591
592

Answered!What is the Iran Nuclear Deal and why do I keep seeing commercials opposing it? (self.OutOfTheLoop)

DingDangFergus が 投稿

全 169 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト (提案されたアイデア)
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]sarcasmandsocialism 673ポイント674ポイント  (131子コメント)

The US and Iran negotiated a deal that is supposed to do several things:

  • Prevent Iran from creating nuclear weapons (What the US and its allies want)
  • Allow Iran to process nuclear fuel for nuclear power (What Iran wants)
  • Remove economic sanctions on Iran (What Iran wants)

The whole thing is very complicated. Under the goal of preventing Iran from creating nuclear weapons, Iran has said they will let international inspectors look around to be sure Iran isn't lying about processing fuel passed what is needed for power to the point it could be used for weapons. Some people don't think those inspections will be effective and think that this just lets Iran make bombs. Some people think Iran will use the money they'll get from trade if sanctions are reduced to fund terrorism.

Those are the basic reasons some people oppose the deal. Those in favor of the deal say that Iran is already very close to nuclear weapons and if the deal falls through there will be a huge danger of war. (Israel will attack Iran if they think Iran is too close to getting a bomb, and the US would likely have to support Israel.) They think the inspections will be effective. They also think that many people want to trade with Iran and if the deal falls through there will be pressure to reduce the economic sanctions anyway.

[–]Kityara_chloe 187ポイント188ポイント  (40子コメント)

Really good, factual answer to a politically charged issue

[–]know_comment 50ポイント51ポイント  (37子コメント)

Like anything israel, this answer totally glosses over the fact that all those commercials are from israel lobby groups.

[–]SisyphusSmiled 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

Who totally gloss over this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel#Weapons_production_1966.E2.80.93present

[–]bashfulfax 16ポイント17ポイント  (8子コメント)

Not unreasonable to ask for citation, I think.

[–]OccamsChaimsaw 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs sponsors and works with people who are funding the anti-Iranian Deal ads.

Eg; . FASF, to name the big one.

[–]whoisthedrizzle 15ポイント16ポイント  (4子コメント)

The citation is in the small print that runs in the last 5 seconds of the ad.

[–]bashfulfax -2ポイント-1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Not all of us watch the same advertisements.

[–]whoisthedrizzle 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

By "the" ad I mean "any" ad.

Every single politically-centric advertisment has a "paid for by" small print that runs throughout the duration of the ad, or at the end.

Since there aren't exactly hundreds of different ads yet, at least to my knowledge, I'm sure it will be fairly easy to source them on youtube or google with a generalized "anti iran deal advertisment" search

[–]monkeyman427 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't watch TV and I have ad blocker on my computer. What about a YouTube link to one of the Israeli ads?

[–]ktappe 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

There is only one anti-Iran deal ad as far as I'm aware. At least I've seen the same one about 50 times.

[–]robertcsugar 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thats like saying the sky is blue

[–]ktappe 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Or you could go look at the ads. And even without looking at the fine print at the end, it's pretty darn obvious who would be buying all these ads.

[–]Logically_Insane -3ポイント-2ポイント  (11子コメント)

Source?

[–]whoisthedrizzle 7ポイント8ポイント  (10子コメント)

The small print at the bottom of said commercials.

[–]Hoyarugby -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

And conservative organizations.

But more importantly, so what? Israel opposes the agreement, and is attempting to stop the deal both in diplomatic discussions with the US government and in appeals to the US public. It's perfectly logical and completely legal and normal.

[–]ktappe 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's normal for a sovereign nation to take out ads in another sovereign nation to try to sway its politics??

If this doesn't strike you as odd and off-color, then you've gotten too cynical. (Or you're strongly pro-Israel.)

[–]Lettherebesammich 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

In an article,Iran e Was giving up like 80% of the nuclear arsenal and the US would know if iran was purchasing material by checking vendors who sell the necassary equipment for the buildings and such. Iran wouldnt have enough of a nuclear program to create weapons after how much theyre giving up. The article made it look like a pretty big win for the US and allies

[–]OccamsChaimsaw 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

It is, the Iranians are giving up a couple dozen thousand centrifuges used in the uranium enriching process, and it would likely take on the order of decades to re-gather enough of this material or enrich it with their remaining centrifuges to actually make a viable bomb.

And that being said, who would waste their time with uranium bombs anyway. You want some heavier stuff.

[–]rkethledge251 53ポイント54ポイント  (9子コメント)

To add on, some are concerned that some of the provisions of the deal expire in 10-15 years and that Iran could build a bomb after then

[–]internet_ambassador 154ポイント155ポイント  (8子コメント)

On the counterpoint, U.S. negotiators firmly believe that 10-15 years of Iranian prosperity without nuclear weapons will make the argument moot.

An employed population that participates in the global economy loses many incentives to participate in terrorism while also increasing their own political stability (edit let me add, this is generally desirable for countries trying to emerge from tumult, and there's a lot to suggest Iran actually really and truly wants this exact future to happen).

The Obama administration is effectively admitting Iran will never be an ally, but that this still may become a cornerstone in diminishing their impact as a significant threat....and when all things considered, it's the least bad deal that is capable of being negotiated.

as an additional aside, I work in video production -not global policy...I know nothing other than having a chance to read the news daily while shit renders. Take this all as it comes. With that said though, my own personal belief & opinion is this deal counts; and without it we're within 10 years of something dragging the U.S. into another costly conflict in the region. Serious steps are needed to calm this shitstorm down.

[–]789yugemos 12ポイント13ポイント  (6子コメント)

Didnt the religious leaders at he top already declare a-bombs an affront to god?

Also, the percentage of uranium needed for fuel in power plants is like 3-5% nuclear bombs require 90%

[–]hotel_torgo 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Very good modern reactor design doesn't even require enriched uranium any more, as in the case of CANDU reactors. Still, nuclear reactors provide a convenient source of neutron flux for breeding U-238 into Pu-239 given enough time. I don't think any modern military would care at all about enriching uranium for weapons use. Plutonium is what you'd really want.

[–]OrigamiRock 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Very good modern reactor design

as in the case of CANDU reactors

I'm sorry, I love the CANDU reactor and it is a very good design and still relevant in today's landscape, but new or modern it most certainly is not. Additionally, Iran already has a heavy water reactor at Arak. Part of this agreement was that Iran actually had to dismantle its HWR so they wouldn't have access to plutonium either.

[–]hotel_torgo 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Maybe it's just my personal bias seeping through, but I always thought that choosing a HWR over a LWR would be a no-brainer. I really had no idea CANDUs were developed in the 60s!

[–]OrigamiRock 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I completely agree, it's an extremely safe, extremely reliable design that just hasn't had widespread adoption. HWRs have been historically very downtrodden because of France, the US and Japan's influence. Some of the Fusion community are very concerned because if nobody else builds an HWR within the next few decades, they won't have a tritium source.

[–]evilrobert 46ポイント47ポイント  (7子コメント)

Well put.

It should also be noted that even if the US doesn't "approve" of this, that the deal will still be put in place without the parts demanded by the US going into effect.

These specifically refer to provisions insisted upon by the US that Iran reveal all of her previous research data and projects related to nuclear arms development. Otherwise, we can refuse it all day long and Iran will still be allowed to be a nuclear power state with no sanctions.

(It should be noted that Israel developed nuclear weapons on their own as well much as Iran is accused of doing, and continues to refuse to reveal their stockpile numbers. South Africa built 6 nuclear warheads with assistance from the US, but decided to dismantle every nuclear weapon they had in the 90's.)

[–]wise_idiot 22ポイント23ポイント  (4子コメント)

Wait, wait, wait, wait a second here.

It should also be noted that even if the US doesn't "approve" of this, that the deal will still be put in place without the parts demanded by the US going into effect.

The GOP is thumping their chests saying the Iran deal will be the first thing they nix on day 1 back in the White House, and my understanding of your comment is that this deal will go forth no matter what the GOP does?? Goddamn it, I HATE how much political posturing there is in this country!! What then, if the deal goes forward, was the point of Netanyahu coming over and inappropriately addressing Congress? Is this all just the GOP and Israel stroking each other off? You've very honestly thrown me for a complete loop here.

[–]BromanJenkins 31ポイント32ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is this all just the GOP and Israel stroking each other off?

Yeah, pretty much. Most every expert on nuclear weapons, multinational negotiations, nuclear security and various other topics relevant to the deal made (not a treaty, it's important to note) have said this is really tremendous deal and employs both carrots for following the deal and sticks for even thinking about breaking it.

The only people who really oppose it are high level politicians in a country that has constantly pushed for Iran to be a hermit nation and republicans in congress who can't run the country for three years straight without causing a near disaster because they don't like the President.

[–]evilrobert 11ポイント12ポイント  (2子コメント)

Pretty much. There's provisions that were included because the US demanded them. If we're not a signatory to the agreement (which has the rest of the UN Security Council as co-signers), then everything that the US argued to be put into place doesn't stay in it. A lot of the power of the agreement lies in members of the Security Council being able to drop sanctions on Iran for 24 days without objection by other SC members.

The US-allied Arabic nations in the region were disappointed with the agreement because it allows Iran to gain nuclear energy, and it will release Iranian oil on the market (which will not be OPEC governed, and may undercut their tightly controlled price control of manipulating supply vs demand). But, they also have been saying for years that there's no alternative solution that they can find for years.

Everyone agrees, however, that the only alternative to this agreement is war with Iran (to get them to stop). Israel is okay with this (largely because they haven't deployed troops to any of the international forces in the region, and wouldn't for a US-Iran war), the Arabic nations don't want war, and I don't think Americans would really go for diving blindly into the desert again to sacrifice lives in another country that we don't have anything really to do in.

[–]OrigamiRock 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree with everything you said, but I have to nitpick on:

allows Iran to gain nuclear energy

Iran's had a running nuclear power plant since 2011.

diving blindly into the desert

Iran isn't a desert, it's a mountainous plateau. It's more similar to Colorado than Arizona.

[–]wise_idiot 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

While I understand the underlying fears of Iran having increased capacity to develop nuclear weapons, I feel like giving Iran the opportunity to step up to the global stage should really outweigh those fears. Giving them access to clean nuclear power for their citizenry just seems like a good humanitarian effort, and in my mind OPEC can go screw. With Chinas massive oil demands in conjunction with the US and Russia's needs, having an additional oil supplier could do the world some real good. I guess my understanding of geopolitics is just not sophisticated, or maybe just too optimistic.

[–]BloodFairy -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

It'd be nice if they'd actually bother to explain this shit on the evening news. But of course the major news outlets are all owned by bigass media conglomerates, and the last thing they want is a well-informed public.

[–]nuketesuji -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

yeah but israel doesnt regularly call for the genocide of their neighbors...

[–]wanderlustcub 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is also a deal with several other countries. Iran and the US are not the only two on the deal.

US, China, Russia, France, UK, and Germany have made the deal with Iran.

[–]vikinickfor, while 10ポイント11ポイント  (5子コメント)

I think the main reason people are giving that oppose the Iran deal is that the inspectors have to give Iran a warning about when they are inspecting. There are a lot of people saying that how far ahead of time they have to warn will give Iran enough time to hide something they don't want inspectors to see.

[–]OctavianX 7ポイント8ポイント  (4子コメント)

At best they could hide equipment they shouldn't have, but if they were enriching past what the deal allows they couldn't hide the resulting radiation regardless of how much warning they have.

[–]IcyReached 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

What about the resulting radiation would identify it as being over enriched?

[–]ultralame 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

More enriched fuel = higher density of fissile material = greater radiation.

Essentially, if you have a specific sizes chunk of fuel, the energy it radiates depends on how enriched it is.

[–]manwithfaceofbird 32ポイント33ポイント  (19子コメント)

Some people think Iran will use the money they'll get from trade if sanctions are reduced to fund terrorism.

Those people need to look up this little country called 'saudi arabia.'

[–]omraud 10ポイント11ポイント  (16子コメント)

Could you elaborate?

[–]manwithfaceofbird 38ポイント39ポイント  (5子コメント)

Saudi Arabia has been funding terrorism for a long, long time, and in great quantity, yet they're one of if not the US's closest ally in the middle east.

[–]omraud 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

Gotcha thanks!!

[–]OrigamiRock 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

The US also funds/funded what are basically branches of Al-Qaeda to make terrorist attacks inside Iran.

EDIT: This is 100% true, I'm not spouting conspiracy theories.

[–]manwithfaceofbird 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Funding terrorist groups to topple governments has been a tactic of the CIA for a long time. IIRC Iran is the way it is now partially because of CIA interferance.

[–]PubliusPontifex 18ポイント19ポイント  (6子コメント)

18 of the 21 hijackers were Saudi, they are the worlds top supporter of terrorism, as funded by their oil money.

They helped start ISIS and al-queda (the bin ladins are Saudi).

[–]omraud 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

Didn't the US also give some money to Bin Laden? Some like 6 million or so?

[–]Foxyfox- 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

Sort of. During the Soviet war in Afghanistan, the Mujahideen (including groups associated with bin Laden) were supported by the US and Saudi Arabia. Guns came from the CIA, and money from the Saudis.

[–]pi_over_3 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're completely wrong, unless OBL was also a time traveler.

The Mujahideen was very loose confederation of different Afghani groups who were fighting Russia during the 80s. That is who was funded by the CIA. One of these groups, the Taliban, later took control of Afghanistan, who then allowed OBL and AQ to train/be based out of Afghanistan during the 90s.

So no, the CIA did not find OBL They funded a large group of people, some of whom became affiliated with OBL over a decade later.

Unless of course your claiming that OBL had a time machine. Are you?

[–]omraud -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Good to know. Thanks for the clarification!

[–]pi_over_3 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

He is completely wrong though. The Mujahideen was very loose confederation of different Afghani groups who were fighting Russia during the 80s. That is who was funded by the CIA. One of these groups, the Taliban, later took control of Afghanistan, who then allowed OBL and AQ to train/be based out of Afghanistan during the 90s.

So no, the CIA did not find OBL They funded a large group of people, some of whom became affiliated with OBL over a decade later.

[–]brunswick -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, Arabic foreign fighters in Afghanistan made up a very small percentage of fighters against the Soviets and were never funded/armed by the U.S.

[–]magicfatkid 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Could you alalalalalalalalalalalaborate?

[–]ultralame 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Fuck you, and this is hilarious.

[–]camipco 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well, just because the position is hypocritical doesn't mean it is incorrect on Iran.

[–]ultralame -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Curse you and your logic!

[–]TheWierdSide 12ポイント13ポイント  (13子コメント)

why does the US have to help out Israel in case of war?

[–]kanklesonmybreath 26ポイント27ポイント  (0子コメント)

Have you ever heard a successful American politician say anything negative about Israel?

[–]willkydd 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Look up AIPAC and figure out there is a very strong Israeli lobby in the US who helps pretty much all senators get elected/re-elected and can very well help someone else "next time". I don't think there is any US lobby even remotely as influential as AIPAC.

[–]T-MoneyAllDey 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

Because a lot of Christians live in the US.

[–]Tinito16 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

Which is kind of ironic when you think about it.

[–]fireforfear 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

I must not be thinking.

[–]StezzerLolzThe Most Holy Langoustine 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well, the Christian faith brutally repressed and persecuted Jews for quite a long time.

[–]fireforfear 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh, I guess I see. It isn't the conclusion I would have jumped to, though. Mainline Christianity seems to see the Jews as God's chosen people. In our time, anyway.

[–]MFoy 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

Because the US has the second highest population of Jewish people in the world, and they vote in blocks that support Israel.

[–]ultralame 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

Partially, and partially because the religious right in this country both believes in biblical reasons for Jews to maintain Israel as well as not wanting to see arab/Muslim control of the area.

[–]willkydd 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's not so much Jewish votes but Jewish lobby dollars that sway politicians.

[–]unsafeword 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

There are many ideological and short-term political reasons why the US would be compelled to help Israel.

But from a pragmatic standpoint: Israel is an ally. If an ally of the US is perceived as being in a justified and necessary war, and if that ally then goes unaided by the US, then the value of remaining a US ally is reduced. Other countries will notice this and adjust relations accordingly.

If other countries become allies of other superpowers (Russia or China) because they see better protection there, then they're likely to side against US interests in other contexts.

[–]nuketesuji 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

also, many of the violent factions see Israel as one and the same, Israel is simultaneously the lightning rod for violent anti-westernism in the middle east. And they are very good at defending against it. If it wasnt for Israel, we would see Charlie Hebdo size attacks at least once a month in western capitals for the foreseeable future.

[–]pi_over_3 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because Isreal is a stable, western style democracy (unlike the rest of the ME), and having such a close ally in the heart of the ME has obvious geopolitical benifits.

[–]dacalpha 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

The US and Iran negotiated a deal that is supposed to do several things:

Prevent Iran from creating nuclear weapons (What the US and its allies want)

Allow Iran to process nuclear fuel for nuclear power (What Iran wants)

Remove economic sanctions on Iran (What Iran wants)

I'm not 100% understanding the situation, so I hope you don't mind if I ask some dumb questions.

  1. How is it we can negotiate with Iran if they are so dangerous?

  2. If they aren't dangerous, why not let them have nukes?

  3. Does nuclear power (ie power plants) lead to nuclear weapons?

  4. What kind of sanctions does Iran want removed?

[–]joshuacampbell 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will come along and answer these properly but I'll have to do for now.

  1. They have a terrible track record but over the past few years have made steps in the right direction. Saying that, even if a country is dangerous, it doesn't mean you can't negotiate with them. Eg. if North and South Korea didn't constantly go to the negotiating table, it would be a disaster.

  2. It's not so much that they are dangerous, more that they are unstable. Even if they did create a nuclear warhead, the difficult bit, as North Korea has found out, is actually transporting it. The rocket basically. Since Israel is close to Iran, that explains why they are so annoyed! But the real danger is Iran's political instability. What if the government is topped by an ISIS style rebellion? Suddenly they have their hands on a nuclear warhead which is bad for everyone.

  3. Not really. It has been simplified here that it's "3% for power and 90% for a bomb". Not really, it's a slightly higher percentage for U235 to make power and lower to make a bomb. In fact, 20% could be used to make an inefficient bomb. Little boy was 85% (weapons grade) but this is due to the old fashioned gun type firing mechanism. To get that high a percentage requires more advanced processes and equipment, you don't just leave it in the centrifuge for an extra day or two! Even with warning, it would be very difficult to hide that extra equipment without the experts smelling a rat.

  4. Mostly economic. Oil will be the big one.

[–]Rideron150 4ポイント5ポイント  (6子コメント)

Why does Iran want an a-bomb, who would they use it against, and how likely would they be to use it?

[–]tatch 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

The main advantage of having the bomb is that other people are much less likely to drop one on you.

[–]fyijesuisunchat 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

To add onto that answer, Israel is known to have a nuclear arsenal. Whilst Israel has a nuclear bomb, they have the decisive upper hand in the region. Iran probably has little intention of actually using a bomb if they developed it, but it would allow them to redress the regional balance of power.

[–]willkydd -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

I'd say if the US never used the bomb again after Hiroshima/Nagasaki, some minor power like Iran almost certainly would not use it.

The deterrence benefits far outweigh any benefit from actually using the bomb and after you use one you are pretty much guaranteed to get your country turned into ash for the next thousand years.

[–]Rideron150 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

The deterrence benefits far outweigh any benefit from actually using the bomb and after you use one you are pretty much guaranteed to get your country turned into ash for the next thousand years.

Something I've never understood about this is that it almost sounds like we build a-bombs just so we can say we have them and not so we can actually use them (which is certainly good) but it beckons the question: why do people view a-bombs as such a threat if people aren't going to use them, and instead just use them to bluff and look all tough and scary?

[–]willkydd 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Perhaps I can clarify. It's one thing to say we would never use this and another to say we will never use this.

We would definitely use the bomb if certain conditions are met, but we will not use it because those conditions will never be met (because we have the bomb).

Also, atom bombs are mostly defensive weapons, not offensive. And they are not seen as a threat, but as an interdiction tool. One can call the bomb a threat, but then it's only a threat to one's ability to dictate terms to other countries.

[–]pi_over_3 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

some minor power like Iran almost certainly would not use it.

This is true of the current government. The government isn't very stable and they are a revolution away from a more extreme group of people taking power and getting control of whatever nukes they have.

This is a huge concern with Pakistan, which why we spend so much money in aid to keep their shitty government stable.

[–]bshef 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

While I appreciate the factual and neutral tone here, unfortunately politics play a huuuuuge part in opposition to the deal.

[–]SilasX 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

So ... basically season Season 8 of 24, with Iran as Kamistan, and without the 6 crises per day?

[–]Mqzp 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

One slight correction this is not a bi-lateral deal between the U.S. and Iran. It is a multilateral agreement between Iran and negotiators from other major countries. The parties to the agreement are Iran, the U.S., UK, France, China, Russia and Germany.

[–]IHazMagics 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

As someone that doesn't really know a lot about that, how would you inspect that thoroughly? Not saying that Iran would (I really don't know) but what would stop them from doing the magicians trick of showing one hand but having the "magic" happening in the other hand?

[–]sandwiches_are_real 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

An additional point of note is that Iran has been a crucial regional partner in fighting ISIS/Islamic State, and have made more progress in combating Islamic State than the US bombing runs and general western intervention has. One of their best generals is on the ground, coordinating militia efforts, and life for us gets a lot easier if this deal can act as a precursor to normalizing/gentling relations between Iran and the west.

[–]Nilots 10ポイント11ポイント  (6子コメント)

Good basic summary of the deal at face value.

I know this sub is not the place to discuss politics, but this thread

http://www.reddit.com/r/EndlessWar/comments/3dmzuk/iranian_nuclear_bullshit/

Is a great read for an alternative perspective.

Edit: on mobile, sorry for link gore.

[–]ghostboytt 14ポイント15ポイント  (5子コメント)

Damn, a little too over the top conspiracy paranoia for my taste. But it kinda makes me believe. And it sorta makes sense

[–]askinnydude 17ポイント18ポイント  (4子コメント)

/r/EndlessWar is one of reddit's endless collection of subs that peddles exclusively in conspiracy nonsense.

[–]Nilots 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'd say it strides a fine line between controversial and /r/topmindsofreddit material.

I dropped the link because I think it's important to consider different perspectives on these issues, and I think that thread makes some decent (well sourced) points.

[–]tOaDeR2005 -5ポイント-4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Why do they have to take a good idea (like maybe trying to be at war with someone all the time) and just shit all over it until everyone thinks that idea is crazy?

[–]slawdogutk -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well if you accept it as true, then it's pretty obvious why...

[–]wrc1311 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I really think that this is a good deal ... The fact that Iran is opening his nuclear facilities to the UN it's a really big step forward to peace.... And besides, we all know that israel only wants war and would get totally fucked in a war against Iran... So there goes another war with the US involved.

[–]Goldhamtest 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Can we just take the 25 prestige hit and not answer the call to arms?

[–]awesomeguy951 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

You forgot the fact that Iran hates America and said this deal changes nothing about that fact.

[–]PubliusPontifex 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Irans leadership hates America, as do their rednecks. Their people, well does America hate Iran?

Lots of people in a country, he'll we disagree on everything.

[–]Billysgruffgoat 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Why does Iran hate the USA so much?

[–]awesomeguy951 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

We have messed with their politics during the Cold War and they lean towards the extreme side of Islam and declare their hate for us.

[–]NUCLEAR_HERO 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sanctioning them and funneling money and weapons to their rival(s) is probably a reason too.

[–]Sarahmint -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Also the fact that Obama and Kerry (and whoever else worked on the deal) did nothing about the four American-Iranians being tortured and imprisoned.

[–]ambiguouslysizedhawk 53ポイント54ポイント  (10子コメント)

The Iran deal (or the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) an agreement that Iran and the P5+1 (security council + germany) agreed to regarding Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon. The west has believed for a while now that Iran could be as close is 3 months to "breakout" or the procurement of enough material to build a bomb. If I recall correctly these talks started when Clinton was Secretary of State, and we imposed some fairly harsh additional sections on Iran to bring them to the negotiating table. Fast forward to today and after Kerry had an infamous encounter with a french curb all parties agreed to the deal.

I am on mobile and memory so I'm not going to try and list all the facets of the agreement but the basics are that Iran will not deploy better centerfuges for 10 years, reduce thier stockpile of enriched urainium, not build heavy water reactors, and submit to inspections. For that they get various sanctions and restrictions lifted off of them over time with some happening now.

A bit ago the House and Senate passed passed a resolution allowing them 30-60 days to review any deal so that's the period we now are in. The House and Senate are going to pass a resolution disapproving of the deal and the president is going to veto it. Then congress will attempt to override the veto, the president hopes to get enough support (1/3) to block the override attempt.

Proponents of the deal, the administration, and some democrats say that this is the best negotiated agreement that could be reached. They say that this deal blocks Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon and that we will be able to deal with other aspects of Iran's hooliganism separately. They also say that if we don't do this the rest of the world will lose respect for us, and that this is the only option to avoid war.

The opponents (GOP, Isreal, some dems) say that this is the worst agreement since Chamberlain let Hitler lose in Europe and that we are essentially letting Iran nuke Isreal and annex the Saudis. They take issue with some of the to be lifted sanctions, like arms restrictions and that Iran will be allowed to preform missile research in the future. They also wanted the administration to negotiate a "better" deal.

As is usual in politics these days both sides have decreed that the other is destroying America, Isreal, our reputation, the troops, and national security as well as being partisan.

Oh and you keep seeing comercials because the opponents are trying to drum up public support against it. Most likely they won't affect the outcome; the goal is probably to solidify the position for the upcoming election. If you don't see a "Senator Joe Bob voted to help give Iran a nuke and murder civilians" ad next year I would be suprised.

[–]blackgranite 40ポイント41ポイント  (9子コメント)

They also wanted the administration to negotiate a "better" deal.

also to add, GOP's definition of better deal is a scenario where Iran completely dismantles its nuclear program, even civilian, which is stupid and arrogant of GOP of think so. Every country in this world has right to pursue a civilian nuclear program, but the opponents of the deal don't even want to respect that

[–]ambiguouslysizedhawk 27ポイント28ポイント  (1子コメント)

Exactly, I have the feeling that even if the Iranians had agreed to recite the pledge of alliegence in front of the United Nations they would still want a "better" deal.

[–]greebytime 18ポイント19ポイント  (0子コメント)

A better deal to the GOP is one where a) a Republican gets to take credit for it; b) Iran capitulates and gives up everything, and the US gives up nothing and c) Failing that, we get to "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" as John McCain "jokingly" sung at a fundraiser a few years ago.

[–]UncharminglyWitty 9ポイント10ポイント  (6子コメント)

This is hardly neutral and not particularly accurate. There are specific points that happen to be sticking points for many GOP members, such as the amount of notice given to Iran before an inspection to take place. While many openly say they wouldn't make a deal with Iran, most, I think, are just blowing smoke and would actually get on board with something closer to what they perceive as safe.

[–]blackgranite 10ポイント11ポイント  (5子コメント)

While many openly say they wouldn't make a deal with Iran, most, I think, are just blowing smoke and would actually get on board with something closer to what they perceive as safe.

You are trusting them too much. Compromise is considered a dirty word and these people who openly say that they wont make a deal with Iran would stick to it as they only stand to gain.

Many of them know that their opposition would fall through just like ACA, but atleast in the next election they can claim that they fought against the evil country. There is no way they would not try tooth and nail to fight this deal.

Remember Bush? He stood till the end saying that the only acceptable deal was when Iran completely dismantled its nuclear program - even civilian.

There would always be some sticking points because it's a deal. That's the whole point. Neither side would like all the points, but that's how a deal is made - by compromise. You can always find a sticking point if you want to.

[–]UncharminglyWitty 7ポイント8ポイント  (4子コメント)

Again, hardly neutral. Or is this in regular, ol' r/politics?

Compromise is considered a dirty word to these people

Says the guy who breaks out "us vs them" as quickly as possible... At least try to be neutral here.

[–]blackgranite 8ポイント9ポイント  (3子コメント)

I am calling a spade a spade.

Also, you should read up on Middle Ground Fallacy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

edit: It's not just GOP who is playing this game, it's also some Democrats. Chuck Schumer is also pandering as he knows he stands to gain a lot.

[–]UncharminglyWitty 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm aware of the bias toward fairness but we aren't really close to that being an issue at all. It really was just you bashing the GOP in 3 or 4 comments in a row, and then editing in a "well I guess dems do it too".

[–]blackgranite 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

because it's the GOP which has made it a party's core issue. How many GOP senators/congreesman/congresswomen even support the deal?

Remember which party actually opposed the deal even before the terms of the deal were made public?

The Democratic party on the other hand has atleast tried to review it instead of openly opposing it.

[–]UncharminglyWitty 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Again, smoke. It's just politics. And to analyze it as anything else is well beyond the scope of neutral.

[–]MonsieurSander 8ポイント9ポイント  (5子コメント)

Where do you see campaigns opposing it?

[–]DingDangFergus[S] 15ポイント16ポイント  (4子コメント)

My room mate watches a lot of Fox

[–]MonsieurSander 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh, that explains a lot

[–]McGlockenshire 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

FWIW, these ads are all over, not just restricted to Fox.

[–]PubliusPontifex 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm sorry.

[–]wellitsbouttime 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

not as sorry as OP when the roommate decides to wear only his stars & stripes bannana hammock and lounge around the dorm room.

[–]OnyxMelon 25ポイント26ポイント  (8子コメント)

Incidentally, they're only commercials when they're trying to sell a commercial product. In this case it's political, so it's propaganda.

[–]YuTaWulfingtons 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Does advertisement still fit?

[–]HimalayanFluke 4ポイント5ポイント  (6子コメント)

You guys are actually getting government propaganda stuff about this literally put in your TV ad breaks? Wow. We never get stuff like that here in the UK. I mean, sure, adverts telling you to vote for different political parties, but not support-rallying for international deals/sanction tactics. Could you elaborate on what these "propaganda" ads are like?

[–]parineum 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not sure exactly what OP is seeing but this is most likely a Republican party (or candidate's) advertisement meant to smear the deal and democrats in the process.

[–]butttonboy 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't know if this is the ad they are showing on TV (it's a year old on youtube), but it's pretty crazy if it is.

[–]i11remember 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's AIPAC for you.

Edit: oh shit. Am I an anti Semite for pointing that out?!

[–]greenpale 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

The Iran deal will literally murder American children and destroy our economic system. Iran will bomb the living shit out of our glorious country. A vote for this deal is a vote against America. Don't vote to let the terrorists win.Vote NO on the deal for Iran Nuclear power. paid for by old rich people

[–]therealcmj 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not government. I've seen this one on the TVs at the gym pretty regularly. http://youtu.be/rifQLpX_vtk

[–]PubliusPontifex 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Citizens United, corporations have feelings now too.

[–]LanceFree 9ポイント10ポイント  (4子コメント)

Isn't there a shitload of oil in Iran?

[–]bergamaut 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes. In the early 1950's Iranians wanted to nationalize the refining of their natural resource. Foreign oil corporations didn't like that, so this happened:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état

Some people, especially Israel, are in favor of Iranian sanctions because it keeps Iran economically stunted and gives Israel an economic advantage when it comes to exports. They're using fear to sell this: "We have to keep the sanctions or else the money Iran will make will just go to terrorists!" If you've been keeping track, this is especially ironic given Saudi Arabia's involvement in terrorism.

The reality is that a nation becomes more stable and less irrational when they are more prosperous and civilized. If a country has a lot to lose they're not going to start launching atomic weapons at Israel. Who are we to prevent a country of people from advancing and becoming more prosperous?

[–]pwnsta 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I have also heard that the with the lift on economic sanctions, Iranian oil would flood the market and potentially drive down the price of oil heavily. This could mean really bad news for oil-exporting nations.

[–]Stone_tigris 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

This video from Vox was very informative.

[–]Wowimo 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

This post made me realize some people still watch regular TV, with commercials. The horror!

[–]POGO_POGO_POGO_POGO 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

Who is paying for the commercials? I suspect that is where your answer lies.

[–]McGlockenshire 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

The Wall Street Journal and USA Today have articles on the funding of the organization that created the ads. There are lots of other similar articles, but because AIPAC is involved, things quickly get very nutty. AIPAC involvement should be entirely unsurprising considering how loudly the Israeli government is objecting to the proposed deal.

[–]mosswo -3ポイント-2ポイント  (4子コメント)

There are huge problems with allowing a corrupt, radical nation such as Iran to possess nuclear power. Be assured that a country that large can easily produce and hide a bomb with the resources taken from a plant. It wouldn't take much of a security break to do so.. The president of Iran is also a self proclaimed twelfth imam prophecy believer, and he's wanting the capability to bring the prophecy to fruition.

[–]snstrmstch 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

Replace "Iran" with the US, and "twelfth Imam" with Evangelical, and the only difference you have left is that we don't "hide" our nuclear arsenal.

[–]OrigamiRock 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

There are huge problems with allowing a corrupt, radical nation such as Iran to possess nuclear power.

It's their right as a signatory to the NPT. Unless you want to render all international treaties void, you can't really stop them from having nuclear power.

Be assured that a country that large can easily produce and hide a bomb with the resources taken from a plant.

That's not how nuclear material works. Firstly, every piece of fuel going in and out of a plant is tracked by the IAEA. Secondly, this fuel is an oxide ceramic, it's practically useless for making a bomb. Third, even if they could get fuel out of a plant and if they could work around the ceramic form, they would need a LOOOOOT of fuel to have enough material for a bomb. They would essentially have to be never inspected in order to pull it off.

The president of Iran

I'm not sure if you're thinking of Ahmadinejad, but he isn't in office anymore. Iranian presidents can only serve two consecutive terms. The president is also not the highest authority in Iran, the supreme leader is.

self proclaimed twelfth imam prophecy believer

Well no shit. This is literally one of the base tenents of Shia Islam. It's like saying a catholic priest believes in the second coming of Jesus.

he's wanting the capability to bring the prophecy to fruition.

And this is a complete fabrication. Muslims don't believe you can force the return by making certain conditions happen (that's evangelical Christians), they just believe it will happen before end of days. You also have no idea how these people think, you're buying their rhetoric more than Iranians or the mullahs themselves do.

As you say, the ignorance is astounding.

[–]Bostonarea1460 -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Washington wants to reward Iran for attacking our embassies and funding the attack on the embassy in Lebanon by giving htem money and food as to further their Nuclear weapon aims.

This is the same deal we had with Norks and the Norks used it to get an Atomic bomb just like Iran will and then the Saudi will get one and then Arabia burns

People oppose it because it's common sense to not give the fanatical leader of all Shia terrorists funding to better arm their forces to make Iraq and Afgan into client states

[–]RegretlessStrike -4ポイント-3ポイント  (0子コメント)

After 10-15 the deal will expire and they will begin creating nukes. I dont see how people can support this deal. The chance is too great