SURVEY: Do you agree with cancelling the Iran Nuclear Agreement?

[Bill Miller]

5 minutes ago, ToddinChonburi said:

They are not allowing inspections.  Same game we played with Irag. How soon we forget.  And yes the WMD's are in Syria. 

You are, in fact, 100% incorrect. Only the rules of TV prevent me from properly calling you out on that.

[Brunolem]

2 hours ago, phantomfiddler said:

The agreement reeks of paying the school bully not to beat you up ! The iranian leadership are the biggest bunch of total s*i*heads on the planet today. They will do what they want to do irregardless, and when they do attack another country turn tehran into a parking lot.

First you should inform yourself, preferably not on CNN or some similar MSM, then and only then comment!

What do you know about Iran leadership?

When did Iran attack another country? (Not going back to the times of Alexander the Great).

When it comes to attacking other countries, no need to look very far from...Washington!

Contrary to the US, Iran doesn't have more than 800 military bases in more than 150 countries.

The US appears to be in full projection mode, a psychological issue which affects those who see in others their own defects.

[billd766]

10 hours ago, Morch said:

 

"Now you have nothing and no starting point."

 

Not so. The agreement is still in place, and Iran is, IMO, unlikely to help the Trump administration make its point, by renewing its nuclear activities. Such a course of action would jeopardize cooperation with the remaining signatories.

 

Regardless of what posters think of Trump, the US's diplomatic and economic leverage is still formidable. If it is brought to bear, there may be (in time) certain further concessions, restrictions and areas covered added to the Iran Deal.

 

For the record, I think pulling out was a mistake, and that it would have been possible to affect certain changes without the drama.

 

Since Trump became POTUS the US diplomatic and economic leverage has been diminishing on a daily basis.

 

I think that most countries in the world understand that the USA does NOT revolve around Trump. Unfortunately the USA is lumbered with a dead duck POTUS who IMHO doesn't even have the skills to sweep roads, and the damage that he has done to the USA in 18 months will take decades to repair, it it even can be repaired.

 

He has achieved single handedly more damage to the USA then Russia EVER achieved during the cold war of some 30 or more years.

[billd766]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

"Funny again how the USA thinks the whole world revolves around them again."

 

Considering the amount of attention and dismay generated by the US withdrawing from the Iran Deal, it would seem many other parties share the same line of thinking.

 

 

It may have revolved around the USA once upon a time but no longer.

 

 

[catinthehat]

13 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Disagree strongly!

 

There are several reasons for my disagreement;

 

First and foremost, it is a bit dishonorable to negotiate an agreement then not fulfill the terms. Yes, it is true that the current administration did not negotiate it, but if America's word is only valid for the term of the current Presidency, who would ever make a long-term deal with the US? Seriously, who? I wouldn't.

 

Secondly, there isn't anyone who is saying that Iran is out of compliance with the deal. If there was proof that Iran WASN'T keeping its word that would be a different story, but even the US itself says Iran is keeping to the terms.

 

Third, this was a rare deal that had the US, the Europeans, the Russians and the Chinese on board; that doesn't happen often and when it does it should be maintained with all reasonable effort.

 

Fourth, the main benefit to Iran, the return of its cash, has already occurred. 

 

Finally, there is little evidence that the US has a plan 'B'. If you sincerely believe that cancelling the deal is a good thing (and good people can disagree about that) then you need to have an alternative course of action. I do not see one.

 

This was a stupid move.

 

And where does one think they are using the 1.8 Busd in CASH  on pallets that Obummer gave them? Certainly not to foster terrorists throughout the middle Would that be part of them breaking the deal? Hmmmm. Iran is now threatening to expose all the US politicians who voted for it and how much of a backhander they received from Iran. The EU countries were also kicked back 5% of the 1.8 Busd for voting in favor of the deal. Does anyone really think that Iran is not continuing their Nuke program? It is naive and gullable to believe them. Especially when they choose the time (with lots of advance notice) and place (only some of them) where the UN inspectors are only allowed to inspect. C'mon now.

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Since Trump became POTUS the US diplomatic and economic leverage has been diminishing on a daily basis.

 

I think that most countries in the world understand that the USA does NOT revolve around Trump. Unfortunately the USA is lumbered with a dead duck POTUS who IMHO doesn't even have the skills to sweep roads, and the damage that he has done to the USA in 18 months will take decades to repair, it it even can be repaired.

 

He has achieved single handedly more damage to the USA then Russia EVER achieved during the cold war of some 30 or more years.

 

I agree with you that Trump's effect on US international standing is harsh. That said, even with this diminished international stature, the US can still apply heavy duty leverage on certain issues.

 

So while bashing Trump is all very nice, I think it would take way more than his term in office to completely unravel the US ability to play a major part in international politics.

 

We differ when it comes to damage control, conditional on the next POTUS being a correction mode president. I think most countries and leadership see Trump as a sort of aberration, and that even a mediocre replacement would be internationally embraced. The joy of simply not having Trump in the White House will probably account for quite a bit of goodwill.

 

As for your last comment, I don't know if it's more or less, but certainly up there. Then again I do believe Russia had some fingers in this pie, so maybe just another chapter of the Cold War.

[Black arab]

The usa govt is lying yet again.

[Morch]

14 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

It may have revolved around the USA once upon a time but no longer.

 

 

 

Well, if it's not revolving around the US, how come there's so much angst (internationally and here on TVF) over Trump's withdrawal from the Iran Deal?

[bristolboy]

21 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Well, if it's not revolving around the US, how come there's so much angst (internationally and here on TVF) over Trump's withdrawal from the Iran Deal?

Just because a nation can create universal angst, doesn't mean that the rest of the world revolves around it. It is certainly within the scope of China or Russia and possibly some other nations to do likewise. So if according to your reckoning, the rest of the world revolves around the USA, that would make it both a sun and satellite in the same system.

[bristolboy]

It's early days yet, but I wonder exactly how bellicose the USA will be. I can envisage Trump under the tutelage of John Bolton, actually trying to destroy the Iranian regime through warfare. If so, a desperate Iran would have it in its power to mine the straits of Hormuz. That would drastically disrupt the world economy..

[stevenl]

So almost 40% here think it is good to break your word just because there is a new sheriff in town.

 

Sad.

[catinthehat]

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So almost 40% here think it is good to break your word just because there is a new sheriff in town.

 

Sad.

And what level of credibility do you put in Iran's word?

 

[stevenl]

5 minutes ago, catinthehat said:

And what level of credibility do you put in Iran's word?

 

With checks, as conducted, a lot.

 

But even if you disagree with that, IMO still no reason to break your word until you have proof the other party is not sticking to its part of the agreement. And the experts agree Iran is in the main holding up to its part of the agreement.

Edited May 13, 2018 by stevenl

[Morch]

33 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Just because a nation can create universal angst, doesn't mean that the rest of the world revolves around it. It is certainly within the scope of China or Russia and possibly some other nations to do likewise. So if according to your reckoning, the rest of the world revolves around the USA, that would make it both a sun and satellite in the same system.

 

You may want to read back, and get a clue as to the context. I did not, and do not, subscribe to the hyperbole version you try to attach to my views. To put it forth again - if US actions were not of high significance, or central to the interests of the rest of the international community, the reactions generated would have been fewer and milder.

 

China is a world power. So is Russia. If they were to act in such a manner, it would create waves - if perhaps not quite as high. But then, I think China and Russia sometimes get a bit of a free pass to begin with when it comes to international conduct, so maybe a matter of expectations.

[catinthehat]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

With checks, as conducted, a lot.

 

But even if you disagree with that, IMO still no reason to break your word until you have proof the other party is not sticking to its part of the agreement. And the experts agree Iran is in the main holding up to its part of the agreement.

Now I already know that you will say it's a different matter. But how much of the 1.8 Billion usd they received has sponsored and paid terrorists throughout the region. Syria Iraq, Hezbolah? And most likely in the US, Britain, France, Brussels, Germany. Hmm those names sound familiar. Oh they are still in the agreement so it's ok with them obviously. Is that perfectly acceptable to murder millions of men women and children. I guess as long as you and your family do not live in the vicinity of the violence.

[catinthehat]

Just now, catinthehat said:

Now I already know that you will say it's a different matter. But how much of the 1.8 Billion usd they received has sponsored and paid terrorists throughout the region. Syria Iraq, Hezbolah? And most likely in the US, Britain, France, Brussels, Germany. Hmm those names sound familiar. Oh they are still in the agreement so it's ok with them obviously. Is that perfectly acceptable to murder millions of men women and children. I guess as long as you and your family do not live in the vicinity of the violence.

THEY ARE TERRORISTS. And would love nothing better than to Nuke Israel lor the US asap.

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, catinthehat said:

Now I already know that you will say it's a different matter. But how much of the 1.8 Billion usd they received has sponsored and paid terrorists throughout the region. Syria Iraq, Hezbolah? And most likely in the US, Britain, France, Brussels, Germany. Hmm those names sound familiar. Oh they are still in the agreement so it's ok with them obviously. Is that perfectly acceptable to murder millions of men women and children. I guess as long as you and your family do not live in the vicinity of the violence.

 

What terrorist organizations does Iran support in Iraq and Syria? And as for "most likely" followed by a list of Western countries...that's not quite good enough. One would expect claims regarding support for terrorism on such a scale to have a bit more substance. And "murder millions of men women and children"? What's that about?

Edited May 13, 2018 by Morch

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, catinthehat said:

Now I already know that you will say it's a different matter. But how much of the 1.8 Billion usd they received has sponsored and paid terrorists throughout the region. Syria Iraq, Hezbolah? And most likely in the US, Britain, France, Brussels, Germany. Hmm those names sound familiar. Oh they are still in the agreement so it's ok with them obviously. Is that perfectly acceptable to murder millions of men women and children. I guess as long as you and your family do not live in the vicinity of the violence.

None of the terrorist attacks in Europe were sponsored by Iran. Even stronger, Iran is fighting them hard. Look at the big friends of SA for that and put the blame there.

 

Regarding terrorism in the region, it really depends on your definition of terrorism and/or freedom fighters. But yes, Iran is trying to gain influence in the region, and they're winning. Israel and SA don't like that, hence the present issues.

 

Btw, you're incorrect about the money, a big chunk was Iran's.

[bristolboy]

22 minutes ago, catinthehat said:

And what level of credibility do you put in Iran's word?

 

There is a very strict inspection regime as specified by the agreement. Even high-up in the Israeli intelligence service, both current and former, don't believe that Iran is violating the agreement.

[stevenl]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

What terrorist organizations does Iran support in Iraq and Syria? And as for "most likely" followed by a list of Western countries...that's not quite good enough. One would expect claims regarding support for terrorism on such a scale to have a bit more substance. And "murder millions of men women and children"? What's that about?

To my surprise I agree with you on a ME issue.

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

There is a very strict inspection regime as specified by the agreement. Even high-up in the Israeli intelligence service, both current and former, don't believe that Iran is violating the agreement.

 

The strict inspection regime is in place precisely because other parties do not consider Iran's word to be credible. The comments you allude to refer to whether Iran clearly violated the agreement so far - the "verdict" seems to be a "no" on this, but a cautious one.

 

The question of whether said strict inspection regime provides an adequate coverage may be debated, and anyway, it's a long term proposition. It may have been the best agreement possible at the time, and it certainly beats having no agreement at all, but it is what it is - an imperfect tool.

[Different]

Both, I disagree if the Iranian regime was an elected government so, we don't have newer threat in the troubled region now and the future.   Where I would agree because it exposes how Mullahs in Iran run the country for their interests not for the interest of the people.  Also it exposes how the U.S administration can be played by tyrants supported by the administration like Saudi Arabia.

[bristolboy]

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The strict inspection regime is in place precisely because other parties do not consider Iran's word to be credible. The comments you allude to refer to whether Iran clearly violated the agreement so far - the "verdict" seems to be a "no" on this, but a cautious one.

 

The question of whether said strict inspection regime provides an adequate coverage may be debated, and anyway, it's a long term proposition. It may have been the best agreement possible at the time, and it certainly beats having no agreement at all, but it is what it is - an imperfect tool.

I get it. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Anything can be debated, but without evidence to the contrary it's not going to be much of a debate And the fact that a strict inspection regime is in place, and that so far Israel and the USA both highly motivated to find infractions have come up with nothing, should be good enough for rational evaluators of the situation. I guess when you've got nothing, casting doubt is the best you can do.

[catinthehat]

47 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

What terrorist organizations does Iran support in Iraq and Syria? And as for "most likely" followed by a list of Western countries...that's not quite good enough. One would expect claims regarding support for terrorism on such a scale to have a bit more substance. And "murder millions of men women and children"? What's that about?

I take it you do not watch any type of news. Head in the sand.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, catinthehat said:

I take it you do not watch any type of news. Head in the sand.

 

I take it you have no clear answer. Or any answer at all. There was no denial that Iran is involved in sponsoring terrorism. What was questioned were the references included in your post.

 

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, catinthehat said:

Now I already know that you will say it's a different matter. But how much of the 1.8 Billion usd they received has sponsored and paid terrorists throughout the region. Syria Iraq, Hezbolah? And most likely in the US, Britain, France, Brussels, Germany. Hmm those names sound familiar. Oh they are still in the agreement so it's ok with them obviously. Is that perfectly acceptable to murder millions of men women and children. I guess as long as you and your family do not live in the vicinity of the violence.

13 minutes ago, catinthehat said:

I take it you do not watch any type of news. Head in the sand.

Got any links to said news?

[whaleboneman]

12 hours ago, hansnl said:

Anyone thinking the Iran ayatollahs are keeping their side of the deal is slightly offer  the right track.

Several sites in Iran wereld firbidden to be controller by the Atomic agency.

Of Coursera all the blahblah from the ayatollahs about peaceful goals of the program is pure nonsense.

Everthing in Iran is geared for war, including the atomics.

The proof was delivered by the paperwork stolen from these idiots.

Don't ever think the ayatollahs are human, they are not.

They have only one goal, power over the islam world.

Oh, by the way, Iran hates arabs, they think they are the "herrenvolk". 

serious question - are you using google translate?

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I get it. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Anything can be debated, but without evidence to the contrary it's not going to be much of a debate And the fact that a strict inspection regime is in place, and that so far Israel and the USA both highly motivated to find infractions have come up with nothing, should be good enough for rational evaluators of the situation. I guess when you've got nothing, casting doubt is the best you can do.

 

No, you're just doing your usual routine of implying something which wasn't said, twisting other posters' words and so on. Guess some things don't change whether one finds his password or not, but  I guess that's the best you can do.

 

The question raised earlier was with regard to Iran's (or rather, the Iranian regime's) word being seen as credible. The short version is that it isn't. That would go back to the whole reason the sanctions regime was applied, and later on, the current inspections regime. There is nothing that implies trust here.

 

I acknowledge that the inspections regime in place is strict - and is, overall, a reasonable tool. That still does not make it fail proof or impossible to circumvent. Given Iran's past record, and similar instances of countries achieving nuclear ambitions on the sly, blind faith in the inspections regime is not, IMO, a top choice.

 

As for the casting doubt bit - it's pretty much what this agreement is about. Signatories do not trust Iran's word, hence inspections regime. It wouldn't be in place unless the expectation was that Iran will try something. And while the inspections regime is strict, it also represents a compromise between Iran and the signatories - hence, imperfect.

[unblocktheplanet]

I consider myself quite well-informed. On this basis, I trust Iran over Israel. Iran has so much to offer that Israel is small beer. Money, competition, is once again the root of the US-Israeli issue over Iran. Nukes are just a red herring.

[Wullie Mercer]

Note: The agreement is NOT cancelled, only "Good Old USA" have withdrawn, typically, think they no more than all the rest put together who signed and not interested in anyone else's vote or opinion!!!