Author Topic: Iran nuclear deal  (Read 35289 times)

Offline Aj3042

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Oct 2013
  • Posts: 1379
  • Total likes: 4
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
  • Location: The Oval Office
  • Programs: Presidential Limo Gold, Secret Service Detail Platinum, Air Force One Diamond, White House Free Days, Red Telephone Priority Service.
Re: Iran nuclear deal
« Reply #100 on: August 10, 2015, 09:13:00 PM »
Let's keep in mind that Chamberlain also insisted that the alternative to his peace plan would be war. Appeasing these Iranian terrorists won't prevent war nor does avoiding war (or force or whatever) accomplish anything if they're going to get the bomb, which will lead to war. We have a military for a reason.

Offline ChaimMoskowitz

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Posts: 7232
  • Total likes: 1097
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Iran nuclear deal
« Reply #101 on: August 10, 2015, 09:17:46 PM »
He's just a  traitor with dual loyalty.
He should join DDF.  :P
I just found a new supply of forks!

Offline ChaimMoskowitz

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Posts: 7232
  • Total likes: 1097
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Iran nuclear deal
« Reply #102 on: August 10, 2015, 09:20:11 PM »
It was Obama who decided to negotiate with Iran, against a longstanding American policy not to negotiate with terrorists.
Was this meant as a joke?
I just found a new supply of forks!

Offline clear thinker

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Posts: 2596
  • Total likes: 2
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
Re: Iran nuclear deal
« Reply #103 on: August 10, 2015, 09:21:27 PM »
Was this meant as a joke?
The part that Iran is a terrorist state??
Unfortunately NO!

Offline sruli1234

  • Dansdeals Platinum Elite
  • ****
  • Join Date: Nov 2013
  • Posts: 265
  • Total likes: 0
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 6
    • View Profile
Re: Iran nuclear deal
« Reply #104 on: August 10, 2015, 09:23:00 PM »
Was this meant as a joke?

Why, Is it funny?

Offline Aaaron

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 1396
  • Total likes: 39
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
    • View Profile
  • Location: Baltimore
Re: Iran nuclear deal
« Reply #105 on: August 10, 2015, 09:23:26 PM »
Was this meant as a joke?

Probably.  It's not like we just negotiated with Iran 35 years ago  ::)

Offline Aj3042

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Oct 2013
  • Posts: 1379
  • Total likes: 4
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
  • Location: The Oval Office
  • Programs: Presidential Limo Gold, Secret Service Detail Platinum, Air Force One Diamond, White House Free Days, Red Telephone Priority Service.
Re: Iran nuclear deal
« Reply #106 on: August 10, 2015, 09:23:34 PM »
Was this meant as a joke?
Unfortunately NO!

That's the basics btw. I suggest you catch up on your reading of the papers.

Offline ChaimMoskowitz

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Posts: 7232
  • Total likes: 1097
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Iran nuclear deal
« Reply #107 on: August 10, 2015, 09:32:01 PM »
The part that Iran is a terrorist state??
The part about not negotiating with terrorist. It might be a policy but history has shown us it is not reality.
I just found a new supply of forks!

Offline clear thinker

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Posts: 2596
  • Total likes: 2
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
Re: Iran nuclear deal
« Reply #108 on: August 10, 2015, 09:32:15 PM »

Offline clear thinker

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Posts: 2596
  • Total likes: 2
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
Re: Iran nuclear deal
« Reply #109 on: August 10, 2015, 09:34:50 PM »
The part about not negotiating with terrorist. It might be a policy but history has shown us it is not reality.
You're probably referring to the time when Iran 'Wasn't' officially called terrorists sponsors.

Offline ChaimMoskowitz

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Posts: 7232
  • Total likes: 1097
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Iran nuclear deal
« Reply #110 on: August 10, 2015, 09:40:26 PM »
You're probably referring to the time when Iran 'Wasn't' officially called terrorists sponsors.
I am referring to every under the table deal done over the years with are enemies. If you want to play semantics and say they are not "officially" terrorist then that's your call. Also don't confuse "terrorist" with "State Sponsors of Terrorism".
I just found a new supply of forks!

Offline Aaaron

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 1396
  • Total likes: 39
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
    • View Profile
  • Location: Baltimore
Re: Iran nuclear deal
« Reply #111 on: August 10, 2015, 09:41:20 PM »
You're probably referring to the time when Iran 'Wasn't' officially called terrorists sponsors.

The US negotiates with terrorists.  They always have, even GOP presidents. 

Offline aygart

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 18423
  • Total likes: 14598
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 14
    • View Profile
    • Lower Watt Energy Brokers
  • Programs: www.lowerwatt.com
Re: Iran nuclear deal
« Reply #112 on: August 10, 2015, 09:53:17 PM »
A. Bombing them isn't war. You're in and out.
Until they retaliate
B. Santions may cripple them to the point which the gov will be overthrown or they make really back off.
If the sanctions hold. You were responding to a post saying that there was no chance of them holding due to other countries not participating. If that is the case, and it may not be, then this argument is moot. This is definitely the opposite of the point you were previously making.
C. If that fails, we have stealth bombers for a reason.

Is this different than A? Either way, it is never entirely in our hands to prevent a war. If Iran attacks US interests in the region that can and probably should escalate to war. Are you confident that they would not sure so if we bomb them?
Feelings don't care about your facts

Offline aygart

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 18423
  • Total likes: 14598
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 14
    • View Profile
    • Lower Watt Energy Brokers
  • Programs: www.lowerwatt.com
Re: Iran nuclear deal
« Reply #113 on: August 10, 2015, 09:53:17 PM »
A. Bombing them isn't war. You're in and out.
Until they retaliate
B. Santions may cripple them to the point which the gov will be overthrown or they make really back off.
If the sanctions hold. You were responding to a post saying that there was no chance of them holding due to other countries not participating. If that is the case, and it may not be, then this argument is moot. This is definitely the opposite of the point you were previously making.
C. If that fails, we have stealth bombers for a reason.

Is this different than A? Either way, it is never entirely in our hands to prevent a war. If Iran attacks US interests in the region that can and probably should escalate to war. Are you confident that they would not sure so if we bomb them?
Feelings don't care about your facts

Offline zale

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Posts: 1450
  • Total likes: 375
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
    • View Profile
  • Location: Brooklyn, NY
Re: Iran nuclear deal
« Reply #114 on: August 10, 2015, 11:31:11 PM »
Seriously?  Two major superpowers, one of which holds 1/3 of our $18t+ national debt, and it's Obama's job/responsibility to tell them with whom they can conduct their business?  He's not the president of the world, he's the president of one country.

For decades, the president of the United States has been referred to as the "leader of the free world". There is a good reason for this. The U.S. holds all the cards. The key to the world economy is held by the U.S. If Wall St. collapses, the entire world will go down with it. (As a side point, the debt we owe China is mutually beneficial. If China called in its debt it would sink them on the same boat.)

A good school teacher is a man or woman who never has to raise his or her voice and never has to lift a finger. The children in the classroom can instantly detect on day one if the teacher is the ruler of the classroom or if he or she can be toyed with.

A powerful president does not have to lift a finger. Not a single bullet need be fired. Foreign leaders merely have to smell that the president of the U.S. means business and that is enough to force them into compliance. Ronald Reagan terrified the Soviets with mere words. Heck, they were even afraid of JFK.

Whether you like Obama or hate Obama, it is clear that he is perceived by foreign leaders as weak. They actually say it openly.

Quote
Or even if you look at it at being too weak, that's the situation, like it or not.  If China and Russia were going to unilaterally lift their sanctions anyway, the US was bargaining from a point of no real power.

Unfortunately I cannot argue with this.

Quote
That's why you need to present an alternative if you're in a position to possibly reject this deal, as Schumer may be.

In the unlikely event that the deal gets killed in the senate, what is Obama going to do? Is he going to say "you guys screwed me, so now I'm just going to let Iran do whatever they want"?

Offline Aaaron

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 1396
  • Total likes: 39
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
    • View Profile
  • Location: Baltimore
Re: Iran nuclear deal
« Reply #115 on: August 10, 2015, 11:52:06 PM »
For decades, the president of the United States has been referred to as the "leader of the free world". There is a good reason for this. The U.S. holds all the cards. The key to the world economy is held by the U.S. If Wall St. collapses, the entire world will go down with it. (As a side point, the debt we owe China is mutually beneficial. If China called in its debt it would sink them on the same boat.)

A good school teacher is a man or woman who never has to raise his or her voice and never has to lift a finger. The children in the classroom can instantly detect on day one if the teacher is the ruler of the classroom or if he or she can be toyed with.

A powerful president does not have to lift a finger. Not a single bullet need be fired. Foreign leaders merely have to smell that the president of the U.S. means business and that is enough to force them into compliance. Ronald Reagan terrified the Soviets with mere words. Heck, they were even afraid of JFK.


Whether you like Obama or hate Obama, it is clear that he is perceived by foreign leaders as weak. They actually say it openly.

That was a different time.  The US President actually had power because Congress backed him.  Washington has become so partisan that it doesn't just stonewall legislation, it removes the image of power from the executive branch.  Partisanship is much worse now than it used to be, and this is a perfect example.  Not that I agree with how Obama approached the whole deal, but if this was FDR - or practically any president from 50+ years ago - nearly everyone would've fallen in line.  Different times.  It has little to do with Obama as a person, and much more to do with the state of current US politics.

In the unlikely event that the deal gets killed in the senate, what is Obama going to do? Is he going to say "you guys screwed me, so now I'm just going to let Iran do whatever they want"?

No, he will keep US sanctions in place and attempt to convince the others to do the same, and when they refuse, he'll blame the GOP and the partisanship worsens. 

Offline zale

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Posts: 1450
  • Total likes: 375
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
    • View Profile
  • Location: Brooklyn, NY
Re: Iran nuclear deal
« Reply #116 on: August 11, 2015, 12:10:19 AM »
That was a different time.  The US President actually had power because Congress backed him.  Washington has become so partisan that it doesn't just stonewall legislation, it removes the image of power from the executive branch.  Partisanship is much worse now than it used to be, and this is a perfect example.  Not that I agree with how Obama approached the whole deal, but if this was FDR - or practically any president from 50+ years ago - nearly everyone would've fallen in line.  Different times.  It has little to do with Obama as a person, and much more to do with the state of current US politics.
While I agree that congress being openly hostile to the executive branch reduces its powerful appearance to the outside world, I don't recall a president that has been so hostile toward the opposing party. When it came to most issues, Clinton got along pretty well with the GOP, and Bush got along pretty well with the Democrats. Obama was divisive from the moment he was sworn into office. He never even attempted to appease the Republicans or even consider their point of view. Obamacare was a complete massacre. It was shoved down the throats of congress before the actual details of the legislation were revealed. Not a single Republican was for the ACA. Any time Republicans disagree with Obama, he goes to the media and blasts them as the enemy. He just recently compared the GOP to ISIS!

Even if you wanted to pin his diminished power on the GOP, he has only himself to blame for it.

Offline aygart

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 18423
  • Total likes: 14598
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 14
    • View Profile
    • Lower Watt Energy Brokers
  • Programs: www.lowerwatt.com
Re: Iran nuclear deal
« Reply #117 on: August 11, 2015, 12:11:48 AM »
That was a different time.  The US President actually had power because Congress backed him.  Washington has become so partisan that it doesn't just stonewall legislation, it removes the image of power from the executive branch.  Partisanship is much worse now than it used to be, and this is a perfect example.  Not that I agree with how Obama approached the whole deal, but if this was FDR - or practically any president from 50+ years ago - nearly everyone would've fallen in line.  Different times.  It has little to do with Obama as a person, and much more to do with the state of current US politics.

No, he will keep US sanctions in place and attempt to convince the others to do the same, and when they refuse, he'll blame the GOP and the partisanship worsens.
It is not so long ago that Bush was able to do it for the Iraq war. In his 6 years as president Obama has never done anything to make the republicans want to work with him on anything. saying that they have common ground with Iran will not get those against it to be change their minds.
Feelings don't care about your facts

Offline aygart

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 18423
  • Total likes: 14598
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 14
    • View Profile
    • Lower Watt Energy Brokers
  • Programs: www.lowerwatt.com
Feelings don't care about your facts

Offline skyguy918

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 4077
  • Total likes: 835
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: Queens, NY
Re: Iran nuclear deal
« Reply #119 on: August 11, 2015, 01:20:00 PM »
I am referring to every under the table deal done over the years with are enemies. If you want to play semantics and say they are not "officially" terrorist then that's your call. Also don't confuse "terrorist" with "State Sponsors of Terrorism".
For an 'under the table deal' this Iran thing was pretty public ::)