The debate "Iran breakers deal for the 2nd time. Do you think the US should punish iran or do nothing" was started by
February 16, 2016, 3:38 pm.
14 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 3 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Alex posted 14 arguments, bigB posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Alex, ProudAmerican888, sloanstar1000, bigB, MrShine, barman and 8 visitors agree.
alexoliver, RyanWakefield and 1 visitor disagree.
Don't the inspectors have to give a 24 hour notice before they go to inspect it's nuclear plants and enrichment plants.
Why is Iran continuing to enrich their uranium when they have no need to enrich it? Russia has a contract with Iran to supply their only power reactor at Bushehr for ten years with fuel. Iran has no need to enrich the low grade uranium for fuel when they are getting it from Russia. How is it Iran "magically" found a stock pile of uranium after the nuclear deal was signed?
It's apparent Iran will enrich the uranium to 90% in order to make a nuclear weapon. They've made it abundantly clear they want nuclear weapons. I don't trust a country that repeatedly says "death to America" and has publicly called for the total destruction of Israel and every Jew on earth. Are you not concerned with that?
Alex, you seem to have no understanding of why the deal was important. It let inspectors check to make sure they WEREN'T making weapons of mass destruction. Your idea seems to be to assume they are making them and bomb them without any proof. How does that make you the good guy?
You are in favor of using terror to force a legitimate government to do what you want. That is called terrorism. You want to turn the US military Ito a terrorist organization. The only difference between your vision and other terrorist organizations is that yours would have access to vastly superior weapons.
there is no evidence they are building weapons of mass destruction."
that's why the deal is so bad, they might have them, they might not, we don't know because of the horrible deal.
the middle east chaos was a result of Bush doing plan A and a war, then Obama came and stated doing plan B, take away troops.
you can't do 2 plans and expect a good result. so the next pres should do a plan, and they will have 4-8 years. conse.rvative or liberal 4-8 years is enough time to do good with a plan.
there is no evidence they are building weapons of mass destruction. Unless you have some evidence stop saying that. You are just lying.
and using force would cost a lot of lives. While there is a very real chance that you can use diplomacy and avoid war. besides you have already shown what happens when you destroy a Middle Eastern government. Namely chaos, terrorism and death. So no that is not something you want. diplomacy is a far superior option.
iran is buying and making weapons of mass destruction. let's do nothing!
that aside using force is needed, if you believe in not using military force to save lives of our alies and lives of our citizens them that is immoral because your letting the enemy live instead of protecting our country.
I guess you don't think the US should have fought the south in the civil war, because they used force to make the south join the union.
So you feel the US should get to dictate what other nations do because the military is big enough to let you be a bully? How does that sound moral to you? "I can kill you so do what I say or I will." we don't accept that in any other part of society, so what would make that mentality better in international politics.
That aside, so far you have provided no evidence that they broke any agreement. Fox assumes they were discussion buying tanks without any evidence, which would run counter to a UN resolution that they never agreed to. Since even this has no bearing on the US, and Iran buying tanks poses absolutely no risk to the US, you have in no way demonstrated a justification for the US punishing Iran.
We can probably take a moment of silence, and appreciate that the long history of conflict, though shorter than some would believe, actually started from the British. And now the British are not nearly as involved. True the united States has had catastrophe after another, but not as bad as promising the same land to three different groups, and failing to fulfill even one.
The US might not have a right to police other countries, but they do have the authority on behalf of other countries that are not all Iran. After looking into it, the Iranian government gets an advance on inspection, and chooses the soil to be analyzed. How is that in any way thorough? It's similar to a teacher being given the date on the review of a class, so they plan a lecture and activities around it. I don't think I am wrong about it, but if I'm not, that isn't exactly enforceable by any country but Iran.
Let's be fair about this, every country should have a military, right? That doesn't mean every country should have nuclear power. Kim Jong Un would do terrible things with it, so at least realizing giving nuclear power should not come with free reign is fair. They are people too, the modern advancements that make society comfortable shouldn't be restricted. On the other hand, it is plenty of power.
Seeing as how the deal is a difficult subject, we should change the question, because we can't agree what constitutes breaking a deal, we should realize what parts of the deal are fair, and which countries we trust with it. Like it or not, the US does have the most influence among other countries, so it goes without saying that these decisions would be made with America in mind, not just because Americans are on this app or America's involvement around the world.
right, but iran doesn't want the US to go full power on them either, so we threaten them with what they don't want - total destruction.
there is absolutely no indication they have violated the agreement. stop saying they have or provide evidence.
why do you get to give terms of do what I say or i kill you to another county? who gave you that right? you are not the world's police.
if you did invade Iran it would turn into another Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria type situation. you would spend alot of money, kill alot of people, and make things much worse than before. it isn't an option until literally every other option is exhausted and they are 2 seconds from completing a nuclear weapon.
Iran has repeatedly said "death to America", called for the total destruction of Israel and every Jew. They are a country that is hell bent on destruction.... not a nation I want with nuclear weapons. Iran agreed to the deal and had billion of assets unfrozen and given the ability to strengthen their economy. Since we did this Iran should follow the agreement, since they haven't we the US and UN should come down hard on Iran. (honestly I don't think that'll happen)
"you make nuclear weapons, or not let us inspect your nuclear plants, we will bring our military down on you so hard you will be completely and totally destroyed"
iran can't say that to us, so no iran can't demand any inspection from us.
So would you agree that Iran should get to inspect US installations to make sure they are not making biological weapons? Should their inspectors have unlimited access to all US military bases?
no country woukd agree to the level of inspection you seem to want. none.
1. if right now there is a 100% chance no bomb Is being made, then why decline a deal that also gives a 100% chance of no bomb. for iran I'd take the more inspection deal so I'd get more money and trust.
2. if I was president I would make a deal with Iran that would make them have to submit to inspection. it would be less then 1 page.
"you make nuclear weapons, or not let us inspect your nuclear plants, we will bring our military down on you so hard you will be completely and totally destroyed"
if they want to disagree, then too bad for them, but you see, only a insane person would disagree to that deal.
if you want I'll add a
"if you agree to these inspections and corporate with us we can have peace, and over time we will come to trust you"
the biggest problem Is Obama thinks everything is going great. he did not respond to the November weapons test and about the sailors iran held hostage we hear this
"Hours after the sailors were released, Secretary of State John Kerry said his strong relationship with Iran?s foreign minister forged during months of negotiating the nuclear agreement led to a quick resolution to the incident." because nothing says strong relationship then taking prisoners.
?All indications suggest or tell us that our sailors were well taken care of,? Kerry said the day the sailors were released, January 13." sounds like they were all friends and had a party! oh wait... iran is our enemy.
there will never be a way to please you. they are an independent country with the same rights you have. there is only so much you can demand of people. no country woukd agree to the level of inspection you seem to want. none.
the truth is that the monitors have 24/7 access to their nuclear facilities and monitor their supplies so that any attempt to set up new facilities would be very difficult to do without detection. the monitors will ensure that a bomb isn't being made.
prove from the deal that iran isn't making a bomb. you can't, that is why the deal sucks so much.
again. that is not the nuclear deal. that is a UN resolution that is not related to the nuclear deal. it is not a violation of any deal because Iran never agreed to it.
you threaten to bomb Iran (and numerous other countries). did Iran attack you over it? Israel threatens to bomb Iran as well. have they attacked Israel over their threats? should they have the right to attack people when they are threatened? then why do you think you should?
this deal STOPS them from building a bomb. they were building one before despite your sanctions. they have now stooped. for all the Republicans complaining they have never managed to show that the treaty isn't doing exactly what they want it to.
you asked for proof in the beginning of the debate, and I posted the fox news article. in the bottom of the article it mentioned the deal and how it was brocken in November.
are you saying we should do nothing when a country threatens to bomb one of our alies? no wonder our friends don't us anymore.
as someone said earlier nuclear weapons matter way more then any other part of the military. so we should let iran built nuclear bombs, and then bomb people? or should we do something about it?
the US is not the enforcer of the world. it is not your responsibility or right to punish people for breaking UN resolutions. that isn't how international law works.
I can't find any evidence they have broken the nuclear arms deal. if you say they have then you have to prove it.
and the terrible IRAN and US deal was brocken in November when iran tested weapons they aren't allowed to do.
wait, the UN is not a country, it is a group of countries. the US is included, so If one messes with the UN they have the US to fear.
You seem to be confused. There was one deal between US and Iran, which they have not broken. There was a second UN resolution which, if they were buying take, they have broken. Though since they were not party to this resolution, they are at worst guilty of talking about not doing what the UN told them to rather than breaking a deal.
Where your argument breaks down is that you don't seem to be making any distinction between them, and you feel the US has the right to punish other nations for not doing as the UN says they should.
Do you actually know anything about war or international politics?
except that they aren't threatening anyone. and they haven't broken the deal. so what is your argument?
Dave do you know anything about war? you don't make a deal and then fight. if one country (iran) threatens other countries, the US had a right to fight them, instead we made a deal, which is ok exept it was a bad deal and was not enforced.
Alex, you just admitted that unless the UN threatened to kill you, you would ignore them. Do you feel the UN should be executing Iranian people, or that Iran is justified in ignoring them?
Secondly, why should the US punish Iran for breaking a UN deal that Iran didn't sign?
that is rediculous Alex. you wouldn't give up to your guns to your own government. saying you would give them up because a bunch of foreigners told you too makes you sound disingenuous.
it is up to the UN to enforce UN resolutions. Iran has not violated the nuclear arms deal. they have not broken any deals since for it to be a deal they must agree. so by definition this debate is over. unless you can prove they have broken an agreement.
"if the UN told you that you had to give up all your weapons, would you?"
my point exactly! I would not, the UN told iran this and they disobeyed.
now if the UN said "give up or weapons or we will kill you" and ment it. I'd give up weapons, and so would iran. this is simple.
Regardless, if that is what the UN says or believes, then for the UN the best course of action, should they intend to keep with what they have said, is to actively enforce their "deal". What was said can't be proven, but if the UN believes what was talked about is a violation, it would be no different from walking in on a sale that was considered illegal.
" Look, but don't touch" policies are passive, and any country that doesn't push its boundaries mustn't have an active leader. So while it may not be wrong, it should be discouraged. Discouragement goes farther than a slap on the wrist too. If the UN tells you to do something, odds are that the countries decided that action might be a threat to the peace established among those nations, and the world. If you have allies, their pressure might be able to back you. If not, the UN is more than likely able to deal with any pressure you yourself could do. It might not be fair, it might not be right, but for what is considered, the UN is already letting Iran have a slice of the pie, better than what previous world alliances would do.
The real question is that if the UN wants to keep the deal as it is, should they enforce perceived damages such as tests or talks on buying tanks. (I would ask for a second on proof, and not enough articles talk in detail on it. However, if it is thought to be or is the case according to the UN, it is irrelevant.)
if the UN told you that you had to give up all your weapons, would you? if not you are breaking a treaty. that is what you are arguing.
evolution has proof. alot of it. do you have any proof? no. that article gave no evidence what so ever for their opinion of what happened in that private meeting.
there's no evidence that they broke it. even if they did, it is different agreement so your debate topic is wrong by default. and lastly they never agreed to the treaty that there is no evidence they broke.
"there are several things wrong with your argument. First of all there's no way to know if they discussed buying tanks. Unless you were present at the meeting you can't know that."
wow, you were present for evolution? no wonder you know history. let's use reasonable arguments please.
and does it really matter what deal they break? no it doesn't. they broke a deal the US had a part in, and they should be punished.
there are several things wrong with your argument. First of all there's no way to know if they discussed buying tanks. Unless you were present at the meeting you can't know that. And they don't provide any evidence that that's what they talked about. If they were only buying missiles then it was completely allowed. and even if they did discuss it, talking isn't a violation. only if they actually buy them.
and secondly, the way I read this, it is not a violation of the treaty. it is a violation of a UN resolution that they didn't agree to. it is not the same thing as far as I can tell.
just because Obama doesn't admit it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. despite the article being from fox news, iran did in fact meet with Russia about buying tanks which is not allowed.
I can't find any evidence that they have broken it. would you provide some?