Iran Agrees to Nuke Deal

[Kylistan]

Look, it's great that a deal was negotiated, but we still don't know most of the details, and I believe that Obama's soft policy on Iran may lead to an agreement that allows Iran to remain dangerous. We will find out how good this deal really for peace is once we hear from Israel and Saudi Arabia.

How on earth is this allowing Iran to remain dangerous? The West has brokered a deal with Iran for the first time in decades. Their nuclear weapons ambitions are, by their own admission, on the negotiation table. Even if we don't get complete disarmament from this first deal, this is just the first step in a very long diplomatic process. It's a win-win for everyone involved.

Depending on what's in the deal it is a win-win for everyone. However, if we are giving Iran access to money that they will subsequently poor back into their nuclear program because the deal doesn't do enough to hinder the program, then Iran wins and we lose.

[Lies and Ignorance]

How on earth is this allowing Iran to remain dangerous? The West has brokered a deal with Iran for the first time in decades. Their nuclear weapons ambitions are, by their own admission, on the negotiation table. Even if we don't get complete disarmament from this first deal, this is just the first step in a very long diplomatic process. It's a win-win for everyone involved.

Depending on what's in the deal it is a win-win for everyone. However, if we are giving Iran access to money that they will subsequently poor back into their nuclear program because the deal doesn't do enough to hinder the program, then Iran wins and we lose.

Can you explain to me how not hindering Iran from accomplishing their goals and approaching them respectfully and diplomatically is a "loss"?

[Frisivisia]

Obama screws up once again, ensuring peace and prosperity across the world and he didn't even give them weapons. Reagan was so much better at this.

[Kylistan]

The problem is that unlike every other country, Iran will actually shoot the nuke.

I see no evidence of that.

They will so anything to "wipe Israel off the map" and I'm pretty sure anything includes shooting a nuclear weapon at them...

You keep using that "wipe off the map" quote. I don't recall any Iranian official ever making such a statement. If anything, it's been Israel that's been attacking Iran recently.

This was said by Mahmoud Ahmadinejed At "The World Without Zionism" conference in Tehran. Although he is no longer President, his ideas are in line with those of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

[Estado Paulista]

Obama screws up once again, ensuring peace and prosperity across the world and he didn't even give them weapons. Reagan was so much better at this.

[Frisivisia]

How on earth is this allowing Iran to remain dangerous? The West has brokered a deal with Iran for the first time in decades. Their nuclear weapons ambitions are, by their own admission, on the negotiation table. Even if we don't get complete disarmament from this first deal, this is just the first step in a very long diplomatic process. It's a win-win for everyone involved.

Depending on what's in the deal it is a win-win for everyone. However, if we are giving Iran access to money that they will subsequently poor back into their nuclear program because the deal doesn't do enough to hinder the program, then Iran wins and we lose.

I guess my naive assumption that aid has restrictions and our diplomats are not fucking stupid were incorrect.

[Gauthier]

Obama screws up once again, ensuring peace and prosperity across the world and he didn't even give them weapons. Reagan was so much better at this.

At least McCain would have bombed bombed bombed, bombed bombed Iran.

[Frisivisia]

I see no evidence of that.



You keep using that "wipe off the map" quote. I don't recall any Iranian official ever making such a statement. If anything, it's been Israel that's been attacking Iran recently.

This was said by Mahmoud Ahmadinejed At "The World Without Zionism" conference in Tehran. Although he is no longer President, his ideas are in line with those of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

You're joking, right? Right?

[Kylistan]

Depending on what's in the deal it is a win-win for everyone. However, if we are giving Iran access to money that they will subsequently poor back into their nuclear program because the deal doesn't do enough to hinder the program, then Iran wins and we lose.

Can you explain to me how not hindering Iran from accomplishing their goals and approaching them respectfully and diplomatically is a "loss"?

You must have misread my post. I said that if "the deal doesn't do enough to hinder the program, then Iran wins and we lose."

[Arumdaum]

I'm against the US treating smaller countries like children to be spanked when they aren't in line with US goals. I'm also confused how one can have a "soft stance" against Iran. It's not tobacco or porn. It's a country. You want to regulate/outlaw a country?

Anyhow, their possession of nukes is probably inconsequential, though it might finally put them on better footing with the country that currently has a nuke pointed at every country.

The problem is that unlike every other country, Iran will actually shoot the nuke. They will so anything to "wipe Israel off the map" and I'm pretty sure anything includes shooting a nuclear weapon at them...

lolno

What makes you think Iran would shoot a nuke? Furthermore, the whole wiping Israel off the map thing comes from a mistranslation of words from a very unpopular former president.

[Frisivisia]

Obama screws up once again, ensuring peace and prosperity across the world and he didn't even give them weapons. Reagan was so much better at this.

At least McCain would have bombed bombed bombed, bombed bombed Iran.

Bomb Iraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan, let's take a staaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand, you got me rockin' and a rollin', rockin' and a reelin' bomb Iran!

I'm too old for this shit.

[Lies and Ignorance]

Obama screws up once again, ensuring peace and prosperity across the world and he didn't even give them weapons. Reagan was so much better at this.

At least McCain would have bombed bombed bombed, bombed bombed Iran.

Why am I laughing?

Can you explain to me how not hindering Iran from accomplishing their goals and approaching them respectfully and diplomatically is a "loss"?

You must have misread my post. I said that if "the deal doesn't do enough to hinder the program, then Iran wins and we lose."

Yeah, I get it. I'm asking you, why do we have to do something to hinder the program? Why is it a loss otherwise? Are we really the passive-aggressive, vindictive nation of the world?

[Kylistan]

This was said by Mahmoud Ahmadinejed At "The World Without Zionism" conference in Tehran. Although he is no longer President, his ideas are in line with those of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

You're joking, right? Right?

Is there a problem?

[Frisivisia]

At least McCain would have bombed bombed bombed, bombed bombed Iran.

Why am I laughing?

You must have misread my post. I said that if "the deal doesn't do enough to hinder the program, then Iran wins and we lose."

Yeah, I get it. I'm asking you, why do we have to do something to hinder the program? Why is it a loss otherwise? Are we really the passive-aggressive, vindictive nation of the world?

Well, you see, Iran is sworn onto the non-proliferation treaty and has some batshit insane tendencies, so it's best if we make sure they don't weaponize.

[Frisivisia]

You're joking, right? Right?

Is there a problem?

You do understand that the new leader who agreed to this deal is supported by Khamenei and Khamenei is heavily against nuclear weapons, right?

[Arumdaum]

I see no evidence of that.



You keep using that "wipe off the map" quote. I don't recall any Iranian official ever making such a statement. If anything, it's been Israel that's been attacking Iran recently.

This was said by Mahmoud Ahmadinejed At "The World Without Zionism" conference in Tehran. Although he is no longer President, his ideas are in line with those of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Holy shit, you're just pulling stuff out of your ass by this point. I mean, Khamenei doesn't even like Ahmadinejad

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... 14/post155

[Kylistan]

At least McCain would have bombed bombed bombed, bombed bombed Iran.

Why am I laughing?

You must have misread my post. I said that if "the deal doesn't do enough to hinder the program, then Iran wins and we lose."

Yeah, I get it. I'm asking you, why do we have to do something to hinder the program? Why is it a loss otherwise? Are we really the passive-aggressive, vindictive nation of the world?

It's a loss because the only thing that we know about the deal right now is that if Iran complies to whatever it needs to (this is unknown by the general public) they will receive access to money currently frozen in foreign funds. If these restrictions on their nuclear program aren't strict enough, then we will essentially have given them extra money to add to their nuclear power program.

[Virana]

The problem is that unlike every other country, Iran will actually shoot the nuke.

The only true evidence of any country fully willing to use nuclear weapons is Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Tekania]

Them having nuclear weapons does not make me feel any more or less safe than anyone else with them. So I fail to see the real concern in that aspect.

I don't understand how you can say this after looking at Iranian history. Their government will do anything to try to get onto the same stage as the world powers. Since the Islamist revolution, they have pursued hostile relations with most of the outside world and they have promised to go to all measures to "wipe Israel off the map". Out of every nation in the world, they are the most likely to actually fire a nuclear weapon, thus them obtaining nuclear weapons brings the majority of the world great amounts of concern.

Yes, politicians say all sorts of things get votes and support. Frankly nothing in Iran strikes me as all that much different. And their leadership isn't crazy. They certainly are not the most likely to fire a nuke. They have pretty intelligent leadership, have for some time, and know what a nuclear confrontation would mean.

[Common Territories]

We all know whether Obama failed this issue or not (which I wouldn't trust he did good on) that Iran wont do anything to hurt its path to obtaining a nuclear weapon. Whether they have to publicly display lies and be even more secret about this, they will continue just as they have been. But like the OP said, I am sure we wont like the details of this deal. If Iran plays sneaky like it and North Korea have (and still do) then we all know history will either repeat here or turn even more ugly.

[Kylistan]

Is there a problem?

You do understand that the new leader who agreed to this deal is supported by Khamenei and Khamenei is heavily against nuclear weapons, right?

I was referring solely to the idea of getting rid of Israel. Khamenei is known for his famous quote, ""this cancerous tumor of a state [Israel] should be removed from the region", thus he is undoubtedly in line with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the issue of Israel.

[Conkerials]

Peaceful negotiation is always better than military action when possible.

Nobody can argue with that, but if we can't prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons diplomatically, don't you think that we must go to all means necessary. I mean an Iran with the ability to wipe all life off Earth isn't a reassuring thought.

China and Russia both have nuclear weapons, and neither of them are too fond of us. And no, not really. Just because Iran has a nuclear program doesn't mean that we are going to f****** invade and have another Iraq "WMD" war. We're going to get there, and there is going to be nothing there, and America is going to get caught with it's pants down again.

[Frisivisia]

We all know whether Obama failed this issue or not (which I wouldn't trust he did good on) that Iran wont do anything to hurt its path to obtaining a nuclear weapon. Whether they have to publicly display lies and be even more secret about this, they will continue just as they have been. But like the OP said, I am sure we wont like the details of this deal. If Iran plays sneaky like it and North Korea have (and still do) then we all know history will either repeat here or turn even more ugly.

Yeah, fucking Obama, enacting change through diplomacy and cooperation, so weak! If he was any good, we'd have 82 states by now. Hoo-rah!

[Aggicificicerous]

I see no evidence of that.



You keep using that "wipe off the map" quote. I don't recall any Iranian official ever making such a statement. If anything, it's been Israel that's been attacking Iran recently.

This was said by Mahmoud Ahmadinejed At "The World Without Zionism" conference in Tehran. Although he is no longer President, his ideas are in line with those of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Source? He certainly rants against the "Zionist regime", but I've heard him calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map". If you think about it, that's a rather impossible statement for him anyway since Ahmadinejad doesn't speak English. The idiom "to wipe off the map" is of course not applicable in any other language, so it should be of no surprise that Ahmadinejad hasn't used it.

This seems to be well in line with the general propoganda that seems to disseminate itself around the west. This idea that Ahmadinejad is mentally unstable, that Iran will bomb the hell out of Israel if given even half the chance. It's nonsense, but makes it much easier to justify sanctions and the sort of harsh threats that are leveled on a regular basis.

If Iran wants nuclear power, they have every right to it. If they also want a nuclear bomb, I can hardly blame them. I too would want some sort of insurance against invasion if I felt threatened and reviled by most of the world. The real way to prevent Iran from wanting to bolster its military is to stop threatening it with invasion, but that's hard to do when everyone has been told it's a hotbed of unstable, violent, extremeism. This deal, while far from perfect, is a good first step. It's nice to see a POTUS that doesn't see resorting to threats and violence as a first option.

[Tekania]

Why am I laughing?


Yeah, I get it. I'm asking you, why do we have to do something to hinder the program? Why is it a loss otherwise? Are we really the passive-aggressive, vindictive nation of the world?

It's a loss because the only thing that we know about the deal right now is that if Iran complies to whatever it needs to (this is unknown by the general public) they will receive access to money currently frozen in foreign funds. If these restrictions on their nuclear program aren't strict enough, then we will essentially have given them extra money to add to their nuclear power program.

What would be wrong with them having more funds available to their nuclear power program?