Iran -- Deal Reached! (1 Viewer)

[SaintsInDome2006]

Once again Saints, I find your interpretation of events to be far removed from the truth.

Sure, Obama says "meh they're just spinning", for a population that basically has no choice but accept an Ayatollah, and meanwhile his own SOS says "very disturbing." Well I'm sure one is right and one is wrong.

 

[timschochet]

Once again Saints, I find your interpretation of events to be far removed from the truth.

Sure, Obama says "meh they're just spinning", for a population that basically has no choice but accept an Ayatollah, and meanwhile his own SOS says "very disturbing." Well I'm sure one is right and one is wrong.

I don't see any contradiction. Actually what Obama said is that they're just doing what politicians do, which is true. And given the rhetoric it's also very disturbing. But even if there was a conflict in tone of response between Obama and Kerry, for you to derive from that that Obama spends no time studying reports is pretty absurd IMO.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Once again Saints, I find your interpretation of events to be far removed from the truth.

Sure, Obama says "meh they're just spinning", for a population that basically has no choice but accept an Ayatollah, and meanwhile his own SOS says "very disturbing." Well I'm sure one is right and one is wrong.

I don't see any contradiction. Actually what Obama said is that they're just doing what politicians do, which is true. And given the rhetoric it's also very disturbing.But even if there was a conflict in tone of response between Obama and Kerry, for you to derive from that that Obama spends no time studying reports is pretty absurd IMO.

Oh please - Obama is saying they're FOS and they're spinning (which he says all politicians do, which shows incredible naivete about Iran and also projects how he views his own job, which is sad, at the same time) and Kerry says take it as face value, those are two totally opposing viewpoints.

I don't want to go off on a tangent about Obama, but he seems checked out, yes.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Once again Saints, I find your interpretation of events to be far removed from the truth.

Sure, Obama says "meh they're just spinning", for a population that basically has no choice but accept an Ayatollah, and meanwhile his own SOS says "very disturbing." Well I'm sure one is right and one is wrong.

I don't see any contradiction. Actually what Obama said is that they're just doing what politicians do, which is true. And given the rhetoric it's also very disturbing. But even if there was a conflict in tone of response between Obama and Kerry, for you to derive from that that Obama spends no time studying reports is pretty absurd IMO.

Obama is the wonkiest President since Carter. Absurd is an understatement.

Saints gonna Saints.....

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Once again Saints, I find your interpretation of events to be far removed from the truth.

Sure, Obama says "meh they're just spinning", for a population that basically has no choice but accept an Ayatollah, and meanwhile his own SOS says "very disturbing." Well I'm sure one is right and one is wrong.

I don't see any contradiction. Actually what Obama said is that they're just doing what politicians do, which is true. And given the rhetoric it's also very disturbing.But even if there was a conflict in tone of response between Obama and Kerry, for you to derive from that that Obama spends no time studying reports is pretty absurd IMO.

Obama is the wonkiest President since Carter. Absurd is an understatement.

Saints gonna Saints.....

He is wonky, very, which I enjoy. I guess I have a hard time understanding how his statements on matters differ so greatly from those in his administration actually handling things. It's like they are talking about totally different things.

 

[tommyGunZ]

what a hoot that website is.

it is pretty funny. They absolutely hate Hillary Clinton. Almost as much as the Iranians hate us

I don't believe the Iranian people hate us at all.

DUBAI (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said a speech by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Saturday vowing to defy American policies in the region despite a deal with world powers over Tehran's nuclear program was "very disturbing"."I don't know how to interpret it at this point in time, except to take it at face value, that that's his policy," he said in the interview with Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television, parts of which the network quoted on Tuesday.

"But I do know that often comments are made publicly and things can evolve that are different. If it is the policy, it's very disturbing, it's very troubling," he added.

Ayatollah Khamenei told supporters on Saturday that U.S. policies in the region were "180 degrees" opposed to Iran's, at a speech in a Tehran mosque punctuated by chants of "Death to America" and "Death to Israel".

"Even after this deal our policy toward the arrogant U.S. will not change," Khamenei said.

Several Gulf Arab states have long accused Tehran of interference, alleging financial or armed support for political movements in countries including Bahrain, Yemen and Lebanon.

Kerry said the U.S. believed its Arab allies had the ability to confront Iranian interference in the region.

"I think President Obama's belief and our military assessments, our intelligence assessments, are that if they organize themselves correctly, all of the Arab states have an untapped potential that is very, very significant to be able to push back against any of these activities," he said.

It's really something how disconnected Obama is from things. He says things which are completely unrelated to what actually happens. I think he's so insulated he doesn't even know what's going on.

Here, with the Iran deal:

• He repeatedly says 2008 and 2012 and 2012 to now that he will never permit Iran to have nuclear weapons and pretty much says that military options are always on the table. Then as it turns out he says well you know Iran was about to get a nuke so we pretty much had to cave on everything. So without telling anyone we have switched from a policy of nuclear prevention to nuclear containment.
• Then Obama is confronted by CBS about leaving US hostages in Iran, he reacts with umbrage and outrage and says how dare you ask me a question like that, we could never ask for the hostages because after all Iran would just ask for more concessions. - Then Kerry says oh hell yeah we asked for the hostages at every meeting.
• Then Obama is asked about how the Ayatollah and the other leaders in Iran say they are just going to ignore the deal, proceed as if it doesn't exist and btw Death to America. Obama answers by projecting and says this is political spin and the next thing you know Kerry says Oh Yeah it's "Very Disturbing."

We have no idea what Obama is doing but attending briefings and reading memoranda from his intelligence and SOS apparently isn't part of that.

This is silly, even by your standards. Virtually every reputable nuclear proliferation expert has come out in favor of this deal, pointing out that this pushes Iran further away from a nuclear weapon.

Yet your interpretation is that we caved and are now worried about containment instead of prevention?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

what a hoot that website is.

it is pretty funny. They absolutely hate Hillary Clinton. Almost as much as the Iranians hate us

I don't believe the Iranian people hate us at all.

DUBAI (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said a speech by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Saturday vowing to defy American policies in the region despite a deal with world powers over Tehran's nuclear program was "very disturbing"."I don't know how to interpret it at this point in time, except to take it at face value, that that's his policy," he said in the interview with Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television, parts of which the network quoted on Tuesday.

"But I do know that often comments are made publicly and things can evolve that are different. If it is the policy, it's very disturbing, it's very troubling," he added.

Ayatollah Khamenei told supporters on Saturday that U.S. policies in the region were "180 degrees" opposed to Iran's, at a speech in a Tehran mosque punctuated by chants of "Death to America" and "Death to Israel".

"Even after this deal our policy toward the arrogant U.S. will not change," Khamenei said.

Several Gulf Arab states have long accused Tehran of interference, alleging financial or armed support for political movements in countries including Bahrain, Yemen and Lebanon.

Kerry said the U.S. believed its Arab allies had the ability to confront Iranian interference in the region.

"I think President Obama's belief and our military assessments, our intelligence assessments, are that if they organize themselves correctly, all of the Arab states have an untapped potential that is very, very significant to be able to push back against any of these activities," he said.

It's really something how disconnected Obama is from things. He says things which are completely unrelated to what actually happens. I think he's so insulated he doesn't even know what's going on.

Here, with the Iran deal:

• He repeatedly says 2008 and 2012 and 2012 to now that he will never permit Iran to have nuclear weapons and pretty much says that military options are always on the table. Then as it turns out he says well you know Iran was about to get a nuke so we pretty much had to cave on everything. So without telling anyone we have switched from a policy of nuclear prevention to nuclear containment.
• Then Obama is confronted by CBS about leaving US hostages in Iran, he reacts with umbrage and outrage and says how dare you ask me a question like that, we could never ask for the hostages because after all Iran would just ask for more concessions. - Then Kerry says oh hell yeah we asked for the hostages at every meeting.
• Then Obama is asked about how the Ayatollah and the other leaders in Iran say they are just going to ignore the deal, proceed as if it doesn't exist and btw Death to America. Obama answers by projecting and says this is political spin and the next thing you know Kerry says Oh Yeah it's "Very Disturbing."

We have no idea what Obama is doing but attending briefings and reading memoranda from his intelligence and SOS apparently isn't part of that.

This is silly, even by your standards. Virtually every reputable nuclear proliferation expert has come out in favor of this deal, pointing out that this pushes Iran further away from a nuclear weapon.

Yet your interpretation is that we caved and are now worried about containment instead of prevention?

See the conversation with cstu above. Cameron has come out and said that Iran would have a nuke if we didn't do this. Iran has been working on a nuclear weapon? Cstu above says yeah as a matter of fact that's why this is a smart deal. Which I'm ok with but either Obama should acknowledge that there has been a change in policy or we admit he's clueless about what's been going on. Cameron has no problem with this, Kerry has no problem on this, but Obama says the Ayatollah is spinning and doesn't even know his own SOS was trying to include our hostages in the deal. I can't keep it straight is this the all knowing Phil Hartman Reagan machiavellizing every little detail or is this the Obama-Reagan who keeps jelly beans in the jar and just loves to give speeches?

 

[TPW]

Once again Saints, I find your interpretation of events to be far removed from the truth.

Sure, Obama says "meh they're just spinning", for a population that basically has no choice but accept an Ayatollah, and meanwhile his own SOS says "very disturbing." Well I'm sure one is right and one is wrong.

I don't see any contradiction. Actually what Obama said is that they're just doing what politicians do, which is true. And given the rhetoric it's also very disturbing.But even if there was a conflict in tone of response between Obama and Kerry, for you to derive from that that Obama spends no time studying reports is pretty absurd IMO.

Obama is the wonkiest President since Carter. Absurd is an understatement.

Saints gonna Saints.....

He is wonky, very, which I enjoy. I guess I have a hard time understanding how his statements on matters differ so greatly from those in his administration actually handling things. It's like they are talking about totally different things.

It's not hard to understand at all. It's called 'lying about one's true intentions to a largely uninformed and uninterested electorate'.

 

[cstu]

It's not hard to understand at all. It's called 'lying about one's true intentions to a largely uninformed and uninterested electorate'.

Also known as being President.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Virtually every reputable nuclear proliferation expert has come out in favor of this deal, pointing out that this pushes Iran further away from a nuclear weapon.

And the NY Times says...

Verification Process in Iran Deal Is Questioned by Some ExpertsWASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s claim that the Iran nuclear accord provides for airtight verification procedures is coming under challenge from nuclear experts with long experience in monitoring Tehran’s program.

Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz has insisted that Iran would not be able to hide traces of any illicit nuclear work before inspectors gain access to a suspicious site. But several experts, including a former high-ranking official at the International Atomic Energy Agency, said a provision that gives Iran up to 24 days to grant access to inspectors might enable it to escape detection.

Olli Heinonen, a former deputy director of the agency, said in an interview that while “it is clear that a facility of sizable scale cannot simply be erased in three weeks’ time without leaving traces,” the more likely risk is that the Iranians would pursue smaller-scale but still important nuclear work, such as manufacturing uranium components for a nuclear weapon.

“A 24-day adjudicated timeline reduces detection probabilities exactly where the system is weakest: detecting undeclared facilities and materials,” he said.

David Albright, the president of the Institute for Science and International Security and a former weapons inspector in Iraq, also said that three weeks might be ample time for the Iranians to dispose of any evidence of prohibited nuclear work. Among the possibilities, he said, were experiments with high explosives that could be used to trigger a nuclear weapon, or the construction of a small plant to make centrifuges.

“If it is on a small scale, they may be able to clear it out in 24 days,” Mr. Albright said in a telephone interview. “They are practiced at cheating. You can’t count on them to make a mistake.”

...But the debate among experts, including some who support the accord, is whether 24 days is too long.

“ ‘No notice’ inspections were clearly not achievable, but a limit shorter than 24 days would have been desirable,” said Robert J. Einhorn, a former State Department official who served on the American delegation to the Iran nuclear talks from 2009 to 2013.

“While evidence of some illicit activity — construction of a covert enrichment facility or work with nuclear materials — would be difficult or impossible to hide or remove in 24 days, incriminating evidence of lesser activities probably could be removed,” Mr. Einhorn said. “But it is probably the case that the greater the significance of a covert activity, the more difficult it will be to remove evidence of it in 24 days.”

Under the terms of the accord, Iran would have 14 days to either grant access to international inspectors who request access to a suspicious site or find another way to satisfy the atomic energy agency’s concerns.

If Iran and the agency could not come to terms, the matter would be referred to an eight-member commission made up of the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, Iran and a representative of the European Union. That panel would have another week to decide whether access should be granted.

The makeup of the committee makes it very likely that the United States could come up with four additional votes to form a majority supporting the demand for access. If Iran relented, it would have three more days to provide access to the inspectors, for a total of 24 days. If it refused, the matter would be referred to the United Nations Security Council, where economic sanctions could be reimposed.

Mr. Corker said his concerns went beyond those expressed by the weapons inspectors. The 24-day notice may actually understate the time Iran would have to prepare for inspections, he said, because under the accord, site visits would be announced in two stages, with the first being notice to Iran detailing why inspectors were suspicious of a site.

“So you’re signaling to Iran what you’re looking for,” he said. “It’s not just 24 days.”

...

Mr. Heinonen, however, said there had been cases in which Iran had successfully hidden evidence of illicit nuclear work even when nuclear enrichment was involved.

When the atomic energy agency sought to inspect the Kalaye Electric Company site in Iran in 2003 to check whether the Iranians were using centrifuges that they had obtained from Pakistan, the Iranians kept inspectors at bay while they spent weeks removing the equipment and renovating the building where it had been kept.

“Certain parts of the installation were renovated, leaving no trace of enrichment activities that had taken place,” Mr. Heinonen said. “However, nonrenovated parts had uranium in the 2003 contamination, which raised concerns.”

As impressive as the Iranians’ efforts at concealment were then, Mr. Heinonen said they would be better prepared to remove the evidence of illicit work if they decided to cheat on the accord.

“There will likely be plans to be executed promptly to avoid getting caught,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/world/middleeast/provision-in-iran-accord-is-challenged-by-some-nuclear-experts.html?_r=1

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Note - this is a writer for the Washington Post, Jackson Diehl:

Jackson DiehlVerified accounthttps://twitter.com/help/verified @JacksonDiehlhttps://twitter.com/JacksonDiehlI write editorials and a column on foreign affairs for The Washington Post

Jackson Diehl ‏@JacksonDiehl 3h3 hours ago

Most interesting news of #Iran hearing: IAEA will have to rely on #Iran to take samples at Parchin and other sites for its PMD investigation

(PMD = Potential Military Dimensions)

The PMD is the evidence that is gathered when one party, say the US or IAEA, receives a complaint or report of a possible violation.

 

[Kal El]

Note - this is a writer for the Washington Post, Jackson Diehl:

Jackson DiehlVerified account @JacksonDiehl

I write editorials and a column on foreign affairs for The Washington Post

Jackson Diehl ‏@JacksonDiehl 3h3 hours ago

Most interesting news of #Iran hearing: IAEA will have to rely on #Iran to take samples at Parchin and other sites for its PMD investigation

(PMD = Potential Military Dimensions)

The PMD is the evidence that is gathered when one party, say the US or IAEA, receives a complaint or report of a possible violation.

So we're just putting Iran, a nation whose leader is clearly interested in our destruction, on the honor system, essentially?

 

[timschochet]

Note - this is a writer for the Washington Post, Jackson Diehl:

Jackson DiehlVerified account @JacksonDiehl

I write editorials and a column on foreign affairs for The Washington Post

Jackson Diehl ‏@JacksonDiehl 3h3 hours ago

Most interesting news of #Iran hearing: IAEA will have to rely on #Iran to take samples at Parchin and other sites for its PMD investigation

(PMD = Potential Military Dimensions)

The PMD is the evidence that is gathered when one party, say the US or IAEA, receives a complaint or report of a possible violation.

So we're just putting Iran, a nation whose leader is clearly interested in our destruction, on the honor system, essentially?

No we are not.

Though a few people disagree, most arms experts believe that Iran will not be able to violate this agreement without jeopardizing the new trade they're about to have. All inspections of existing centrifuge sites are on demand, and though new military installations require 24 days, it would be nearly impossible for Iran to build a military nuclear use and then remove all sign of it within the 24 day period, not to mention enormously costly.

Iran can violate this agreement, but the risk for them is so great that I don't believe they will. Yes, the agreement only lasts 10 years, but the hope is that in ten years time we're dealing with a new Iran. If we're not, then at least we're no worse off than we are now.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Note - this is a writer for the Washington Post, Jackson Diehl:

Jackson DiehlVerified account @JacksonDiehl

I write editorials and a column on foreign affairs for The Washington Post

Jackson Diehl ‏@JacksonDiehl 3h3 hours ago

Most interesting news of #Iran hearing: IAEA will have to rely on #Iran to take samples at Parchin and other sites for its PMD investigation

(PMD = Potential Military Dimensions)

The PMD is the evidence that is gathered when one party, say the US or IAEA, receives a complaint or report of a possible violation.

So we're just putting Iran, a nation whose leader is clearly interested in our destruction, on the honor system, essentially?

No we are not.

Though a few people disagree, most arms experts believe that Iran will not be able to violate this agreement without jeopardizing the new trade they're about to have. All inspections of existing centrifuge sites are on demand, and though new military installations require 24 days, it would be nearly impossible for Iran to build a military nuclear use and then remove all sign of it within the 24 day period, not to mention enormously costly.

Iran can violate this agreement, but the risk for them is so great that I don't believe they will. Yes, the agreement only lasts 10 years, but the hope is that in ten years time we're dealing with a new Iran. If we're not, then at least we're no worse off than we are now.

Tim, the PMD sample issue is not the 24 day delay to access issue.

 

[General Tso]

Iranian Leader tweets image of Obama with a gun to his head- http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/07/25/iranian-leader-tweets-graphic-obama-gun-head/30667081/

 

[matuski]

I'm going to laugh my ### off if Congress votes down the only diplomatic progress with Iran I can recall since Reagan sold them weapons.

I can't wait to see how they play this out.

Do they fold like a cheap suit or stand behind all the big talk?

I'm betting they are as spineless as I think they are, but man would it be fitting.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

I feel like Muslims are the Aliens from Mars Attacts!!!! (Ack, Ack,....ack, ACK!!!!) and we are the morons who are still believing that they want peace with us.

They are assimilating into our country and will eventually cause massive bloodshed on our own soil. It's only a matter of time.

I'm by no means a prepper or think the sky is falling but I'm not a (complete) moron. It's all they preach behind closed doors but they just won't come out as say it publicly. Yet they won't say they aren't against it.

Example- this whore in our country and attending out schools. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7yGN8SlIEZ8

Sombody please set me straight if I'm wrong. This is a rare case where I want to be wrong.

 

[flapgreen]

I feel like Muslims are the Aliens from Mars Attacts!!!! (Ack, Ack,....ack, ACK!!!!) and we are the morons who are still believing that they want peace with us.

They are assimilating into our country and will eventually cause massive bloodshed on our own soil. It's only a matter of time.

I'm by no means a prepper or think the sky is falling but I'm not a (complete) moron. It's all they preach behind closed doors but they just won't come out as say it publicly. Yet they won't say they aren't against it.

Example- this whore in our country and attending out schools. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7yGN8SlIEZ8

Sombody please set me straight if I'm wrong. This is a rare case where I want to be wrong.

But you're not

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Iranian Leader tweets image of Obama with a gun to his head- http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/07/25/iranian-leader-tweets-graphic-obama-gun-head/30667081/

What prompted this again? I don't recall Obama saying anything about taking out Iran's army?

 

[flapgreen]

"I fear that what could happen is if Congress were to overturn it, our friends Israel could actually wind up being more isolated and more blamed," Kerry said

Brilliant statement there, Kerry.

 

[cubd8]

Iranian Leader tweets image of Obama with a gun to his head- http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/07/25/iranian-leader-tweets-graphic-obama-gun-head/30667081/

What prompted this again? I don't recall Obama saying anything about taking out Iran's army?

Yes, same thought here; where did this come from? Is this Iran making public statements that they got the better of a deal and the US can't push them around?

 

[TwinTurbo]

what a hoot that website is.

it is pretty funny. They absolutely hate Hillary Clinton. Almost as much as the Iranians hate us

I don't believe the Iranian people hate us at all.

DUBAI (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said a speech by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Saturday vowing to defy American policies in the region despite a deal with world powers over Tehran's nuclear program was "very disturbing".

"I don't know how to interpret it at this point in time, except to take it at face value, that that's his policy," he said in the interview with Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television, parts of which the network quoted on Tuesday.

"But I do know that often comments are made publicly and things can evolve that are different. If it is the policy, it's very disturbing, it's very troubling," he added.

Ayatollah Khamenei told supporters on Saturday that U.S. policies in the region were "180 degrees" opposed to Iran's, at a speech in a Tehran mosque punctuated by chants of "Death to America" and "Death to Israel".

"Even after this deal our policy toward the arrogant U.S. will not change," Khamenei said.

Several Gulf Arab states have long accused Tehran of interference, alleging financial or armed support for political movements in countries including Bahrain, Yemen and Lebanon.

Kerry said the U.S. believed its Arab allies had the ability to confront Iranian interference in the region.

"I think President Obama's belief and our military assessments, our intelligence assessments, are that if they organize themselves correctly, all of the Arab states have an untapped potential that is very, very significant to be able to push back against any of these activities," he said.

It's really something how disconnected Obama is from things. He says things which are completely unrelated to what actually happens. I think he's so insulated he doesn't even know what's going on.

Here, with the Iran deal:

• He repeatedly says 2008 and 2012 and 2012 to now that he will never permit Iran to have nuclear weapons and pretty much says that military options are always on the table. Then as it turns out he says well you know Iran was about to get a nuke so we pretty much had to cave on everything. So without telling anyone we have switched from a policy of nuclear prevention to nuclear containment.
• Then Obama is confronted by CBS about leaving US hostages in Iran, he reacts with umbrage and outrage and says how dare you ask me a question like that, we could never ask for the hostages because after all Iran would just ask for more concessions. - Then Kerry says oh hell yeah we asked for the hostages at every meeting.
• Then Obama is asked about how the Ayatollah and the other leaders in Iran say they are just going to ignore the deal, proceed as if it doesn't exist and btw Death to America. Obama answers by projecting and says this is political spin and the next thing you know Kerry says Oh Yeah it's "Very Disturbing."

We have no idea what Obama is doing but attending briefings and reading memoranda from his intelligence and SOS apparently isn't part of that.

I think he's very connected on it, but extremely misguided. This is one for his legacy. Unfortunately, he made a "deal" with a group that has no intention of abiding by it and will continue to use extreme deception, disinformation and delay tactics towards the goal of gaining nuclear weapons. He is right that there's no better deal to be had, because any agreement with them is a waste of time.

 

[tommyboy]

Just nuke the ayatollah and be done

 

[Daywalker]

Don't our political leaders also openly talk about bombing Iran?

 

[Daywalker]

Can Iran build a nuclear bomb, while moving it every 3 weeks, or should we be allowed to walk into any door we want at anytime?

They are not going to let us have free reign in their country. Why would they?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Can Iran build a nuclear bomb, while moving it every 3 weeks, or should we be allowed to walk into any door we want at anytime?

They are not going to let us have free reign in their country. Why would they?

Not sure if I'm right here but I think inspection regimes under SALT and START and with Iraq did provide for this. I hear this retort about why would they allow this and I think the answer is because that's the way it works. I also know the Obama administration expected "anywhere, anytime" (1:20) as the standard they were demanding so they must have thought it was a reasonable demand and even an achievable one.

Obama again says stuff that seems out of joint with reality:

Because of this deal, inspectors will also be able to access any suspicious location — put simply, the organization responsible for the inspections, the IAEA, will have access where necessary, when necessary.

Obviously that's not true, not even proponents claim this, because everyone's explaining why the Iranians won't allow access to military sites and why the 24 day delay is not a big deal.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Don't our political leaders also openly talk about bombing Iran?

Obama used to say that the military option was on the table, but he isn't saying it now. Seems pretty backhanded to sign a nuke deal and then say military options are on the table. Also that's a really graphic, propagandistic and maybe even tad racist image there.

 

[General Tso]

Just nuke the ayatollah and be done

http://youtu.be/zBGPw_LBiRA

 

[Christo]

Can Iran build a nuclear bomb, while moving it every 3 weeks, or should we be allowed to walk into any door we want at anytime?

They are not going to let us have free reign in their country. Why would they?

Not sure if I'm right here but I think inspection regimes under SALT and START and with Iraq did provide for this. I hear this retort about why would they allow this and I think the answer is because that's the way it works. I also know the Obama administration expected "anywhere, anytime" (1:20) as the standard they were demanding so they must have thought it was a reasonable demand and even an achievable one.

Obama again says stuff that seems out of joint with reality:

Because of this deal, inspectors will also be able to access any suspicious location — put simply, the organization responsible for the inspections, the IAEA, will have access where necessary, when necessary.

Obviously that's not true, not even proponents claim this, because everyone's explaining why the Iranians won't allow access to military sites and why the 24 day delay is not a big deal.

Say what? Have you ever negotiated anything before? People overreach and make demands they know are never going to be agreed to get to what they can live with.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Can Iran build a nuclear bomb, while moving it every 3 weeks, or should we be allowed to walk into any door we want at anytime?

They are not going to let us have free reign in their country. Why would they?

Not sure if I'm right here but I think inspection regimes under SALT and START and with Iraq did provide for this. I hear this retort about why would they allow this and I think the answer is because that's the way it works. I also know the Obama administration expected "anywhere, anytime" (1:20) as the standard they were demanding so they must have thought it was a reasonable demand and even an achievable one.

Obama again says stuff that seems out of joint with reality:

Because of this deal, inspectors will also be able to access any suspicious location put simply, the organization responsible for the inspections, the IAEA, will have access where necessary, when necessary.

Obviously that's not true, not even proponents claim this, because everyone's explaining why the Iranians won't allow access to military sites and why the 24 day delay is not a big deal.

Say what? Have you ever negotiated anything before? People overreach and make demands they know are never going to be agreed to get to what they can live with.

True but most people don't keep making demands after an agreement is reached, while also wishing death upon the other party. This deal isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

 

[GoFishTN]

Iranian Leader tweets image of Obama with a gun to his head- http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/07/25/iranian-leader-tweets-graphic-obama-gun-head/30667081/

What prompted this again? I don't recall Obama saying anything about taking out Iran's army?

Because mocking us for our naivety (or downright stupidity) behind our back isn't as much fun?

 

[Christo]

Can Iran build a nuclear bomb, while moving it every 3 weeks, or should we be allowed to walk into any door we want at anytime?

They are not going to let us have free reign in their country. Why would they?

Not sure if I'm right here but I think inspection regimes under SALT and START and with Iraq did provide for this. I hear this retort about why would they allow this and I think the answer is because that's the way it works. I also know the Obama administration expected "

 

[Todd Andrews]

The Likud-GOP political alliance is not in the best interests of the US.

 

[cstu]

Don't our political leaders also openly talk about bombing Iran?

Obama used to say that the military option was on the table, but he isn't saying it now. Seems pretty backhanded to sign a nuke deal and then say military options are on the table. Also that's a really graphic, propagandistic and maybe even tad racist image there.

Agreed, we all know black people hold the gun sideways.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Can Iran build a nuclear bomb, while moving it every 3 weeks, or should we be allowed to walk into any door we want at anytime?

They are not going to let us have free reign in their country. Why would they?

Not sure if I'm right here but I think inspection regimes under SALT and START and with Iraq did provide for this. I hear this retort about why would they allow this and I think the answer is because that's the way it works. I also know the Obama administration expected "

Waaaahhh, the Iranians say mean things about us!!1!

 

[tommyboy]

i'd like to see a poll of all FBG's of the pctg that thinks Iran will uphold their end of the deal?

 

[timschochet]

i'd like to see a poll of all FBG's of the pctg that thinks Iran will uphold their end of the deal?

They will uphold it. It's far too costly for them to do otherwise. Also, they have stated repeatedly that there is a religious Fatweh against having nuclear weapons. I've been thinking about that for the last few days, and it's occurred to me that, as much as we say we don't trust the Iranian government, what exactly have they lied about? They're quite open in their hatred for us and Israel, open in their support of Hamas and Hezbollah, honest in their fanaticism. When have they been especially deceptive about anything?

 

[Boston]

i'd like to see a poll of all FBG's of the pctg that thinks Iran will uphold their end of the deal?

They will uphold it. It's far too costly for them to do otherwise.Also, they have stated repeatedly that there is a religious Fatweh against having nuclear weapons. I've been thinking about that for the last few days, and it's occurred to me that, as much as we say we don't trust the Iranian government, what exactly have they lied about? They're quite open in their hatred for us and Israel, open in their support of Hamas and Hezbollah, honest in their fanaticism. When have they been especially deceptive about anything?

So outside of advocating Genocide for Israel and supporting terrorist organizations they're basically good guys...

 

[timschochet]

i'd like to see a poll of all FBG's of the pctg that thinks Iran will uphold their end of the deal?

They will uphold it. It's far too costly for them to do otherwise.Also, they have stated repeatedly that there is a religious Fatweh against having nuclear weapons. I've been thinking about that for the last few days, and it's occurred to me that, as much as we say we don't trust the Iranian government, what exactly have they lied about? They're quite open in their hatred for us and Israel, open in their support of Hamas and Hezbollah, honest in their fanaticism. When have they been especially deceptive about anything?

So outside of advocating Genocide for Israel and supporting terrorist organizations they're basically good guys...

Dont put words into my mouth please. I'm only suggesting that if they say there is a religious Fatweh against nuclear weapons, perhaps that is something we can take seriously, because this government is too fanatical to be dishonest about stuff like that.

 

[GoFishTN]

i'd like to see a poll of all FBG's of the pctg that thinks Iran will uphold their end of the deal?

They will uphold it. It's far too costly for them to do otherwise.Also, they have stated repeatedly that there is a religious Fatweh against having nuclear weapons. I've been thinking about that for the last few days, and it's occurred to me that, as much as we say we don't trust the Iranian government, what exactly have they lied about? They're quite open in their hatred for us and Israel, open in their support of Hamas and Hezbollah, honest in their fanaticism. When have they been especially deceptive about anything?

So outside of advocating Genocide for Israel and supporting terrorist organizations they're basically good guys...

Dont put words into my mouth please. I'm only suggesting that if they say there is a religious Fatweh against nuclear weapons, perhaps that is something we can take seriously, because this government is too fanatical to be dishonest about stuff like that.

You do realize those are not written in stone and can be changed as they please, right?

 

[timschochet]

But they havent, have they?

 

[GoFishTN]

But they havent, have they?

Keep the faith Tim.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

I feel like Muslims are the Aliens from Mars Attacts!!!! (Ack, Ack,....ack, ACK!!!!) and we are the morons who are still believing that they want peace with us.

They are assimilating into our country and will eventually cause massive bloodshed on our own soil. It's only a matter of time.

I'm by no means a prepper or think the sky is falling but I'm not a (complete) moron. It's all they preach behind closed doors but they just won't come out as say it publicly. Yet they won't say they aren't against it.

Example- this whore in our country and attending out schools. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7yGN8SlIEZ8

Sombody please set me straight if I'm wrong. This is a rare case where I want to be wrong.

But you're not

So can somebody tell me if I'm overreacting or off base? Please?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I feel like Muslims are the Aliens from Mars Attacts!!!! (Ack, Ack,....ack, ACK!!!!) and we are the morons who are still believing that they want peace with us.

They are assimilating into our country and will eventually cause massive bloodshed on our own soil. It's only a matter of time.

I'm by no means a prepper or think the sky is falling but I'm not a (complete) moron. It's all they preach behind closed doors but they just won't come out as say it publicly. Yet they won't say they aren't against it.

Example- this whore in our country and attending out schools. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7yGN8SlIEZ8

Sombody please set me straight if I'm wrong. This is a rare case where I want to be wrong.

But you're not

So can somebody tell me if I'm overreacting or off base? Please?

I think you are very much off base when you use the word "Muslims" to describe the people you're talking about. There are over a billion people in the world that practice Islam. Only a small fraction of them are anything like what you describe.

 

[cstu]

But they havent, have they?

Keep the faith Tim.

Keep believing what the media tells you.

 

[timschochet]

I feel like Muslims are the Aliens from Mars Attacts!!!! (Ack, Ack,....ack, ACK!!!!) and we are the morons who are still believing that they want peace with us.

They are assimilating into our country and will eventually cause massive bloodshed on our own soil. It's only a matter of time.

I'm by no means a prepper or think the sky is falling but I'm not a (complete) moron. It's all they preach behind closed doors but they just won't come out as say it publicly. Yet they won't say they aren't against it.

Example- this whore in our country and attending out schools.

Yes, I believe you are way off base. And I believe your comments about Muslims in the United States is ignorant at best and bigoted at worst. I don't know if you're aware of this, but since 9/11 nearly every act of terrorism that we have prevented against our country was because of American Muslims who were bravely willing to inform on radicals.

Right now the worst Muslim radicals we face belong to ISIS. And while Iran is certainly our enemy, they are also opposed to ISIS. So we can use that to our benefit, so long as we're not ignorant enough to group them all together, the way you did in your post.

 

[jonessed]

But they havent, have they?

Keep the faith Tim.

Keep believing what the media tells you.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

I feel like Muslims are the Aliens from Mars Attacts!!!! (Ack, Ack,....ack, ACK!!!!) and we are the morons who are still believing that they want peace with us.

They are assimilating into our country and will eventually cause massive bloodshed on our own soil. It's only a matter of time.

I'm by no means a prepper or think the sky is falling but I'm not a (complete) moron. It's all they preach behind closed doors but they just won't come out as say it publicly. Yet they won't say they aren't against it.

Example- this whore in our country and attending out schools. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7yGN8SlIEZ8

Sombody please set me straight if I'm wrong. This is a rare case where I want to be wrong.

But you're not

So can somebody tell me if I'm overreacting or off base? Please?

I think you are very much off base when you use the word "Muslims" to describe the people you're talking about. There are over a billion people in the world that practice Islam. Only a small fraction of them are anything like what you describe.

Very fair point. Should I say "Islamic extremists", instead? Do the non Islamic extremists not believe in Hamas/Hezbolla?

Does anyone have a suggestion/link to more information on this topic ? I'm honestly interested in learning more.

ETA- obviously I can search the web and find my own info- I'm asking for help because I want non biased article/ information.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Can Iran build a nuclear bomb, while moving it every 3 weeks, or should we be allowed to walk into any door we want at anytime?

They are not going to let us have free reign in their country. Why would they?

Not sure if I'm right here but I think inspection regimes under SALT and START and with Iraq did provide for this. I hear this retort about why would they allow this and I think the answer is because that's the way it works. I also know the Obama administration expected "anywhere, anytime" (1:20) as the standard they were demanding so they must have thought it was a reasonable demand and even an achievable one.

Obama again says stuff that seems out of joint with reality:

Because of this deal, inspectors will also be able to access any suspicious location — put simply, the organization responsible for the inspections, the IAEA, will have access where necessary, when necessary.

Obviously that's not true, not even proponents claim this, because everyone's explaining why the Iranians won't allow access to military sites and why the 24 day delay is not a big deal.

Say what? Have you ever negotiated anything before? People overreach and make demands they know are never going to be agreed to get to what they can live with.

Yes of course I have, but look at the original question. Was it reasonable to ask for and expect anyplace / anytime? And I think based on prior treaties (which this is not, admittedly) it was, and I think based on the US's position going in it was. If it wasn't reasonable to begin with then that is never a good negotiating position, to ask for the ridiculous, you lose standing in the negotiation. Obviously the US considered it a very reasonable demand.

 

[Short Corner]

i'd like to see a poll of all FBG's of the pctg that thinks Iran will uphold their end of the deal?

How many think we'll uphold our end of the deal?