CDZ Debunking Iran Nuke Agreement Agreement

[Luddly Neddite]

Debunking Myths Around the Nuclear Agreement With Iran

Yesterday in Philadelphia, I laid out the facts about the agreement that the United States and its partners reached with Iran to ensure that its nuclear program remains peaceful. I want to explain to as broad an audience as possible why the agreed plan will make the United States, Israel, the Gulf States, and the world safer. And I want to explain how it gives us the access we need to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program remains wholly peaceful, while preserving our every option to respond if Iran fails to meet its commitments.

As often happens on hotly debated issues, there has been a lot of misinformation circulating about the agreement. I want to dispel the false information by talking about five of the myths that have sprung up around the agreement.


I hope both sides can just read this with an open mind and actually discuss it.

Sorry about the bold - it won't turn off.

Read the points at the link.

https://medium.com/the-iran-deal/de...ment-with-iran-7d707c8f4913?awesm=ofa.bo_e53H

 

[Derideo_Te]

The anti-Obama crowd don't want to deal with the facts because they get in the way of their disinformation.

This deal is a major accomplishment for Obama during a time when most 2nd term presidents are lucky so see anything at all during their tenure in office.

Putting this thread in the CDZ means that you won't see many of the anti-Obama posters because they generally have limited vocabularies.

 

[jillian]

The anti-Obama crowd don't want to deal with the facts because they get in the way of their disinformation.

This deal is a major accomplishment for Obama during a time when most 2nd term presidents are lucky so see anything at all during their tenure in office.

Putting this thread in the CDZ means that you won't see many of the anti-Obama posters because they generally have limited vocabularies.

to be fair, it's a complicated issue. i am reluctantly supportive but only because i think it is the only option. however, i think it is the only option because i think it was rammed down our throats. realistically, it then became the only alternative short of being the only nation involved in the negotiations to continue sanctions (which would have been entirely ineffective and absurd).

so do i like it? no. do i think there is a realistic alternative? no.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The anti-Obama crowd don't want to deal with the facts because they get in the way of their disinformation.

This deal is a major accomplishment for Obama during a time when most 2nd term presidents are lucky so see anything at all during their tenure in office.

Putting this thread in the CDZ means that you won't see many of the anti-Obama posters because they generally have limited vocabularies.

to be fair, it's a complicated issue. i am reluctantly supportive but only because i think it is the only option. however, i think it is the only option because i think it was rammed down our throats. realistically, it then became the only alternative short of being the only nation involved in the negotiations to continue sanctions (which would have been entirely ineffective and absurd).

so do i like it? no. do i think there is a realistic alternative? no.

Given that there was no realistic alternative we have to make the best of what we have.

There is an expression that those with nothing have nothing to lose. The reverse holds true too. By opening up markets with Iran they will find themselves in a situation of having something to lose in the future. The Saudis are in that same situation. So is Egypt to a lesser extent.

The Iranians are not as they are portrayed here. They are very much just like ordinary people everywhere who really don't get all bent out of shape over things that the fanatics and zealots are screaming about. The same applies here. The average American really can't be bothered about some fundamentalist clerk refusing to issue marriage licenses.

After a decade or so the Iranian people won't stand for losing the freedom that those open markets will bring them. The Chinese people are the same. Freedom is an insidious thing that once people get a taste for it they want more. Trying to take it away afterwards becomes a dangerous thing to do. The Arab Spring was a cry for freedom.

So while I am as suspicious as the next person when it comes to this deal I have faith that it will work in the long run. It just needs that time and in the middle east that might not happen because it is the middle east.

 

[jillian]

The anti-Obama crowd don't want to deal with the facts because they get in the way of their disinformation.

This deal is a major accomplishment for Obama during a time when most 2nd term presidents are lucky so see anything at all during their tenure in office.

Putting this thread in the CDZ means that you won't see many of the anti-Obama posters because they generally have limited vocabularies.

to be fair, it's a complicated issue. i am reluctantly supportive but only because i think it is the only option. however, i think it is the only option because i think it was rammed down our throats. realistically, it then became the only alternative short of being the only nation involved in the negotiations to continue sanctions (which would have been entirely ineffective and absurd).

so do i like it? no. do i think there is a realistic alternative? no.

Given that there was no realistic alternative we have to make the best of what we have.

There is an expression that those with nothing have nothing to lose. The reverse holds true too. By opening up markets with Iran they will find themselves in a situation of having something to lose in the future. The Saudis are in that same situation. So is Egypt to a lesser extent.

The Iranians are not as they are portrayed here. They are very much just like ordinary people everywhere who really don't get all bent out of shape over things that the fanatics and zealots are screaming about. The same applies here. The average American really can't be bothered about some fundamentalist clerk refusing to issue marriage licenses.

After a decade or so the Iranian people won't stand for losing the freedom that those open markets will bring them. The Chinese people are the same. Freedom is an insidious thing that once people get a taste for it they want more. Trying to take it away afterwards becomes a dangerous thing to do. The Arab Spring was a cry for freedom.

So while I am as suspicious as the next person when it comes to this deal I have faith that it will work in the long run. It just needs that time and in the middle east that might not happen because it is the middle east.

the problem is that i no not a single thought has been given to the safety of israel, which iran has sworn to obliterate. and while i understand the limited alternatives available, i don't see anything intended to protect against certain occurrences. nor do i see anything indicating that a single thought was given to the problem. i see that as a bit cavalier. it is worth it in the long run if its successful. if it isn't, then it's a disaster.

 

[Mertex]

Debunking Myths Around the Nuclear Agreement With Iran

Yesterday in Philadelphia, I laid out the facts about the agreement that the United States and its partners reached with Iran to ensure that its nuclear program remains peaceful. I want to explain to as broad an audience as possible why the agreed plan will make the United States, Israel, the Gulf States, and the world safer. And I want to explain how it gives us the access we need to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program remains wholly peaceful, while preserving our every option to respond if Iran fails to meet its commitments.

As often happens on hotly debated issues, there has been a lot of misinformation circulating about the agreement. I want to dispel the false information by talking about five of the myths that have sprung up around the agreement.


I hope both sides can just read this with an open mind and actually discuss it.

Sorry about the bold - it won't turn off.

Read the points at the link.

Thanks, Luddly.......most of the lay-people that disagree with the deal have no clue what is in it and are going by what their leaders tell them. Some of their leaders hadn't read it either, before they launched their negative remarks against it. Clueless....that's what they are called. Our country needs to get stronger before we engage in another war, and it should be a necessary war, not another worthless war like Iraq, and these clueless people don't realize that the alternative is to go to war because Republican leaders are in no position to negotiate a better deal......or any deal at all.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

Debunking Myths Around the Nuclear Agreement With Iran

Yesterday in Philadelphia, I laid out the facts about the agreement that the United States and its partners reached with Iran to ensure that its nuclear program remains peaceful. I want to explain to as broad an audience as possible why the agreed plan will make the United States, Israel, the Gulf States, and the world safer. And I want to explain how it gives us the access we need to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program remains wholly peaceful, while preserving our every option to respond if Iran fails to meet its commitments.

As often happens on hotly debated issues, there has been a lot of misinformation circulating about the agreement. I want to dispel the false information by talking about five of the myths that have sprung up around the agreement.


I hope both sides can just read this with an open mind and actually discuss it.

Sorry about the bold - it won't turn off.

Read the points at the link.

while I strongly support the deal (you can read my essay in my earlier thread on the topic if you want to hear why in more detail), i think that it would actually have less support if it weren't for partisan division. it is such a complicated issue that many people just want to be told what to think about it rather than look at the facts and conclude for themselves, so democrats support it and republicans oppose it. if it weren't for this partisan separation, many people would just look at the deal superficially and as a result fail to see its merits, concluding that all it does is gave Iran money and delay its building a bomb. this is the first time I can think of that partisan separation has been a force for good.

 

[Mertex]

all it does is gave Iran money and delay its building a bomb. this is the first time I can think of that partisan separation has been a force for good.

Even if that was all that the deal does, it is still better than "no deal." Without this deal, Iran doesn't have any constraints to continue doing what they are doing, and putting our country and other countries at risk. The only alternative to "no deal" is to bomb Iran.....right now.....and that is what Republicans are suggesting, because they are not in a position to make another deal with Iran considering the other countries that have worked together to make this one happen. Most of the conservatives agreeing that it is not a good deal have no clue what they are supporting, and their leaders don't seem to give a damn that they are putting our country at risk.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

all it does is gave Iran money and delay its building a bomb. this is the first time I can think of that partisan separation has been a force for good.

Even if that was all that the deal does, it is still better than "no deal." Without this deal, Iran doesn't have any constraints to continue doing what they are doing, and putting our country and other countries at risk. The only alternative to "no deal" is to bomb Iran.....right now.....and that is what Republicans are suggesting, because they are not in a position to make another deal with Iran considering the other countries that have worked together to make this one happen. Most of the conservatives agreeing that it is not a good deal have no clue what they are supporting, and their leaders don't seem to give a damn that they are putting our country at risk.

you misunderstand me. it does much more than just that. it really was the best case scinario. even the parts of the deal that benefit Iran are good for everyone else involved.

 

[irosie91]

all it does is gave Iran money and delay its building a bomb. this is the first time I can think of that partisan separation has been a force for good.

Even if that was all that the deal does, it is still better than "no deal." Without this deal, Iran doesn't have any constraints to continue doing what they are doing, and putting our country and other countries at risk. The only alternative to "no deal" is to bomb Iran.....right now.....and that is what Republicans are suggesting, because they are not in a position to make another deal with Iran considering the other countries that have worked together to make this one happen. Most of the conservatives agreeing that it is not a good deal have no clue what they are supporting, and their leaders don't seem to give a damn that they are putting our country at risk.

you misunderstand me. it does much more than just that. it really was the best case scinario. even the parts of the deal that benefit Iran are good for everyone else involved.

I have read this bit a few times-----"the parts of the deal that benefit Iran are good
for everyone else" --------it reminds me of the statement that
Achmadinejad made when he addressed the General Assembly
of the UN-----'ISLAM IS THE RELIGION FOR THE WORLD' ---
specifically the Shiite branch----thus anything that benefits Iran
benefits the world.
I do not understand how rejection of the NUKE deal puts the USA at risk

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

all it does is gave Iran money and delay its building a bomb. this is the first time I can think of that partisan separation has been a force for good.

Even if that was all that the deal does, it is still better than "no deal." Without this deal, Iran doesn't have any constraints to continue doing what they are doing, and putting our country and other countries at risk. The only alternative to "no deal" is to bomb Iran.....right now.....and that is what Republicans are suggesting, because they are not in a position to make another deal with Iran considering the other countries that have worked together to make this one happen. Most of the conservatives agreeing that it is not a good deal have no clue what they are supporting, and their leaders don't seem to give a damn that they are putting our country at risk.

you misunderstand me. it does much more than just that. it really was the best case scinario. even the parts of the deal that benefit Iran are good for everyone else involved.

I have read this bit a few times-----"the parts of the deal that benefit Iran are good
for everyone else" --------it reminds me of the statement that
Achmadinejad made when he addressed the General Assembly
of the UN-----'ISLAM IS THE RELIGION FOR THE WORLD' ---
specifically the Shiite branch----thus anything that benefits Iran
benefits the world.
I do not understand how rejection of the NUKE deal puts the USA at risk

first answer this: how are those two comments at all similar?
second, rejecting the deal would leave Iran'd nuclear program free to build a bomb (which it could do in 3 months id it really wanted), and also make Iran remain an enemy, effectively stopping Iran's movement towards moderation. plus, all other parties involved in the deal say that if it is rejected, they have no intention of putting sanctions back in place.

 

[irosie91]

all it does is gave Iran money and delay its building a bomb. this is the first time I can think of that partisan separation has been a force for good.

Even if that was all that the deal does, it is still better than "no deal." Without this deal, Iran doesn't have any constraints to continue doing what they are doing, and putting our country and other countries at risk. The only alternative to "no deal" is to bomb Iran.....right now.....and that is what Republicans are suggesting, because they are not in a position to make another deal with Iran considering the other countries that have worked together to make this one happen. Most of the conservatives agreeing that it is not a good deal have no clue what they are supporting, and their leaders don't seem to give a damn that they are putting our country at risk.

you misunderstand me. it does much more than just that. it really was the best case scinario. even the parts of the deal that benefit Iran are good for everyone else involved.

I have read this bit a few times-----"the parts of the deal that benefit Iran are good
for everyone else" --------it reminds me of the statement that
Achmadinejad made when he addressed the General Assembly
of the UN-----'ISLAM IS THE RELIGION FOR THE WORLD' ---
specifically the Shiite branch----thus anything that benefits Iran
benefits the world.
I do not understand how rejection of the NUKE deal puts the USA at risk

first answer this: how are those two comments at all similar?
second, rejecting the deal would leave Iran'd nuclear program free to build a bomb (which it could do in 3 months id it really wanted), and also make Iran remain an enemy, effectively stopping Iran's movement towards moderation. plus, all other parties involved in the deal say that if it is rejected, they have no intention of putting sanctions back in place.

sanctions have not yet been entirely lifted------where do you get PUTTING BACK
IN PLACE? "iran's movement toward moderation" <<when did that happen?---as we post-------the carnage in Yemen continues and Hezbollah sharpens its
daggers. . Let me know when Iran dismantles Hezbollah

 

[Mertex]

I do not understand how rejection of the NUKE deal puts the USA at risk

What part don't you understand. Iran is currently able to work on building a nuclear weapon. The deal takes that ability away. If the deal is not there, Iran can continue to work on a nuclear weapon. How else do you stop them? Bomb Iran....which will start another war. Doesn't take rocket science to figure that out.

It puts the USA at risk because the only other alternative left will be to bomb Iran if they continue to build a nuclear weapon. Republicans don't have another deal in the wings, and the Congressmen that are against the deal won't be sending their sons and daughters to war.....it will be our sons and daughters.

Please tell us what Republican Congressmen offer that is better......



Under this agreement, Iran is never allowed to build a nuclear weapon -- period.

Every single pathway Iran could use is effectively blocked by this deal. Here's how: It takes either enriched uranium or plutonium to build a nuclear weapon. The only site where Iran can create weapons-grade plutonium is at its Arak reactor. Under this deal, the core of the Arak reactor will be pulled out, filled with concrete, and replaced with one that will not produce weapons-grade plutonium. Furthermore, the spent fuel from that reactor will be shipped out of the country and Iran will not build any new heavy-water reactors for at least 15 years.
What is it about the Iran nuclear deal that keeps them from getting nuclear weapons? - Quora

 

[Mertex]

sanctions have not yet been entirely lifted------where do you get PUTTING BACK

When the deal is accepted by Iran, the sanctions will be lifted. If they renege, the sanctions go back in place.

You could try doing a little research.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/world/middleeast/whats-next-for-the-iran-nuclear-deal.html?_r=0