Iran nuclear deal

[zale]

I'm not into politics but here are my 2 questions.

1. As far as Iran is concerned why are they not allowed to have nuclear weapons? Why can the USA have nuclear bombs and they may not? If I would be Iran I would say "before we start ANY deal, I want all you big guys to get rid of all your nuclear weapons.  (of course WE know that Iran supports terrorism, still China and a lot of other countries consider Iran as a normal country, so here is my question)

Your question is one that really needs no answer. It's like a child asking a parent why the parent is allowed to stay up late and they are not. The U.S. is an established force of democracy for over 200 years. The U.S. provides moral and financial support to dozens of poor countries. The U.S. protects countries like South Korea from invasion by the fascist North Korea, and offers support to Israel. Whenever a country is in trouble, they turn to the UNITED STATES to save them. (Greece might still try to get a bailout from the US). The US has built the most powerful nuclear weapons in the world (hopefully), and has never used a single one since WWII.

In short, the U.S. is a trusted democratic force that can be relied on. Everyone trades in US dollars. The US is the most trusted country in the world. If the entire world (sans terror sponsoring countries) had a vote today, they would rule that the US can be trusted.

As part of US support of Israel and war against terrorism, they have placed sanctions on Iran. Iran is negotiating because they want those sanctions removed.

Do I even need to list why Iran CAN NOT be trusted?

2. Honestly speaking, there is no way that this is a concern for Israel and not as much for the US. IF Chas Veshulem Iran decides to send a nuclear bomb to Israel, then without a question world war 3 will be in place which means ...I don't want to proceed - So we the US people and the entire world should be as concerned.  Again, I am not talking to the people who think that this deal is a great thing and it will prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, but the people here in the US who think that this IS a bad deal should be concerned as well.

That's like saying that if you have a neighbor that is a known felon, I, who lives in a different state 1000 miles away should be just as worried as you are. That is nonsense.

Israel's very existence is threatened here.

[freddy]

I'm not into politics but here are my 2 questions.

1. As far as Iran is concerned why are they not allowed to have nuclear weapons? Why can the USA have nuclear bombs and they may not? If I would be Iran I would say "before we start ANY deal, I want all you big guys to get rid of all your nuclear weapons.  (of course WE know that Iran supports terrorism, still China and a lot of other countries consider Iran as a normal country, so here is my question)

Because we know they're a terrorist state and if they want the sanctions lifted they have to do this, we don't care what they think. Besides do you think Iran thinks of themselves as tzadeikim?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

The US has built the most powerful nuclear weapons in the world (hopefully), and has never used a single one since WWII.

...and the flip side is the US is the only country that ever used a nuke and can't be trusted because they will do it again when they are in trouble.

[zale]

...and the flip side is the US is the only country that ever used a nuke and can't be trusted because they will do it again when they are in trouble.

If we are in that kind of trouble, then I certainly hope we use it again.

As a side point, the Russians and Japanese have both had major internal nuclear disasters. I would point fingers at them before pointing at the U.S.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

As a side point, the Russians and Japanese have both had major internal nuclear disasters. I would point fingers at them before pointing at the U.S.

I am not pointing fingers at anyone. Just pointing out there can be two totally different views of the same situation.

If we are in that kind of trouble, then I certainly hope we use it again.

Should we have used it in Vietnam?

[yos9694]

As a side point, the Russians and Japanese have both had major internal nuclear disasters. I would point fingers at them before pointing at the U.S.

But the US had one first!

[ChaimMoskowitz]

But the US had one first!

Lets not bring facts into the discussion.

[WiddleAvi]

The U.S. provides moral and financial support to dozens of poor countries. The U.S. protects countries like South Korea from invasion by the fascist North Korea, and offers support to Israel. Whenever a country is in trouble, they turn to the UNITED STATES to save them. (Greece might still try to get a bailout from the US). The US has built the most powerful nuclear weapons in the world (hopefully), and has never used a single one since WWII.

In short, the U.S. is a trusted democratic force that can be relied on. Everyone trades in US dollars. The US is the most trusted country in the world. If the entire world (sans terror sponsoring countries) had a vote today, they would rule that the US can

The US has supported Saddam Hussain before they were against him. They supported Bin Laden before they were again him.  So lets not look at the US as belonging on some moral high ground !!

As far as the deal is concerned, it is not a good deal. But there is a very big BUT involved. The sanctions in place until now only work if everyone follows them. With the way Putin has been going do you trust him to keep sticking to the sanctions. It would seem to me that China and Russia were getting close to saying that if a deal is not reached then they will stop sticking to the sanctions. If that's the case then it was in US's best interest to get the best deal they possibly can rather than no deal.

[zale]

But the US had one first!

Not even remotely comparable. The US incident ("Three Mile Island") was a valve malfunction. Every precaution was taken and every precaution was in place. At the end of the day, this was a mechanical malfunction, not human error, not human irresponsibility.

The Chernobyl (and arguably the Fukushima) disaster was the result of human stupidity and irresponsibility.

Obviously, nuclear reactors are potentially dangerous no matter where, but if you are going to talk about reliability and trust, I believe the U.S. has the best record by far.

[zale]

The US has supported Saddam Hussain before they were against him. They supported Bin Laden before they were again him.  So lets not look at the US as belonging on some moral high ground !!

Hey buddy, say hi to the straw man for me. But while you are on the topic, it's not uncommon for a country to use a lesser enemy as a tool against a greater enemy. It's called fighting a war by proxy. This method has been highly successful in taking down drug cartels in South America.

Sure, in hindsight using Saddam and Bin Laden was a huge mistake. But then again Islamic fanatics are unpredictable.

As far as the deal is concerned, it is not a good deal. But there is a very big BUT involved. The sanctions in place until now only work if everyone follows them. With the way Putin has been going do you trust him to keep sticking to the sanctions. It would seem to me that China and Russia were getting close to saying that if a deal is not reached then they will stop sticking to the sanctions. If that's the case then it was in US's best interest to get the best deal they possibly can rather than no deal.

Complete and utter malarkey. Let me summarize your statement: Obama is a weak leader. Russia and China don't fear him, they play him.

No, this is not the best deal he could have gotten. This is called capitulation.

[WiddleAvi]

Hey buddy, say hi to the straw man for me. But while you are on the topic, it's not uncommon for a country to use a lesser enemy as a tool against a greater enemy. It's called fighting a war by proxy. This method has been highly successful in taking down drug cartels in South America.

Sure, in hindsight using Saddam and Bin Laden was a huge mistake. But then again Islamic fanatics are unpredictable.

Complete and utter malarkey. Let me summarize your statement: Obama is a weak leader. Russia and China don't fear him, they play him.

A)My point was saying that the US does so much good therefore they get to decide which countries should be allowed to have the bomb is BS. The US has done plenty of bad to go along with that good.
B)Unless you are willing to go to war with every country who does not agree with you then you cant control every other country. As it is the US has placed a ton on sanctions on Russia but they still do what they want.

[elit]

As far as the deal is concerned, it is not a good deal. But there is a very big BUT involved. The sanctions in place until now only work if everyone follows them. With the way Putin has been going do you trust him to keep sticking to the sanctions. It would seem to me that China and Russia were getting close to saying that if a deal is not reached then they will stop sticking to the sanctions. If that's the case then it was in US's best interest to get the best deal they possibly can rather than no deal.

That's essentially what they- did remove the sanctions with no consequences.

[zale]

A)My point was saying that the US does so much good therefore they get to decide which countries should be allowed to have the bomb is BS. The US has done plenty of bad to go along with that good.
B)Unless you are willing to go to war with every country who does not agree with you then you cant control every other country. As it is the US has placed a ton on sanctions on Russia but they still do what they want.

Who said the US gets to decide who can and who cannot have nuclear weapons?

The US definitely gets to decide if they want to protect themselves and protect their allies. If they feel threatened, they get to decide if they can slap sanctions on the offending country, and if need be, attack them. In fact, any country gets to decide this.

Iran is at the nogotiating table because they want the sanctions removed, not becuase they accept the US as the "world police".

[freddy]

What's this whole discussion about events that happened half a century got to do with Iran? We all agree (I hope) that if Iran has a bomb they would use it to threaten American allies, and that we are in a position to twist their arm - otherwise they wouldn't be sitting with us, so what difference does it make if we killed 100,000 people 60 years ago? The point is that we have to fight for our best interests not what some philosopher's opinion is the moral right.

[WiddleAvi]

Who said the US gets to decide who can and who cannot have nuclear weapons?

The US definitely gets to decide if they want to protect themselves and protect their allies. If they feel threatened, they get to decide if they can slap sanctions on the offending country, and if need be, attack them. In fact, any country gets to decide this.

Iran is at the nogotiating table because they want the sanctions removed, not becuase they accept the US as the "world police".

You are correct. I misread what you wrote on the previous page about Why the US gets to have the bomb but not Iran

[zale]

What's this whole discussion about events that happened half a century got to do with Iran? We all agree (I hope) that if Iran has a bomb they would use it to threaten American allies, and that we are in a position to twist their arm - otherwise they wouldn't be sitting with us, so what difference does it make if we killed 100,000 people 60 years ago? The point is that we have to fight for our best interests not what some philosopher's opinion is the moral right.

Well, there are people on this forum that live off the fat of the land here in the US, and are more than happy to tell you why the US doesn't have any moral authority over a terror-sponsoring country.

[Baruch]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/14/whip-count-where-the-senate-stands-on-the-iran-deal/

[jackofall]

I'm not into politics but here are my 2 questions.

1. As far as Iran is concerned why are they not allowed to have nuclear weapons? Why can the USA have nuclear bombs and they may not? If I would be Iran I would say "before we start ANY deal, I want all you big guys to get rid of all your nuclear weapons.  (of course WE know that Iran supports terrorism, still China and a lot of other countries consider Iran as a normal country, so here is my question)

It's not about morals, which country can be trusted or which country is the nicest- it's about power. The most powerful man in town decides how the town is run. Currently the U.S. is the most powerful country, militarily and economically. As soon as they loose this edge their words will carry the same weight as our niebghbors just north of us - canada.

[jackofall]

Because we know they're a terrorist state and if they want the sanctions lifted they have to do this, we don't care what they think. Besides do you think Iran thinks of themselves as tzadeikim?

All people think they are the most moral and are correct in their beliefs. To think otherwise is a little narrow minded.

[elit]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/14/whip-count-where-the-senate-stands-on-the-iran-deal/

If booker votes for the deal than all those frum activist buddies of his got a lot of explaining to do