It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House rejects Iran nuclear deal

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
This agreement is supported by Obama and gang...liars and supporters of liars. It has nothing to do with safety or security and has everything to do with control. But the bottom line is this. Who will stop Iran WHEN it breaks the agreement? The same one who has threatened RED LINES and never backed them up?

If not evil, we have a neutered cat as a President that doesn't have the balls to make an agreement anyone would give a crap about breaking.


And if we tried military action against Iran how would we pull it off? The rest of the world wants a deal, if we went it alone the UK, France, Germany, China, Russia, and everyone else wouldn't assist us in an attack. Most notably, this means we wouldn't have access to Diego Garcia for air strikes.




posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
This agreement is supported by Obama and gang...liars and supporters of liars. It has nothing to do with safety or security and has everything to do with control. But the bottom line is this. Who will stop Iran WHEN it breaks the agreement? The same one who has threatened RED LINES and never backed them up?

If not evil, we have a neutered cat as a President that doesn't have the balls to make an agreement anyone would give a crap about breaking.


And if we tried military action against Iran how would we pull it off? The rest of the world wants a deal, if we went it alone the UK, France, Germany, China, Russia, and everyone else wouldn't assist us in an attack. Most notably, this means we wouldn't have access to Diego Garcia for air strikes.

Who said an attack was the only other option??? The sanctions were working fine...fine enough that people who want us dead were willing to sit down and talk. We should have continued sanctions until either the people overthrew their government or until we could actually negotiate something real. Return the imprisoned Americans in Iran, recognize Israel's right to live, stop supporting terrorist groups that have killed Americans and supported other's killing Americans, etc. You know...something more than allowing liars to pretend to change something about nukes while we give them money and time.

By the way...you know they are building intercontinental ballistic missiles? Do you also know the only reason for those is attaching a nuke??? Unless, of course, they are planning to shoot a gift basket over here for Christmas.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

No, the sanctions weren't working fine. They only had an effect because EU was also applying them. The world agreed to enhanced sanction for 10 years with the understanding that there would be a deal after that (an understanding the US spearheaded for that matter), they had no desire to continue them. In addition, all of the various military planners out there projected that sanctions would eventually lead to war. If we could have somehow continued sanctions military action would be necessary and the rest of the world wanted no part of that fight.



We should have continued sanctions until either the people overthrew their government or until we could actually negotiate something real. Return the imprisoned Americans in Iran, recognize Israel's right to live, stop supporting terrorist groups that have killed Americans and supported other's killing Americans, etc.


None of these things have anything to do with an Iranian nuclear program, by making the negotiation about multiple subjects you only weaken your bargaining position as there's a lot more concessions you're trying to get. Any of the above included in the talks would only serve to strengthen Iran's nuclear program.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   
why have you put " house rejects iran deal " but on the news its passed it ??????????????????????????????????????????



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: haman10


Iran is full of crap and actively building a nuclear weapon. This deal lets Iran get away with it and now they will have one soon. Nothing wrong with bombing their nuclear weapons sites. Not many Iranians will lose their lives, they are foolish enough to be there. Its not going to be a ground war, that is out of the question. Obama is a world class idiot, I guess he is not hearing the leader of Iran out on the golf course when he is being called a joke and a fool by the Ayatollah.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge
a reply to: haman10


Iran is full of crap and actively building a nuclear weapon. This deal lets Iran get away with it and now they will have one soon. Nothing wrong with bombing their nuclear weapons sites. Not many Iranians will lose their lives, they are foolish enough to be there. Its not going to be a ground war, that is out of the question. Obama is a world class idiot, I guess he is not hearing the leader of Iran out on the golf course when he is being called a joke and a fool by the Ayatollah.


Lets say you're right. The rest of the world wants a deal. If we start air striking them China and Russia are going to have a diplomatic reason to move in and start defending. Then lets say you're wrong, if we attack we're going to guarantee they do develop and use a nuclear weapon and they'll probably even get help in building it from other nations. Then if we do attack, what are our allies going to do? They will have no diplomatic cover to assist us, if anything they'll oppose us.

One of the US's biggest geopolitical challenges right now is in keeping Russian influence out of Europe. We're trying to leverage our natural gas production to reduce Putins ability to extract concessions from them along the border. When Europe and Russia are committed to working with Iran, and have a reason to oppose us, how do we keep Russian influence out of Europe?

Did you ever consider this while singing, bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran?



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
That's a very good point they have signed the NPT and unlike this deal the NPT covers all three methods of nuke attainment. So if they signed the NPT and it covers all aspects of nuke pursuit, why do we need a deal to prevent nuke pursuit that actually covers less than the previously signed NPT?


Because there are no penalties for violating the NPT. It's mainly enforced through economic incentives for signing on. At any time Iran could withdraw from the treaty with no penalty because they're already being punished economically through sanctions.

By creating this deal it's opening a path for economic ties between the west and Iran which gives them an actual incentive to not build weapons.



Translation the NPT is worthless and in the grand scheme we have much bigger problems than Iran. We needed a believable facade so we pushed a deal that covers 1 of only 3 ways to get nukes to give justisfication to the businesses that will engage in New trade and the average American will feel better with the newly found false security blanket.

Meanwhile in behind the scenes we will continue to wage war with each other but it doesn't invoke bombs, guns or troops, so people will think it's not happening


Got it



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Reallyfolks

It's much more than a facade. Every day this deal continues it gets stronger because the economic ties between the US and Iran get stronger (as they do between other nations as well). Nations being intertwined economically is a very good deterrent for war. It's why the US and China don't shoot at each other, or Germany and Russia, or the UK and France. Economics acts as a very good motivator to make people comply, and it's the strategy nations have been using to create peace since the end of WW2. Considering we haven't had another World War since, I would say the theory has held up to reality pretty well.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Reallyfolks

It's much more than a facade. Every day this deal continues it gets stronger because the economic ties between the US and Iran get stronger (as they do between other nations as well). Nations being intertwined economically is a very good deterrent for war. It's why the US and China don't shoot at each other, or Germany and Russia, or the UK and France. Economics acts as a very good motivator to make people comply, and it's the strategy nations have been using to create peace since the end of WW2. Considering we haven't had another World War since, I would say the theory has held up to reality pretty well.



We haven't declared war officially that's true. Most countries have moved the war to different methods of war. But it's still a facade. If the goal is to prevent nukes and you cover 1 of 3, not even batting 50%. Pretty much if you think Iran wasn't going to get a bomb, the deal was worthless, if you think they will then you left them other options and the deal is still worthless.

It's a facade, a false security blanket. You wanted to have economic ties, should have done it, save the resources, time , and drama. That's what this was, a wasteful drama.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Reallyfolks

It's not about them getting a bomb. The possibility still exists that they can refuse inspections, stall diplomatically for a year, and build a weapon. That however is a much less likely outcome than them complying. Under the current model of sanctions, or even economic ties without any sort of deal they had a 3 month breakout time to a weapon while the deal pushes it back to a year.

I actually fully expect Iran to have nuclear weapons in 30-50 years. I think that this deal will prevent them from building them for the next 15-20 though which is what it's designed to do, and in that time the economic freedom created will either bring about regime change or soften relations to the point that they're not an enemy in the future. If you want to take a long term view to this, it would very much work out in our favor if Iran is an ally and nuclear armed in 50 years because they would act as a regional power to offset Russia and China.

As far as economic ties go however, Iran cannot be trusted right now. Their leadership hates us and they're an enemy. They also fund terrorism. Just repealing sanctions without any sort of assurances would be a mistake. It's the sort of thing that requires negotiation on both sides to build a relationship.
edit on 14-9-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Reallyfolks

It's not about them getting a bomb. The possibility still exists that they can refuse inspections, stall diplomatically for a year, and build a weapon. That however is a much less likely outcome than them complying. Under the current model of sanctions, or even economic ties without any sort of deal they had a 3 month breakout time to a weapon while the deal pushes it back to a year.

I actually fully expect Iran to have nuclear weapons in 30-50 years. I think that this deal will prevent them from building them for the next 15-20 though which is what it's designed to do, and in that time the economic freedom created will either bring about regime change or soften relations to the point that they're not an enemy in the future. If you want to take a long term view to this, it would very much work out in our favor if Iran is an ally and nuclear armed in 50 years because they would act as a regional power to offset Russia and China.



That's fine , don't have to build. They could follow this deal to the letter, still get a bomb. Again it's why the NPT addresses 3 methods of nuke attainment and not just one.

The deal was exactly that prevent Iran from getting a bomb. It's exactly about them getting a bomb, at least that's the line. Need the deal to prevent them from getting a bomb or war. Some need that false security blanket, I don't. I would have much rather of seen them open up the economic ties and saved the drama, resources and lies pertaining to this deal.

Don't care if someone agrees or disagrees with the deal, just not buying the bs reasons given for it.


Just don't say it wasn't about the bomb , I know it wasn't but that's the lie told, check out the headline at the top of the link.


After many months of principled diplomacy, the P5+1 — the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, Russia and Germany — along with the European Union, have achieved a long-term comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran that will verifiably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and ensure that Iran's nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful going forward.

m.whitehouse.gov...
edit on 14-9-2015 by Reallyfolks because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: haman10




For those of you who are more familiar with US politics


Yep some of us sure are more familiar with American politics.

Apparently after years of the current administration castigating 'right wing neocons,clinging to their guns,nukes, and religion here in the US. Their 'bad'.

Turns around and cuts a deal with them right wing neocons,clinging to their guns,nukes, and religion in Iran. who has been fighting a proxy war against Saudi Arabia, and Israel, and who is fighting in Yemen,Syria,Libya,Iraq, and Afghanistan.

The House objects with dealing with them right wing neocons wanting nukes.

The administration says no problems there.

Then turns back around to mocking them evil right wing neocons here.




top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join