Iran Deal: Who Says We're Right?

Home Forums Controversial Topics Iran Deal: Who Says We're Right?

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 25 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #616169

    NeutiquamErro
    Participant

    It’s pretty much all in the title. But let me elaborate:

    When it comes to the deal with Iran, I’m basically in agreement with almost all of the frum world. I do think Obama has been too lax with Iran, especially as the USA held all the bargaining chips initially. I also think he is too concerned with his legacy to make the best long term decision. I don’t believe he is deliberately allowing Iran to get a bomb, but I do think Iran must be treated by all with extreme caution, which he has plainly not done. So my views are clear.

    But what bothers me is why I, and many others, hold these assumptions. I, like many, primarily get my news from frum outlets, such as the Hamodia, or indeed YWN. And the fact is, frum media in general, on political matters, is very biased. And this is a problem when this spreads from the editorials into the news content. Because I am concerned that much of what I now believe to be fact, may be simply opinion driven, unresearched waffle compiled by misinfed and opinionated people, a bad combination. I don’t actually know how long it would take Iran to finish a bomb. And neither do you. Our only guidance on this matter is Obama and his supporters and Netenyahu and his. And since when was Netenyahu a beacon of wisdom? I’m not saying Obama’s trustworthy, just that Netenyahu isn’t.

    Furthermore, whilst I see that any deal has to be careful and strict, the alternative could be even worse. And none of us actually knows the reasons behind the terms of the deal. And neither do we have special knowledge or understanding of the situation that everybody else

    missed. So to sum up, why, when we generally, I hope, take care in forming our opinions, on this one matter we so readily accept arguments from those we don’t always agree wth. And without ever hearing the other side, or at least an unbiased one, if such a thing exists.

    In conclusion, why do we think we know, on this issue, more than many who clearly know more on this than we do, and why do we allow ourselves to be influenced in our position by those no better informed or impartial than we.

    Discuss. #KTCRIM

    #1095002

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    The Obama administration has pretty much admitted that this deal gives Iran access to many millions of dollars to be used to fund terror.

    Even putting aside the longer term issue of the bomb, it’s a bad deal short term.

    #1095003

    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    why would you want to give your tax dollars to a country that says “death to America death to Israel”

    #1095004

    🍫Syag Lchochma
    Participant

    i thought the “i” stood for interesting…

    #1095005

    rt
    Participant

    how about just a little saichel; why did the Iranians even come to the table, because they are big tzaddikim, ohavei shalom? No, they came because sanctions are hurting them, the answer is clear continue and strengthen sanctions, that’s the alternative, not war as the president & Kerry would have us believe

    #1095006

    BarryLS1
    Participant

    What DaasYochid said is absolutely correct. In addition, Obama guaranteed to protect Iran’s nuclear program against military and cyber attacks. That includes stopping Israel militarily if he has to.

    Netanyahu has told the truth about this issue all along and he is right. His responsibility is to protect Israel. Obama isn’t even protecting the U.S., since Iran is being allowed to purchase and develop ballistic missiles, which is needed to hit the U.S., the “Great Satan,” not Israel.

    Sanctions were harming Iran. The action should have been to double down on them and really turn the screws, not give them a free hand for their evil objectives.

    The Muslim part of Obama is shinning through very clearly.

    #1095007

    Joseph
    Participant

    At this point the sanctions are gone even if Congress rejects the deal. A Congressional rejection will mean there’s no deal with the U.S. AND there’s no more international sanctions on Iran. The United Nations Security Council already voted to end international sanctions. Russia (and China) will veto any attempts to reimpose international sanctions. The U.S. rejecting the deal will not stop international sanctions from ending and soon Iran will be trading with Europe, Asia and Russia the goods that were previously sanctioned, irregardless of what Congress or the U.S. does.

    Agreed with OP NeutiquamErro.

    #1095008

    Chortkov
    Participant

    Syag – Good point. I’m with you there. But obviously, one man’s pleasure is another’s poison. Nothing is interesting to everyone. But as was explained on the KTCRIM Thread, the Movement inspires people to write uncliched, original thoughts from a rationalistic viewpoint in an intelligent, well written fashion. The Movement recognizes any person’s interest, as long as it is written in a way that is thought provoking – be it an inspirational piece, be it a puzzle, be it an original angle on a news report.

    NE – I’m not going to argue with you, because I agree with your point, even if in this scenario I believe you to be wrong. But the principle of the matter is definitely correct – “Tell me what you know, and how you think you know it?”

    #1095009

    mdd
    Member

    And I say that war should be an option. I thought “all the options were on the table”? Just bomb them.

    #1095010

    crispandrefreshing
    Participant

    i see it like this. the parties that this realy makes differnce to isreal saudi arabia etc. are against. the parties who have nothing realy ro lose europe america are pro. presumbly isreal and saudi arabia care more and america is looking for the easiest option

    #1095011

    Joseph
    Participant

    mdd:

    There is no certainty bombing Iran will get their deep underground nuclear facilities. Especially an air-war only. A ground war will result in significant Allied casualties.

    The net result of a war might be an Iran that still has nuclear capabilities. And an Iran that will then rush to complete building nuclear weaponry.

    There is also a near certainty that going to any war against Iran will result in Iran engaging in a worldwide terror retaliation.

    War is an option but not necessarily the best option.

    #1095012

    perhaps we should look at this from the torah perspective. let me explain.

    Iran is Gog-the last nation to fight klal yisroel before mashiach comes. Now we don’t know Hashems plan, it can go with this crazy plan & in 10 or more years Iran-Gog attack israel or it can happen sooner in a different way…. we don’t know when Hashem will put into Netanyahu the final craze to start war with Iran. it all depends on if this deal goes thru…

    may Hashem only do whats best for us & may we all be protescted

    #1095013

    charliehall
    Participant

    The only way to insure that Iran won’t get nuclear weapons is a major war leading to regime change. It would require a huge tax increase, a huge increase in the national debt, and possibly the reinstitution of the military draft.

    Given the tiny number of frum people currently serving in the US military, we aren’t the best people to be calling for such a war.

    #1095014

    NeutiquamErro
    Participant

    I’m dissappointed at the sheer volume of knee jerk responses. As Yekke2 pointed out, the question is not what you believe, but why you believe it. Please can somebody address the question posed. We all believe this is a bad deal not because we have sat down and personally analysed eaxh aspect of the deal, but because others have presented us with their veiw of it. And virtually none of the above has beensubjected to any scrutiny whatsoever. Barry believes Obama is a rogue Muslim President out to get Israel nuked. RT fails to consider that mantaining the status quo would likely increase the likelihood of getting the bomb. And DY calls it a ‘bad deal’ without saying why. It’s not that I disagree. It’s just that I recognize that I, not being privy to unbiased, clear information, do not know. And, unless you can show otherwise, neither do any of you.

    All I know is that I have no reason to take Netenyahu at his word any more than I have to take Obama at his. I am not choosing a side, although obviously my heart tells me to side with Bibi. Because my instinct cannot tell me the parameters of the situation, or provide unbiased facts. Can people please stop parroting and answer the question. We all think we’re right. But on what basis can any of us conclude we’re right?

    #1095015

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    I said why, and precisely because of information provided by the Obama administration.

    #1095016

    homer
    Member

    NeutiquamErro: There is enough out in the public about the deal that you can educate yourself. Including congressional panels reports etc. Read Sen. Schumer’s statement why he voting against, that alone will give you an education on the details.

    Either way they get the bomb: Keep the deal and in ten years its even sanctioned by the US! Break the deal and they get it anyways.

    Charlie: Wrong.

    Sanctions brought them to the table. Usually when a negotiating party has forced the other side to the table they turn the screws and make demands instead of giving away the kitchen sink. But with our “JV” Prez who is surprised?

    “Intrusive inspections” Ha thats a laugh. We could keep going but there isnt enough room on the page.

    Go back and read Obama and Kerry’s original statements as to what was demanded of the Iranians and look now as to what they got. Not even close. Of course you have to give a little in negotiations but this is ridiculous! Go look for yourself and youll see what Im talking about. Shakranim sheayn kimohem!! WOW it boggles the mind. But again who is surprised?

    Even Trump got it right on this one and he doesnt have a clue 🙂

    #1095017

    writersoul
    Member

    NE: That’s the media. It’s turned increasingly partisan (not that it was ever really impartial) especially now in an era where so many people get their news on clickbait websites and blogs and twitter accounts where the emphasis can be on sensationalism and views, not clear journalism. But even so, everyone gets news from biased sources except for the people making it, and that isn’t even anything new. That’s why people pick their newspapers. Or go into international affairs for a career, I don’t know.

    All one can do is try to think with a clear mind and read from all sides of the story- I definitely don’t get my news exclusively from the Yated.

    Where are the unbiased places where people should be getting their news? I’ve found it hard to find them.

    #1095018

    crispandrefreshing
    Participant

    NeutiquamErro- i would trust netyanhu more since he has more to lose from a nuclear iran and he doesn’t gain from having a big foriegn policy acheivmant

    #1095019

    mdd
    Member

    I think bombing them (especially with US special bunker busters) would be enough. Whatever retaliaton they are able to respond with is nothing in comparison to them having an A-bomb.

    #1095020

    Joseph
    Participant

    The likelihood that that an air-war only, even with bunker busting bombs that Iran built to withstand, would destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities is an assumption that cannot be accurately said to be high. What is likely in such an event is that it would cause Iran to accelerate its nuclear development. An air war alone probably wouldn’t end Iran’s capabilities.

    #1095021

    flatbusher
    Participant

    Quite a bit about the deal has come out, and the only thing the U.S. hopes to get out of it is to delay Iran getting bomb. Under the terms of the deal that have been released, Iran has 24 days to prepare for an inspection, plenty of time to sanitize the plant. Under the deal, the U.S. and Canada are excluded as countries that can inspect facilities. Under the deal, the sanctions will be lifted over time and Iran will get between $100 billion to $150 Billion and even the administration admits the money can be used to fund terrorism. Plus under the deal, Iran gets protection from possible attack on its nuclear plants. As for the poster, you need to read more and not limit your news to sources you feel may be biased.

    #1095022

    BelieveYouMe
    Participant

    I have one general rule which I conceived on Obama’s first election day and it has not failed since then. It goes like this: If Obama wants it, I don’t!!

    #1095023

    Chortkov
    Participant

    Iran is Gog-the last nation to fight klal yisroel before mashiach comes. Now we don’t know Hashems plan, it can go with this crazy plan & in 10 or more years Iran-Gog attack israel or it can happen sooner in a different way…. we don’t know when Hashem will put into Netanyahu the final craze to start war with Iran. it all depends on if this deal goes thru…

    Who decided Iran is Gog? And who decided that Netanyahu is the shliach of HKB”H to start Milchemes Gog Umogog?

    #1095024

    to Yekke

    open up a sefer Zecharia Hanavi & do your research. see for yourself a complete list of events that will occur in the pre-Mashiach days & you will see that most of them are occurring right now. Zachariya was not written 50 years ago actually it was written over 2000 years ago by a navi of Hashem.

    many other shocking messages are brought up throughout navi. but would be too shocking of a wake-up call from Hashem to write it here in the coffeeroom. we are not living on the same level as 500 or 2000 years ago

    #1095025

    Chortkov
    Participant

    How many times in history have we tried to predict the End of Times, and been sorrowfully wrong? I don’t mean to give up, ?”?; of course we await and pray for the Redemption every day. But to keep on predicting the passage of events is foolhardy at best. We don’t know what is or isn’t happening.

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 25 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.