Iran nuclear deal reached

[bocabull]

The best thing Obamacare accomplished was making healthcare a right and eliminating the pre existing condition and other insurance underwriting schemes.

The drawbacks of the law mostly pertain to issues with our existing system and the excessive layers of overhead and inefficiencies which result in higher costs than necessary.

But now that the underwriting schemes are outlawed and everybody is required to have coverage give the private sector an opportunity to compete and bring down costs. Costs of the law are already coming in dramatically below forecast.

The Geico of health insurance is coming and it will bend the cost curve down further. Obamacare is here to stay and once again the critics were laughably wrong.

 

[bocabull]

You obviously don't know the history behind American-Iranian relations. It's not favorable or flattering of the United States/UK.

This entire anti-Iran thing was a total sham. It has no legal, ethical, or logical basis.

Like most important issues the entire world is in agreement that this is a great deal for all with the only exception the far right lunatics. They are really just barking dogs to be ignored. You won't learn a thing listening to them because they really don't understand much of anything except how to complain.

 

[thebigabd]

Like most important issues the entire world is in agreement that this is a great deal for all with the only exception the far right lunatics. They are really just barking dogs to be ignored. You won't learn a thing listening to them because they really don't understand much of anything except how to complain.

Guys like Huckabee, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, etc.. These are not even intelligent human beings. If these guys were in charge we would have a big mess. They aren't really true conservatives either. They are part of the "shoot first, ask questions later" crowd.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

You obviously don't know the history behind American-Iranian relations. It's not favorable or flattering of the United States/UK.

This entire anti-Iran thing was a total sham. It has no legal, ethical, or logical basis.

point still stands

 

[SoonerBounce13]

The best thing Obamacare accomplished was making healthcare a right and eliminating the pre existing condition and other insurance underwriting schemes.

The drawbacks of the law mostly pertain to issues with our existing system and the excessive layers of overhead and inefficiencies which result in higher costs than necessary.

But now that the underwriting schemes are outlawed and everybody is required to have coverage give the private sector an opportunity to compete and bring down costs. Costs of the law are already coming in dramatically below forecast.

The Geico of health insurance is coming and it will bend the cost curve down further. Obamacare is here to stay and once again the critics were laughably wrong.

sorry man but htis is a bunch of BS.

I agree with your first paragraph. But the system has been a failure from the start and costs will never go down. It did nothing to fix the issues. all it did was increase costs. And it wasn't like people that are poor were not able to get healthcare....its just now, they are required to have it and is probably costing them more.

 

[thebigabd]

point still stands

What do you mean trust Iran but not American civilians?

 

[stormspencer]

All I need to know about this deal is that Obama and Kerry had to lobby their asses off just to get 34 Dems in the Senate to support it. Democratic support for this deal, to say the least, has not been enthusiastic.

 

[thebigabd]

All I need to know about this deal is that Obama and Kerry had to lobby their asses off just to get 34 Dems in the Senate to support it. Democratic support for this deal, to say the least, has not been enthusiastic.

Have you seen the details on the deal? Which part do you disagree with? Focus on the deal, not the politics. Which part of the deal don't you like?

These politicians had to be lobbied for support because their constituents have been led to believe that Iran is some kind of world menace and the biggest threat to human life on the planet. In reality, Iran has been getting shafted for the last 80 years by the West and hasn't attacked another country in nearly 300 years.

 

[stormspencer]

Have you seen the details on the deal? Which part do you disagree with? Focus on the deal, not the politics. Which part of the deal don't you like?

These politicians had to be lobbied for support because their constituents have been led to believe that Iran is some kind of world menace and the biggest threat to human life on the planet. In reality, Iran has been getting shafted for the last 80 years by the West and hasn't attacked another country in nearly 300 years.

Reposted for you...from earlier in the thread:

We capitulated on the sanctions. We threw in a "lifting of conventional weapons purchases" into a nuclear arms agreement. We allowed the Iranians to effectively hamstring any inspections (from a US perspective). We structured the agreement in a manner so that the US Congress would have no say into the approval of the deal and we put in a sunset provision. And finally, the deal states that the U.S. will train Iranians to counter any sabotage attempts on its nuclear facilities and systems.

If you don't have issues with one or all of these, then we simply differ on the agreement.

 

[stormspencer]

Have you seen the details on the deal? Which part do you disagree with? Focus on the deal, not the politics. Which part of the deal don't you like?

These politicians had to be lobbied for support because their constituents have been led to believe that Iran is some kind of world menace and the biggest threat to human life on the planet. In reality, Iran has been getting shafted for the last 80 years by the West and hasn't attacked another country in nearly 300 years.

They aren't a menace, they are the leading state sponsor of terror in the world. And regarding this issue, some seem to think "if we are just nice to Iran and show them that we mean no harm", then everything will work out fine. When in reality, the country is governed by fanatical, theocratic extremists. IMO, Iran must change within before I would ever entertain any type of deal that gives them approval for moving forward with a nuclear program.

"I don't fear a country who wants nuclear weapons near as much as I fear a country who only wants one nuclear weapon".

 

[sybarite]

Sometimes, it is a good idea to ask why. It is interesting that the US didn't designate Iran as a sponsor of terrorism until 1984, a few years after the revolution that overthrew the Shah, whom we had supported somewhat in confrontation with the people of Iran. Then, we saw fit to arm Iraq in a border conflict with Iran, resulting in Iran supplying arms to those who opposed their immediate enemy, Iraq. Voila, we have anti-American terrorists, or were they anti-Iraq? Exactly how many Iranian terrorists have we found in the US? The ones that have given us the most trouble have been funded largely through Saudi Arabia, a supposed ally.

The fact that the treaty is difficult to get through Congress is irrelevant. This Congress is the same one that intended to make Obama a one-term President, and the Republicans have opposed every item that Obama put forward, even if it is a Republican issue. Getting Congress to do anything is difficult. We are once again approaching a budget deal which has some wanting to close the government again. Boehner's only hope of passing a bill is getting a few Republicans to go along with Democrats to keep the government open. It's almost like Boehner needs Pelosi to act as though she were his primary aide. He can't even get his own party to support him.

The treaty has been supported by just about everyone in the world, including our own military leaders, as the only option that makes any sense. The objections are just nonsense since they have no actual alternative. Some want to bomb Iran as though that weren't even a dumber move than Bush made in Iraq. Want to know who will be sanctioned if we attack Iran? We may find that half the world says, "enough." The treaty is not ideal, but it works for what we need, and it is verifiable. The nonsense that it isn't is crap, and we need to stop being against something just because Obama is for it.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

Getting Congress to do anything is difficult.

red herring alert......Yet somehow bush gets all the blame for going to war by democrats

 

[thebigabd]

They aren't a menace, they are the leading state sponsor of terror in the world.

I've heard that repeated by Lindsey Graham, John McCain, etc... but what is it actually based on? What terrorist attacks have been committed by Iran?

When in reality, the country is governed by fanatical, theocratic extremists.

Saudi Arabia has a far worse reputation with terrorism, human rights, womens rights, etc... and we call them one of our "closest allies". Iran is way less extreme than several countries we call allies.

We capitulated on the sanctions.

If they aren't doing anything illegal, why does there need to be sanctions?

We threw in a "lifting of conventional weapons purchases" into a nuclear arms agreement.

Because there was a ban on conventional weapons purchases as a result of the nuclear arms agreement. It was there because of it, and thus removed because of it.

Why shouldn't Iran be allowed to buy and sell weapons like every other country?

We allowed the Iranians to effectively hamstring any inspections (from a US perspective).

In any agreement you will have to give something up... The part that you aren't putting any stock in is we don't even know if they have a weapons program. We haven't presented any evidence that they ever did anything wrong. Yet, they were sanctioned, isolated, and punished.

• We got inspections
• They reduce their nuclear stockpile by 98%
• The Arak nuclear site will only produce energy grade plutonium
• The Natanz and Fordow site can't produce weapons grade uranium

They gave up all weapons-grade work that could lead to a bomb, and agreed to inspections. In return, they get sanctions removed, can buy/sell conventional weapons, and sell oil on the open market, etc.

The sanctions were in place to get them to agree to a deal, and they worked. They can't be put on them forever. What else could they have done? They are operating within international law.

 

[Max Power]

I've heard that repeated by Lindsey Graham, John McCain, etc... but what is it actually based on? What terrorist attacks have been committed by Iran?



Saudi Arabia has a far worse reputation with terrorism, human rights, womens rights, etc... and we call them one of our "closest allies". Iran is way less extreme than several countries we call allies.



If they aren't doing anything illegal, why does there need to be sanctions?



Because there was a ban on conventional weapons purchases as a result of the nuclear arms agreement. It was there because of it, and thus removed because of it.

Why shouldn't Iran be allowed to buy and sell weapons like every other country?



In any agreement you will have to give something up... The part that you aren't putting any stock in is we don't even know if they have a weapons program. We haven't presented any evidence that they ever did anything wrong. Yet, they were sanctioned, isolated, and punished.

• We got inspections
• They reduce their nuclear stockpile by 98%
• The Arak nuclear site will only produce energy grade plutonium
• The Natanz and Fordow site can't produce weapons grade uranium

They gave up all weapons-grade work that could lead to a bomb, and agreed to inspections. In return, they get sanctions removed, can buy/sell conventional weapons, and sell oil on the open market, etc.

The sanctions were in place to get them to agree to a deal, and they worked. They can't be put on them forever. What else could they have done? They are operating within international law.

So much truth in the bolded part