Trump Administration drops Iran deal

You are correct as I am a conservative. The democratic party is being destroyed right now and hanging on to dear life. Also since I have been teaching you, you resort to just calling me a conservative because I am more informed, intelligent, and probably more successful than you.

There is a thing called money, cash, whatever you want to call it. I have answered this numerous times already. Please read up on this before you make another fool out of yourself. Also read in this thread as I have already answered this question more than 3 times.

Oh you mean those answers where you made yourself look a fool?

Tell me where I was incorrect. Because you are the one who looks like a fool because I have literally been speaking facts. Always with the democrat crybabies. Once they are defeated, they name call and cry.

@Diddies: Releasing a country's frozen assets in exchange for complying with the nuclear agreement (which they have been, the IAEA has confirmed this) is not the same as paying them to not build nuclear weapons, as it is not your money in the first place. It's really not that complicated.

You are only telling partial truth. We have paid them money as well as unfreezing their assets where they were struggling as a country due to our sanction where it drastically cut their export of oil which is their main producer of income for the country. So please do research first before you only tell partial truth.

@Diddies: Okay, would you be able to provide sources to highlight the amount of money that the US itself has paid to Iran, specifically in reference to the nuclear deal in that case? I have looked myself, but all that I have seen is an unrelated $1.7 billion payment to resolve a US-Iran arms deal which predates the Iranian revolution.

So at least you are agreeing with me that the US has now paid. You are getting a step closer as you are starting to think for yourself instead of believe what everyone is on here posting.

if you 'pay a person to not make bombs'

vs

'not pay and thus allow them to make bombs'

it does seem like the first choice is the better one

@Diddies: so do you have any evidence at all to support that America is paying Iran to not make nukes?

Saying that money is a thing and that it has been given to Iran does not prove a thing.

@tryit: your mind is so limited as that is the only option. Lol

As I suspected you have shown no proof of anything, don't understand the concepts in this thread, and will continue to think you've made points.

@LJS9502_basic: you lose. I asked where I was incorrect and you can’t show it. Lol

The point being which you ( again ) missed is that Iran was under heavy sanctions for decades. What additional economic damage was going to be done in the next few years to make them "nothing"?

Also, since you're adept at fortune-telling, please tell me what stocks I should invest in for the next 5 years. My portfolio needs a good bump.

Also also, you have yet to provide sources on your offer to prove that the US paid or is paying ( there is a difference there btw but I'll take either ) Iran specifically not to pursue nuclear weapons and this is now the 3rd time I've requested it. It's starting to weaken your argument.

Lastly, I'd like to pose a simple question. Purely hypothetical. Would it be acceptable in your eyes for the US to pay Iran $1 / year not to produce nuclear weapons? Keep in mind this is a hypothetical situation, $1 is a comically small amount of money, and the net result is Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon.

Would such a contrived arrangement be acceptable?

@Diddies: Well my post must have been misunderstood then, because we are actually in disagreement over this. Like I said the US paid $1.7 billion to settle an arms deal with Iran, where none of the military hardware was delivered even though they received payment for it, due to the outbreak of the Iranian revolution in 1978. That has absolutely nothing to do with the Iran Nuclear deal.

Rather, the actual sanction relief comes entirely from frozen assets, essentially Iran's own overseas finances which were seized and withheld. So you can say that the US released Iranian confiscated funds back to them in exchange for their commitment not to develop nuclear weapons, but to state that America is paying them for this is a factually incorrect statement, since that was not US money to begin with.

Of course you are welcome to correct me on this, by backing up the claims you have made with any sources you can find. Would also be interested to see any credible proof that Iran is not complying with the terms of the agreement, as the IAEA says otherwise.

Again, that is frozen money being returned to them.

Not that we are paying them. Just because the author disagrees with that and tries to rationalize it it doesnt mean we are paying them from our pockets. The fact is, that source does nothing to debunk anything, nor is that source particularly credible to begin with.

All that source did was say how it we unfroze THEIR money without them meeting the age old criteria. Which was OUR part of the deal.

You have missed a lot of what the sanction has done as well. The economic fall wasn't just freezing their money. We literally stopped most of their exports due to the sanction and no one would really do business with them. We did pay them...simply google and you will find thousands of sources. Also if you want to believe that the 1.7 billion to settle an arms deal was sent at exactly the same time the Iran deal was going on then believe that. lol

Also you mention the IAEA...this organization is a joke. They have a history of failed attempts at keeping countries nuclear free. For example, the IAEA has the ability to request a visit to a site to see if nuclear weapons existed. This takes about a month process to get clearance from Iran. However, Iran can say that it is a military base and IAEA can't step foot on it and will never know. Also, in the past IAEA received word that a location had nuclear materials and they wanted to visit it with this month process, Iran postponed this visit for about a year and a half. Iran dug up dirt and replaced all the dirt with new dirt during this time. This would signify hiding material. This is why the IAEA is ineffective and have the worst history of keeping countries nuclear free....North Korea. lol

But there is still speculation of them making nuclear weapons and we do not know.

No it doesn't work that way. You made specific statements and I asked for evidence. Therefore if you cannot provide them then to use your word.............you lose.

Well this isn't fortune telling. There are literally articles out there stating that Iran was losing millions each year and the economy was collapsing over the sanction and it was getting worse each year. Also if you read on through this, you will see that I and other people have discussed us paying them money. Please go read and do some research yourself. And to answer your question on the hypothetical would be no as we have no way to know if they are still making them, and we still do not know.

( IAEA ) International Atomic Energy Agency, the global nuclear watchdog that continuously monitored Iran's declared nuclear sites.

Heard of them?

As I have previously mentioned and will continue to teach you as you take everything as face value, this organization is a joke. For example with Iran, if Iran states something is a military base then the IAEA can't step foot on it. If the IAEA wants to visit a site, they have to give a 30 day notice and Iran can postpone as long as they want. Iran has already done this on a site that the IAEA wanted to visit and Iran postponed it for a year and a half. Iran removed the top soil and replaced the top soil during this time and removed a bunch of things from this location. You tell me from this if the IAEA is effective if someone can postpone a visit that long.

Please do research before you embarrass yourself.

You literally stated I was wrong. Please tell me on what I was wrong about. If you can't then you lose again. lol You keep saying I do not know what I am talking about, but won't tell me what it is. This is hilarious.

Well you made a statement and I asked for proof. You have not provided any. Just your ill informed opinion. Which does make you wrong. But you still have to back up your stance. I'll wait.

@LJS9502_basic: you still won’t tell me on what topic you say I’m wrong. Continue to say I’m wrong but you won’t point it out. What a failure you are.

So you are concluding that NO DEAL is possible w/ Iran then?

You are not teaching anyone anything.

Do you not understand that your positive claim needs positive evidence, something you have provided NOTHING off, instead giving vague responses like "do the research yoursel"f... seemingly failing to understand that you just made your claim unfalsifiable?

Why would I need to research whether you're talking out of your rear or not?

I already think you are, you are the one that needs to put evidence behind your statements to prove otherwise.

Ironically it's you that is a failure in this thread but can't actually grasp that.

Old angry man burns down international deal while spouting falsehoods and doing so out of spite. It's like we've learned nothing and this ultimately shows us that the president can be swayed by a shitty power point presentation. If not being utterly embarrassing it just shows you what a child Trump is for being so malleable by those around him.

Back this up with sources if you want to be taken seriously.

@horgen: How about this...you tell me I am wrong then I will site sources. I want you to put your foot in your mouth first. lol

Again...what am I wrong about? Funny how you are failing as I guess everything I stated is correct. lol

I am not saying that. I believe the deal should be...Iran from the US and other super powers, you are not allowed to build nuclear weapons. If you do so, we will sanction the country and force an economic collapse in the country.

As I have stated, I want to be told that I am dead wrong on a topic and force you to put your foot in your mouth and I will provide evidence of my claims.

OK, but you just answered my hypothetical question with a no because "we have no way to know if they are still making them". So how would a new deal be monitored / enforced if you yourself said there is no way to know?

You wouldn't take what I proposed in my example ( again, a RIDICULOUSLY good deal for the US ), but you still believe there should be a deal.

*confused*

those are all fine and good reasons.

I am just suggesting that to leave it 'flat' saying 'OMG! paying terrorists!' and just drop the mike and leave the room.

aint good enough. best explain

You're wrong.

There, I said it. *patiently awaiting sources*

Fair enough, I think you are dead wrong when you say that IAEA's reports, that for the most part says Iran is complying, is based on lies and thus incorrect.

Please provide the facts you have that shows that the reports from 2015 to 2017 are false, also provide the sources for these facts to ensure it being easier for me and others to verify their validity and reliability.

If you do so then I will give them a read and if I am wrong then I will certainly admit so.

Oh and please make it a little tidy, After all nobody likes a wall of text.

I have searched google, and have found nothing at all to suggest that the US paid Iran any money out of their own pockets in relation to the nuclear deal. Perhaps I am looking in the wrong places though, so again feel free to source your own statements.

Also, you can call the IAEA a joke, however they have far more credibility than any single nation in my opinion. It's hard to trust America's word over theirs after the Iraq WMD fiasco, or Israel's; a country not even signed up to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, with an illegal nuclear weapons program of their own.

How is it illegal if they aren't signed to an agreement?

soo. have trump and iran started negotiations for a new and much much better deal yet?

i suspect that is/was the plan the whole time.

most likely a deal that will be more attractive to Russia

@LJS9502_basic: It was my understanding that nuclear proliferation was illegal regardless of whether a country is signed up to the NPT or not, though I could be wrong on that, so I stand corrected.

Nevertheless, at the very least it isn't internationally sanctioned to build nuclear weapons officially or unofficially. North Korea aren't signed up to the NPT anymore either, yet nobody condones their nukes.

And yet many countries have them. Is it okay for some to have them?

@LJS9502_basic: Well clearly it is, there are a lot of double standards when it comes to nuclear weapons. I don't think any country should have them personally.