(07-24-2015 02:10 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 02:03 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 02:00 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 01:12 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 01:11 PM)RobertN Wrote:  [quote='Owl 69/70/75' pid='12223583' dateline='1437758055']
Iran wants nukes. We wanted a piece of paper. Both sides got what they wanted. Some would call that a win-win.
[/quote

What was even the slightest bit incorrect about his statement?

Obama wanted a signed deal. He got one.

Iran gets nukes in 10 years, arms in 5, BILLIONS of dollars now.

Iran wins.

You are both just spouting Foxpionion.

I ask again.

What's not true?

Iran gets nukes in 10 years with ZERO breakout time. Obama's own words.

Iran's arms embargo ends in 5 years.

We are giving them BILLIONS of dollars. For what?

Robert's intellectual arsenal is limited to "You heard it on Fox." Devastating debate tactic, eh?

Can you please show me a quote where Obama said Iran gets nukes in 10 years. Didn't think so.

(07-25-2015 06:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  3) I think we run a severe risk that we have badly pissed off the Arabs. Iran doesn't want a nuke to go after Israel. Iran wants a nuke to get a seat at the big boy table and to be able to dominate their Arab neighbors. Iran wants to recreate the Persian Empire, from Istanbul to Kabul to Aden to Cairo. A nuke gives them a leg up in doing so. Arabs will want to counter, and those that can will--almost certainly the Saudis will get their own nukes, and maybe others. The good news is that, at least in the short run, fracking is significantly reducing our dependence on oil imports.

The threat to Israel from Iran is not from nukes... it's essentially from money. Even before the deal was signed, Iran renewed funding to HAMAS and upped its funding to Hezbollah. Hezbollah is getting interesting, because they recently arrested a number of fighters that refused to go to Syria. IMHO, increasing bombing runs against ISIS in Syria and Iraq is a mistake. Let Iran deal with the problem (with their blood and treasure) that they (and their proxy Bashir al Assad) played a big part in creating.

I agree that there is almost no chance that Iran uses nukes against Israel any time in the near or medium term, if ever. But they will try to bleed Israel dry by funding HAMAS and Hezbollah, and with the removal of sanctions, they can easily provide more money to those groups than they could put to effective use.

(07-24-2015 02:00 PM)RobertN Wrote:  You are both just spouting Foxpionion.

How is this deal more effective at preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons? I see little difference between it and the one that was supposed to prevent NK from becoming similarly armed.

(07-25-2015 02:15 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 02:10 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 02:03 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 02:00 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 01:12 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  What was even the slightest bit incorrect about his statement?

Obama wanted a signed deal. He got one.

Iran gets nukes in 10 years, arms in 5, BILLIONS of dollars now.

Iran wins.

You are both just spouting Foxpionion.

I ask again.

What's not true?

Iran gets nukes in 10 years with ZERO breakout time. Obama's own words.

Iran's arms embargo ends in 5 years.

We are giving them BILLIONS of dollars. For what?

Robert's intellectual arsenal is limited to "You heard it on Fox." Devastating debate tactic, eh?

Can you please show me a quote where Obama said Iran gets nukes in 10 years. Didn't think so.

Ok, 13 years.

"In an interview with NPR, Obama spoke of concerns that after 13-15 years, Iran could “have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.”

He then noted that current breakout times “are only about two to three months by our intelligence estimates.”

“So essentially, we’re purchasing for 13, 14, 15 years assurances that the breakout is at least a year,” he said, “that if they decided to break the deal, kick out all the inspectors, break the seals and go for a bomb, we’d have over a year to respond. And we have those assurances for at least well over a decade.

“And then in years 13 and 14, it is possible that those breakout times would have been much shorter, but at that point we have much better ideas about what it is that their program involves,” Obama continued. “We have much more insight into their capabilities. And the option of a future president to take action if in fact they try to obtain a nuclear weapon is undiminished.”

lol @ folks being pissed at Mike Huckebee. I guess they don't like being shown what could really happen. Yes, what he said is no "PC", but sometimes, it's best to not be PC and just lay it all out there.

(07-25-2015 10:10 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 01:30 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Perhaps we don't want to be Iran's worst enemy anymore. This is basically an olive branch to modern-day Persia. Neutral relations with Iran are not that bad of a thing considering that everyone to their East is an utter basket case.

Israel are worried for no reason. Iran isn't that stupid - they have influence right now. That's what they wanted all along. If Iran attacks Israel, then Iran will cease to be a functioning nation. Everyone knows the house rules.

RELAX.

That would be fine if Iran was a peaceful, modern democracy. They are not. They're a theocracy. And they're the largest terrorist state on the planet.

Wake up.

Look, I'm not saying we need to have them over for dinner. Iran isn't peaceful.

Here's the thing: I fully believe that Iran had this technology a long time ago (it's just been hidden), and that by formalizing the process it will allow us a little more insight than we had before. It also buys you some ground in future negotiations and offers you limited intelligence regarding something that you never had any idea about before.

These are all political measures. Neither country can afford a war with the other.

(07-27-2015 09:49 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 02:00 PM)RobertN Wrote:  You are both just spouting Foxpionion.

How is this deal more effective at preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons? I see little difference between it and the one that was supposed to prevent NK from becoming similarly armed.

Ah. So you have read both. Can you post them here so I can read them. Thanks.

(07-27-2015 09:55 AM)VA49er Wrote:  lol @ folks being pissed at Mike Huckebee. I guess they don't like being shown what could really happen. Yes, what he said is no "PC", but sometimes, it's best to not be PC and just lay it all out there.

The only reason he supports Israel is for religious reasons.

(07-27-2015 10:39 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 09:49 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 02:00 PM)RobertN Wrote:  You are both just spouting Foxpionion.

How is this deal more effective at preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons? I see little difference between it and the one that was supposed to prevent NK from becoming similarly armed.

Ah. So you have read both. Can you post them here so I can read them. Thanks.

The U.S.-North Korean Agreed Framework at a Glance
Iran Nuclear Policy Brief: An Effective, Verifiable Nuclear Deal With Iran

Monitoring and Verification in Iran
Monitoring and Verification in DPRK

Knock yourself out.

(07-27-2015 09:55 AM)VA49er Wrote:  lol @ folks being pissed at Mike Huckebee. I guess they don't like being shown what could really happen. Yes, what he said is no "PC", but sometimes, it's best to not be PC and just lay it all out there.

Obama and Hillarious being Upset with Mike Huckabee make Me want to Burst out Laughing. Two of the Biggest F'Ups the country has ever seen talking about PC.

(07-27-2015 10:42 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 09:55 AM)VA49er Wrote:  lol @ folks being pissed at Mike Huckebee. I guess they don't like being shown what could really happen. Yes, what he said is no "PC", but sometimes, it's best to not be PC and just lay it all out there.

The only reason he supports Israel is for religious reasons.

Doesn't change the potential outcome of what he said, so not sure that has any relevance.

(07-25-2015 03:38 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(07-25-2015 06:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  3) I think we run a severe risk that we have badly pissed off the Arabs. Iran doesn't want a nuke to go after Israel. Iran wants a nuke to get a seat at the big boy table and to be able to dominate their Arab neighbors. Iran wants to recreate the Persian Empire, from Istanbul to Kabul to Aden to Cairo. A nuke gives them a leg up in doing so. Arabs will want to counter, and those that can will--almost certainly the Saudis will get their own nukes, and maybe others. The good news is that, at least in the short run, fracking is significantly reducing our dependence on oil imports.

The threat to Israel from Iran is not from nukes... it's essentially from money. Even before the deal was signed, Iran renewed funding to HAMAS and upped its funding to Hezbollah. Hezbollah is getting interesting, because they recently arrested a number of fighters that refused to go to Syria. IMHO, increasing bombing runs against ISIS in Syria and Iraq is a mistake. Let Iran deal with the problem (with their blood and treasure) that they (and their proxy Bashir al Assad) played a big part in creating.

I agree that there is almost no chance that Iran uses nukes against Israel any time in the near or medium term, if ever. But they will try to bleed Israel dry by funding HAMAS and Hezbollah, and with the removal of sanctions, they can easily provide more money to those groups than they could put to effective use.

Agree. The nuke threat affects the Arabs more. I think focusing on nukes in this agreement was a mistake. They're going to get their nukes. We would have accomplished more by tying lifting of sanctions and unfreezing of assets to reforming their rogue nation activities.