CDZ The Iranian nuclear deal: a deeper look

[irosie91]

is there ANYONE out there who can explain why some people ----including Obama have either CLEARLY stated or strongly implied that
the ratification of the "NUKE DEAL" is NECESSARY TO AVERT WAR?

I am also interested in knowing why such people also either clearly state or strongly imply that the reason Israel or 'zionists' reject the "NUKE DEAL" with Iran is because they want there to be a war between Iran and the USA. I see no reason at all that a rejection of the NUKE deal will cause a war between the USA and Iran

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

i'm going to stop responding to your illogical comments and respond to RoccoR's instead, because he presents valid points.

I have you stumped-----keep in mind----YOU PREDICTED that Hezbollah terrorism will be attenuated because IRAN GOT SOME MONEY

no, you do not"have me stumped", but I have said the same thing to you over and over again, and you continually ignore it, or twist my words to make my argument sound ridiculous. I am beginning to think you just enjoy calling people terrorists.

yes----you say the same thing over and over-----Iran will give up its imperialist ambitions---(the reason for its support of terrorism)---because once its population all have clean houses and good food----they will give up the PERSIAN SHIITE EMPIRE FANTASY and none
will be induced to fight for that fantasy. Not true <<< you read it here.

there you go again.

Ronald Reagan repeated the phrase "there you go again"-----during a period of time that his Alzheimer's was well advanced but unrecognized One of my brothers is an expert in alzheimers-----he made the diagnosis on Reagan during Reagan's second run for president----years before it was officially established. The sickness-----when examined RETROSPECTIVELY-----by examining writings by those afflicted---manifests years before it becomes clinically evident. I have no way of making such a diagnosis in you----in my mind you are just playing silly.

you, sir, have no Idea what you are talking about. just because your brother is a doctor doesn't mean you are. you are clearly not an expert in alzheimers because anyone who is would no that a person with it is not 24/7 insane. in addition, saying "there you go again" is not a symptom of alzheimers disease. I have nothing more to say to you, as this thread was meant for intelligent debate, and that is clearly impossible with you. if you want to debate, by all means stay. but otherwise, stop polluting this thread.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

is there ANYONE out there who can explain why some people ----including Obama have either CLEARLY stated or strongly implied that
the ratification of the "NUKE DEAL" is NECESSARY TO AVERT WAR?

I am also interested in knowing why such people also either clearly state or strongly imply that the reason Israel or 'zionists' reject the "NUKE DEAL" with Iran is because they want there to be a war between Iran and the USA. I see no reason at all that a rejection of the NUKE deal will cause a war between the USA and Iran

I think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that a rejection of the deal would instantly start a war between the Us and Iran, but without this deal, I believe that war in the middle east would be an eventuality, and the US would probably join in.

 

[irosie91]

is there ANYONE out there who can explain why some people ----including Obama have either CLEARLY stated or strongly implied that
the ratification of the "NUKE DEAL" is NECESSARY TO AVERT WAR?

I am also interested in knowing why such people also either clearly state or strongly imply that the reason Israel or 'zionists' reject the "NUKE DEAL" with Iran is because they want there to be a war between Iran and the USA. I see no reason at all that a rejection of the NUKE deal will cause a war between the USA and Iran

I think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that a rejection of the deal would instantly start a war between the Us and Iran, but without this deal, I believe that war in the middle east would be an eventuality, and the US would probably join in.

I got bad news for you-----the WAR in the middle east which includes Iran has already started. Its epicenter RIGHT NOW----is in Yemen----Iran has planted lots and lots of very well armed SHIITE fighters in Yemen and the objective is an attack on Saudi Arabia. Iran wants to control water ways over there which are essential for INTERNATIONAL TRADE-------actually world-over. This war has been in the planning stage BY IRAN for many years. . There is very little question that the USA will "get involved" in some way-----we already have nuclear subs over there. ----a little clue---****HE WHO OWNS MECCA AND THE BLACK ROCK---OWNS THE UMMAH****-------more clues-----one of the prime objectives of OSAMA (sunni league) was invasion of Saudi Arabia and ownership of the black
rock. Osama was----by his heritage on both paternal and maternal sides-----YEMENI I cannot describe the IMPORTANCE of family
----that means anything related in anyway-----amongst Yemenis. The epicenter of the current war is YEMEN---but it ain't staying localized for long

PS----it is more than a "bit of an exaggeration" to say rejection of the nuke deal will cause a war-------It is grossly disgusting, manipulative ,
sociopathic propaganda

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

is there ANYONE out there who can explain why some people ----including Obama have either CLEARLY stated or strongly implied that
the ratification of the "NUKE DEAL" is NECESSARY TO AVERT WAR?

I am also interested in knowing why such people also either clearly state or strongly imply that the reason Israel or 'zionists' reject the "NUKE DEAL" with Iran is because they want there to be a war between Iran and the USA. I see no reason at all that a rejection of the NUKE deal will cause a war between the USA and Iran

I think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that a rejection of the deal would instantly start a war between the Us and Iran, but without this deal, I believe that war in the middle east would be an eventuality, and the US would probably join in.

I got bad news for you-----the WAR in the middle east which includes Iran has already started. Its epicenter RIGHT NOW----is in Yemen----Iran has planted lots and lots of very well armed SHIITE fighters in Yemen and the objective is an attack on Saudi Arabia. Iran wants to control water ways over there which are essential for INTERNATIONAL TRADE-------actually world-over. This war has been in the planning stage BY IRAN for many years. . There is very little question that the USA will "get involved" in some way-----we already have nuclear subs over there. ----a little clue---****HE WHO OWNS MECCA AND THE BLACK ROCK---OWNS THE UMMAH****-------more clues-----one of the prime objectives of OSAMA (sunni league) was invasion of Saudi Arabia and ownership of the black
rock. Osama was----by his heritage on both paternal and maternal sides-----YEMENI I cannot describe the IMPORTANCE of family
----that means anything related in anyway-----amongst Yemenis. The epicenter of the current war is YEMEN---but it ain't staying localized for long

PS----it is more than a "bit of an exaggeration" to say rejection of the nuke deal will cause a war-------It is grossly disgusting, manipulative ,
sociopathic propaganda

and thus I rest my case.

 

[Vigilante]

This seems to shut the door on it...when you can't get the #3 DemocRAT to go along with it... it should be TOAST!

 

[irosie91]

what was your case?

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

This seems to shut the door on it...when you can't get the #3 DemocRAT to go along with it... it should be TOAST!

another one for the gullible drone pile.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

what was your case?

if you haven't figured that out by now...

 

[irosie91]

what was your case?

if you haven't figured that out by now...

you find it difficult to state your "case"??

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

what was your case?

if you haven't figured that out by now...

you find it difficult to state your "case"??

the "case" I was referring to here is that you are not making any attempt to counter my arguments or prove your own. you are just blabbering about random things, half of which are untrue, and half of which support the argument i am making.

 

[irosie91]

what was your case?

if you haven't figured that out by now...

you find it difficult to state your "case"??

the "case" I was referring to here is that you are not making any attempt to counter my arguments or prove your own. you are just blabbering about random things, half of which are untrue, and half of which support the argument i am making.

thanks for being so clear and specific. I do not devote my life to
YOUR OPINION------and do not recall just what your issue is.
Nor do I know to what you refer when you claim that I have stated
untruths. Perhaps you can CHOOSE some simple "false statement' I have posted against some "truth"--that you have posted. I will not hold my breath

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

what was your case?

if you haven't figured that out by now...

you find it difficult to state your "case"??

the "case" I was referring to here is that you are not making any attempt to counter my arguments or prove your own. you are just blabbering about random things, half of which are untrue, and half of which support the argument i am making.

thanks for being so clear and specific. I do not devote my life to
YOUR OPINION------and do not recall just what your issue is.
Nor do I know to what you refer when you claim that I have stated
untruths. Perhaps you can CHOOSE some simple "false statement' I have posted against some "truth"--that you have posted. I will not hold my breath

ill be truthful: I really don't think that you are worth arguing with. the only reason I have kept responding is to keep this thread near the top so that someone with legitimate claims might come, but that isn't happening. you continually twist my words beyond recognition without actually making any claims. goodbye.

 

[irosie91]

what was your case?

if you haven't figured that out by now...

you find it difficult to state your "case"??

the "case" I was referring to here is that you are not making any attempt to counter my arguments or prove your own. you are just blabbering about random things, half of which are untrue, and half of which support the argument i am making.

thanks for being so clear and specific. I do not devote my life to
YOUR OPINION------and do not recall just what your issue is.
Nor do I know to what you refer when you claim that I have stated
untruths. Perhaps you can CHOOSE some simple "false statement' I have posted against some "truth"--that you have posted. I will not hold my breath

ill be truthful: I really don't think that you are worth arguing with. the only reason I have kept responding is to keep this thread near the top so that someone with legitimate claims might come, but that isn't happening. you continually twist my words beyond recognition without actually making any claims. goodbye.

I did not even attempt to quote you and yet you accuse me of
"twisting your words"------clearly you neither have or ever had any
point

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

if you haven't figured that out by now...

you find it difficult to state your "case"??

the "case" I was referring to here is that you are not making any attempt to counter my arguments or prove your own. you are just blabbering about random things, half of which are untrue, and half of which support the argument i am making.

thanks for being so clear and specific. I do not devote my life to
YOUR OPINION------and do not recall just what your issue is.
Nor do I know to what you refer when you claim that I have stated
untruths. Perhaps you can CHOOSE some simple "false statement' I have posted against some "truth"--that you have posted. I will not hold my breath

ill be truthful: I really don't think that you are worth arguing with. the only reason I have kept responding is to keep this thread near the top so that someone with legitimate claims might come, but that isn't happening. you continually twist my words beyond recognition without actually making any claims. goodbye.

I did not even attempt to quote you and yet you accuse me of
"twisting your words"------clearly you neither have or ever had any
point

OK, one last comment.
1.) if you had quoted me, that would have been fine. but you didn't. twisting my words is not the same thing as quoting me, as everyone should be able to understand. in fact, all of your "arguments" rely on this and nothing else.

2.) I have stated and explained all of my points.

now, if you want to have a rational argument, then I will be happy to. but if you want to continue making ridiculous claims with no legitimate evidence, misquote people, and basically "troll", then leave my thread.

 

[irosie91]

you find it difficult to state your "case"??

the "case" I was referring to here is that you are not making any attempt to counter my arguments or prove your own. you are just blabbering about random things, half of which are untrue, and half of which support the argument i am making.

thanks for being so clear and specific. I do not devote my life to
YOUR OPINION------and do not recall just what your issue is.
Nor do I know to what you refer when you claim that I have stated
untruths. Perhaps you can CHOOSE some simple "false statement' I have posted against some "truth"--that you have posted. I will not hold my breath

ill be truthful: I really don't think that you are worth arguing with. the only reason I have kept responding is to keep this thread near the top so that someone with legitimate claims might come, but that isn't happening. you continually twist my words beyond recognition without actually making any claims. goodbye.

I did not even attempt to quote you and yet you accuse me of
"twisting your words"------clearly you neither have or ever had any
point

OK, one last comment.
1.) if you had quoted me, that would have been fine. but you didn't. twisting my words is not the same thing as quoting me, as everyone should be able to understand. in fact, all of your "arguments" rely on this and nothing else.

2.) I have stated and explained all of my points.

now, if you want to have a rational argument, then I will be happy to. but if you want to continue making ridiculous claims with no legitimate evidence, misquote people, and basically "troll", then leave my thread.

what "ridiculous claims" what "misquotes" ??? you are a joke

 

[alpine]

I am posting my first thread for the same reason I joined this online forum. I am not a politician, nor do I know any, and I am too young for anyone who does not personally know me to give any thought to my arguments. For this reason, I turned to the internet, where everyone’s view will be given consideration (at least by the intelligent, rational people). I believe that the best way for me to help the world before I reach what I like to call “the age of perceived credibility” is for me to clearly and fully explain issues which are often oversimplified and manipulated by bureaucrats in an attempt not necessarily to win people over to my side (although when I am confident that I have a good answer/solution concerning to an issue, that will be the goal), but to get people to think more deeply about world issues rather than blindly accepting what the party they have aligned themselves with says. The first issue I would like to discuss is the new agreement made between the US and Iran, as it has been a topic of much debate for quite some time, and will most certainly be an important issue in the upcoming 2016 presidential election. Please let me know what you think in the comments. I am open minded and willing to consider any and all points of view, no matter how ridiculous they seem superficially. Now enough exposition, and on to the essay.


This new deal has been getting quite a bit of backlash from the right, most notably the republicans in the US and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Most critics of the agreement say that this deal only gives Iran more money to advance its nuclear program, fund terrorist groups, and stir up trouble in the Middle East. Assuming that this is what will happen, the deal is obviously counterproductive. But alas, there lies the quintessential dilemma. I do not believe that this is the case: these claims are made by people who look at the deal and ask themselves: “does this hurt Iran more than it helps it?” This not the way we should be thinking. This results from the “us vs. them” mentality that has been cultivated in our society by the two party system, which I will explain my opinions on in a future essay. This deal was not about gaining an advantage over Iran, but about cooperating with it and benefitting both countries and the world as a result.

This agreement with Iran will not, as many people claim to believe, cause Iran to put more money into their nuclear program and fund more terrorist groups. If the Iranian government and people saw this as “finally escaping from the crushing weight of the westerner’s sanctions”, this would surely be the case. But Iran is not a country of radical religious zealots, but rather a country of people eager and ready to join the modern world who see it instead as “a new chance to cooperate with the west”. The only people who oversimplify the agreement and say that all it does is give Iran more money to stir up trouble are the far-right republicans who rely on painting everything any democrat does as bad in order to get votes. Their voters are the ignorant people who are willing to believe anything they are told. DO NOT fall into this trap.

This deal will also reduce terrorism. The main cause of terrorism is desperation. People who are impoverished, starving, and oppressed often feel that it is the only option left. Nobody with a steady job, clean house, and healthy family decides to become a suicide bomber. This is another issue often oversimplified by manipulative, bureaucratic politicians. They seem to think that these are evil people, and the only solution is to bomb the heck out of them, when in reality this is the most effective method of making more terrorists. With the exception if ISIS (which is a special case that I may write an essay on in the future), the best and only way to end terrorism is to address its root causes. This means providing aid to the desperate, impoverished people who are most likely to resort to terrorism. While it is hard to make sure that financial aid gets to the people, it is still something that needs to be done. This deal will also keep the Iranian government from funding terrorist groups. The reason many small, marginalized countries support terrorism is because they feel that it is the only way to be heard by larger nations. If Iran is given a chance to join the world community, which it has with this agreement, it will not feel the need to resort to such extreme measures.

The last and easiest to disprove criticism against the deal is that it will be easy for Iran to cheat. It just simply is not. Radioactive materials are very hard to hide, and nearly impossible to cover traces of. Unless all inspection teams forget to bring even a basic Geiger counter, it will be impossible to cheat. I don’t even need to go into how easy it would be to know if any weapons were tested.


This concludes my first essay. I apologize if the quality is not the best, but I wrote it between 1:00 and 2:30 am, so it is not my best work. The next essay I plan on releasing is one I have already written about the link between the poverty and education crises within America. Please let me know if you would like me to post it.

Well done.

"Nobody with a steady job, clean house, and healthy family decides to become a suicide bomber."

This might be a little tricky however, considering a lot of people from the west with nice homes and jobs joining to ISIS. But if this was the concern of the right wingers, they should have been asking for sanctions on Saudi Arabia, before asking sanctions on Iran. But they don't. And this is their hypocrisy.

I see Iran being much more progressive, and much more suitable to integrate west, comparing to Saudi Arabia. And yet, US supports Saudis with every possible way, while sanctioning Iran.

US should not be a tool in the Sunni-Shia conflict. I think Obama is making the right move here, lets hope Iranians take this as an opportunity to bring peace to their country, rather then an opportunity to cheat.

With Ahmedinejad and his dirty "deep state" being removed from power, I think this has a pretty good chance for success...

 

[irosie91]

I am posting my first thread for the same reason I joined this online forum. I am not a politician, nor do I know any, and I am too young for anyone who does not personally know me to give any thought to my arguments. For this reason, I turned to the internet, where everyone’s view will be given consideration (at least by the intelligent, rational people). I believe that the best way for me to help the world before I reach what I like to call “the age of perceived credibility” is for me to clearly and fully explain issues which are often oversimplified and manipulated by bureaucrats in an attempt not necessarily to win people over to my side (although when I am confident that I have a good answer/solution concerning to an issue, that will be the goal), but to get people to think more deeply about world issues rather than blindly accepting what the party they have aligned themselves with says. The first issue I would like to discuss is the new agreement made between the US and Iran, as it has been a topic of much debate for quite some time, and will most certainly be an important issue in the upcoming 2016 presidential election. Please let me know what you think in the comments. I am open minded and willing to consider any and all points of view, no matter how ridiculous they seem superficially. Now enough exposition, and on to the essay.


This new deal has been getting quite a bit of backlash from the right, most notably the republicans in the US and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Most critics of the agreement say that this deal only gives Iran more money to advance its nuclear program, fund terrorist groups, and stir up trouble in the Middle East. Assuming that this is what will happen, the deal is obviously counterproductive. But alas, there lies the quintessential dilemma. I do not believe that this is the case: these claims are made by people who look at the deal and ask themselves: “does this hurt Iran more than it helps it?” This not the way we should be thinking. This results from the “us vs. them” mentality that has been cultivated in our society by the two party system, which I will explain my opinions on in a future essay. This deal was not about gaining an advantage over Iran, but about cooperating with it and benefitting both countries and the world as a result.

This agreement with Iran will not, as many people claim to believe, cause Iran to put more money into their nuclear program and fund more terrorist groups. If the Iranian government and people saw this as “finally escaping from the crushing weight of the westerner’s sanctions”, this would surely be the case. But Iran is not a country of radical religious zealots, but rather a country of people eager and ready to join the modern world who see it instead as “a new chance to cooperate with the west”. The only people who oversimplify the agreement and say that all it does is give Iran more money to stir up trouble are the far-right republicans who rely on painting everything any democrat does as bad in order to get votes. Their voters are the ignorant people who are willing to believe anything they are told. DO NOT fall into this trap.

This deal will also reduce terrorism. The main cause of terrorism is desperation. People who are impoverished, starving, and oppressed often feel that it is the only option left. Nobody with a steady job, clean house, and healthy family decides to become a suicide bomber. This is another issue often oversimplified by manipulative, bureaucratic politicians. They seem to think that these are evil people, and the only solution is to bomb the heck out of them, when in reality this is the most effective method of making more terrorists. With the exception if ISIS (which is a special case that I may write an essay on in the future), the best and only way to end terrorism is to address its root causes. This means providing aid to the desperate, impoverished people who are most likely to resort to terrorism. While it is hard to make sure that financial aid gets to the people, it is still something that needs to be done. This deal will also keep the Iranian government from funding terrorist groups. The reason many small, marginalized countries support terrorism is because they feel that it is the only way to be heard by larger nations. If Iran is given a chance to join the world community, which it has with this agreement, it will not feel the need to resort to such extreme measures.

The last and easiest to disprove criticism against the deal is that it will be easy for Iran to cheat. It just simply is not. Radioactive materials are very hard to hide, and nearly impossible to cover traces of. Unless all inspection teams forget to bring even a basic Geiger counter, it will be impossible to cheat. I don’t even need to go into how easy it would be to know if any weapons were tested.


This concludes my first essay. I apologize if the quality is not the best, but I wrote it between 1:00 and 2:30 am, so it is not my best work. The next essay I plan on releasing is one I have already written about the link between the poverty and education crises within America. Please let me know if you would like me to post it.

Well done.

"Nobody with a steady job, clean house, and healthy family decides to become a suicide bomber."

This might be a little tricky however, considering a lot of people from the west with nice homes and jobs joining to ISIS. But if this was the concern of the right wingers, they should have been asking for sanctions on Saudi Arabia, before asking sanctions on Iran. But they don't. And this is their hypocrisy.

I see Iran being much more progressive, and much more suitable to integrate west, comparing to Saudi Arabia. And yet, US supports Saudis with every possible way, while sanctioning Iran.

US should not be a tool in the Sunni-Shia conflict. I think Obama is making the right move here, lets hope Iranians take this as an opportunity to bring peace to their country, rather then an opportunity to cheat.

With Ahmedinejad and his dirty "deep state" being removed from power, I think this has a pretty good chance for success...

I do not see your point at all-----disgusting as the shariah shit hole, Saudi Arabia is-----its GOVERNMENT does not have a policy which is
hostile to the USA----but Iran does. Saudi Arabia's GOVERNMENT
does not have a policy of support of international terrorism----but Iran's GOVERNMENT does. Saudi Arabia is not committing aggression right NOW against Iran----but Iran is committing aggression against
Saudi Arabia. It is true that Osama bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia-----sorta ----his parents migrated there----Strictly speaking he was a radical Yemeni Islamicist of the sunni variety----his family were
immigrants to Saudi Arabia------better business opportunities there..
It is true that Saudi Arabia is the origin of some really disgusting
Islamic ideologies------but those ideologies are not entirely acceptable to the Saudi government. It is also true that rich Saudis fund international terrorism----but not its government.-----Thus arguments that we should sanction Saudi Arabia make no sense. Doing so would have no effect on the problems that emanate from the muslim world-----to wit-----terrorism and overt aggression and the war now
ongoing in the Levant and accelerating every day. Regarding the idea that it is difficult to HIDE work involving radioactive materials-----
BULLSHIT------it is difficult to TEST significantly large bombs secretly-----but hiding the making of them is a cinch----especially in a country as large as Iran

 

[alpine]

is there ANYONE out there who can explain why some people ----including Obama have either CLEARLY stated or strongly implied that
the ratification of the "NUKE DEAL" is NECESSARY TO AVERT WAR?

I am also interested in knowing why such people also either clearly state or strongly imply that the reason Israel or 'zionists' reject the "NUKE DEAL" with Iran is because they want there to be a war between Iran and the USA. I see no reason at all that a rejection of the NUKE deal will cause a war between the USA and Iran

I think the reason Israel and in particular Zionists are looking to null this deal is simply because they want the Israel-Palestine conflict to go on, at least for a while, rather than to come to an end. Because as long as there is conflict, Israel can hold on to the land, and grab it day by day.

If Israelis want any peace in their land, this is an opportunity to take. Netanyahu, not so long ago, was alarming the UN, claiming Iran would get nukes in a year, and now with this deal, Obama postponed that for 10 years, and he is still not happy.

I think Israeli right wing is just as hypocrite as US right wing. They could have at least said: "Thank you for buying us another 10 years. At least with the Iranian 'right winger' Ahmedinejad removed from power, they they will have a chance to behave before we decide to obliterate them"

Or a simple "Thank You" would do it...

But I guess, right wing is a right wing, regardless...........

 

[alpine]

I am posting my first thread for the same reason I joined this online forum. I am not a politician, nor do I know any, and I am too young for anyone who does not personally know me to give any thought to my arguments. For this reason, I turned to the internet, where everyone’s view will be given consideration (at least by the intelligent, rational people). I believe that the best way for me to help the world before I reach what I like to call “the age of perceived credibility” is for me to clearly and fully explain issues which are often oversimplified and manipulated by bureaucrats in an attempt not necessarily to win people over to my side (although when I am confident that I have a good answer/solution concerning to an issue, that will be the goal), but to get people to think more deeply about world issues rather than blindly accepting what the party they have aligned themselves with says. The first issue I would like to discuss is the new agreement made between the US and Iran, as it has been a topic of much debate for quite some time, and will most certainly be an important issue in the upcoming 2016 presidential election. Please let me know what you think in the comments. I am open minded and willing to consider any and all points of view, no matter how ridiculous they seem superficially. Now enough exposition, and on to the essay.


This new deal has been getting quite a bit of backlash from the right, most notably the republicans in the US and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Most critics of the agreement say that this deal only gives Iran more money to advance its nuclear program, fund terrorist groups, and stir up trouble in the Middle East. Assuming that this is what will happen, the deal is obviously counterproductive. But alas, there lies the quintessential dilemma. I do not believe that this is the case: these claims are made by people who look at the deal and ask themselves: “does this hurt Iran more than it helps it?” This not the way we should be thinking. This results from the “us vs. them” mentality that has been cultivated in our society by the two party system, which I will explain my opinions on in a future essay. This deal was not about gaining an advantage over Iran, but about cooperating with it and benefitting both countries and the world as a result.

This agreement with Iran will not, as many people claim to believe, cause Iran to put more money into their nuclear program and fund more terrorist groups. If the Iranian government and people saw this as “finally escaping from the crushing weight of the westerner’s sanctions”, this would surely be the case. But Iran is not a country of radical religious zealots, but rather a country of people eager and ready to join the modern world who see it instead as “a new chance to cooperate with the west”. The only people who oversimplify the agreement and say that all it does is give Iran more money to stir up trouble are the far-right republicans who rely on painting everything any democrat does as bad in order to get votes. Their voters are the ignorant people who are willing to believe anything they are told. DO NOT fall into this trap.

This deal will also reduce terrorism. The main cause of terrorism is desperation. People who are impoverished, starving, and oppressed often feel that it is the only option left. Nobody with a steady job, clean house, and healthy family decides to become a suicide bomber. This is another issue often oversimplified by manipulative, bureaucratic politicians. They seem to think that these are evil people, and the only solution is to bomb the heck out of them, when in reality this is the most effective method of making more terrorists. With the exception if ISIS (which is a special case that I may write an essay on in the future), the best and only way to end terrorism is to address its root causes. This means providing aid to the desperate, impoverished people who are most likely to resort to terrorism. While it is hard to make sure that financial aid gets to the people, it is still something that needs to be done. This deal will also keep the Iranian government from funding terrorist groups. The reason many small, marginalized countries support terrorism is because they feel that it is the only way to be heard by larger nations. If Iran is given a chance to join the world community, which it has with this agreement, it will not feel the need to resort to such extreme measures.

The last and easiest to disprove criticism against the deal is that it will be easy for Iran to cheat. It just simply is not. Radioactive materials are very hard to hide, and nearly impossible to cover traces of. Unless all inspection teams forget to bring even a basic Geiger counter, it will be impossible to cheat. I don’t even need to go into how easy it would be to know if any weapons were tested.


This concludes my first essay. I apologize if the quality is not the best, but I wrote it between 1:00 and 2:30 am, so it is not my best work. The next essay I plan on releasing is one I have already written about the link between the poverty and education crises within America. Please let me know if you would like me to post it.

Well done.

"Nobody with a steady job, clean house, and healthy family decides to become a suicide bomber."

This might be a little tricky however, considering a lot of people from the west with nice homes and jobs joining to ISIS. But if this was the concern of the right wingers, they should have been asking for sanctions on Saudi Arabia, before asking sanctions on Iran. But they don't. And this is their hypocrisy.

I see Iran being much more progressive, and much more suitable to integrate west, comparing to Saudi Arabia. And yet, US supports Saudis with every possible way, while sanctioning Iran.

US should not be a tool in the Sunni-Shia conflict. I think Obama is making the right move here, lets hope Iranians take this as an opportunity to bring peace to their country, rather then an opportunity to cheat.

With Ahmedinejad and his dirty "deep state" being removed from power, I think this has a pretty good chance for success...

I do not see your point at all-----disgusting as the shariah shit hole, Saudi Arabia is-----its GOVERNMENT does not have a policy which is
hostile to the USA----but Iran does. Saudi Arabia's GOVERNMENT
does not have a policy of support of international terrorism----but Iran's GOVERNMENT does. Saudi Arabia is not committing aggression right NOW against Iran----but Iran is committing aggression against
Saudi Arabia. It is true that Osama bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia-----sorta ----his parents migrated there----Strictly speaking he was a radical Yemeni Islamicist of the sunni variety----his family were
immigrants to Saudi Arabia------better business opportunities there..
It is true that Saudi Arabia is the origin of some really disgusting
Islamic ideologies------but those ideologies are not entirely acceptable to the Saudi government. It is also true that rich Saudis fund international terrorism----but not its government.-----Thus arguments that we should sanction Saudi Arabia make no sense. Doing so would have no effect on the problems that emanate from the muslim world-----to wit-----terrorism and over aggression and the war now
ongoing in the Levant and accelerating every day. Regarding the idea that it is difficult to HIDE work involving radioactive materials-----
BULLSHIT------it is difficult to TEST significantly large bombs secretly-----but hiding the making of them is a cinch----especially in a country as large as Iran

"Saudi Arabia is-----its GOVERNMENT does not have a policy which is hostile to the USA----but Iran does"

It makes sense for you not to see my point. Sanction Saudi Arabia for 40 years like you did Iran and you will see what policies they will be adopting..

And you cant be serious by "Saudi Arabia doesn't support international terrorism". I am not sure if I even should be replying to this comment. Who did 9/11? Who supported and still supporting ISIS? Who was the guy introduced us the term "international terrorism"?

I think you are a joke...