Do you support the Iran Nuclear Deal?

Posted by: thoskins

This deal unfreezes billions in assets for Iran's use as well as allowing them to keep their facilities if they do not produce enriched uranium for 10 years. On the other hand the international community gets "unfettered" and anytime access to these facilities for inspection but we must provide Iran with a notice 24 days in advance and the inspectors are picked by Iran.

  • Yes

  • No

56% 15 votes
44% 12 votes
  • I don't support the deal, but right now, its better than going to war.

  • Of the options available to us, this is the least painful.

  • Its better than no deal or a war.

  • Once they breach it there will be good reason to attack.

  • It is the best option available to us at this moment.

    Posted by: gabep
  • Iran's sanctions are loosened and the threat of a nuclear armed Iran is relieved, both sides come out benefiting

  • I was against it, but I now see that it's the best way to avoid war with Iran. If you don't want war, it's a good deal.

  • I do not support the Iran Nuclear deal because it does not unfree the three American prisoners being held in prison for being unrightfully put there. Also this essentially gives Iran billions of dollars to continue to be the largest state supporter of terrorism.

  • Absolutely not, and I question the sanity of anyone who knows the details of this "deal" and still supports it.

  • A 24 day notice for inspections by inspectors handpicked by Iran make it worthless. I'm very glad we're talking with them, instead of singing Bomb Iran like McCain did, but we took nothing away from this deal.

  • heck no!!!!!!!! Iran needs to be dealt with soon before they get a bomb, if they have not already. You cant reason with someone who wants to blow themselves up to help get there god to come faster, Iran has already been at war with the US for years. If we don't do something, then Israel will. Israel will not let Iran get a nuke, they will go to war, even if we dont.

    Posted by: BIGC
  • I definitely do not support this deal. It's goal is to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, but that won't happen. This is a horrible deal, reasons follow: There is a 24 day waiting period from when an inspection is requested, and when an inspection takes place. The Iranians can easily hide or move any progress they've made on nuclear development in 24 days. Second, the Iranians will eventually be allowed to perform their own inspections. I really don't even think any explanation is needed for why that's a horrible idea. Enough with the either or fallacies from the left, the alternative is not war. The alternative is continuing pressure through sanctions, and negotiating a better deal that will ACTUALLY prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon. A deal that doesn't have 24 day waiting periods, and a deal that doesn't trust them to inspect themselves. This is the option that will prevent war.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Teaparty1 says2015-09-04T16:58:52.3188825Z
As opposed to what Obama and a few Dems tell us, this deal is completely reliant on trusting Iran. Now, based on the fact that they are a known terrorism sponsor, and based on the fact that they have refused UN officials from interviewing scientists and generals over allegations that they were running a covert nuclear weapons program, and Iranian officials repeatedly make open violent and hateful remarks against the US and our ally Israel, is it a smart decision to trust Iran? Do we trust this same country that they will declare all of their enrichment and weapon sites?
TBR says2015-09-04T17:00:24.6888509Z
No, what we have now is no transparency. With the deal, we don't have to "trust" we get to see.
Teaparty1 says2015-09-04T17:08:54.0047803Z
Incorrect. Obviously you are not filled in on the details of this deal. Maybe you should look it up before saying, "...We don't have to 'trust'..."
Teaparty1 says2015-09-04T17:10:06.9820481Z
And also I hear many liberals saying something similar, but just because we don't have transparency now is no reason to seal our own death by allowing them to continue.
TBR says2015-09-04T17:12:31.8950949Z
Are you trying to say UN inspectors are not a part of this deal? Some conspiracy sort of thing? Just what?
Teaparty1 says2015-09-04T17:13:58.9243349Z
What I am saying is that Obama and co. Are lying when they say that this deal is not relying on trusting Iran.
TBR says2015-09-04T17:18:19.6334159Z
I am saying that what you said is bu11sh1t, and it would seem you can't back it.
Teaparty1 says2015-09-04T17:19:53.0774159Z
What of what I said are you alleging is BS?
Teaparty1 says2015-09-04T17:19:57.8514357Z
What of what I said are you alleging is BS?
TBR says2015-09-04T17:25:48.0587672Z
"this deal is completely reliant on trusting Iran." That is bu11sh1t.
TBR says2015-09-04T17:25:59.4617537Z
'this deal is completely reliant on trusting Iran. ' - That is bu11sh1t
Teaparty1 says2015-09-04T17:33:44.6411356Z
Inspectors do not have access to Iran's undeclared facilities, therefore is is reliant on trusting Iran not to run a covert program.
Teaparty1 says2015-09-04T17:38:35.3617121Z
I should say they do not have immediate access. There is a long delay before they have access, enough time to clean up shop.
TBR says2015-09-04T17:40:47.4506459Z
Right, you are talking "challenge inspection". You do understand they are NOT precluded by the deal. Without the deal, NO inspections happen.
Teaparty1 says2015-09-04T17:49:51.1710401Z
Without the deal no inspections happen. Currently that may be true, but we don't need a deal to inspect. We can toughen up sanctions and/or use military force if they don't comply with OUR demands that they are not developing nuclear weapons.
Teaparty1 says2015-09-04T17:50:46.3652553Z
And that doesn't mean start a war...
TBR says2015-09-04T17:58:43.7795454Z
Teaparty1 - "Without the deal no inspections happen. Currently that may be true, but we don't need a deal to inspect. We can toughen up sanctions and/or use military force if they don't comply with OUR demands that they are not developing nuclear weapons." - We can use force if we don't get what we want. As for sanctions, well, that requires a lot of cooperation with the international community - that we are getting through the deal.
tajshar2k says2015-09-04T18:05:22.5773217Z
@Teaparty there are people who are against the deal, but support it because they want to avoid war. Warmongering Republicans only want war with Iran, by using the tax money of others.
gabep says2015-09-04T22:39:49.4844582Z
@Teaparty1 - if we fully implemented your ideas into the deal, the only option would be inevitable war. The fact is that for a deal to be made both sides must make compromises and trust each other. Besides, if they breach the deal, we will probably bomb the $h!T out of them.
BIGC says2015-09-05T16:59:59.1494098Z
Heck no!!!!!!!! Iran needs to be dealt with soon before they get a bomb, if they have not already. You cant reason with someone who wants to blow themselves up to help get there god to come faster, Iran has already been at war with the US for years. If we don't do something, then Israel will. Israel will not let Iran get a nuke, they will go to war, even if we don't.
UtherPenguin says2015-09-05T17:02:03.0649546Z
@IGC Ignoring the fact that that's not at all what they intend to do. Even if they had a nuke, anyone with 5 seconds of foresight wouldn't use it unless provoked to.
TBR says2015-09-05T17:12:24.4897206Z
@BIGC - This deal is "dealt with soon before they get a bomb". Join us in the reality based world.
BIGC says2015-09-05T17:44:42.0906014Z
@TBR I am in the real world. If we look at most nuclear powers, like Russia. Every time it came down to eliminating the enemy or surviving, they would choose there own survive. But you have to look at Iran's morals, they call the US the devil, and in order to kill us they have helped (with financial aid) the terrorists who blew up the twin towers on 9-11, they walk onto a bus with a back pack full of bombs and blow themselves up with out second thought. If they were to get a nuke, they would not care what the west would do back, they would use it on the US or Israel. The Iran Nuclear deal is not stopping Iran from getting a bomb, it is just taking time, time that we don't have. The UN, as much as i don't like them, said back in 2013, Iran could have a bomb by that fall, fall of 2013, it is now 2015, almost 2016 and we still have not stopped Iran from enriching Uranium. We have not even tried to stop them in the shadows. Israel has killed 6 of Iran's top nuclear scientists, they put a virus on there main frame and stopped them from enriching for months, they also blew a power plant that they were using to build a secret underground facility that when it is done, Iran will be "immune" all there enriching will go deep underground, and at that point we would have to send in ground troops to stop them. The Iran deal is not what we need, we need to find a different way to stop them, and if the time comes war, because if we don't they will.
BIGC says2015-09-06T01:34:29.5127828Z
@TBR I would love to hear you, why don't you try and thwart my facts.
TBR says2015-09-06T02:27:46.3632753Z
@BIGC - Want to do it as a debate?
BIGC says2015-09-06T02:31:05.2957505Z
Ya, just not tonight. I would love to
BIGC says2015-09-06T18:59:38.0017146Z
@TRB would you like to to a debate?
TBR says2015-09-06T19:01:03.7883142Z
@BIGC - I think I could do a debate this week. Been lazy debating the last several months

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.