Author Topic: Iran nuclear deal (Read 35395 times)

Baruch · « **Reply #80 on:** July 16, 2015, 11:22:02 AM »

Quote from: Aj3042 on July 16, 2015, 11:19:55 AM

Boy if the Washington Post already doesn't like it that's not good for Obama. They're not exactly hard core conservatives to put it mildly.

It's from their right turn blog

" Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective."

Aj3042 · « **Reply #81 on:** July 16, 2015, 11:22:47 AM »

Quote from: Baruch on July 16, 2015, 11:22:02 AM

It's from their right turn blog

" Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective."

Oh my bad. I was wondering what right turn was referring to on the top.

username · « **Reply #82 on:** July 16, 2015, 11:30:25 AM »

Quote from: ilherman on July 14, 2015, 02:37:28 PM

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)

Quote from: zale on July 14, 2015, 08:05:00 PM

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

I'm not into politics either.
But the real answer is that there is treaty signed in1970, and in 1995, the Treaty was extended indefinitely. Its called the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT. A total of 191 states have joined the Treaty, though North Korea, announced its withdrawal in 2003. Four UN member states have never joined the NPT: India, Israel, Pakistan and South Sudan.
The treaty prohibits the members from developing any new nuclear weapons, but allows them to share nuclear technology.
Israel never signed, so its not bound by it, Iran signed. Most likely Israel had the bomb before 1970, so they are probably not in violation even if they had signed.

Oh, the treaty also talks about disarmament, but lets not get sidetracked.

asd · « **Reply #83 on:** July 17, 2015, 01:44:53 PM »

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/iran-nuclear-deal-goldberg-frum-beinart/398816/ excellent debate on the deal from 3 well respected journalists

elit · « **Reply #84 on:** July 17, 2015, 06:22:55 PM »

Watch from 10 min in

mancunian · « **Reply #85 on:** August 05, 2015, 04:26:31 PM »

So are you guys all calling your congresspeople?
Script below. Save the world... really. I'm posting this because my WhatsApp today is talking about how Clarke is hanging up the phones on Jews already....

Please take a moment and call Rep Clarke (202) 225-6231. Tell her to vote NO! on the Iran deal. I just spoke to her legislative director. Unfortunately very few calls came in from Crown Heights opposing the deal. Phone Script
"I am calling to urge the representative to oppose the Iran nuclear deal because it will not block Iran from getting a nuclear weapon."

Moshe123 · « **Reply #86 on:** August 05, 2015, 04:30:55 PM »

Quote from: mancunian on August 05, 2015, 04:26:31 PM

So are you guys all calling your congresspeople?
Script below. Save the world... really. I'm posting this because my WhatsApp today is talking about how Clarke is hanging up the phones on Jews already....

Please take a moment and call Rep Clarke (202) 225-6231. Tell her to vote NO! on the Iran deal. I just spoke to her legislative director. Unfortunately very few calls came in from Crown Heights opposing the deal. Phone Script
"I am calling to urge the representative to oppose the Iran nuclear deal because it will not block Iran from getting a nuclear weapon."

The issue is the senate. I don't see 67 against.

mancunian · « **Reply #87 on:** August 05, 2015, 04:32:10 PM »

So call Washington too. Doesn't hurt to call...

clear thinker · « **Reply #88 on:** August 10, 2015, 03:41:40 PM »

Ouch! https://medium.com/@SenSchumer/my-position-on-the-iran-deal-e976b2f13478

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #89 on:** August 10, 2015, 04:22:51 PM »

Quote from: clear thinker on August 10, 2015, 03:41:40 PM

Ouch! https://medium.com/@SenSchumer/my-position-on-the-iran-deal-e976b2f13478

What's the "ouch" part?

lunatic · « **Reply #90 on:** August 10, 2015, 04:23:30 PM »

Quote from: ChaimMoskowitz on August 10, 2015, 04:22:51 PM

What's the "ouch" part?

+1. Seems fairly well written

clear thinker · « **Reply #91 on:** August 10, 2015, 04:33:27 PM »

Quote from: ChaimMoskowitz on August 10, 2015, 04:22:51 PM

What's the "ouch" part?

Quote from: lunatic on August 10, 2015, 04:23:30 PM

+1. Seems fairly well written

Ouch Obama....

avremie · « **Reply #92 on:** August 10, 2015, 05:00:23 PM »

Quote from: clear thinker on August 10, 2015, 04:33:27 PM

Ouch Obama....

He's just a traitor with dual loyalty.

Aaaron · « **Reply #93 on:** August 10, 2015, 06:02:50 PM »

Quote from: ChaimMoskowitz on August 10, 2015, 04:22:51 PM

What's the "ouch" part?

The ouch could also be that his party will treat him like a traitor now. Although it definitely hurts Obama too. It would've been nice to have Schumer propose an alternative though. Without one, the left will just condemn him for bending to AIPAC's will.

zale · « **Reply #94 on:** August 10, 2015, 08:10:26 PM »

Quote from: Aaaron on August 10, 2015, 06:02:50 PM

The ouch could also be that his party will treat him like a traitor now. Although it definitely hurts Obama too. It would've been nice to have Schumer propose an alternative though. Without one, the left will just condemn him for bending to AIPAC's will.

I don't understand the demand for an "alternative".

It was Obama who decided to negotiate with Iran, against a longstanding American policy not to negotiate with terrorists. Why do those who disagree with any deal need to offer up an alternative?

If Obama is too weak to stop Russia and China from doing business with Iran then maybe he shouldn't be the commander-in-cheif.

Aaaron · « **Reply #95 on:** August 10, 2015, 08:25:44 PM »

Quote from: zale on August 10, 2015, 08:10:26 PM

I don't understand the demand for an "alternative".

It was Obama who decided to negotiate with Iran, against a longstanding American policy not to negotiate with terrorists. Why do those who disagree with any deal need to offer up an alternative?

If Obama is too weak to stop Russia and China from doing business with Iran then maybe he shouldn't be the commander-in-cheif.

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.

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

Aj3042 · « **Reply #96 on:** August 10, 2015, 08:48:12 PM »

Quote from: zale on August 10, 2015, 08:10:26 PM

I don't understand the demand for an "alternative".

It was Obama who decided to negotiate with Iran, against a longstanding American policy not to negotiate with terrorists. Why do those who disagree with any deal need to offer up an alternative?

If Obama is too weak to stop Russia and China from doing business with Iran then maybe he shouldn't be the commander-in-cheif.

There's a sinple alternative. They're called American bombers. It was always American policy until now that Iran must be stopped from getting nukes, even if we have to stop them by force (and no it doesn't need to include soldiers on the ground). So this constant talk of "no alternative" is democrat garbage.

aygart · « **Reply #97 on:** August 10, 2015, 08:52:37 PM »

Quote from: Aj3042 on August 10, 2015, 08:48:12 PM

There's a sinple alternative. They're called American bombers. It was always American policy until now that Iran must be stopped from getting nukes, even if we have to stop them by force (and no it doesn't need to include soldiers on the ground). So this constant talk of "no alternative" is democrat garbage.

ummmmm they have been saying that the alternative is war while the republicans have been saying that there are other alternatives. Are you agreeing with the democrats?

clear thinker · « **Reply #98 on:** August 10, 2015, 08:59:18 PM »

Quote from: aygart on August 10, 2015, 08:52:37 PM

ummmmm they have been saying that the alternative is war while the republicans have been saying that there are other alternatives. Are you agreeing with the democrats?

First things first, don't take the military option off the table!
Regardless if you're gonna use it, first don't show your hand to your opponent!
You can't bargain without some kind of leverage.

Aj3042 · « **Reply #99 on:** August 10, 2015, 09:05:50 PM »

Quote from: aygart on August 10, 2015, 08:52:37 PM

ummmmm they have been saying that the alternative is war while the republicans have been saying that there are other alternatives. Are you agreeing with the democrats?

A. Bombing them isn't war. You're in and out.
B. Santions may cripple them to the point which the gov will be overthrown or they make really back off.
C. If that fails, we have stealth bombers for a reason.