Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, that is not how its going to work unfortutantly. Inspectors cannot waltz into any site they want without justification and coordination. The declared sites are bs, okay... Those sites that inspectors have all this supposed access are not ground zero for military research and development. Iran has already declared that it will not allow inspectors into military sites. Nothing robust about inspections when full transparency is denied. The West can't fully monitor the unknown . Iran is not obligated to this deal because who is going to force them without economic restraints? They have gotten away with violations of the UNSC, NPT, Additional Protocol for a decade. Iran is going to give all that development up over a deal that does not allow Iran to full disclose its program!?
Your analysis of Iran becoming an open trade partner is again and again wishful thinking. The Hardliners will become more economically prosperous. Iran's hegemonic goals and sponsor of terrorism counters your assessment. And let's not forget the express of nuclear genocide to another UN Charter country, that you conveniently ignore. Should there be no penalty? Or Is that an "opinion" too?
I stand firm on my assessment, continuation and the longer implementation of sanctions is the best deal. Iran's previous non compliance should not be awarded with the release of sanctions, furthering the Ayatollah's self interests. Iran came to the table only because of the hardships of sanctions. That's the ONLY reason, not to justify their nuclear program. Continuing of sanctions would of forced Iran into a non capitulated deal.
You realize Iran is not the only country that has politicians that threaten other countries. Rep. Duncan Hunter said the U.S. should nuke Iran, a lot of the rhetoric on Israel in Iran is just rhetoric.
Israel is not a signature of the NPT, and has nuclear weapons.
The U.S. continues to work with Saudi Arabia, who also funds Sunni extremist groups, and members of the Saudi government funded 9/11. Iran, while not a friend of the U.S., is hardly its worst enemy. Not to mention Saudi Arabia, along with most Arab nations continue to not recognize Israel.
Another thing to mention, guess who gave Iran their nuclear program? The U.S. under the Atoms for Peace program. This is while the Shah was in power, a dictator the U.S. installed in Iran after overthrowing Mossadegh in 1953. The current regime got to power when the Shah was overthrown.
The U.S. should approve the deal if it is in the interests of the U.S. Israel can defend itself, and it is not the responsibility of the U.S. to defend or babysit them.
No, that is not how its going to work unfortutantly. Inspectors cannot waltz into any site they want without justification and coordination. The declared sites are bs, okay... Those sites that inspectors have all this supposed access are not ground zero for military research and development. Iran has already declared that it will not allow inspectors into military sites. Nothing robust about inspections when full transparency is denied. The West can't fully monitor the unknown . Iran is not obligated to this deal because who is going to force them without economic restraints? They have gotten away with violations of the UNSC, NPT, Additional Protocol for a decade. Iran is going to give all that development up over a deal that does not allow Iran to full disclose its program!?
Your analysis of Iran becoming an open trade partner is again and again wishful thinking. The Hardliners will become more economically prosperous. Iran's hegemonic goals and sponsor of terrorism counters your assessment. And let's not forget the express of nuclear genocide to another UN Charter country, that you conveniently ignore. Should there be no penalty? Or Is that an "opinion" too?
I stand firm on my assessment, continuation and the longer implementation of sanctions is the best deal. Iran's previous non compliance should not be awarded with the release of sanctions, furthering the Ayatollah's self interests. Iran came to the table only because of the hardships of sanctions. That's the ONLY reason, not to justify their nuclear program. Continuing of sanctions would of forced Iran into a non capitulated deal. I do not just read the party line and trust that its going to work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio1803
You realize Iran is not the only country that has politicians that threaten other countries. Rep. Duncan Hunter said the U.S. should nuke Iran, a lot of the rhetoric on Israel in Iran is just rhetoric.
Israel is not a signature of the NPT, and has nuclear weapons.
The U.S. continues to work with Saudi Arabia, who also funds Sunni extremist groups, and members of the Saudi government funded 9/11. Iran, while not a friend of the U.S., is hardly its worst enemy. Not to mention Saudi Arabia, along with most Arab nations continue to not recognize Israel.
Another thing to mention, guess who gave Iran their nuclear program? The U.S. under the Atoms for Peace program. This is while the Shah was in power, a dictator the U.S. installed in Iran after overthrowing Mossadegh in 1953. The current regime got to power when the Shah was overthrown.
The U.S. should approve the deal if it is in the interests of the U.S. Israel can defend itself, and it is not the responsibility of the U.S. to defend or babysit them.
I would echo the points made by "Ohio" above. You're making inaccurate statements, and claiming that Iran's nuclear program is actually taking place in areas we do not know about or have access to. Where are you getting this information? We have full access to the military sites and nuclear sites listed in the agreement - how can Iran suddenly produce a bomb somewhere else without centrifuges, uranium or infrastructure from these sites? You are basically stating that we should be able to go anywhere else, anytime we please, but just imagine you agreed to that, and inspectors could just walk into your house or office or you would face sanctions. How on earth do expect Iran to agree to that, or to get it through their own parliament? Plus, the hardliners you say will become "richer" because of this deal are the ones voicing opposition to it. Would it be nice to have that capability? Yes, in a perfect world. But advocating further sanctioning with the hope we would accomplish that is not realistic, or sound diplomacy. You must see that right?
For Iran, the incentives to abide by its undertakings are compelling. The Iran deal is notable for the highly specific way in which it establishes the verification protocols and the mechanisms for dealing with potential violations. Compare this agreement 100 page agreement to the North Korean framework, which ran to only four pages and contained no specifics about verification! This agreement is THE the most intrusive nuclear-inspection arrangement ever designed (we need a "better one though??). Not only will inspectors have a right to visit any site they deem suspicious, but every stage of the fuel cycle will be monitored, as will Iran’s nuclear supply chain.
Iran has a large population of well-educated young people who use the internet and social media. The election of President Hassan Rohani was brought about by businesses and citizens painfully aware of the economic damage done by sanctions. Opportunities to trade with the rest of the world could revitalize Iran’s economy. The incentives for Iran to abide by what its negotiators have labored to deliver are powerful, while the penalty of sanctions being reimposed in the event of non-compliance would be devastating and humiliating.
Is it perfect? No. Do you make some valid concerns? Yes. But please do not suggest that further sanctions is a good idea - it isn't.
Except Neville C. loved his country unlike Barry O.
Comparisons between President Obama and Prime Minister Chamberlain are only made by those who have no idea of the two agreements and their substantial differences. You would need a very causal understanding of history, very limited knowledge of the Iran deal, and a personal bias against this deal to make such a silly comparison.
Just a simple fact here: this is not "Obama's deal". It was made by the US, China, Russia, France, Germany and the UK. Do you think all of those countries are weak, naive, or less knowledgeable on foreign relations than you and the silly poster with the picture above?
If you need a comparison, a more apt one would be to that of Richard Nixon and China.
But It is more important to point out that objections to Chamberlain are completely based on non-factual basis.
People don't understand that Germany Was totally Mobilized in 1938 and Britain was not.
Even if Britain was totally Mobilized It was at best able to defend the Island. it was no position to go fight a German Military Might on European Peninsula.
And Let's Add that in 1938 Germany had relatively cordial relations with soviet Union. and the U.S was no where to be found as far as joining a war that Britain would start.
References to Munich 1938 and just revisionist history by those who have no clue what they are talking about.
He is not stupid, just in over his head. He was a local Chicago politician who had a golden voice and good presentation skills. Did he have "Dealing with Crazy Terrorist Sponsoring Regimes on he Resume?". He had zero experience going into the job, so why would he know what to do.
And you guys want to elect Trump, the great white hope. Someone who has absolutely no experience in any phase of diplomacy, foreign relations, government or Washington, DC.
Comparisons between President Obama and Prime Minister Chamberlain are only made by those who have no idea of the two agreements and their substantial differences. You would need a very causal understanding of history, very limited knowledge of the Iran deal, and a personal bias against this deal to make such a silly comparison.
Just a simple fact here: this is not "Obama's deal". It was made by the US, China, Russia, France, Germany and the UK. Do you think all of those countries are weak, naive, or less knowledgeable on foreign relations than you and the silly poster with the picture above?
If you need a comparison, a more apt one would be to that of Richard Nixon and China.
Do you think all of those countries are weak, naive, or less knowledgeable on foreign relations than you and the silly poster with the picture above?
Everyone thought that Chamberlain was world class intelligent PM and leader at the time, and history was not kind to his legacy. The deal is a crap shoot and could go in any direction with the extremely volatile parties involved. A monkey spinning a wheel could do as well as the US, China, Russia or France.
Everyone thought that Chamberlain was world class intelligent PM and leader at the time,
Funny, Stalin, Edvard Beneš, Clement Attlee nor even Édouard Daladier thought so at the time.
Quote:
The deal is a crap shoot and could go in any direction with the extremely volatile parties involved.
What's the crap shoot? Iran is suspected of abrogating the agreement, the world returns to the current status quo which is about as much a crap shoot, if not less so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
