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.
Repetitions is key I see or just repeating myself until you get it. Continued sanctions, no sunset clause, full transparency and surprise inspections anywhere. Can't "validate" that Iran is complying to its terms that it agreed with if we are not able to access the whole facility.
They will continue on a path to nuclear capability with continued sanctions, anytime anywhere is not reasonable.
They will continue on a path to nuclear capability with continued sanctions, anytime anywhere is not reasonable.
Some folks seem to confuse Iran with Iraq. Iran unlike Iraq, was not defeated in war and subjected to limits upon its national sovereignty. Iran unlike Iraq, despite its rhetoric to the contrary, has never been involved in any of the numerous wars with Israel.
Iran, has an undisputed right as a sovereign nation to purse a nuclear energy program, they are under the voluntary obligation as a signatory of the NPT to refrain from a pursuing a nuclear weapon as a result Iran is obliged to adhere to the NPT as overseen by the United Nations, not the U.S., not Israel and certainly not by the Republican Party.
The "deal" in question was the culmination of efforts by the Permanent Members of the Security Council and Germany (P5+1). That means that the agreement wasn't solely the providence of the United States. If the agreement that Republicans wish for was beyond the requirements sought by such partners as China and Russia, for example, Iran in all probability could have chosen to withdraw from the NPT with the approval of either, just as North Korea has done. Had Iran chosen to withdraw from the treaty with the acquiescence of China or Russia you wouldn't have any oversight of the IAEA or any restraints upon their "so-called" nuclear weapon ambitions.
Repetitions is key I see or just repeating myself until you get it. Continued sanctions, no sunset clause, full transparency and surprise inspections anywhere. Can't "validate" that Iran is complying to its terms that it agreed with if we are not able to access the whole facility.
I have said this to you on the other thread. Continued sanctions are a fantasy - not possible. How would you continue sanctions without China, Russia, France, Germany and the UK - the very countries that have forced Iran to the table? And what more to you expect to gain? Wouldn't you say that torpedoing this agreement to hold out for something that is not going to happen (meanwhile Iran continues toward a bomb) irresponsible? Validation is possible - I will spell out my other post for you here:
The IAEA will have multi-layered oversight over Iran's entire nuclear supply chain, from uranium mills to its procurement of nuclear-related technologies. For declared nuclear sites such as Fordow, Arak and Natanz, the IAEA will have "round-the-clock access" to nuclear facilities and will be entitled to maintain continuous monitoring (including via surveillance equipment) at such sites. The agreement authorizes the IAEA to make use of sophisticated monitoring technology, such as fiber-optic seals on equipment that can electronically send information to the IAEA; infrared satellite imagery to detect covert sites, environmental sensors that can detect minute signs of nuclear particles; tamper-resistant, radiation-resistant cameras. The US Energy Secretary explained this at the hearing yesterday.
The number of IAEA inspectors assigned to Iran will triple. If IAEA inspectors have concerns that Iran is developing nuclear capabilities at any non-declared sites, they may request access "to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with" the agreement, informing Iran of the basis for their concerns. Iran may admit the inspectors to such site or propose alternatives to inspection that might satisfy the IAEA's concerns. If such an agreement cannot be reached, a process running to a maximum of 24 days is triggered. Under this process, Iran and the IAEA have 14 days to resolve disagreements among themselves. If they fail to, the Joint Commission (including all eight parties) would have one week in which to consider the intelligence which initiated the IAEA request. A majority of the Commission (at least five of the eight members) could then inform Iran of the action that it would be required to take within three more days. The majority rule provision "means the United States and its European allies—Britain, France, Germany and the EU—could insist on access or any other steps and that Iran, Russia or China could not veto them. If Iran did not comply with the decision within three days, sanctions would be automatically reimposed under the snapback provision. As a result, the "breakout time"—the time in which it would be possible for Iran to make enough material for a single nuclear weapon should Iran abandon the agreement—will increase from two to three months to one year; this would be in place for ten years.
You have to acknowledge that Iran cannot completely capitulate to western demands and allow anywhere anytime access. We have access to the nuclear sites and operations we already know about, but if they did give us total freedom we could wander into Tehran's government headquarters and just start rifling through papers - of they disagree with this, we sanction them. That is not plausible, and Iran has to maintain some dignity in order to get the agreement through its own parliament.
The GOP hopefuls are painting a picture of the IAEA not having access to Iran's nuclear facilities without prior permission (that they say will be hard to get), which is simply not true.
Repetitions is key I see or just repeating myself until you get it. Continued sanctions, no sunset clause, full transparency and surprise inspections anywhere. Can't "validate" that Iran is complying to its terms that it agreed with if we are not able to access the whole facility.
No international treaty has ever included "surprise inspections anywhere". The INF Treaty - as implemented by Blessed St. Reagan, PBUH - was considered extremely aggressive in its inspection regimen. Reagan used the term "trust, but verify". And it still did not include the right to "surprise inspections anywhere", because that is not terms that any nation would ever accept.
I can't tell whether you're naive or pretending to be, but here's the thing: Try walking down to the local car lot and telling them that you're willing to pay $75 for a Lexus. Insist that there will be no deal until they concede to your demands. Do you drive away in a Lexus?
The GOP hopefuls are painting a picture of the IAEA not having access to Iran's nuclear facilities without prior permission (that they say will be hard to get), which is simply not true.
If I were a betting man, I'd say it's about 5 to 3 that we'll have "mobile weapons labs" brought up in the debate within two weeks.
Good lord...not the "we won every battle" argument again. You sound like one of those lame defenders of our Vietnam involvement.
We LOST in Iraq. This is inarguable.
We only lost in a bad experiment of nation building. That is all. You can't force democracy on backward people and should never try it. Thats not a military issue.
Quote:
Attacking Iran isn't the first or best option...it's not even a decent option. It's a dumb option, which really means that it's not an option at all. Stop it with the airstrikes nonsense. The only way to know that you hit what you needed to hit is to put troops on the ground.
Sending in a few scouts or using locals as spotters is not "putting boots on the ground" and its not an invasion although you really make efforts to portray it so. If you didn't hit the first time there is a second chance.
Quote:
And troops on the ground in Iran is the end of us.
Well, maybe yours...
(BTW, weren't you claiming a few weeks back that Iran has no military punch and poses no threat?)
We only lost in a bad experiment of nation building. That is all. You can't force democracy on backward people and should never try it. Thats not a military issue.
Sending in a few scouts or using locals as spotters is not "putting boots on the ground" and its not an invasion although you really make efforts to portray it so. If you didn't hit the first time there is a second chance.
Well, maybe yours...
(BTW, weren't you claiming a few weeks back that Iran has no military punch and poses no threat?)
Some body has been watching too many movies.
you have demonstrated you do not have the slightest clue of about what you are talking about.
Iran is a country three times as large as Iraq. There are various facilities in Iran. and They are built with great distance from each other. It takes 1.5-2 hours to fly one side of the country to other.
but more importantly Iran is strategically located in a choke point. all the war games that have been played
out and every single one of them has concluded that the any Military Action has great potential for quickly spiraling out of control.
Yet despite the Bibi assassinators on this thread, he has advocated for a harsher deal rather than war.
Perhaps.
But Bibi isn't an American. We should be making the best deal for the Unite States. Bibi can strike his own deal with Iran...or whatever. Netanyahu and his opinions are meaningless to me. It would be like the president of Togo giving his opinion on the matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oberon_1
We only lost in a bad experiment of nation building. That is all. You can't force democracy on backward people and should never try it. Thats not a military issue.
Sending in a few scouts or using locals as spotters is not "putting boots on the ground" and its not an invasion although you really make efforts to portray it so. If you didn't hit the first time there is a second chance.
Well, maybe yours...
(BTW, weren't you claiming a few weeks back that Iran has no military punch and poses no threat?)
I never said that Iran has no military punch. They sure as hell held off the Iraqis for a decade despite Iraq being supplied by us..and fought them to a stalemate. That should tell you something. We cannot defeat Iran in a ground war on Iranian soil. Forget it.
And troops would have to get put on the ground if we hit them with airstrikes. That's all there is to it. Using a few scouts and local spotters is nonsense spewed by those that wanna make a war with Iran seem doable and ultimately successful. We all heard the same crap in the runup to the war in Iraq. Turned out to be a bunch of over optimistic lies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericsami
Some body has been watching too many movies.
you have demonstrated you do not have the slightest clue of about what you are talking about.
Iran is a country three times as large as Iraq. There are various facilities in Iran. and They are built with great distance from each other. It takes 1.5-2 hours to fly one side of the country to other.
but more importantly Iran is strategically located in a choke point. all the war games that have been played
out and every single one of them has concluded that the any Military Action has great potential for quickly spiraling out of control.
The Republican Party wants a war, and they aren't gonna stop until they get one. Some Republicans are honest enough to admit this about their party.
Iran isn't on good terms with most nations. They have to settle down and grow up quite a bit. It's their move. The rest of the world will sit back and keep track of developments. If they abide by the recent nuke agreement, that will be a step towards them re-entering the world community.
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.
Iran won't be our friend?
