EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1802
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 03 2015 04:39 heliusx wrote: I haven't really been paying attention to this, whats the end game? We will woo them to our side before the 10-15 years are up? Is it believed our military will be capable of neutralizing an Iranian nuclear threat by then? Yes, in 15 years or so, hopefully we will have better relations and they won't be on the path to developing a nuclear weapon. Or we can work out another deal. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22454 Posts
On April 03 2015 04:27 Plansix wrote: Yes, but only by majority of both the House and Senate. It will be very interesting to see if they try to blow up this deal. I think they have been burned enough, but they might touch the stove one more time. Well since the Democrats don't have majority in either of the 2 and sofar the Republicans seem to have done everything they can to shutdown all things with Obama's name attached to it I will expect this to get bombed. Its Obama's swansong. And I don't think the Republicans are willing to give it to him. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22454 Posts
On April 03 2015 04:39 heliusx wrote: I haven't really been paying attention to this, whats the end game? We will woo them to our side before the 10-15 years are up? Is it believed our military will be capable of neutralizing an Iranian nuclear threat by then? the US (and Isreal) have the means to neutralize a threat today. The end game here is to work towards a situation where Iran doesn't feel like it needs a nuke and the US doesn't have to go to war to stop them. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
Neither now nor in the future will fighting Iran be an easy/bloodless prospect, given their regional capabilities, and the impact they can have on the world economy by mining/shutting down the Persian Gulf. We do have the capability of shutting down their nuclear program via military means, but the costs of which are simply too high to bother. I remain in the camp that Iran with a nuclear weapon will not be the end of the world nor significantly destabilizing in the Middle East, but it's preferable to keep the number of nuclear-armed states down, and a peaceful nuclear program would facilitate the Palestinian peace process (which Israeli's have been mostly unwilling to risk given the security challenges and threats they already see in the region). | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On April 03 2015 04:45 Plansix wrote: Yes, in 15 years or so, hopefully we will have better relations and they won't be on the path to developing a nuclear weapon. Or we can work out another deal. I see. I don't believe that they won't try to develop a weapon in the future. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On April 03 2015 04:50 heliusx wrote: I see. I don't believe that they won't try to develop a weapon in the future. Which is why the inspection terms are extremely rigorous, and the framework for the reinstatement of sanctions will remain in place, in case of a breach of the agreement. Again, see above: if the Iranians were deadset on acquiring nuclear weapons, they, as others, can pay the price and develop them, ultimately; the cost of launching any conventional attack on their nuclear facilities is far more than the US will pay (and again, would not be as dangerous as many would argue). The goal is to regulate their nuclear program to remain within peaceful parameters, and hopefully develop a rapprochement with Iran, given the challenges that the Mid.East is already presenting, and eventually eliminate the security threat that Iran is building nuclear weapons against (namely, the fear of another US-backed regime change, ala 1953 [which is where most of our problems with Iran stem from]). | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 03 2015 04:46 Gorsameth wrote: Well since the Democrats don't have majority in either of the 2 and sofar the Republicans seem to have done everything they can to shutdown all things with Obama's name attached to it I will expect this to get bombed. Its Obama's swansong. And I don't think the Republicans are willing to give it to him. They can try to deny him if they want, but there are real risks to doing that. It will be seen as obstructionist on the highest level and the construction specifically says the President is responsible to negotiating treaties. It will also ruin relations with the other countries that helped with the deal. It won’t be as bad as shutting the government down, but it will have huge blow back. There are going to be a lot of moderate Republicans telling the hard liners to back down over the next few days. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
It would mostly just be stupid for the Republicans to do it. The terms of the agreement are actually quite good and everything we essentially need from Iran, so... | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 03 2015 05:03 Lord Tolkien wrote: The President is responsible for negotiating treaties, but Congress has the authority to not ratify it. See: League of Nations, and like the hundreds of treaties we've signed but not ratified. It would mostly just be stupid for the Republicans to do it. The terms of the agreement are actually quite good and everything we essentially need from Iran, so... Yes, I was more pointing out that it would be insane to deny the treaty out of spite, because it would be so transparently obstructionist, rather than being based on any real objection. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On April 03 2015 05:05 Plansix wrote: Yes, I was more pointing out that it would be insane to deny the treaty out of spite, because it would be so transparently obstructionist, rather than being based on any real objection. i wouldn't put it past them though... | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22454 Posts
On April 03 2015 05:19 ticklishmusic wrote: It would be evidence of the incredibly sad state of American politics if a deal that contains everything you want fails to meet approval just because of partisan bickering. Some people (myself included) would say we have seen plenty of evidence to that effect already over the last 8 years. I am interested in what the Republican voters (like xDaunt) on this forum think of this deal and on the chances of it getting past congress. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
effective control of weapons tech is more quality than quantity, specifically high speed centrifuges, plutonium processing and weapon designs. the fifteen year thing is being portrayed as a simple sunset of restrictions on iranian weapons program. but as a member of the NPT iran is still bound by terms that make inspections and sanctions available when there is naughtiness. the intelligence service doesnt stop monitoring iran just because of a lack of formal sanctions etc. the deal is really about iran's economic development and the political consequence of that development. will iran moderates and liberals grow due to middle class and urban growth? or is this only giving the ayatolla more rope and letting iran have more resources to sponsor conflicts abroad. will the iran hardliners return to hostile ways or broader dialogue can be developed i think the u.s. should demand reform on iran's censorship stuff. they are obviously lacking leverage and the sanctions are hurting. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On April 03 2015 05:19 ticklishmusic wrote: It would be evidence of the incredibly sad state of American politics if a deal that contains everything you want fails to meet approval just because of partisan bickering. i assume if the republicans oppose it that they will not agree that it contains everything they want. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 03 2015 05:26 dAPhREAk wrote: i assume if the republicans oppose it that they will not agree that it contains everything they want. Or there is not way they are going to let the Black, Liberal President score a victory this huge. And they want to court the NY lobby. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On April 03 2015 05:21 oneofthem wrote: the centrifuge count reduction is rather inconsequential if they are the old ones. effective control of weapons tech is more quality than quantity, specifically high speed centrifuges, plutonium processing and weapon designs. the fifteen year thing is being portrayed as a simple sunset of restrictions on iranian weapons program. but as a member of the NPT iran is still bound by terms that make inspections and sanctions available when there is naughtiness. the intelligence service doesnt stop monitoring iran just because of a lack of formal sanctions etc. the deal is really about iran's economic development and the political consequence of that development. will iran moderates and liberals grow due to middle class and urban growth? or is this only giving the ayatolla more rope and letting iran have more resources to sponsor conflicts abroad. will the iran hardliners return to hostile ways or broader dialogue can be developed i think the u.s. should demand reform on iran's censorship stuff. they are obviously lacking leverage and the sanctions are hurting. Yes, the US should definitely try to govern every nation they don't like. Because Truth, Justice and The American Way should be exported to the world using whatever power you have. | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
On April 03 2015 05:21 oneofthem wrote: the centrifuge count reduction is rather inconsequential if they are the old ones. effective control of weapons tech is more quality than quantity, specifically high speed centrifuges, plutonium processing and weapon designs. If I read it correctly, they are only left with the old ones. Iran has agreed to reduce by approximately two-thirds its installed centrifuges. Iran will go from having about 19,000 installed today to 6,104 installed under the deal, with only 5,060 of these enriching uranium for 10 years. All 6,104 centrifuges will be IR-1s, Iran's first-generation centrifuge. So they will not have any newer centrifuges. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On April 03 2015 05:19 ticklishmusic wrote: It would be evidence of the incredibly sad state of American politics if a deal that contains everything you want fails to meet approval just because of partisan bickering. where have you been in the last 7 years? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 03 2015 05:32 WolfintheSheep wrote: Yes, the US should definitely try to govern every nation they don't like. Because Truth, Justice and The American Way should be exported to the world using whatever power you have. uh it is with consideration of long term and internal political reform, which would make iran more friendly. but yeah on my view collective entities have no basis for rights outside of the individuals. | ||
| ||
