an America Hater just like the current POTUS.

On what grounds are you claiming that President Obama hates America?

Quote:On what grounds are you claiming that President Obama hates America?

On the grounds of running under the democratic party banner. It's as simple as that with his type. 

Quote:On what grounds are you claiming that President Obama hates America?

 

 

Him and Bill Ayers are practically joined at the Hip. If you don't know who Bill Ayers is, he was with The Weather Underground, an anti american terrorist group

Quote:Him and Bill Ayers are practically joined at the Hip. If you don't know who Bill Ayers is, he was with The Weather Underground, an anti american terrorist group

"Joined at the hip" lol

 

They had business interactions before Obama was a Presidential candidate and Ayers made a $200 contribution to an Obama Senate campaign. They happened to attend the same wedding last year. Otherwise, they've been so "joined at the hip" lately that Ayers has publicly stated that Obama is a terrorist who should be tried for war crimes because of his use of drones to attack foreign targets.

 

Yeah, totally "joined at the hip" to an anti-American terrorist. Keep trying, Drifter.