US and Iran Make Breakthrough Nuclear Deal

[Eunos_Cosmo]

They'll be held up as long as it's in the best interest of both parties to do so. That's why I asked what Iran was getting out of it, because unless there's enough incentive for them to actually comply then they'll just hide their nuclear facilities better next time.

You're right though, these sorts of agreements are not binding in any sense. The moment either side wants to break them, they will. If Iran were to suddenly find itself under military pressure and need nukes, this agreement would go straight out the window.

Nukes for most countries are mostly bargaining chips rather than actual tools, it just seems that Iran has managed to used the nuclear program itself as a bargaining chip before actually getting to the weapon stage. Good on them, that's good gamesmanship. Saves them a lot of money and time to get what they probably wanted in the first place anyway.

I don't think that's quite right. Their Nuclear program has not, to this point, benefited them in any way. What they are gaining now is only what they lost originally with the sanctions, and really not even that much.

 

[Imari]

I don't think that's quite right. Their Nuclear program has not, to this point, benefited them in any way. What they are gaining now is only what they lost originally with the sanctions, and really not even that much.

That's the point though, right? I mean, let's imagine that they actually followed all the way through and now they have an arsenal of tested and demonstrated nuclear warheads capable of hitting pretty much anywhere in the world.

What do they do with them? Start using them on people? That's not going to get them anything that will improve their country, which is generally the goal of government. On the other hand, they could use that position to make more favourable treaties with other major military powers who would now need to respect that Iran at least have nuclear capability.

This is the thing. Bar Japan, nobody has actually used nukes for more than a demonstration of power. They're an ultimate fallback in case everything goes wrong, but what all the countries seem to use them for most is as leverage when bargaining with other countries. I don't see why Iran would be different.

As far as I can tell, just having nukes doesn't do anything for Iran (or most countries that don't need it as the threat of a big stick to ward off invasion). They can't use the nukes as nukes in the sense of blowing up stuff, it's all about what they could bargain for once they have them. If they can bargain for the same things using the nuclear program instead of the actual weapons, then good for them. Saves them time and money, as I said.

And actually, it seems like they get to keep their research program anyway, all they're giving up is production capability. They'll still be advancing their know-how if they ever legitimately need nukes as a big stick, it's only the

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

That's the point though, right? I mean, let's imagine that they actually followed all the way through and now they have an arsenal of tested and demonstrated nuclear warheads capable of hitting pretty much anywhere in the world.

What do they do with them? Start using them on people? That's not going to get them anything that will improve their country, which is generally the goal of government. On the other hand, they could use that position to make more favourable treaties with other major military powers who would now need to respect that Iran at least have nuclear capability.

This is the thing. Bar Japan, nobody has actually used nukes for more than a demonstration of power. They're an ultimate fallback in case everything goes wrong, but what all the countries seem to use them for most is as leverage when bargaining with other countries. I don't see why Iran would be different.

As far as I can tell, just having nukes doesn't do anything for Iran (or most countries that don't need it as the threat of a big stick to ward off invasion). They can't use the nukes as nukes in the sense of blowing up stuff, it's all about what they could bargain for once they have them. If they can bargain for the same things using the nuclear program instead of the actual weapons, then good for them. Saves them time and money, as I said.

And actually, it seems like they get to keep their research program anyway, all they're giving up is production capability. They'll still be advancing their know-how if they ever legitimately need nukes as a big stick, it's only the

What is this, Age of Empires?

Iran would have been able to accomplish a hell of a lot more for their culture/people without those sanctions. It's pretty clear they are realizing that the nuclear posturing wasn't worth it. The only thing they've bargained for (and it's much less like bargaining, and more like them being taken out of time out after they've promised to be really really good) is to be on equal economic terms with the rest of the world. Iran had the harshest sanctions of any country in the world levied against them. They aren't leveraging anything right now, they are nearly pleading.

 

[Imari]

What is this, Age of Empires?

Iran would have been able to accomplish a hell of a lot more for their culture/people without those sanctions. It's pretty clear they are realizing that the nuclear posturing wasn't worth it. The only thing they've bargained for (and it's much less like bargaining, and more like them being taken out of time out after they've promised to be really really good) is to be on equal economic terms with the rest of the world. Iran had the harshest sanctions of any country in the world levied against them. They aren't leveraging anything right now, they are nearly pleading.

I'm not arguing that it was a good idea starting the nuclear program in the first place. But given the situation that they're in right now, I thought they did alright for themselves.

I mean, given that the Iranian nuclear program apparently started in the '50s with the help of the US (thanks, Wikipedia!), it seems like a bit of a big call to say that they should have foreseen events 60 years later that would have made it a bad idea. At the time it probably seemed like a good call, and once they've started then playing the "oh, if only we had never started" game is just wishful thinking.

Hell, it's not just the nuclear sanctions, Iran has had sanctions from the US for various stuff since the 80's unless I'm mistaken. The option of "no nuclear program = no sanctions" was never there, as far as I can tell.

 

[Johnnypenso]

That's the point though, right? I mean, let's imagine that they actually followed all the way through and now they have an arsenal of tested and demonstrated nuclear warheads capable of hitting pretty much anywhere in the world.

What do they do with them? Start using them on people? That's not going to get them anything that will improve their country, which is generally the goal of government. On the other hand, they could use that position to make more favourable treaties with other major military powers who would now need to respect that Iran at least have nuclear capability.

This is the thing. Bar Japan, nobody has actually used nukes for more than a demonstration of power. They're an ultimate fallback in case everything goes wrong, but what all the countries seem to use them for most is as leverage when bargaining with other countries. I don't see why Iran would be different.

As far as I can tell, just having nukes doesn't do anything for Iran (or most countries that don't need it as the threat of a big stick to ward off invasion). They can't use the nukes as nukes in the sense of blowing up stuff, it's all about what they could bargain for once they have them. If they can bargain for the same things using the nuclear program instead of the actual weapons, then good for them. Saves them time and money, as I said.

And actually, it seems like they get to keep their research program anyway, all they're giving up is production capability. They'll still be advancing their know-how if they ever legitimately need nukes as a big stick, it's only the

Or they could use the weapons to wipe out the Jews. Or use them to force the Jews into a military response. Or sell them to people who would use them on the Jews. After all, the Jewish State doesn't even really exist in the eyes of Iran.

 

[F1jocker12]

Hahahahaha

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I'm going to miss John Stewart.

I honestly don't think Trevor Noah could have made that segment half as brilliant.

 

[Imari]

Or they could use the weapons to wipe out the Jews. Or use them to force the Jews into a military response. Or sell them to people who would use them on the Jews. After all, the Jewish State doesn't even really exist in the eyes of Iran.

There is that. Although I'm sort of assuming that they're unlikely to do anything that will cause everyone else to say "You know what? We haven't given our military a workout in a while. Let's all go beat the snot out of Iran."

But you're right, who knows. Governments are 🤬 crazy. If they all behaved at least moderately rationally instead of playing who-has-the-biggest-🤬 then there'd be a lot less dead people in the world.

 

[F1jocker12]

Or they could use the weapons to wipe out the Jews. Or use them to force the Jews into a military response. Or sell them to people who would use them on the Jews. After all, the Jewish State doesn't even really exist in the eyes of Iran.

Johnny you are missing common logic.
If you loose your patience, jump to 6:30

 

[Tornado]

There he is.

 

[F1jocker12]

There he is.

I can say ... Here they are...

 

[Tornado]

There is that. Although I'm sort of assuming that they're unlikely to do anything that will cause everyone else to say "You know what? We haven't given our military a workout in a while. Let's all go beat the snot out of Iran."

I always just assumed it was simply so they could try to make a claim for the biggest kid on the playground, at least with the push for it over the last few years. That's not terribly far away from why India did it, at least.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Johnny you are missing common logic.

I see no logic, only a series of YT videos.

 

[squadops]

I always just assumed it was simply so they could try to make a claim for the biggest kid on the playground, at least with the push for it over the last few years. That's not terribly far away from why India did it, at least.

It is imo also. The threat of Iran is in their supporting of various organizations in the region, if some sanctions are lifted they'll have more money to keep it up.

I see no logic, only a series of YT videos.

Kucinich is in some ways the ultra left version of Ron Paul, he's been mocked similarly for his ideas on foreign policy. That video must be in response to the day Iran got it's hands on a U.S. drone and not much more to it then that.

Buchanan is saying the U.S. people should not be afraid of a nuclear Iran and I think he's right on that. As for Israel, they very well might target Iranian nuclear facilities regardless of any deal the U.S. makes.

In the Last vid I stoped watching once the guy said Obama was not interested in a war with Iran, we all already know that. There are others in political power in the U.S. who might. The rest is most likely painting Israel in a bad light.

The logic runs deep, you're gonna need help to understand it all

 

[DCP]

I would like to add this here and see what you make of it. You may not believe in the bible, but it is incredible how they can describe what destruction a blast of a nuclear bomb does to people in direct contact:

Zech 14:12
Now this will be the plague with which the LORD will strike all the peoples who have gone to war against Jerusalem; their flesh will rot while they stand on their feet, and their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongue will rot in their mouth.

Rev 9
18 A third of mankind was killed by these three plagues, by the fire and the smoke and the brimstone which proceeded out of their mouths.

Isaiah 24
The earth is utterly broken, the earth is split apart, the earth is violently shaken. The earth staggers like a drunken man; it sways like a hut; its transgression lies heavy upon it, and it falls, and will not rise again.

Can you see the destruction man is setting himself up for?
Might I add, the bible asked the question who is the anti-christ? Then answers " It is the one who denies the Father and the Son. Can you tell me, do you think it is wise for Iran to get nuclear weapons, especially with Isis on the prowl?

Atheists must be thinking "what the heck did we do to get involved in this mayhem", but this end has to come. Pain, suffering and death must be destroyed forever. It's worth while considering choosing a side...

 

[Joel]

Might I add, the bible asked the question who is the anti-christ? Then answers " It is the one who denies the Father and the Son.

So why is it the end times when Iran gets nukes? China, India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea are all nuclear weapons states who "deny the Father and the Son". Curious that the world didn't end the other 5 times a non-Christian nation built nuclear weapons. Also curious that a devoutly Christian nation are the only ones to ever use nuclear weapons in war. Was Harry Truman the anti-Christ?

Can you tell me, do you think it is wise for Iran to get nuclear weapons, especially with Isis on the prowl?

 

[Pseudopod]

What does Iran get in return? I mean except not receiving as many threats from the west anymore, I guess.

Not that I like Iran particularly much as a country, but if you are surrounded by countries with massive weapons, it's not exactly a crazy idea to make some yourself.

Everyone be like "nukes are bad, no one should have them. except us, of course, cause we're the good guys."

 

[squadops]

Sanctions lifted.

 

[Dennisch]

I would like to add this here and see what you make of it. You may not believe in the bible, but it is incredible how they can describe what destruction a blast of a nuclear bomb does to people in direct contact:

Zech 14:12
Now this will be the plague with which the LORD will strike all the peoples who have gone to war against Jerusalem; their flesh will rot while they stand on their feet, and their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongue will rot in their mouth.

Rev 9
18 A third of mankind was killed by these three plagues, by the fire and the smoke and the brimstone which proceeded out of their mouths.

Isaiah 24
The earth is utterly broken, the earth is split apart, the earth is violently shaken. The earth staggers like a drunken man; it sways like a hut; its transgression lies heavy upon it, and it falls, and will not rise again.

Can you see the destruction man is setting himself up for?
Might I add, the bible asked the question who is the anti-christ? Then answers " It is the one who denies the Father and the Son. Can you tell me, do you think it is wise for Iran to get nuclear weapons, especially with Isis on the prowl?

Atheists must be thinking "what the heck did we do to get involved in this mayhem", but this end has to come. Pain, suffering and death must be destroyed forever. It's worth while considering choosing a side...

This post has got to be one of the biggest piles of nonsensical poop I've ever seen.

 

[F1jocker12]

It is imo also. The threat of Iran is in their supporting of various organizations in the region, if some sanctions are lifted they'll have more money to keep it up.




Kucinich is in some ways the ultra left version of Ron Paul, he's been mocked similarly for his ideas on foreign policy. That video must be in response to the day Iran got it's hands on a U.S. drone and not much more to it then that.

Buchanan is saying the U.S. people should not be afraid of a nuclear Iran and I think he's right on that. As for Israel, they very well might target Iranian nuclear facilities regardless of any deal the U.S. makes.

In the Last vid I stoped watching once the guy said Obama was not interested in a war with Iran, we all already know that. There are others in political power in the U.S. who might. The rest is most likely painting Israel in a bad light.

The logic runs deep, you're gonna need help to understand it all

I remember somebody saying something about ducks....
It was Jon Stewart for GTP forum comentators..
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/ckzvqn/hebrew-nationalist

and than I'll give you Jon Stewart again... on the same topic
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4477803,00.html

 

[squadops]

lolwut

 

[F1jocker12]

lolwut

nice

Terms of Service & Acceptable Use Policy

• You will not use “textspeak” (“r”, “u”, “plz”, etc.) in your messages. Decent grammar is expected at all times, including proper usage of capital letters.

guess were is this coming from...

 

[Tornado]

It comes from the same AUP that you just made a thread this morning suggesting people break.

 

[Pseudopod]

I'm sure the GTP staff is perfectly capable of moderating things like this themselves, f1jocker

While we're at it though, you're not using correct punctuation, among other things.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Can you see the destruction man is setting himself up for?

I can see the destruction that you're setting yourself up for if you keep trying to turn every thread into a debate about religion. This discussion is about Iran's nuclear programme and sanctions, so let's keep the scripture and the eschatology out of it.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Johnny you are missing common logic.
If you loose your patience, jump to 6:30

I love how you turn to Russian propaganda the first chance you got.

Let me tell you the difference between Israel going nuclear and Iran. Israel doesn't float their fingers on the trigger 24/7 like Iran does, who's stated goal is to wipe the former off the map!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Israel doesn't float their fingers on the trigger 24/7 like Iran does, who's stated goal is to wipe the former off the map!

Like I said, there has been a cooling of the rhetoric since Iran and America started getting along a little bit more, so I think the vitriol they have aimed at Israel in the past has really been directed at what they see as a vehicle for American foreign policy influencing and manipulating the Middle East.

Once upon a time, Netanyahu wouldn't have needed to go to Washington and implore Congress not to ratify the deal being negotiated with Iran. I think Tehran would have noticed that. The close relationship between Israel and the United States has always been a sticking point for the Iranians, and while I doubt this spells the end for that relationship, I think Obama has recognised that a close relationship with Israel and a relationship with the rest of the Middle East are mutually exclusive - America cannot have both. But they can maintain a good, if not tight, relationship with Israel without alienating the likes of Iran.

Also, those comments about wiping Israel off the map came from Ahmadenijad, who is no longer in power. It seems that the Ayatollahs started losing confidence in him around that time (though I doubt it was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back), and started preparing for a new leader, with Rouhani winning power. He's far more moderate than Ahmadenijad ever was, and these talks probably couldn't have happened without him in power.

 

[MisterWhiskers]

I love how you turn to Russian propaganda the first chance you got.

Let me tell you the difference between Israel going nuclear and Iran. Israel doesn't float their fingers on the trigger 24/7 like Iran does, who's stated goal is to wipe the former off the map!

Yeah, Israel totally doesn't want to kill the Palestinians into submission.

 

[F1jocker12]

It comes from the same AUP that you just made a thread this morning suggesting people break.

Is this what you are reffering to?

• You will not use the forums for the purposes of sharing or distributing viruses, licenses, registration information, software keys, pirated commercial multimedia files, “cracks”, or other information designed to do harm to or allow unlawful access to any computer software or systems.

Poor Hola extension... Looks and sounds like Boogie Man already... But, to paraphrase one of the opinionated members here, it's only a duck! I like that...At this point, I think you sound like a scientologist lost on GTP...

I'm sure the GTP staff is perfectly capable of moderating things like this themselves, f1jocker

While we're at it though, you're not using correct punctuation, among other things.

It says decent... Nobody is perfect on grammar... but I might have an accent...Some say, perfection is boring anyway!

To all of you, sorry for divagating from the topic... just answering to some intrigued friends here!

@Sanji Himura
You mean on their already more than 400 biological, chemical and nuclear weapons trigger?

The benign explanation of the Iranian leaders is that they are simply arguing for a multiethnic state for encompassing the all historic Israel to include the West Bank (which is Hamas position as well, by the way). It is not that the Israelis should go away or be exterminated, is that the state of Israel should go away and then a multiethnic state encompassing both Palestinians and Israelis should continue to exist.

Interestingly enough, there are extremists, but viable parties, in Israel who also think that the Isreali state should encompass all the West Bank. The difference is that they think it should be a jewish state, while the Iraninas argue that it should be a multiethnic state

I will let you find out who said that... It is on this website!

 

[Vegard]

Let me tell you the difference between Israel going nuclear and Iran. Israel doesn't float their fingers on the trigger 24/7 like Iran does, who's stated goal is to wipe the former off the map!

I love how you turn to Russian Israeli propaganda the first chance you got.