• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran Nuclear Deal Near, Diplomats Say

Biden whitehouse close to getting a nuclear deal done with Iran. Is this good news or bad news?


Obama's deal was working until Trump tore it up. Who knows? They probably won't trust anyone for shit after what Trump did.
 
Maybe Canadia can sail their navy over there and pound them to sand
Right, "We aren't going to do anything about the Saudis and their Wahhabism because they are OUR -"terrorists"- "freedom fighters" and not THEIR -"freedom fighters"- terrorists.". - gottcha.
 
Another disaster for Joe.
Assume that there IS a "deal" worked out that stops the Iranians from developing actual nuclear weapons.

In that case, please let me know how you will manage to characterize that as a "disaster".
 
On the one hand, return of Iranian oil supply to the world oil markets would help to relieve rising oil prices.

But will it make the world less safe, by allowing Iran to replenish itself, to later facilitate its breakout across the nuclear threshold?
So it's okay to fund a extremist regime, as long as it's oil? American oil and LNG being piped and sold on the global market would be better.
 
Assume that there IS a "deal" worked out that stops the Iranians from developing actual nuclear weapons.

In that case, please let me know how you will manage to characterize that as a "disaster".
You like 'what if' games, because you could get an 'imaginary' win?
 
It would be nice to know more about what is actually in the deal before supporting it or not.
 
These people hate America, declared that they won't abide by any deal, and are a terrorist nation.
the iranians did abide by the deal
the one tRump shat upon
his administration even documented that the iranians were in compliance with the terms of the deal

but don't let facts change your false beliefs
 
What the hawks need to prove is that they can offer a specific, measurable set of acceptance criteria such that they would drop sanctions if that criteria were met. Thus far all they’ve had is cheap talk about the Obama deal being bad, while studiously avoiding drawing up a deal they prefer. Trump represented the worst of this… he tore up the previous deal, claiming he had a better one, then promptly proceeded to never actually offer one.

The criteria is no nukes.
 
So it's okay to fund a extremist regime, as long as it's oil? American oil and LNG being piped and sold on the global market would be better.
Oh hell, the US has NEVER had any real problem in funding extremist regimes ever since 1945. Those regimes do NOT
  1. have to have oil;
  2. have to have valuable natural resources;
  3. have to have a market for US consumer goods;
  4. have an honest government;
  5. have honest elections; or
  6. have a "good civil rights record";
but they DO
  1. have to have a market for US military equipment;
  2. have a government that is compliant with the wishes of the US government; and
  3. have a government that allows American companies to make large profits without paying more than nominal taxes.
 
You like 'what if' games, because you could get an 'imaginary' win?
And you don't like answering any questions unless you control all of the postulates as well as the wording of the question AND the answer is what you want it to be.
 
These people hate America,
If a country came into the United States of America, tossed out the elected government, installed an absolute monarchy, and then appropriated American natural resources for companies from their own country - how "friendly" would you feel towards that country after you had tossed the absolute monarchy out on its ear IF the country that had installed the absolute monarchy did nothing but say derogatory things about the US, make threats against the US, and tried as hard as possible to destroy the entire economy of the US?
declared that they won't abide by any deal,
Piffle (and you know it).
and are a terrorist nation.
Iranian terrorists have overthrown the US government and established a puppet police state on how many occasions?
 
The criteria is no nukes.
Right, and when the Iranians can prove that, not only do they not have any nuclear weapons but, they will never, in the future, develop nuclear weapons, then the US government should start to establish the parameters that will guide the selection of the appointments committee which will consider potential candidates for the yet to be established decision making body which will eventually make a non-binding recommendation on whether or not the US should start to consider the theoretical possibility of studying whether or not it might potentially be advisable to suggest considering a degree of relaxation of the restrictions which the US government has imposed on Iran and which it penalizes the rest of the world if they do not comply with.​
 
I can only imagine cutting this deal in the shadow of Ukraine is good for us, as there is nothing we're doing to Russian we can't do to Iran.
 
Oh hell, the US has NEVER had any real problem in funding extremist regimes ever since 1945. Those regimes do NOT
  1. have to have oil;
  2. have to have valuable natural resources;
  3. have to have a market for US consumer goods;
  4. have an honest government;
  5. have honest elections; or
  6. have a "good civil rights record";
but they DO
  1. have to have a market for US military equipment;
  2. have a government that is compliant with the wishes of the US government; and
  3. have a government that allows American companies to make large profits without paying more than nominal taxes.
wtf does this have to do with not giving nukes to an extremist ruled country that might actually try to use them and inadvertently start WW3??

yeah the US sucks and we're the worst out there to be the worlds superpower, EXCEPT for every other large powerful country like China or Russia.

good luck with those aholes.
 
Last edited:
wtf does this have to do with not giving nukes to an extremist ruled country that might actually try to use them and inadvertently start WW3??
And who is giving what nukes to what extremist ruled country?
yeah the US sucks and we're the worst out there to be the worlds superpower, EXCEPT for every other large powerful country like China or Russia.
I wouldn't say "sucks" but "doesn't act anywhere near in the manner that innocent young American school children are taught the US acts and has always acted" DOES cover the ground.
good luck with those aholes.
Tell me, what would you advocate the US government do in the case of the "Shas", "Agudat Yisrael", "Degel HaTorah", "Atid Ehad", "Noam", "Otzma Yehudit", and the like taking power in Israel?
 
And who is giving what nukes to what extremist ruled country?
allowing said country to develop nukes then , use them and start ww3, then, if that is clearer for you.

I wouldn't say "sucks" but "doesn't act anywhere near in the manner that innocent young American school children are taught the US acts and has always acted" DOES cover the ground.
no **** who doesn't know this? we don't even trust our own government fully. but when the rubber hits the road, we tend to come through. I mean Europe could all be speaking German or Russian now if we hadn't helped out and opposed those regimes.

think they'd be better off?

Tell me, what would you advocate the US government do in the case of the "Shas", "Agudat Yisrael", "Degel HaTorah", "Atid Ehad", "Noam", "Otzma Yehudit", and the like taking power in Israel?
Israel is already a nuclear power I believe. what is the issue you speak of and what do you think we should do? what should Canada do?
 
allowing said country to develop nukes then , use them and start ww3, then, if that is clearer for you.
And, since there WAS a "deal" in place that would have precluded Iran from developing nuclear weapons, can you tell me how tearing up the "deal" was NOT "allowing said country to develop nukes" and WHICH American President tore up the "deal"?

PS - Only really crappy lawyer wannabes use "said" as you used it.
no **** who doesn't know this?
It would appear that a whole lot of Americans actually think that American history and policy and government were always in conformance with what they were taught as innocent young school children the US stood for and the way that the US acted.
we don't even trust our own government fully.
One should never trust the government fully.

However, American take that advice to the extreme of not trusting the government at all IF "THEIR Guys" are in power and mindlessly swallowing whatever the government says when "MY Guys" are in power.
but when the rubber hits the road, we tend to come through.
Indeed, once in 1917 for what was effectively a show of force against a collapsing enemy (and one that wasn't followed up with the actions which might well have prevented WWII), and once in 1941 after being directly attacked (and after having sucked all available assets out of its "friends" who were actively fighting Hitler and his Nazis).

Oh yes, and then again in the 1950s and 1960s, when the US assisted France with its reconquer and recolonization of Vietnam before taking over the management of the selection of which group of crass, venal, corrupt, and murderous thugs would be "elected" to government in the southern half of the country.
I mean Europe could all be speaking German or Russian now if we hadn't helped out and opposed those regimes.
Undoubtedly.

However, the more likely outcome would have been that the Russians would have rolled westward until they met up with the communist led French resistance and peace descended on Europe. At long last the Russians would have not had to deal with their culturally instilled fear of being encircled and conquered.

Where the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of Europe would have gone once Stalin had shuffled off this mortal coil, is a real interesting speculation BUT it is most certainly NOT a given that the resulting regime would have been the slave like oppression that you appear to believe ALL "left-wing" (in comparison with the US) countries are inflicted with.
think they'd be better off?
See above
Israel is already a nuclear power I believe. what is the issue you speak of and what do you think we should do? what should Canada do?
So, if the "Right Wing" (and that is on the world scale - not just the US scale) "Reactionary", "Fundamentalist", "Uber-nationalists" take control of Israel you think that they should be "allowed" to have nuclear weapons? Is that because they are OUR "Right Wing" (and that is on the world scale - not just the US scale) "Reactionary", "Fundamentalist", "Uber-nationalists" as opposed to THEIR "Left Wing" (and that is on the world scale - not just the US scale) "Reactionary", "Fundamentalist", "Uber-nationalists"?
 
And, since there WAS a "deal" in place that would have precluded Iran from developing nuclear weapons, can you tell me how tearing up the "deal" was NOT "allowing said country to develop nukes" and WHICH American President tore up the "deal"?

The deal Obama made would not have precluded Iran from developing nukes.
It would delay when they could develop nukes.
 
Right, and when the Iranians can prove that, not only do they not have any nuclear weapons but, they will never, in the future, develop nuclear weapons, then the US government should start to establish the parameters that will guide the selection of the appointments committee which will consider potential candidates for the yet to be established decision making body which will eventually make a non-binding recommendation on whether or not the US should start to consider the theoretical possibility of studying whether or not it might potentially be advisable to suggest considering a degree of relaxation of the restrictions which the US government has imposed on Iran and which it penalizes the rest of the world if they do not comply with.​

So are you indifferent to Iran having nukes, or oppossed to the USA saying Iran CAN'T have nukes?
 
Last edited:
The deal Obama made would not have precluded Iran from developing nukes.
It would delay when they could develop nukes.
One small step at a time.

Besides, what the JCPOA (and its successors) would have accomplished is now irrelevant thanks to the wise and sagacious actions of Mr. Trump in foregoing even the chance to delay the production of Iranian nuclear weapons.

However, fear not, the Israelis will nuke any real Iranian nuclear weapons program and you can then hail their humanitarian concern for world peace.
 
So are you indifferent to Iran having nukes,
Which, of course, is not something that I did say.

Quite frankly I'd be just as happy if all of the nuclear weapons in the world were turned into chocolate ice cream.
or oppossed to the USA saying Iran CAN'T have nukes?
Would you please tell me when the government of the United States of America was put in charge of what every country in the world may, or may not, do?
 
Back
Top Bottom