POLL: Do You Agree with Bibi that No Agreement is Better?
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Yes. Because the biggest state sponsor of terror in the world cannot be trusted.
Much like the late 30's...
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Much like the late 30's...
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Yes, I agree that the US can't be trusted, but why is that relevant to whether we would prefer no deal over the deal under discussion?
Do yourself a favor and move to Yemen, or Iraq, or Iran if you're so down on this terrorist country. Life is much better there.
I think there is probably a case to be made for even a bad deal over no deal at all. No deal at all means the risk of war in the near future increases. A bad deal at the very least takes the pressure off and buys time to get a better deal.
Explain this metaphor please. A bad deal would deny them the bullets to reload at the very least. No deal is the equivalent of your scenario.
Why would you make a deal with these people? A deal ensures they get the bomb sometime down the road.
Short of invading and occupying, they will get a bomb if they want one. They already know how to replicate this 70 year old technology. So if you want them to want to give up the pursuit, what's the best strategy? We have been trying the stick, but that just makes the hardliners happy and ensures they stay in power. We can't take much more away. So making a deal is basically paying them to shelve the bomb. My prediction is if you crack down, you ensure they have nothing to lose and they will feel the need to get the bomb and demonstrate it. And I don't want to occupy Iran for 50 years.
I suspect if they get the bomb the question would be "for $500 Alex what was Iran". Israel will destroy them plain and simple.
I see this almost exactly opposite. The longer we wait without a deal at all, the more time Iran has to reach that no return point. Any deal being considered, even the very weak, "take ten years off" deal slows them down. A deal means more time for us, no deal means more time for them or war, neither of which is great for us.
We certainly do see this is opposite ways
I think any deal significantly removes sanctions, which allows Iran to move forward even more quickly. The "10 years off thing" is/would be a farce.
In addition, even if violations are detected in the enforcement scheme, Iran would still have had time without sanctions before those violations are discovered.
Applying sanctions again might be akin to trying to put the genie back in the bottle. Everyone has to agree again to do it. Who knows what the geopolitical climate will be at that time.
Seems to me it's easier to keep sanctions in place than it is to apply them again later after they've been significantly relaxed.
And without significant sanctions relief, Iran won't do a deal anyway.
Are you sure the sanctions are having an impact on their ability to get the materials for the bomb? My understanding is the sanctions are hurting them economically and making life hard for the people, but that they basically have all the raw materials for the bomb and are simply waiting for enough uranium to be enriched in the centrifuges. If thats true, and Bibi seems to think it is, then postponing the deal and staying on the current course either means they get the bomb in a few months or we go to war even sooner. Only a deal of some kind changes that equation.Originally posted by 86Hawkeye:
We certainly do see this is opposite ways
I think any deal significantly removes sanctions, which allows Iran to move forward even more quickly. The "10 years off thing" is/would be a farce.
In addition, even if violations are detected in the enforcement scheme, Iran would still have had time without sanctions before those violations are discovered.
Applying sanctions again might be akin to trying to put the genie back in the bottle. Everyone has to agree again to do it. Who knows what the geopolitical climate will be at that time.
Seems to me it's easier to keep sanctions in place than it is to apply them again later after they've been significantly relaxed.
And without significant sanctions relief, Iran won't do a deal anyway.
I don't see how a deal delays anything.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Are you sure the sanctions are having an impact on their ability to get the materials for the bomb? My understanding is the sanctions are hurting them economically and making life hard for the people, but that they basically have all the raw materials for the bomb and are simply waiting for enough uranium to be enriched in the centrifuges. If thats true, and Bibi seems to think it is, then postponing the deal and staying on the current course either means they get the bomb in a few months or we go to war even sooner. Only a deal of some kind changes that equation.Originally posted by 86Hawkeye:
We certainly do see this is opposite ways
I think any deal significantly removes sanctions, which allows Iran to move forward even more quickly. The "10 years off thing" is/would be a farce.
In addition, even if violations are detected in the enforcement scheme, Iran would still have had time without sanctions before those violations are discovered.
Applying sanctions again might be akin to trying to put the genie back in the bottle. Everyone has to agree again to do it. Who knows what the geopolitical climate will be at that time.
Seems to me it's easier to keep sanctions in place than it is to apply them again later after they've been significantly relaxed.
And without significant sanctions relief, Iran won't do a deal anyway.
Iran will not abide by any deal anyway.
If there is to be war, would we be better off having it sooner or later?
If a deal says they mothball X number of centrifuges and we put inspectors in there to watch the centrifuges, how can that not help but delay them? All things being equal I'd much rather go to war tomorrow rather than today.Originally posted by 86Hawkeye:
I don't see how a deal delays anything.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Are you sure the sanctions are having an impact on their ability to get the materials for the bomb? My understanding is the sanctions are hurting them economically and making life hard for the people, but that they basically have all the raw materials for the bomb and are simply waiting for enough uranium to be enriched in the centrifuges. If thats true, and Bibi seems to think it is, then postponing the deal and staying on the current course either means they get the bomb in a few months or we go to war even sooner. Only a deal of some kind changes that equation.Originally posted by 86Hawkeye:
We certainly do see this is opposite ways
I think any deal significantly removes sanctions, which allows Iran to move forward even more quickly. The "10 years off thing" is/would be a farce.
In addition, even if violations are detected in the enforcement scheme, Iran would still have had time without sanctions before those violations are discovered.
Applying sanctions again might be akin to trying to put the genie back in the bottle. Everyone has to agree again to do it. Who knows what the geopolitical climate will be at that time.
Seems to me it's easier to keep sanctions in place than it is to apply them again later after they've been significantly relaxed.
And without significant sanctions relief, Iran won't do a deal anyway.
Iran will not abide by any deal anyway.
If there is to be war, would we be better off having it sooner or later?
