(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.

We might want peace with Iran, but Iran doesn't want peace with the United States. Or Israel. They are CURRENTLY engaging in proxy wars and killing American & Israeli soldiers all over the world.






But we can be buddies, right?

I'll relax.

(07-24-2015 01:36 PM)58-56 Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 01:01 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  When did we become allies??

Last year, when IRGC troops started fighting alongside ours against ISIS.

Because Iran wants dibs on the Caliphate. Enemy of my enemy =/= my friend.

Misleading title edited. I think it's a crap policy regardless, but let's at least describe it accurately.

(07-24-2015 01:47 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Misleading title edited. I think it's a crap policy regardless, but let's at least describe it accurately.

FIFY.

(07-24-2015 12:54 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 11:50 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  In a concession to the US, Iran has agreed that it will limit testing of any future nuclear weapons to a very limited area, centered around 32° 4' 4" N / 34° 45' 53" E.

32° 4' 4" N / 34° 45' 53" E. don't have a map currently, assume it's Israel !

Good then we nuke Iran. The world sudden becomes a much better place.

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

(07-24-2015 12:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 12:31 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 12:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 11:42 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  You really think it will stop at that? And why are we even doing that? **** Iran.

If the point is keeping a nuclear site stable, an ACTUAL attack is far worse than a cyber attack from a potential fallout scenario, no?

But will the United States stop Israel from an actual attack? Is there any evidence of that?

"Top Obama administration officials testified Thursday that the United States would help ensure the “physical security” of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure as part of the nuclear agreement they reached with the Islamic republic two weeks ago.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) asked the assembled officials whether a controversial provision in Annex III of the agreement obligated the United States to help protect Iran’s nuclear program from future sabotage by Iran’s opponents, notably Israel.

The charge was ducked, but not denied, by Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz.

“I believe that refers to things like physical security and safeguards,” Moniz said. “All of our options and those of our allies and friends will remain in place.”

Secretary of State John Kerry clarified that the annex in question was designed to ensure that Iran’s nuclear capacity was “adequately protected” from unconventional threats such as cyber warfare."

You might want to read that last paragraph again.

The entire thing is cryptic, Fit. That's the point.

My question is, why are we ensuring ANY sort of security WHATSOEVER to the Iranians?!??!? When did we become allies?? Are they not still the world's #1 state sponsor of terrorism??? Are they not CURRENTLY fighting proxy wars against us and Israel all over the world? Are they not holding 4 American hostages for no reason?

It's one thing for our President to bend over and take a huge one in the rear like he did with this deal, it's another thing ENTIRELY to PROTECT them while they're developing weapons designed specifically to destroy the US and Israel.

I'm sure there are other things at stake here that you and I don't know about. Do you honestly believe that the U.S. would protect Iran's nuclear program as a way to stop them from getting a nuke? Next you're going to tell me that Obama is a Muslim that was born in Kenya. LMFAO

(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.

(07-24-2015 01:58 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

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

(07-24-2015 12:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 12:31 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 12:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  But will the United States stop Israel from an actual attack? Is there any evidence of that?

"Top Obama administration officials testified Thursday that the United States would help ensure the “physical security” of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure as part of the nuclear agreement they reached with the Islamic republic two weeks ago.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) asked the assembled officials whether a controversial provision in Annex III of the agreement obligated the United States to help protect Iran’s nuclear program from future sabotage by Iran’s opponents, notably Israel.

The charge was ducked, but not denied, by Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz.

“I believe that refers to things like physical security and safeguards,” Moniz said. “All of our options and those of our allies and friends will remain in place.”

Secretary of State John Kerry clarified that the annex in question was designed to ensure that Iran’s nuclear capacity was “adequately protected” from unconventional threats such as cyber warfare."

You might want to read that last paragraph again.

The entire thing is cryptic, Fit. That's the point.

My question is, why are we ensuring ANY sort of security WHATSOEVER to the Iranians?!??!? When did we become allies?? Are they not still the world's #1 state sponsor of terrorism??? Are they not CURRENTLY fighting proxy wars against us and Israel all over the world? Are they not holding 4 American hostages for no reason?

It's one thing for our President to bend over and take a huge one in the rear like he did with this deal, it's another thing ENTIRELY to PROTECT them while they're developing weapons designed specifically to destroy the US and Israel.

I'm sure there are other things at stake here that you and I don't know about. Do you honestly believe that the U.S. would protect Iran's nuclear program as a way to stop them from getting a nuke? Next you're going to tell me that Obama is a Muslim that was born in Kenya. LMFAO

The intention of this deal was NEVER to stop Iran from getting a nuke. Rather, it paves the way for one. That is overtly obvious to anyone who is paying any attention at all.

If you're asking me why we'd offer to protect Iran while they develop nuclear weapons, I'd direct your question to the White House.

(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?

(07-24-2015 12:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 11:42 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 11:41 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  So you left out the word "cyber" huh?

Nice. You got me.

You really think it will stop at that? And why are we even doing that? **** Iran.

If the point is keeping a nuclear site stable, an ACTUAL attack is far worse than a cyber attack from a potential fallout scenario, no?

But will the United States stop Israel from an actual attack? Is there any evidence of that?

I hope not.

(07-24-2015 12:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Iran wants nukes. We wanted a piece of paper. Both sides got what they wanted. Some would call that a win-win.

It will look great in Obama's presidential library, next to the ashes of the West.

(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?

(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?

The point is, there is NO defending this idiotic move by our President and his incompetent gang of imbeciles.

Robert's failure to be able to hold an intelligent conversation or debate on the topic is merely a result of a typical liberal, highly emotional, low-information existence.

(07-24-2015 02:01 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 01:58 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

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

(07-24-2015 12:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 12:31 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  "Top Obama administration officials testified Thursday that the United States would help ensure the “physical security” of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure as part of the nuclear agreement they reached with the Islamic republic two weeks ago.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) asked the assembled officials whether a controversial provision in Annex III of the agreement obligated the United States to help protect Iran’s nuclear program from future sabotage by Iran’s opponents, notably Israel.

The charge was ducked, but not denied, by Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz.

“I believe that refers to things like physical security and safeguards,” Moniz said. “All of our options and those of our allies and friends will remain in place.”

Secretary of State John Kerry clarified that the annex in question was designed to ensure that Iran’s nuclear capacity was “adequately protected” from unconventional threats such as cyber warfare."

You might want to read that last paragraph again.

The entire thing is cryptic, Fit. That's the point.

My question is, why are we ensuring ANY sort of security WHATSOEVER to the Iranians?!??!? When did we become allies?? Are they not still the world's #1 state sponsor of terrorism??? Are they not CURRENTLY fighting proxy wars against us and Israel all over the world? Are they not holding 4 American hostages for no reason?

It's one thing for our President to bend over and take a huge one in the rear like he did with this deal, it's another thing ENTIRELY to PROTECT them while they're developing weapons designed specifically to destroy the US and Israel.

I'm sure there are other things at stake here that you and I don't know about. Do you honestly believe that the U.S. would protect Iran's nuclear program as a way to stop them from getting a nuke? Next you're going to tell me that Obama is a Muslim that was born in Kenya. LMFAO

The intention of this deal was NEVER to stop Iran from getting a nuke. Rather, it paves the way for one. That is overtly obvious to anyone who is paying any attention at all.

If you're asking me why we'd offer to protect Iran while they develop nuclear weapons, I'd direct your question to the White House.

Ok so your stance is that the deal was in fact so that Iran does get a nuke?

(07-24-2015 02:22 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 02:01 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 01:58 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

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

(07-24-2015 12:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  You might want to read that last paragraph again.

The entire thing is cryptic, Fit. That's the point.

My question is, why are we ensuring ANY sort of security WHATSOEVER to the Iranians?!??!? When did we become allies?? Are they not still the world's #1 state sponsor of terrorism??? Are they not CURRENTLY fighting proxy wars against us and Israel all over the world? Are they not holding 4 American hostages for no reason?

It's one thing for our President to bend over and take a huge one in the rear like he did with this deal, it's another thing ENTIRELY to PROTECT them while they're developing weapons designed specifically to destroy the US and Israel.

I'm sure there are other things at stake here that you and I don't know about. Do you honestly believe that the U.S. would protect Iran's nuclear program as a way to stop them from getting a nuke? Next you're going to tell me that Obama is a Muslim that was born in Kenya. LMFAO

The intention of this deal was NEVER to stop Iran from getting a nuke. Rather, it paves the way for one. That is overtly obvious to anyone who is paying any attention at all.

If you're asking me why we'd offer to protect Iran while they develop nuclear weapons, I'd direct your question to the White House.

Ok so your stance is that the deal was in fact so that Iran does get a nuke?

On our terms, yes. It was simply to slow down the process, and maybe allow time for outside events to take place in the meantime... but based on the details of the deal itself, it is clear that there was never any intention to stop them.

"After a decade, some restrictions would start phasing out. In years 13 to 15 of the deal, Obama said, Iran could use "advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly. And at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero."

(07-24-2015 02:58 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 02:22 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 02:01 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 01:58 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 01:01 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  The entire thing is cryptic, Fit. That's the point.

My question is, why are we ensuring ANY sort of security WHATSOEVER to the Iranians?!??!? When did we become allies?? Are they not still the world's #1 state sponsor of terrorism??? Are they not CURRENTLY fighting proxy wars against us and Israel all over the world? Are they not holding 4 American hostages for no reason?

It's one thing for our President to bend over and take a huge one in the rear like he did with this deal, it's another thing ENTIRELY to PROTECT them while they're developing weapons designed specifically to destroy the US and Israel.

I'm sure there are other things at stake here that you and I don't know about. Do you honestly believe that the U.S. would protect Iran's nuclear program as a way to stop them from getting a nuke? Next you're going to tell me that Obama is a Muslim that was born in Kenya. LMFAO

The intention of this deal was NEVER to stop Iran from getting a nuke. Rather, it paves the way for one. That is overtly obvious to anyone who is paying any attention at all.

If you're asking me why we'd offer to protect Iran while they develop nuclear weapons, I'd direct your question to the White House.

Ok so your stance is that the deal was in fact so that Iran does get a nuke?

On our terms, yes. It was simply to slow down the process, and maybe allow time for outside events to take place in the meantime... but based on the details of the deal itself, it is clear that there was never any intention to stop them.

"After a decade, some restrictions would start phasing out. In years 13 to 15 of the deal, Obama said, Iran could use "advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly. And at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero."

Honestly, i don't have a problem with that. 1. I think it's inevitable anyway 2. It's not our responsibility to stop them.

Let Isreal worry about it.

This I have three big problems with the whole deal.

1) Regardless of the specifics, this and other side deals, not to mention the basic agreement itself, keep us tied to the area for at least another 10-15 years. Either that, or we simply walk away at some point and say we can't enforce it, in which case the whole thing was a waste.

2) Removal of sanctions effectively clears the way for Iran to step up its sponsorship of terrorist activities throughout the region.

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.

Arabs have been pissed at us for several decades already.

(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.

Where are all the "no nukes" people from the 80's when we need them?