CDZ The Iranian nuclear deal: a deeper look

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

I'm thinking deeply.

Nobody makes a bargain with somebody that is screaming "Death To America" if you're an American.

that is not thinking deeply. that is thinking superficially, at best.

Superficial is a great compliment to that post - I was going for "total crap".

There's all this talk about Iran's attitude to America, but it all ignores the whole thing was started by America, and America is the bully trying to destroy them.

Of course they're pissed off with America, America has been interfering in their country, attacking their country, and trying to bankrupt their country for years.

You are sooooo brainwashed.

It's called a Fleet Enema.

there are 3 types of people in this thread
1.) the intelligent who support the deal
2.) the intelligent who oppose the deal
3.) the people who are just plain stupid (they oppose the deal and want to start a war)

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

The Iran Nuclear Negotiations U.S. Concession After U.S. Concession

So what are the metrics to judge the outcome—to judge whether this is a good or bad deal. I think they are straightforward. Here are five:

1. Does the agreement deny Iran a nuclear weapons capability—the longstanding declared goal of the United States and the international community?
2. Does the agreement, once the constraints expire, prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon in a short amount of time?
3. Does the agreement extend the breakout time in a meaningful way?
4. Is the agreement effectively verifiable?
5. And is there a meaningful phased relief of sanctions and are there guaranteed snap-back provisions?

The answer to each of these questions is NO—a reality that is becoming apparent across party lines.

So how did we get into this mess? The answer is clear:

• The Administration has violated every rule of good negotiating practice—the basic tenets of negotiating 101.
• Instead of increasing pressure on Tehran through more sanctions, they relieved sanctions to, in their words, keep Iran at the table, but it was these very sanctions that brought them to the table.
• Instead of making clear to Iran that Iran needed an agreement more than we, the Administration has demonstrated just the opposite: that it is desperate for an agreement—a desperation that Iran’s negotiators have exploited to the fullest, as seen today with Iran’s last minute insistence on ending the arms embargo.
• Instead of insisting that a deadline actually means a deadline, the Administration has allowed Iran to squeeze further concessions each time the latest deadline approaches and passes.
• Most important, instead of holding the line on those key issues that would determine whether the agreement is good or bad—whether it advances our security interests or undermines them—the Administration made concession after concession.

Standard RED LINE IN THE SAND DEAL with Obama..............Miss a deadline MOVE THE LINE............he got played like a chump and got us a shitty deal that didn't even get our people back...........at least the chump for 160 BILLION could of released 4 Americans held in Iran now.............he didn't even have the back bone to say.........OUR PEOPLE BACK OR NO DEAL PERIOD......................

They are still held................
Iran will still keep stirring shit up in the neighborhood......
They will still move towards the bomb.......
and they will have more money to do it with...........

Obama got played.........so america got played..............with a shitty deal.

you didn't even read the essay, did you?

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

You are sooooo brainwashed.

Do you deny the CIA coup that removed the democratically elected government?
Do you deny America put the Shah into power?
Do you deny the shah was a brutal killer?

If I'm brainwashed, I'm sure you can correct these historical errors - with valid links to prove it.

If you're brainwashed, which you are, you don't anything. And why should I have to provide valid links when you don't?

because you don't need links when what you are saying is common knowledge! you are the perfect example of the gullible conservative. you "argue" not by bringing up valid counter arguments, but by denying that the other's is valid for no reason. Hossfly? he is also conservative, but I can respect his opinion because even though I don't agree with it, he makes a valid argument supported by facts and analysis of those facts. when two intelligent people argue, the only difference between them should be how they analyzed the facts.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

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.

I know some Iranians....and have learned a bit of Persian-Farse......so I know that Iranians aren't all religious nutcases.....but then again most of the Iranians that I know are in their 50s and the youth of their country don't know what it's like not to live under the thumb of a Theocracy.

Iran is the greatest funder of terrorism in the world. The only reason Obama wanted to work out a deal with them was to use it to pad his legacy or to help them fund more terrorism.

I think it's both.

Obama cannot be honest with us about anything....so history has taught me that nothing he is involved in is for the better good. This is beyond dispute. He is an evil man...and so are the folks that got him where he is today.

Bad trees never bear good fruit.

you have to think more deeply about the issue. the hangup many people have is that Iran funds terrorism, but in my essay I clearly explain why this deal will end that.

I'm thinking deeply.

Nobody makes a bargain with somebody that is screaming "Death To America" if you're an American.

That's too simple for the young one. You don't play poker with a cheat and a Liar.

It is also the rulers over there's culture.................You can't think on our terms of what is normal to us.

The solution has always been simple. Eliminate the threat................It always works...........When they challenged us back in the day...............IT WORKED..............They REGRETTED it when they engaged................a they backed the hell down............

Peace thru Strength works..........and sometimes you have to get brutal to make them understand it.

words cannot even express how stupid and shortsighted you sound.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

I also am a newbie, simply an older newbie, in all respects. Brevity is a thing of beauty and to be honest the essay simply does not smack of brevity. Try to be brief, concise, truthful and brief. Nothing worse for an old newbie to awaken and ask himself, what was I reading. Nothing further, at this point, unless, now you have me rambling.

Veni, vidi, vici. Concise, complete and correct. (As the Army teaches writers)

Veni, vidi, vici means "I came, I saw, I conquered", not "Concise, complete and correct"

I didn't say that. I used Napoleons statement as an example. Not only are you verbose, you lack situational awareness.

you'd hate my next essay. it is 6 pages (although it also contains much more information-I also spent more than 1.5 hrs on it and did some editing.

I would venture to say that RoccoR has more knowledge about the Mid-east and Iran than anyone here. Also, aris2chat is another good source of knowledge.

then lets try to get him in this thread!

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

I know some Iranians....and have learned a bit of Persian-Farse......so I know that Iranians aren't all religious nutcases.....but then again most of the Iranians that I know are in their 50s and the youth of their country don't know what it's like not to live under the thumb of a Theocracy.

Iran is the greatest funder of terrorism in the world. The only reason Obama wanted to work out a deal with them was to use it to pad his legacy or to help them fund more terrorism.

I think it's both.

Obama cannot be honest with us about anything....so history has taught me that nothing he is involved in is for the better good. This is beyond dispute. He is an evil man...and so are the folks that got him where he is today.

Bad trees never bear good fruit.

you have to think more deeply about the issue. the hangup many people have is that Iran funds terrorism, but in my essay I clearly explain why this deal will end that.

I'm thinking deeply.

Nobody makes a bargain with somebody that is screaming "Death To America" if you're an American.

That's too simple for the young one. You don't play poker with a cheat and a Liar.

It is also the rulers over there's culture.................You can't think on our terms of what is normal to us.

The solution has always been simple. Eliminate the threat................It always works...........When they challenged us back in the day...............IT WORKED..............They REGRETTED it when they engaged................a they backed the hell down............

Peace thru Strength works..........and sometimes you have to get brutal to make them understand it.

words cannot even express how stupid and shortsighted you sound.

If you ask any Muslim.....and you look closely at their societies....strength is the only thing that keeps them in check. Weakness only encourages them. You can't think like a Westerner....you have to think like a Muslim.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

I know some Iranians....and have learned a bit of Persian-Farse......so I know that Iranians aren't all religious nutcases.....but then again most of the Iranians that I know are in their 50s and the youth of their country don't know what it's like not to live under the thumb of a Theocracy.

Iran is the greatest funder of terrorism in the world. The only reason Obama wanted to work out a deal with them was to use it to pad his legacy or to help them fund more terrorism.

I think it's both.

Obama cannot be honest with us about anything....so history has taught me that nothing he is involved in is for the better good. This is beyond dispute. He is an evil man...and so are the folks that got him where he is today.

Bad trees never bear good fruit.

you have to think more deeply about the issue. the hangup many people have is that Iran funds terrorism, but in my essay I clearly explain why this deal will end that.

I'm thinking deeply.

Nobody makes a bargain with somebody that is screaming "Death To America" if you're an American.

That's too simple for the young one. You don't play poker with a cheat and a Liar.

It is also the rulers over there's culture.................You can't think on our terms of what is normal to us.

The solution has always been simple. Eliminate the threat................It always works...........When they challenged us back in the day...............IT WORKED..............They REGRETTED it when they engaged................a they backed the hell down............

Peace thru Strength works..........and sometimes you have to get brutal to make them understand it.

words cannot even express how stupid and shortsighted you sound.

If you ask any Muslim.....and you look closely at their societies....strength is the only thing that keeps them in check. Weakness only encourages them. You can't think like a Westerner....you have to think like a Muslim.

so you are one of those.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

I know some Iranians....and have learned a bit of Persian-Farse......so I know that Iranians aren't all religious nutcases.....but then again most of the Iranians that I know are in their 50s and the youth of their country don't know what it's like not to live under the thumb of a Theocracy.

Iran is the greatest funder of terrorism in the world. The only reason Obama wanted to work out a deal with them was to use it to pad his legacy or to help them fund more terrorism.

I think it's both.

Obama cannot be honest with us about anything....so history has taught me that nothing he is involved in is for the better good. This is beyond dispute. He is an evil man...and so are the folks that got him where he is today.

Bad trees never bear good fruit.

you have to think more deeply about the issue. the hangup many people have is that Iran funds terrorism, but in my essay I clearly explain why this deal will end that.

I'm thinking deeply.

Nobody makes a bargain with somebody that is screaming "Death To America" if you're an American.

That's too simple for the young one. You don't play poker with a cheat and a Liar.

It is also the rulers over there's culture.................You can't think on our terms of what is normal to us.

The solution has always been simple. Eliminate the threat................It always works...........When they challenged us back in the day...............IT WORKED..............They REGRETTED it when they engaged................a they backed the hell down............

Peace thru Strength works..........and sometimes you have to get brutal to make them understand it.

words cannot even express how stupid and shortsighted you sound.

If you ask any Muslim.....and you look closely at their societies....strength is the only thing that keeps them in check. Weakness only encourages them. You can't think like a Westerner....you have to think like a Muslim.

"thinking like a Muslim" and "thinking like a westerner" are no different. there are many western Muslims. what you mean is you have to look at it from Iran's POV, which I have and you clearly are not.

 

[rdean]

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.

How were you able to write so much about this deal and not mention all the other countries involved? Do you know how that makes you look? Worse, you start off with calling it a deal between Iran and US. No mention of the other half dozen countries. Are you biased? Stupid? A liar? Ignorant? What? It has to be something.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

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.

How were you able to write so much about this deal and not mention all the other countries involved? Do you know how that makes you look? Worse, you start off with calling it a deal between Iran and US. No mention of the other half dozen countries. Are you biased? Stupid? A liar? Ignorant? What? It has to be something.

do you've any idea how long it would have taken me to write about all the other countries? Iran and the US were the two main players, and you don't need to know about every other country involved, as the only thing that really matters in this case is the specific provisions concerning Iran.

 

[Tehon]

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.

How were you able to write so much about this deal and not mention all the other countries involved? Do you know how that makes you look? Worse, you start off with calling it a deal between Iran and US. No mention of the other half dozen countries. Are you biased? Stupid? A liar? Ignorant? What? It has to be something.

Young

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

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.

How were you able to write so much about this deal and not mention all the other countries involved? Do you know how that makes you look? Worse, you start off with calling it a deal between Iran and US. No mention of the other half dozen countries. Are you biased? Stupid? A liar? Ignorant? What? It has to be something.

Young

I usually don't argue with people who cant even comprehend the fact the sometimes a younger person has something good to say, bu in this case, I will. the purpose of this essay was to explain how the deal is beneficial, and the only thing that happened to any country other than Iran (including america) was that they lifted sanctions. also, how the deal affects Iran is what will determine the true effects of the deal. I try to be concise and not bring in irrelevant info (It is still a bit long, as I did not have time to edit, but still...)

 

[Darkwind]

Screw Iran. I hope Israel NUKES them.

I have read a few of your other comments and your status and I can see that you are one of those who is content to believe whatever the republicans tell them. I implore you to reconsider your position and be reasonable. it is this kind of ignorant hate that has gotten the world into the situation it is in now. do not blindly hate all Muslims and democrats. do you really think that Nuking Iran will solve everything? please think about issues such as these rather than taking the easy way out by saying "screw them, we're better." I know that if you truly consider all of the facts, you will realize that this deal was beneficial. I hope I have not wasted my time on a hopeless case.

I consider the "democrats" vs "republicans" arguments to be tantamount to
racism

while most republicans do not openly admit to being racist, most republican policies tend to disenfranchise already underprivileged minorities.

I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt until you posted this.

I now know that you are nothing more than a partisan hack, probably a plant by some other organization, and here on an agenda of some one elses making.

Good luck.

 

[Josf]

While the criminals remain in power over moral law in America these people who aid and abet, lend moral and material support, to those criminals do so with impunity.

They do not, however, have a reasonable leg to stand on when they apologize for, and cover up for, those criminals who counterfeit moral government.

If anyone asks, for example, who is offering this deal, you can note that the apologists (enemies domestic) cannot actually answer the question without exposing the scam.

If the apologist claims that someone named Obama (an alias) offers the deal, then the deal falls apart, as this individual is easily proven as a puppet working for a foreign corporation were there any interest in actually establishing a lawful fact in a lawful process such as a trial by jury according to the common laws of free people, as explained in outline form in the Bill of Rights.

If the apologist claims that the so called President of the United States is offering the deal, again the deal falls apart, as that claim precisely zeros in on the language employed to perpetrate the criminal takeover from true voluntary federation into corporate fiction - state capture - whereby the language was changed from President of the United States of America in Congress Assembled (voluntary federation) to what it is now, which is President of the United States, which is a foreign owned, and foreign run, corporation, or legal fiction, which is said to be "privately owned," by investors investing in this specific Ponzi Scheme, and this specific Ponzi Scheme dates back at least to the time of Jesus and the Money Changers.

If the apologist claims that the so called entity known as United States is offering the deal, again the deal falls apart for the legal fiction reasons already mentioned.

If the apologist claims that the people of America are offering this deal then again the so called apology hidden behind a thin film of "argument" falls apart in actual debate, since that would suggest unanimous agreement whereby everyone, every living human being, agrees with this offer offered in this way, which is not the case.

So what is this Topic when it is obviously not an actual debate?

Who offered this so called deal?

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

Screw Iran. I hope Israel NUKES them.

I have read a few of your other comments and your status and I can see that you are one of those who is content to believe whatever the republicans tell them. I implore you to reconsider your position and be reasonable. it is this kind of ignorant hate that has gotten the world into the situation it is in now. do not blindly hate all Muslims and democrats. do you really think that Nuking Iran will solve everything? please think about issues such as these rather than taking the easy way out by saying "screw them, we're better." I know that if you truly consider all of the facts, you will realize that this deal was beneficial. I hope I have not wasted my time on a hopeless case.

I consider the "democrats" vs "republicans" arguments to be tantamount to
racism

while most republicans do not openly admit to being racist, most republican policies tend to disenfranchise already underprivileged minorities.

I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt until you posted this.

I now know that you are nothing more than a partisan hack, probably a plant by some other organization, and here on an agenda of some one elses making.

Good luck.

I make argument s of different strengths depending on the intelligence of the person I am talking to. that comment was to shut up some stupid people spamming up the thread with irrelevent points.

 

[irosie91]

the "deal" is not a deal----it is a capitulation------the parameters of the "deal" are far too constrained. It should have included the terrorist activities supported by Iran----Iran's yet to exist atom bomb is not actually creating a problem right now

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

the "deal" is not a deal----it is a capitulation------the parameters of the "deal" are far too constrained. It should have included the terrorist activities supported by Iran----Iran's yet to exist atom bomb is not actually creating a problem right now

if you read my essay, you would know my response to that, but it appears you have not.

 

[Darkwind]

Screw Iran. I hope Israel NUKES them.

I have read a few of your other comments and your status and I can see that you are one of those who is content to believe whatever the republicans tell them. I implore you to reconsider your position and be reasonable. it is this kind of ignorant hate that has gotten the world into the situation it is in now. do not blindly hate all Muslims and democrats. do you really think that Nuking Iran will solve everything? please think about issues such as these rather than taking the easy way out by saying "screw them, we're better." I know that if you truly consider all of the facts, you will realize that this deal was beneficial. I hope I have not wasted my time on a hopeless case.

I consider the "democrats" vs "republicans" arguments to be tantamount to
racism

while most republicans do not openly admit to being racist, most republican policies tend to disenfranchise already underprivileged minorities.

I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt until you posted this.

I now know that you are nothing more than a partisan hack, probably a plant by some other organization, and here on an agenda of some one elses making.

Good luck.

I make argument s of different strengths depending on the intelligence of the person I am talking to. that comment was to shut up some stupid people spamming up the thread with irrelevent points.

If you lack the cognitive ability to deconstruct someones reply and resort to tired and dated talking points from progressive organizations, there is little help for you.

I'd suggest having a truly open mind, but it seems that you public education is kicking in and it will simply be a waste of My time.

Have a nice day.

 

[Tehon]

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.

How were you able to write so much about this deal and not mention all the other countries involved? Do you know how that makes you look? Worse, you start off with calling it a deal between Iran and US. No mention of the other half dozen countries. Are you biased? Stupid? A liar? Ignorant? What? It has to be something.

Young

I usually don't argue with people who cant even comprehend the fact the sometimes a younger person has something good to say, bu in this case, I will. the purpose of this essay was to explain how the deal is beneficial, and the only thing that happened to any country other than Iran (including america) was that they lifted sanctions. also, how the deal affects Iran is what will determine the true effects of the deal. I try to be concise and not bring in irrelevant info (It is still a bit long, as I did not have time to edit, but still...)

For the record I think it a good thing that a young person would take the time to consider the direction of the country and it's place in the world. More people in general should. I was not knocking your youth, just stating it as a matter of fact. I had the same questions as rdean, though I chose to take a different tack.

 

[Josf]

"Do you think that the deal was beneficial overall?"

The deal was offered by criminals posing as moral authorities in command of a voluntary federation known as The United States of America in Congress Assembled. Since the deal is offered by criminals to other people who may also be criminals, the so called deal is not a deal, it is a crime in progress.

So the answer is obviously no, unless the words "beneficial overall" means (by intention) beneficial to the criminals but not to the targeted victims.

If the question is intended to mean that the deal is beneficial to the criminals, and not the victims, then the answer can be yes, but that yes answer would assume that criminal benefits actually benefit the criminals, which is arguably false.

Anyone, with a modicum of religious (or spiritual) training in any true religion, knows that the choice to be a criminal (to supposedly gain criminal benefits) is essentially a suicidal move since that immoral choice blowsback in ways that are not apparent to the individual making the wrong move in that criminal direction.

The obvious example was already reported by another forum member offering the information concerning the initial criminal take-over of the Iranian people back in 1953, and the obvious examples of "blowback" ever since.