Iranian Agreement goes through

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The Republicans are passing liberal policy in the House and Senate. So you must like some of them.

If it's any consolation: I think SJWs who complain about trigger warnings are weak and pathetic, that we need to kill ISIS ( and their families and their friends,) Europe shouldn't let in primitive Arab tribals, and that Bruce Jenner is a man no matter how much makeup and plastic surgery he wears/gets.

😂

Now I know "what" Lucius is...but I am not sure I can say WHAT on this board with out getting in trouble.

Confused?

And the agreement is through, there was not enough support to break fillibuster (with a few votes to spare), and some Republicans are talking about doing a shutdown in response.

Someone should probably inform them that legislative vengeance isn't the most sensible of policies.

Only an idiot of epic proportions could have been the architect of this deal, so who was it, Kerry or Obama?

You don't seem to understand what negotiation means, or that there was a group of foreign ministers who came up with the agreement together, of which Kerry was only one member.

That China, Russia, France, UK, Germany, USA, and Iran were able to reach any kind of common agreement on such a contentious geopolitical issue is nothing short of incredible.

I guess they did not read the Art of the Deal.

Another shocker. Iran promises to violate the deal:

http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2015/no-surprise-iran-promises-to-violate-nuke-deal

What a surprise. What do you bone-headed libs got to say about this? Still think this deal was a good idea, morons? Still think Iranians are "pretty cool people"? LMAO.

They said during the deal they were not letting inspectors in, this is no surprise. That idiot believes its his job to bring about the end of the world, and thats what he wants to do.

Reading is fundamental:

"In statements, three Iranian leaders – President Hassan Rohani, Foreign Minister Zarif, and Deputy Foreign Minister and senior negotiator Abbas Araghchi – emphasized that Iran has no intention of abiding by UNSRC 2231, which includes the JCPOA and another element; rather, that they will abide only by the original JCPOA."

Okay, so there IS an agreement they are saying they won't abide by, but there is another agreement they will abide by.

Originally posted by Star428
Still think this deal was a good idea, morons?

How can them ignoring the deal can work to refute how good the deal is? You could do a different deal that was draconian towards Iran and if they still don't respect it doesn't matter.

Originally posted by Star428
Another shocker. Iran promises to violate the deal:

http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2015/no-surprise-iran-promises-to-violate-nuke-deal

What a surprise. What do you bone-headed libs got to say about this? Still think this deal was a good idea, morons? Still think Iranians are "pretty cool people"? LMAO.

The liberals on this site seem to think it was a good deal and better than no deal at all. I understand their point of view but it will backfire only when (not if) Iran violates the deal.

Originally posted by psmith81992
The liberals on this site seem to think it was a good deal and better than no deal at all. I understand their point of view but it will backfire only when (not if) Iran violates the deal.

The deal is a "relative good" anyways. Everything plays on the conception of what is good and what is bad other than Iran getting nukes.

Originally posted by Bentley
The deal is a "relative good" anyways. Everything plays on the conception of what is good and what is bad other than Iran getting nukes.

As I've outlined for Q99, it's bad because Iran has nothing to lose on this deal. They get 160 billion in aid regardless of impropriety and if they really want a nuke, they'll get one. What sanctions would we put on them if they break the truce?

The sanction of life?

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
The sanction of life?

Lol..Really? What are we going to do, invade?

Originally posted by psmith81992
As I've outlined for Q99, it's bad because Iran has nothing to lose on this deal. They get 160 billion in aid regardless of impropriety and if they really want a nuke, they'll get one. What sanctions would we put on them if they break the truce?

Iran needed this deal. If you enter in a logic in which Iran needs the West, then you are more likely to defuse conflict.

I agree that there aren't sure bets to be had in geopolitics, this can fail. I'm all for arguing other real options, but sadly they are very restrained.

Iran was always capable of building a nuke, them giving access is more of a way of showing good faith than anything of purpose. Frankly, it just seems as if the US government wanted to turn the page from this nuclear debacle.