If no deal:
-Gets to keep their missiles
-Keeps nuclear facilities
-No inspections, like ever
-They can start building facilities for nukes whenever they want
edit: And it seems to be $55Bil: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/treasury-iran-150-billion-nuclear-deal_55b8dc41e4b0224d88348e1c, if the deal goes through
We covered this already, last time you said "150bil", so you're getting closer to the truth 👆
Not even going to go around with that anymore, but how is that worse than Iran have zero restrictions?
With no deal, they can pursue nuclear weapons at their leisure, with a deal they would be restricted and if they broke the deal to build nukes, they'd be seen as untrustworthy dicks by the world community, making it easy for the US to apply pressure.
So how is "no deal" a better option?
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
This questions makes no sense. Try again.
Why are you playing games, when it's all on page 25.
You said anyone who agreed with this deal was an idiot, I asked you what you purposed as an alternative to the workings of the deal and you threw out "stop Iran from burning flags" as one option. Hence the question.
Anyhow, going around with you on this is pointless, there's nothing left to say.
Will say that if this deal doesn't go through and if a Republican wins in 2016, I'd not be surprised if a slightly changed and reworded version of this deal is proposed by said President and his cabinet as "a revolutionary path to an Iranian alliance".
Originally posted by Robtard
Why are you playing games, when it's all on page 25.You said anyone who agreed with this deal was an idiot, I asked you what you purposed as an alternative to the workings of the deal and you threw out "stop Iran from burning flags" as one option. Hence the question.
Anyhow, going around with you on this is pointless, there's nothing left to say.
Will say that if this deal doesn't go through and if a Republican wins in 2016, I'd not be surprised if a slightly changed and reworded version of this deal is proposed by said President and his cabinet as "a revolutionary path to an Iranian alliance".
The next president will have to enforce the weak deal.
Here's an idea, instead of accepting a bad deal, give Iran an ultimatum:
Let us inspect you for nukes or else we will destroy you.
Which would be quite easy for us to do. If destroy seems like too much then just tell the Iran leader "Let us inspect, or else we will topple you from power and hang you just like we did to Saddam."
Iran wouldn't put up much resistance to us. Only thing we'd have to worry about is what Russia or China might do in response. Why kiss a country's ass who is much weaker than we are and give them a good deal (from their perspective). We need a strong leader like Trump who won't **** around with negotiating with terrorists.
You're against this deal because you believe it will arm Iran and lead to war and your alternative to the deal is going to war. How does this make sense to you.
Things to consider before destabilizing/destroying Iran:
-Number of civilian deaths
-Number of American military deaths, as it will end up being ground war
-The impact it will have on our allies like China, Japan and India, considering they buy oil from Iran
-Creating another terrorist breeding ground of the likes of Iraq
-Terrorist groups securing Iranian weapons, vehicles, supplies etc
-The opinion of the rest of the world, considering the US is a part of it
Edit: -The cost of another ME war, this time against a more powerful country and remember we're still paying for the massive debt the last war incured
Originally posted by Star428you're assuming we want another mid east adventure. so really the options are... we could keep doing a whole lot of nothing, we could reach a diplomatic compromise which gives us a bit more oversight and a bit more leverage in terms of managing the threat, or we can declare war... which most of us don't want any part of.
Here's an idea, instead of accepting a bad deal, give Iran an ultimatum:[b]Let us inspect you for nukes or else we will destroy you.
Which would be quite easy for us to do. If destroy seems like too much then just tell the Iran leader "Let us inspect, or else we will topple you from power and hang you just like we did to Saddam."
Iran wouldn't put up much resistance to us. Only thing we'd have to worry about is what Russia or China might do in response. Why kiss a country's ass who is much weaker than we are and give them a good deal (from their perspective). We need a strong leader like Trump who won't **** around with negotiating with terrorists. [/B]
israel would love to have us launch said war on their behalf... of course. iran is a nuisance for them much more so than for us. well, sorry, israel. you want the regime toppled? go do it yourself.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You been dodging me ever since you found out the Iranians will be conducting their own inspections."Trust but verify!"
You've yet to provide a reasonable alternative to the deal, hence why you're fixating on irrelevant details like flag burning, Death to America chants, "self-inspections" and other little aphorisms like your "trust but verify" shtick.
Originally posted by red g jacks
you're assuming we want another mid east adventure. so really the options are... we could keep doing a whole lot of nothing, we could reach a diplomatic compromise which gives us a bit more oversight and a bit more leverage in terms of managing the threat, or we can declare war... which most of us don't want any part of.israel would love to have us launch said war on their behalf... of course. iran is a nuisance for them much more so than for us. well, sorry, israel. you want the regime toppled? go do it yourself.
If Israel actually believed it could stop Iran from getting nukes with force they'd have done it already. Because they can't, they're trying to make America do it.
i agree, though i do think the US does have a legit geopolitical interest in preventing iran from getting nukes... simply because they're not really on friendly terms, they're the natural regional power without US/western intervention, and nukes (whether put to use or not) will always gain any regime geopolitical leverage
Everyone has an interest to prevent Iran from getting nukes, but Israel and Saudi Arabia have an interest in keeping Iran weak. It will be interesting to see if Israel and Saudi Arabia form a more elaborate secret alliance than what they already have. As it stands Saudi Arabia will allow Israeli jets to use their airspace to attack Iran--it could become more than that in time.