CDZ The Iranian nuclear deal: a deeper look

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

I think the deal was the best solution we could have. The international sanctions would not have gone on indefinately. Already several major powers were restless. It brought them to the table and both sides had to sacrifice some - but what is the alternative?

- no deal, no talking and indefinate US sanctions, less certain international sanctions - Iran, in a corner saying fuck you we're going to do it.
- have sanctions been very effective with NK?
- this deal, *might* prevent a nuclear weapon - if it doesn't, it at least delays it and gives us more transparency (something we do not have with NK).

Most of all - WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE?

None of the critics are giving realistic alternative plans. Sometimes - the best solution is the best of multiple bad ones. Similar to what we faced with NK.

that basically sums up my argument. I couldn't have said it better myself. thanks.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

"480 views but only 8 people have answered the survey question"

It is an ambiguous question; therefore it can potentially mean anything. So why answer it?

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

I do not trust the information that claims to report a deal being offered by someone to someone, or by people in one group offering a deal to people in another group.

That is the first problem.

If the deal is as you say it is, and those offering the deal are these people claiming to be the authorities of all the people in America, then that is another problem. The last actual president of the Untied States of America was Cyrus Griffin:

Cyrus Griffin The Forgotten Founders

The current so called President isn't even going by his actual name, which is said to be Barry Soetero, not Barack Hussein Obama, and the group this man is associated with is a group of infamous criminals working a very old pyramid scheme. The U.S. is now a foreign owned corporation run by foreigners, and it is very much a part of the International Monetary FUND, and much of their power is derived through control over petroleum.

The details of the so called deal are thereby fraudulently reported since the false claims of the deal having anything to do with the actual free American people, or the actual free Iranian people, are false connections made by criminals.

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

Compared to what? Compared to all those criminals involved in the criminal deal confessing their guilt and giving up their power to perpetrate further crimes such as this so called deal?

The deal is certainly beneficial to those who have a vested interest in offering the deal. Who receives benefits by this deal? How are these benefits measured accurately as these benefits materialize in fact?

The benefit I see is exemplified in the parable about the Emperor's new clothes. All the sycophants are offering their esteemed opinions concerning how wonderful the imaginary clothes look as the Emperor prances around acting out the charade. Keep on claiming that these criminals are anything other than criminals and in that way they remain unfettered in perpetrating crimes against humanity for as long as the marks follow orders without question.

Barry is an infamous criminal in a long line of criminals dating back to George Washington.

false, unsupported claims decorated with flowery language only fools idiots.

 

[Coyote]

I think the deal was the best solution we could have. The international sanctions would not have gone on indefinately. Already several major powers were restless. It brought them to the table and both sides had to sacrifice some - but what is the alternative?

- no deal, no talking and indefinate US sanctions, less certain international sanctions - Iran, in a corner saying fuck you we're going to do it.
- have sanctions been very effective with NK?
- this deal, *might* prevent a nuclear weapon - if it doesn't, it at least delays it and gives us more transparency (something we do not have with NK).

Most of all - WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE?

None of the critics are giving realistic alternative plans. Sometimes - the best solution is the best of multiple bad ones. Similar to what we faced with NK.

that basically sums up my argument. I couldn't have said it better myself. thanks.

People want a "perfect" deal - in cases like this you aren't going to get it, you have to grab an opportunity when it presents itself - with Iran, it's a newly elected president committed to coming to the table, it's the effects of the sanctions, and it's a US president committed to negotiating. So it's not perfect. It's not bad. It's very like what prior adminstrations were faced with on NK's nuclear ambitions.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

I think the deal was the best solution we could have. The international sanctions would not have gone on indefinately. Already several major powers were restless. It brought them to the table and both sides had to sacrifice some - but what is the alternative?

- no deal, no talking and indefinate US sanctions, less certain international sanctions - Iran, in a corner saying fuck you we're going to do it.
- have sanctions been very effective with NK?
- this deal, *might* prevent a nuclear weapon - if it doesn't, it at least delays it and gives us more transparency (something we do not have with NK).

Most of all - WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE?

None of the critics are giving realistic alternative plans. Sometimes - the best solution is the best of multiple bad ones. Similar to what we faced with NK.

that basically sums up my argument. I couldn't have said it better myself. thanks.

People want a "perfect" deal - in cases like this you aren't going to get it, you have to grab an opportunity when it presents itself - with Iran, it's a newly elected president committed to coming to the table, it's the effects of the sanctions, and it's a US president committed to negotiating. So it's not perfect. It's not bad. It's very like what prior adminstrations were faced with on NK's nuclear ambitions.

exactly. you are much better at articulating points than I am.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

Well, im signing off for now. ill still try to respond to and commens when I come back

 

[eagle1462010]

Mock attacks a Mock U.S. carrier via Iran............
While its militarily a Joke attack..........in its ability to attack our carriers......it's another reason to not deal with them.

We didn't get our people back.
We didn't get them to end support for terrorism.
They get the Nuclear Plants via Russia.......and the fuel...
They upwards of 150 Billion dollars.
They get 25 days to prepare for any inspection..........
Russia gets to sell them Cruise missiles later on if not already which are actually a threat to Carriers in the region.......Russia insisted....

And they have a history of being a STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR..............

None of that has changed for me.........I've shown the history and why I don't trust them..............I've said they don't need Nuclear Power.......hell we can't even build one here anymore........yet that same crowd has no problem with Iran getting them..........to add to that you have the left over fuel which can be turned into a dirty bomb and make the area affected unihabitable......

This is a foolish deal............goes outside normal ratification process in Congress because the RINO's sold out and need 2/3rd's to stop Obama instead of the other way around.......................

And is similar to Clinton's deal with North Korea which didn't work..............this will be the same.

 

[Indofred]

The deal is a winner because it's the only thing that will stop the mess.
Interference led to an extremist government gaining power in Iran, and threats gave them validity when they probably would have lost control as people realised they were crap.

This deal does a lot more than it claims - it takes away the Iranian government's raison d'etra, so will probably lead to their downfall in time. That's why the Iranian government is ranting on about America, and how the relationship won't change.
Basically, they're shitting themselves because they know they're buggered.
Obama has done what the hard right have been trying to do for years, but without a war, and not a single life lost.
That's why the arms industry's paid bitches are screaming about it; they're about to lose a fortune.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

The deal is a winner because it's the only thing that will stop the mess.
Interference led to an extremist government gaining power in Iran, and threats gave them validity when they probably would have lost control as people realised they were crap.

This deal does a lot more than it claims - it takes away the Iranian government's raison d'etra, so will probably lead to their downfall in time. That's why the Iranian government is ranting on about America, and how the relationship won't change.
Basically, they're shitting themselves because they know they're buggered.
Obama has done what the hard right have been trying to do for years, but without a war, and not a single life lost.
That's why the arms industry's paid bitches are screaming about it; they're about to lose a fortune.

well said. most people aren't willing to look past the fact that it gives some money to Iran.

 

[Josf]

"false, unsupported claims decorated with flowery language only fools idiots."

Who is that accusation aimed at?

I think the term here could be transference.

Is the point such that someone is offering a deal? The point is then changed to my character up for assassination.

You now claim that someone's answer to your "deal" (in the form of a forum topic) is unsupported?

Please name one specific part of my response in this topic, just one, where your claim of lack of support is worthy of your time and effort to publish that claim?

Meanwhile the topic includes a claim that there is a deal made by someone, or some group of people, to another individual or another group.

Who is offering this deal?

That is one claim which may be supportable with some evidence, or not.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Coyote]

Please remember - this is the Clean Debate Zone - no insults, no putting down other members - consider it an exercise in civil debate

 

[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.

 

[Josf]

Reducing an honest transfer of information, that may or may not be supportable by some agreeable process of authenticating the information, into a flame war is against the rules, so why start down that path?

Failure to support the claim that someone, or some group of people, are offering a deal is now a demonstrated fact. The accuser accusing someone of failing to support a claim is demonstrating precisely what is the meaning of the word transference. The word projection can also label the process by which someone demonstrates bad behavior and then accuses someone else of the bad behavior demonstrated.

Who is offering a deal?

Failure to support a claim that someone, or some group, is offering a deal is precisely what it is as someone fails to support that claim.

Now, as published in another topic, this same flame starter is offering a New Deal whereby the idea offered is to invest someone's wealth into charitable gifts given to people in other countries under the guise of fighting "terrorism," and this will cost someone something. No wonder this flame starter is failing to name names, since the accounting service offered - not really a new deal at all - is so fond of covering up the matter of who pays for all this false generosity.

 

[Hossfly]

I think the deal was the best solution we could have. The international sanctions would not have gone on indefinately. Already several major powers were restless. It brought them to the table and both sides had to sacrifice some - but what is the alternative?

- no deal, no talking and indefinate US sanctions, less certain international sanctions - Iran, in a corner saying fuck you we're going to do it.
- have sanctions been very effective with NK?
- this deal, *might* prevent a nuclear weapon - if it doesn't, it at least delays it and gives us more transparency (something we do not have with NK).

Most of all - WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE?

None of the critics are giving realistic alternative plans. Sometimes - the best solution is the best of multiple bad ones. Similar to what we faced with NK.

that basically sums up my argument. I couldn't have said it better myself. thanks.

People want a "perfect" deal - in cases like this you aren't going to get it, you have to grab an opportunity when it presents itself - with Iran, it's a newly elected president committed to coming to the table, it's the effects of the sanctions, and it's a US president committed to negotiating. So it's not perfect. It's not bad. It's very like what prior adminstrations were faced with on NK's nuclear ambitions.

Iran is not playing according to Hoyle or the Marquis of Queensbury rules. They are like a dog with a bone and they are going to worry that bone with one thing in mind: The destruction of Israel. Period. They have a one track mind and tunnel vision. They are on a mission and Obama and cohorts only made them take a detour.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

I think the deal was the best solution we could have. The international sanctions would not have gone on indefinately. Already several major powers were restless. It brought them to the table and both sides had to sacrifice some - but what is the alternative?

- no deal, no talking and indefinate US sanctions, less certain international sanctions - Iran, in a corner saying fuck you we're going to do it.
- have sanctions been very effective with NK?
- this deal, *might* prevent a nuclear weapon - if it doesn't, it at least delays it and gives us more transparency (something we do not have with NK).

Most of all - WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE?

None of the critics are giving realistic alternative plans. Sometimes - the best solution is the best of multiple bad ones. Similar to what we faced with NK.

that basically sums up my argument. I couldn't have said it better myself. thanks.

People want a "perfect" deal - in cases like this you aren't going to get it, you have to grab an opportunity when it presents itself - with Iran, it's a newly elected president committed to coming to the table, it's the effects of the sanctions, and it's a US president committed to negotiating. So it's not perfect. It's not bad. It's very like what prior adminstrations were faced with on NK's nuclear ambitions.

Iran is not playing according to Hoyle or the Marquis of Queensbury rules. They are like a dog with a bone and they are going to worry that bone with one thing in mind: The destruction of Israel. Period. They have a one track mind and tunnel vision. They are on a mission and Obama and cohorts only made them take a detour.

that is simply not true. you are oversimplifying the problem.

 

[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.

 

[Hossfly]

I think the deal was the best solution we could have. The international sanctions would not have gone on indefinately. Already several major powers were restless. It brought them to the table and both sides had to sacrifice some - but what is the alternative?

- no deal, no talking and indefinate US sanctions, less certain international sanctions - Iran, in a corner saying fuck you we're going to do it.
- have sanctions been very effective with NK?
- this deal, *might* prevent a nuclear weapon - if it doesn't, it at least delays it and gives us more transparency (something we do not have with NK).

Most of all - WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE?

None of the critics are giving realistic alternative plans. Sometimes - the best solution is the best of multiple bad ones. Similar to what we faced with NK.

that basically sums up my argument. I couldn't have said it better myself. thanks.

People want a "perfect" deal - in cases like this you aren't going to get it, you have to grab an opportunity when it presents itself - with Iran, it's a newly elected president committed to coming to the table, it's the effects of the sanctions, and it's a US president committed to negotiating. So it's not perfect. It's not bad. It's very like what prior adminstrations were faced with on NK's nuclear ambitions.

Iran is not playing according to Hoyle or the Marquis of Queensbury rules. They are like a dog with a bone and they are going to worry that bone with one thing in mind: The destruction of Israel. Period. They have a one track mind and tunnel vision. They are on a mission and Obama and cohorts only made them take a detour.

that is simply not true. you are oversimplifying the problem.

Iran says those things. Don't you get world news?

 

[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.

 

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

 

[Indofred]

What did it say at the start - "those fighting for a free and democratic Iran".
I'm amazed you have the nerve to post that when America ousted the free and democratic government that led to the extremist's government rise to power.