Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Iran deal, good deal, or bad deal?
#21
(04-22-2015, 08:26 AM)Maggot Wrote: The problem I have with the negotiations and how they came to be so one sided with the Iranians. At the beginning we had a list of actions that was needed in order for the sanctions to be removed. Inspections, guarantees on nuclear proliferation and centrifuge outputs. None of that came to be, the Iranians made demands and the U.S. spine broke. Now I hear there is a 50 billion "sign on" bonus they have been offered. Tell me is there any reasoning in the negotiators minds or are they all going in on this thing with the mindset of caving to their demands. I do not see one thing that the U.S. received from the meetings, all I see is coddling by politicians.
America has become a nation of pansies with false dreams of hope as other nations laugh and make demands that our constitution uphold.
Tell me where in the constitution does it say that foreign nationals deserve the warm and fuzzy blanket of the constitution that supposedly protects Americans but today seems to have become a burden to the powers that be in their search for historical immortality.


hah.............That was a mouthful!

Have you read the published terms, Maggot? I have. I'd be interested in you pointing out specifically what conditions we caved in on because, as far as I can see, what you say didn't come to be did, in fact, come to be.

I think you imagine rainbows and lollipops everywhere you look, when in fact, it's just change you're seeing.

You were opposed to the US negotiating with Iran at all, before any terms or agreements were ever even made known. It seems to me like your opposition towards diplomacy and policy changes with Iran stems from your view of Iran as an eternal evil nemesis with whom we should always maintain the same adversarial position, and Israel as a white-hatted good guy to whom we should always offer unquestioned support and acquiesce, and Obama as some traitor whose every action in office should be regarded as a failure no matter what.

I think it's much more complex and deeper than that, and we as a country should never be stuck in the past and unwilling to view countries and their leaders objectively. We need to consider country-specific and regional foreign policy in today's terms -- we, America, don't control the world and it's not pansy-like to acknowledge that fact realistically and embrace positive change in terms of foreign relations.

We gained from this deal with Iran. We now have influence over Iran's WMD capabilities, we have reliable inspection/monitoring capabilities, and we have ensured at least a year's advance notice before Iran would be capable of launching a bomb. We would have none of that without the deal. We would continue to have only have Netanyahu feeding us bad intel about Iran's nuclear proliferation.

In 10 years, we'll know where Iran stands in terms of its nuclear capacity and we'd be in the dark about that without the deal. We've lifted sanctions in exchange for the deal, appropriately so IMO.

I don't think there was any deal that could have been reached that you would have been able to view as a good one.

We're not married to Iran and skipping hand-in-hand with the Ayotollahs through a bed of poppies as a result of this deal -- not by a long shot. But, we gained more security, they gained an improved economic forecast, and we each gained the ability to benefit from improved relations.

That doesn't mean we're always gonna be on the same page or supporting and trusting of Iran on every front. That's true even today: the US is not happy with Iran's backing of Shiite Houthis in Yemen when we support the Sunni government and its willingness to let us drone al-Qaeda there. However, we are very happy with Iran supporting Iraq's Shiite government in its fight against the Sunni Islamic State.

I don't see anybody being spineless here, just some people having a problem pulling their dug-in-heels out of the ground and taking a step in a different direction.
Reply
#22
So you believe that Iran will allow inspectors to sites that the coalition believes need reviewing and accountability. I do not believe any sanctions will be reinstated if they do not comply. I do see it as a one sided deal with the world one step closer to suicide though. Remember this has been tried before and it has not worked. Just keep that in mind. Sure negotiation is warranted with Iran but with the final outcome being no nuclear capabilities today, tomorrow or 10 years down the road.

This statement is a huge gamble that if it was Vegas would be 101 odds. It will be about 6 months to a year when they test a nuke. Mark my words. 4/22/15

In 10 years, we'll know where Iran stands in terms of its nuclear capacity and we'd be in the dark about that without the deal. We've lifted sanctions in exchange for the deal, appropriately so IMO.
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.
Reply
#23
(04-22-2015, 09:45 AM)Jimbone Wrote:
(04-21-2015, 10:07 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: So, why do you think that the leaders of the US, Russia, China, France, Germany and the UK negotiated a deal which conflicts absolutely with Netanyahu's stance if "they knew he was right"?

My guess would be since there is no way to stop Iran now, the 5+1 figure they should at least make some money via the deal. Once the sanctions lift, everyone stands to benefit financially from being able to sell goods into the Iranian market again. The optimist in me wants to believe they want to lift sanctions to make it easier to get in and disrupt their program a la some sort of program like Stuxnet again... but I'm not betting the house on that.

Meanwhile, Iran has been backing Hezbollah and providing them with money, means, and weapons they have consistently used to attack Israel. So I think Israel is correct to continue to raise the alarm bell on the Iranian nuclear program.

Iran's support of Hezbollah is no secret. How does that relate to Iran's nuclear capabilities? It doesn't.

Continuing to have exactly no direct monitoring capabilities over Iran's nuclear capabilities benefits the US exactly how? It doesn't.

(04-22-2015, 09:45 AM)Jimbone Wrote:
(04-21-2015, 10:07 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: But, to insist that "they knew he was right" -- in reference to the White House's (and the five other global leaders') view of Netanyahu's stance on negotiating with Iran -- makes no sense to me at all.

While I don't speak to anyone at the White House anymore, I do pay attention to administration officials when they change their story. Or when they come out and flat admit they were lying. So I'm not insisting on something, I'm merely going by what Energy Secretary Moniz told us. And I'll agree, it doesn't make any sense to me why they would lie or endeavor to contradict our ally either.

Exactly. So, you have no basis to speak for the White House and proclaim that "they know he's right". What you mean is "I, Jimbone, am convinced that he's right and I think the White House thinks he's right too". Big difference. In any case, I personally do not believe that the White House shares your view.

(04-22-2015, 09:45 AM)Jimbone Wrote: Emphasis mine on the salient issue that the US and Israel shared similar - if not the same - estimates on weapons grade material production.

"Speaking to reporters and editors at our Washington bureau on Monday, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz acknowledged that the U.S. has assessed for several years that Iran has been two to three months away from producing enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. When asked how long the administration has held this assessment, Moniz said: "Oh quite some time." He added: "They are now, they are right now spinning, I mean enriching with 9,400 centrifuges out of their roughly 19,000. Plus all the . . . . R&D work. If you put that together it's very, very little time to go forward. That's the 2-3 months.

Here is the puzzling thing: When Obama began his second term in 2013, he sang a different tune. He emphasized that Iran was more than a year away from a nuclear bomb, without mentioning that his intelligence community believed it was only two to three months away from making enough fuel for one, long considered the most challenging task in building a weapon. Today Obama emphasizes that Iran is only two to three months away from acquiring enough fuel for a bomb, creating a sense of urgency for his Iran agreement. "


http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/20...e-a-secret

I don't argue that there are different and changing assessments in regards to how far off Iran is from actually being able to launch a nuclear bomb. Some claims are self-serving rhetoric, some are based on bad intel, some are based on worst case estimations, some are based on best case estimations...Which is precisely why having visibility via inspections and improved communications is beneficial to the US and our partners.

However, I addressed Netanyahu's claims regarding Iran's nuclear bombing readiness made over the last 2+ decades. If you're contending that the White House believes that Netanyahu is magic and has been accurately making the same time-immune claims all along, then Netanyahu and the White House believe that Iran has had the ability to launch a nuclear attack since the mid 90s. I don't think the White House believes that Netanyahu has been accurate every time he's made the same claim though -- that defies logic and common sense. One thing's certain however, both Netanyahu and the White House know for a fact that Iran has never launched such an attack.

And now, with the ability to control their nuclear progress and with increased global visibility via inspections and monitoring, we'll have much better data for assessing Iran's abilities and intentions to do so in the future.
Reply
#24
Most people do not trust Iran that is reality. I would believe Israel before believing Washington. They are much closer to the situation and I believe their intelligence on Iran is better than ours. No matter what the discussion is here it matters very little in Washington, these are our opinions and that's it. I like the debate and can only hope that our elected officials have common sense and are looking at protecting the United States and our allies that have in the past proven they are trustworthy. Not on recent rhetoric or speculation that a goat is now a mule.
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.
Reply
#25
(04-22-2015, 11:08 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Iran's support of Hezbollah is no secret. How does that relate to Iran's nuclear capabilities? It doesn't.

Oh it doesn't? You don't think Iran would share some of its nukey goodness with their proxies in Hezbollah? It relates directly to why Israel continues to be so concerned about the Iranian nuclear capability. Not to mention the fact that they are already in range of the Iranian ballistic missile technology.


(04-22-2015, 11:08 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Exactly. So, you have no basis to speak for the White House and proclaim that "they know he's right". What you mean is "I, Jimbone, am convinced that he's right and I think the White House thinks he's right too". Big difference. In any case, I personally do not believe that the White House shares your view.


No, what I mean is simple: "I, Jimbone, have just read that the White House (the administration) has now admitted the timeline Israel claimed was the same timeline they had. Therefore, I used a statement proclaiming 'they know he is right', because they just conceded he was".

No one has to believe Secretary Moniz or the now declassified information...the White House doesn't have to believe or have the same view either... except now it appears they do because they are saying so.

If you don't want to believe what they are saying now either, that's your choice as well. I'm just repeating what they've said.


(04-22-2015, 09:45 AM)Jimbone Wrote: "Speaking to reporters and editors at our Washington bureau on Monday, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz acknowledged that the U.S. has assessed for several years that Iran has been two to three months away from producing enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. When asked how long the administration has held this assessment, Moniz said: "Oh quite some time." He added: "They are now, they are right now spinning, I mean enriching with 9,400 centrifuges out of their roughly 19,000. Plus all the . . . . R&D work. If you put that together it's very, very little time to go forward. That's the 2-3 months.

Here is the puzzling thing: When Obama began his second term in 2013, he sang a different tune. He emphasized that Iran was more than a year away from a nuclear bomb, without mentioning that his intelligence community believed it was only two to three months away from making enough fuel for one, long considered the most challenging task in building a weapon. Today Obama emphasizes that Iran is only two to three months away from acquiring enough fuel for a bomb, creating a sense of urgency for his Iran agreement. "


http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/20...e-a-secret


(04-22-2015, 11:08 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: However, I addressed Netanyahu's claims regarding Iran's nuclear bombing readiness made over the last 2+ decades. If you're contending that the White House believes that Netanyahu is magic and has been accurately making the same time-immune claims all along, then Netanyahu and the White House believe that Iran has had the ability to launch a nuclear attack since the mid 90s. I don't think the White House believes that Netanyahu has been accurate every time he's made the same claim though -- that defies logic and common sense. One thing's for certain however, both Netanyahu and the White House know for a fact that Iran has never launched such an attack.


I don't believe Israel has any magic, but I think you're misrepresenting the past few decades worth of argument a bit. In the 90's Israel wasn't claiming Iran was 2-3 months from a bomb. They were warning that allowing their nuclear ambitions to succeed would keep them on the path toward the ability to make their material weaponized. In the 00's it wasn't a bomb in 2-3 months, it was about the increase in the number of centrifuges keeping them on that same path. Now it is about how close they are to development of a weapon, and the administration has admitted to concurring with the assessment of the Israeli timeline.

All that said, it is true that Netanyahu has always been an alarmist. I guess I would be too if someone not too far away from me - who has sworn the destruction of my entire culture - was endeavoring to build weapons that would do exactly that in a few seconds.


(04-22-2015, 11:08 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: And now, with the ability to control their nuclear progress and with increased global visibility via inspections and monitoring, we'll have much better data for assessing Iran's abilities and intentions to do so in the future.


Yes, just like it was in North Korea. Iran has been skirting inspections and not declaring activities in its nuclear program since the 90's. Forgive me for not trusting that it's going to work out this time either, or that they are going to change their ways.

We're not going to agree on this, but it's all good.
Reply
#26
Yeah, we're not going to agree Jimbone.

As far as estimates for break out times, nuclear bombing vs. nuclear program advancement, etc...I acknowledged before and I do again that they've been all over the map within and between Israel's government, the US's government, Iran's government... Some of that, IMO, is due to self-serving rhetoric at the time of the estimates, some of it is likely due to honest mistakes in calculations, some if it may be due to the various means and terms in gauging nuclear abilities...

If this deal gets passed, there will be consistent criteria in measuring and reporting between Iran and five other major world powers -- big step forward. Relying on Netanyahu and Israel for that data is unwise. They have a different perspective based on locale and they benefit (financially and otherwise) from keeping their enemy at odds with their ally and serving as the primary provider of that intel. It's much better and more reliable to get that information regarding Iran's nuclear capacity from independent inspectors than it is to really on a source with a vested interest in how the information is presented or misrepresented, IMO.

Iran's relationship with Hezbollah has nothing to do with Iran's capabilities in producing a nuclear weapon or a nuclear program, nor with this nuclear proliferation agreement between the P5+1 and Iran. You and Netanyah might fear that, if and when Iran has a nuclear bomb or program, Hezbollah operatives could use it to their advantage. That may be true. But, Iran is no more or less capable of producing a nuclear weapon or program because of Hezbollah.

On the other hand, if the final details and agreements get approved and the deal becomes adhered-to policy, Iran will be less capable of producing a weapon or program, outwardly or secretly, for at least a decade because of the P5+1 negotiations. That's a fact. I understand that you and others don't think that benefit is worth the perceived cost, but it doesn't change the fact.

As for trust, this deal isn't based on trust, obviously; thus, the inspection and monitoring requirements. While Netanyahu and many others have good reason to be leery of Iran, Iran has good reasons to feel the same way.

I'm sure that you're aware not every leader, government and individual everywhere in the world would agree with you that Israel is less self-serving and more trustworthy than Iran. And, if this deal passes, Iran will be allowing inspections of its enrichment, energy and development sites regularly. There will be severe penalties for breach of the agreement. Israel, on the other hand, refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation agreement and will not allow any inspections. I'd bet that's a jagged pill for neighboring Iran to swallow.

I'm not for or against Iran or Israel. I am for progress and diplomatic means to avoid war. I see much more upside than downside to that end with this proposed agreement. I want the agreement to succeed because I believe it benefits everyone, but I do understand and respect that you have reasons to believe otherwise.
Reply
#27
(04-22-2015, 12:26 PM)Maggot Wrote: Most people do not trust Iran that is reality. I would believe Israel before believing Washington.

I trust that, as effed up as it is in some ways, Washington is more concerned about Americans' security and foreign interests than is Israel. I understand that you disagree and I can respect that.

It's my belief that the US should put its best interests first while doing the least damage to others to secure those interests. Israel should do the same. Iran should do the same. It's complex considering all of the countries, alliances, and organizations in play. Our partners on one stage are sometimes our opponents on another these days.

There are millions of people the world over who would not agree with you that Israel is more trustworthy than Iran, or that Israel is more trustworthy than Washington. But, trust isn't the issue for me. These negotiations are not based on trust. A nuclear deal with Iran will not be finalized with a handshake.

If a deal is made and kept, it benefits everyone IMO. If a deal is made and broken, we've lessened the risk up until the breaking-point and we go back to sanctions, probably heavier ones. Thus, for me, not moving forward because one doesn't trust one's own government or Iran under those conditions is a fear-based stance which only ensures stagnation and/or war, nothing else.

I appreciate the various perspectives and the debate too Mags. It'll be interesting to see if the proposed deal becomes reality and how it plays out. If it doesn't become reality, and I really hope it does, then we remain where we're at now and I can live with that.
Reply
#28
The middle east is a hotspot of fucked up people of different races/faiths. I recommend nuking the entire area back to the stone age before they do the same to us.
We need to punish the French, ignore the Germans and forgive the Russians - Condoleezza Rice.
Reply
#29


There's been an agreement on this nuclear deal and some sanctions are going to be lifted. Someone in Israel said that Iran has been given a license to kill and yet everyone involved in bringing this together thinks it's a wonderful thing. Is it? Is Israel right and everyone else is wrong? How can that be?

I might pay more credence to what Israel had to say if I had any respect for them but I don't. I view them like I would any terrorist and Netanyahu can kiss my ass. I hate that we have to be associated with that country in any way. They are no better than anyone else and do their fair share of terrorizing others.
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
Reply
#30
'Peace in our time'

[Image: obamachamberlain2.jpg]

This is a terrible deal. The 247 unannounced 'inspections' can be delayed by 14 days, one third of their centrifuges will continue to spin unfettered, and there is essentially no dismantlement of Iran's nuclear program at all.

This deal isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Oh, except to the Iranians of course who will be getting billions of dollars in sanction relief. Where will a good bit of those billions go? To sponsor terrorism around the world against the west.

Thanks Obama.
Reply
#31


If it's truly like that then why are so many leaders going along with it? Why is it being pushed as a good thing and why would a Prez put his country at risk? I'm genuinely curious to know.
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
Reply
#32
(07-14-2015, 11:13 AM)Duchess Wrote:

If it's truly like that then why are so many leaders going along with it? Why is it being pushed as a good thing and why would a Prez put his country at risk? I'm genuinely curious to know.

Follow the money.

I believe this will go the way of Clinton's Nuke agreement with North Korea.
Reply
#33
It looks like Iran got what they wanted and can continue with business as usual. How many nuclear facilities do they have now and can the countries that backed this deal bury their trash in the desert there. Did they also get intercontinental missile technology? Might as well before Russia scores the deal.
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.
Reply
#34
I'm pleased the negotiations led to a deal being reached.

The deal includes solid inspection verification protocols to ensure that Iran is keeping its end of the bargain, and I really believe that the P5+1 countries have gained more control and a lesser chance of war with Iran on behalf of Israel (or for other reasons).

No one is suggesting that Iran is more trustworthy than it was before it was isolated by the west, but working towards easing hostilities and increasing nuclear enrichment visibility was the best option for moving forward, IMO.
Reply
#35
It's all about cheap gas and stimulating the US economy.

Wait until Fall.
Reply
#36
I bet bomb shelters come back. hah These clowns in power that decide the fate of nations are always fucking things up. The west got nothing out of this deal just promises from a regime that has lied many times before. They didn't even get any Americans released.
There is a term that the Iranians use that means "its OK to lie to Infidels" The word escapes me at the moment.
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.
Reply
#37
(07-14-2015, 02:15 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: It's all about cheap gas and stimulating the US economy.

Wait until Fall.

I disagree that cheap gas and domestic economy stimulation were the primary motivating factors.

But, I sure as hell won't complain about those nice bonuses.
Reply
#38
I think this is what you are talking about maggot:

In Shi'a Islam, taqiya (تقیة taqiyyah/taqīyah) is a form of religious lie,[1] or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts, specially while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya

Obama is having a presser today. I'm curious to see how he'll answer the question about unfettered inspections... because of course they are not unfettered, and are able to be delayed up to 25 days.

Will be interesting how he tries to feed this shitburger to the press, and if they'll push back at all.
Reply
#39
That's it! They are taqiyaing all over the place, in the car, in the halls, on a plane, when they use the phone. Taqiya the new catch phrase thanks, I'm gonna start using it now so I'm prepared.


In fact when I go swimming I'm gonna taqiya in the pool and nobody will know.
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.
Reply
#40
(07-15-2015, 12:50 PM)Maggot Wrote: That's it! They are taqiyaing all over the place, in the car, in the halls, on a plane, when they use the phone. Taqiya the new catch phrase thanks, I'm gonna start using it now so I'm prepared.


In fact when I go swimming I'm gonna taqiya in the pool and nobody will know.
hahhahhah
Reply