Iran Deal A Good Deal!

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Jermyn, I think part of your liberalism problem, is trusting anything posted at the Huffing-and-Puffington Post. It's nothing but a liberal rag (emphasis on the rag).

Former Israeli General Says Iran Deal‎ Isn't a Bad Agreement

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...-bad-agreement

[shazeep]

Current AFF "Heretic" Says Judging by the Fruit is the Only Righteous Judgement

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Ok. So now it is a bad deal because someone else said it was a bad deal. What is so bad about the deal?

The point of my post is that when France (who, btw, is one of the P5 negotiators) is wanting a tougher deal than the US is willing to take, something's not right.

Why it's a bad deal:
1) Allows Iran to continue processing uranium at one site -- an underground, bomb-proof site.
2) Doesn't give any details on when or how the sanctions will be lifted, nor if there is something the Iranians must do before they're lifted.
3) Doesn't allow inspections at any designated military facility.
4) It's based on Iran's word.

The last is key, because for years Iran claimed they weren't enriching uranium until a secret nuke facility was found --- Levizan-3, just outside of Tehran.

The obama administration is grasping for some kind of foreign policy victory, because thus far everything they've touched has turned into a dumpster fire. Yet, basing this agreement on a promise from the Iranians will cause another blunder and more foreign policy problems.

Your turn, JD. No just linking to liberal rags. Write out why you say it's a good deal.

[n david]

Originally Posted by shazeep

Current AFF "Heretic" Says Judging by the Fruit is the Only Righteous Judgement

Problem with using meme's in a debate: they look official and authoritative, yet are mostly misleading or outright wrong.

Your meme is a prime example of one which is misleading, because it doesn't take into consideration the influence, arms shipments, IRG troop use, etc which Iran had used and is currently using in various countries. Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Gaza.

While Iran isn't acting overtly, it's still very much involved in trying to overthrow governments.

And several of those listed were either declared wars or an attempt to overthrow an evil government. While I don't believe the US should be a world policeman, it also shouldn't sit back and allow people to be brutally slaughtered as in most of those countries listed.

[shazeep]

all good points!

[shazeep]

...or at least, points worthy of consideration. The devil is in the details, it is said.

[Bowas]

Iran needs nuclear power because they have no other way or means to produce power.

[shazeep]

ya, not buying that one, wadr

[Fionn mac Cumh]

This is going to be just like Iraq. They will "AGREE" to the deal. Then, out of no where they will do something that disagrees with the deal, and we will go to war with them. War is what America and Israel want.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Fionn mac Cumh

This is going to be just like Iraq. They will "AGREE" to the deal. Then, out of no where they will do something that disagrees with the deal, and we will go to war with them. War is what America and Israel want.

I was going to post something like this. The comparisons to Iraq are there. Sanctions, then an agreement to remove sanctions. Wait a few years until UN inspectors get "kicked out" and the US declares Iran is stockpiling WMDs.

The only part with which I disagree is the part claiming Israel wants war. I don't believe Israel wants war. They want to make sure Iran doesn't have nukes and may still bomb their facilities to stop it, but I don't think they want a full-scale war.

I do believe there are a lot of blood-thirsty warmongers here in the US who want war. They wanted Bush to attack Iran back in 2006/2007. McCain, Graham and other hawks in Congress would love for the US to attack Iran.