Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Iran Deal

IsabellaS
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 8:49:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Terrible deal. The US gave up way too much on their part.
Iran was already in a dysfunctional state. They insisted that they'd have a nuclear bomb in a short amount of time- but that wasn't the first time they had said it. Every time they said they'd have a bomb in X amount of time (usually a few months to a year,) they missed that deadline. Clearly, they were not going to create one any time soon, especially given the unrest that was going on in there. Essentially, Iran was a mess and was unable to create anything of significance given their limited resources and collapsed economy, and despite insisting on being very near success, they were likely far from it.
Now, by providing the country with billions of dollars and rejuvenating their economy from its collapsed state, Iran will have the resources to pay for research, materials, and testing of the bomb. Granted, they are not allowed to own most of the components of a bomb for ten years, but what's to stop them once the agreement expires? They probably would not have had the bomb in ten years without the sanctions lifted. They will then be rich, armed and will galvanize a movement to create the most destructive force they possibly can. They make no secret of their hatred for American citizens and their support of terrorism (Obama even acknowledged that part of the influx of money will be supporting terrorism.) And what's to say they won't cheat? American inspectors have to give the Iranians 24 days notice before inspecting their facilities. In 24 days, an entire city can relocate.
The Americans (a.k.a. John Kerry) were clearly weak negotiators in this situation, and have made a grave mistake that threatens the security of not just the United States, but Western culture and ideology as a whole.
ecco
Posts: 180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 10:20:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/24/2015 8:49:29 PM, IsabellaS wrote:
Terrible deal. The US gave up way too much on their part.
Iran was already in a dysfunctional state. They insisted that they'd have a nuclear bomb in a short amount of time- but that wasn't the first time they had said it. Every time they said they'd have a bomb in X amount of time (usually a few months to a year,) they missed that deadline. Clearly, they were not going to create one any time soon, especially given the unrest that was going on in there. Essentially, Iran was a mess and was unable to create anything of significance given their limited resources and collapsed economy, and despite insisting on being very near success, they were likely far from it.

That is your opinion. It was not the opinion of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in July 2013:

"They're edging up to the red line. They haven't crossed it yet," Netanyahu said on Sunday on CBS News's "Face the Nation."

"They're getting closer and closer to the bomb. And they have to be told in no uncertain terms that that will not be allowed to happen."

Netanyahu went on to say that Israel had a more narrow timetable than Washington, implying it may have to take unilateral action to halt Iran's controversial nuclear programme.

"Our clocks are ticking at a different pace. We're closer than the United States. We're more vulnerable. And therefore, we'll have to address this question of how to stop Iran, perhaps before the United States does," he said.

Netanyahu said Tehran has been building "faster centrifuges that would enable them to jump the line, so to speak, at a much faster rate -- that is, within a few weeks."

The Americans (a.k.a. John Kerry) were clearly weak negotiators in this situation, and have made a grave mistake that threatens the security of not just the United States, but Western culture and ideology as a whole.

It wasn't just John Kerry/Americans who agreed to this deal. Europe is pretty solidly behind this deal. Even if Congress could somehow "overturn it" and keep sanctions in place, the rest of the world would not.

What alternative would you offer?
Think
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 9:40:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't see what's with the hate against the nuclear deal. The deal was that they wouldn't use nuclear energy for weapons, but for other purposes. We've messed up their economy in the Iran-Iraq war so it's good that we've helped them with the deal.