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.
I really don't know what words to use to describe the knee-jerk partisanship being displayed here.
ignorant? blinding? I AM A REGISTERED DEMOCRAT. I VOTED AGAINST BUSH IN BOTH OF HIS ELECTIONS (although I now thank heaven that the modern day Neville Chamberlain did not win in that second election).
Why is it that those who don't agree with you are reflexively labelled "warmongers"?
In post #22 I gave you a way of attaining a non-military alternative, an alternative which you ignored because you don't have a credible argument to refute it.
Here it is the capitulation in more detail. In bold are the Obama red lines. Following that is reality:
Iran will never have a nuclear weapon: The Obama administration argues full implementation of the deal "will ensure the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program" and will increase Iran's breakout time to one year. This means that if Iran complies with the requirements of the deal but then decides to cheat, it will take Tehran at least a year to get their program back to a place where it can produce a bomb. But many provisions in the agreement end after certain time, making it likely that Iran will attain the bomb even if it doesn't cheat.
Sanctions will not be lifted until compliance: As part of a deal, Obama said that U.S. sanctions on Iran will not be lifted until Iranian compliance is verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog. But that is not clearly stipulated in the agreement. IF (and that's a big if) noncompliance is detected, Obama claims that sanctions can also be "snapped back" into place, but the practical execution of this makes it totally unrealistic.
Nuclear plants will close and the nuclear program will end: The agreement does not force the closing of most of Iran's nuclear plants. It allows Tehran to continue nuclear-related research and development and pursuit of nuclear energy for "peaceful purposes", research that later could be used for military uses. Iran will retain enrichment capacity and "safeguarded" research and development at Natanz. Fordow will be converted into "a nuclear, physics and technology center" that will not be allowed to enrich uranium but will retain centrifuges. All of this will be verified by "inspections". See next.
Anytime, anywhere inspections: The Iranian regime will have the ability to delay an inspection for up to 24 days.
Arak heavy water reactor will close: The administration said Iran would not be allowed to continue operations at its heavy water site at the Arak facility. But the final deal allows Tehran to "redesign and rebuild a modernized heavy water research reactor in Arak" that "will support peaceful nuclear research and radioisotope production for medical and industrial purposes." The plant redesign must be certified by the Western powers and any other international actors agreed upon by the countries involved in the negotiation, but Iran will still be the project manager for the activity.
Suspension of uranium enrichment and significant reduction in the number of centrifuges: Iran maintains its right to enrich uranium, up to 300 kg at 3.67 percent for 15 years. The country is also not required to close "Russian designed, fabricated and licensed fuel assemblies for use in Russian-supplied reactors in Iran" and that enriched uranium won't be subject to the 300 kg limit. After the time limit, Iran is free to enrich uranium to bomb-making levels.
If Obama-Kerry would have even come close to staying within their red lines, this would have been a much better deal.
The State Dept needs your wise counsel. Contact them ASAP and demand that your "better deal" be presented to the Iranians and that they better accept it immediately w/o conditions.
The State Dept needs your wise counsel. Contact them ASAP and demand that your "better deal" be presented to the Iranians and that they better accept it immediately w/o conditions.
Or else!
I seriously doubt that any of these "wise counselors" have given any thought to what effect our not endorsing the deal would have.
I thought I explained the inspection process to you on the other thread (which you subsequently ignored). Why engage in a discussion and then ignore what you don't like, then move to another thread to state the same inaccurate information?
The deal is a good one, and should be fully embraced. It is supported by the international community, and every developed nation has voiced support. The only opponents to the deal are some American republicans, and Bibi. Here is how the inspections work (again, just fyi)..
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.
There has not been a single plausible alternative suggested by any congressman, public figure, and certainly not anyone on this forum.
I ignored nothing and responded appropriately but I guess repetition does not hurt the mind or the body. I will even gently contribute more.
I'm excited about your optimism about the deal rather than most of the uneducated contributions, but I am not sold. You have repeatedly been selling the standard party line of western verification and prevention, yet Obama and the JPOA have capitulated on many of its demands during the negotiations. It is wishful thinking on behalf of the West that this deal will hold viability in the long term.
We can say with confidence that this deal is only applicable based on trust. The West does not trust Iran or it wouldn't need sophisticated satellite imagery or detection monitoring systems to validate their program. There is a loop hole in the deal, Iran can leave the deal at anytime. Without full transparency (which we do not have so please stop pretending that we do), Iran can claim compliance to the deal, while asserting the West are the true violators, thus leaving the deal because of "Western bad faith". Iran's Claim of compliance cannot be proven without the full knowledge behind its undeclared sites; Iran can do what ever it wants without true repercussions. What is a credible threat countering the bomb? Obama lack of will to follow through with his red lines in Syria when Assad used WMD's against his own people, shows that the U.S Cannot be trusted on their word alone. Would Israel have the capabilities of such option? Will the U.S intervene? Iran knows that the United States will just simply call for calm and restraint, even after its tough talk at the Iranian negotiating table.
Let's take a look at the actual reason why Iran came to the negotiation table in the first place; Sanctions. The Iranian regime and its economy has been hard shipped over the years because of sanctions. Iran is not interested in a nuclear deal with the West, but interested in the lenience in sanctions. A more prosperous Iran will not turn Iran into an ally but even more a foe. Iran's hegemonic interests and strengthening of its proxies will produce more conflict with its neighbors. The leadership of Iran has placed the value of life low on the list, Rafsanjani, Khamenie and company have had no problem expressing their views on the value of life. If Iran stated that it 'supports the U.S and legitimizes Israel's right to exist', I would then agree with your tenure and change my stance. Sadly, this intentions of Khamenie are to radicalize even further and not secularship.
So we have covered that Iran is a violator the NPT and UNSC but has been treated as an equal partner. We have discovered that the deal does not allow full transparency into its undeclared nuclear and military sites, where the real mysteries of its weapons program lye's. We have also discovered that inspections must be justifiable and not anytime and anywhere, and that Iran has an option to leave at any time. Weapons embargo.. Release of sanctions... all to a theocratic regime who has created turmoil in the region and expressed nuclear genocide to 6 million Jews in Israel. Which leads into the concluding point of Iran's disregard for human life, with goals of hegemony and conflict with its neighbors. Are we prepared to stop Egypt and Saudi Arabia with their interests in nuclear weapons? Are they prepared internally to protect them from proxy organizations?
We have legitimized a nuclear program who was initially proven to be a fraud and a criminal. We now pretend that Iran will wilfully and trustfully comply to Western demands, even when Iran said three days ago in Farsi that it won't... Nope, pure wishful thinking.
I ignored nothing and responded appropriately but I guess repetition does not hurt the mind or the body. I will even gently contribute more.
I'm excited about your optimism about the deal rather than most of the uneducated contributions, but I am not sold. You have repeatedly been selling the standard party line of western verification and prevention, yet Obama and the JPOA have capitulated on many of its demands during the negotiations. It is wishful thinking on behalf of the West that this deal will hold viability in the long term.
We can say with confidence that this deal is only applicable based on trust. The West does not trust Iran or it wouldn't need sophisticated satellite imagery or detection monitoring systems to validate their program. There is a loop hole in the deal, Iran can leave the deal at anytime. Without full transparency (which we do not have so please stop pretending that we do), Iran can claim compliance to the deal, while asserting the West are the true violators, thus leaving the deal because of "Western bad faith". Iran's Claim of compliance cannot be proven without the full knowledge behind its undeclared sites; Iran can do what ever it wants without true repercussions. What is a credible threat countering the bomb? Obama lack of will to follow through with his red lines in Syria when Assad used WMD's against his own people, shows that the U.S Cannot be trusted on their word alone. Would Israel have the capabilities of such option? Will the U.S intervene? Iran knows that the United States will just simply call for calm and restraint, even after its tough talk at the Iranian negotiating table.
Let's take a look at the actual reason why Iran came to the negotiation table in the first place; Sanctions. The Iranian regime and its economy has been hard shipped over the years because of sanctions. Iran is not interested in a nuclear deal with the West, but interested in the lenience in sanctions. A more prosperous Iran will not turn Iran into an ally but even more a foe. Iran's hegemonic interests and strengthening of its proxies will produce more conflict with its neighbors. The leadership of Iran has placed the value of life low on the list, Rafsanjani, Khamenie and company have had no problem expressing their views on the value of life. If Iran stated that it 'supports the U.S and legitimizes Israel's right to exist', I would then agree with your tenure and change my stance. Sadly, this intentions of Khamenie are to radicalize even further and not secularship.
So we have covered that Iran is a violator the NPT and UNSC but has been treated as an equal partner. We have discovered that the deal does not allow full transparency into its undeclared nuclear and military sites, where the real mysteries of its weapons program lye's. We have also discovered that inspections must be justifiable and not anytime and anywhere, and that Iran has an option to leave at any time. Weapons embargo.. Release of sanctions... all to a theocratic regime who has created turmoil in the region and expressed nuclear genocide to 6 million Jews in Israel. Which leads into the concluding point of Iran's disregard for human life, with goals of hegemony and conflict with its neighbors. Are we prepared to stop Egypt and Saudi Arabia with their interests in nuclear weapons? Are they prepared internally to protect them from proxy organizations?
We have legitimized a nuclear program who was initially proven to be a fraud and a criminal. We now pretend that Iran will wilfully and trustfully comply to Western demands, even when Iran said three days ago in Farsi that it won't... Nope, pure wishful thinking.
Thanks for posting. You did make the claim (several times) that we do not have a robust system of inspection and verification, and I explained (in detail) that we do. So, given that we in fact do (and I will repeat some parts below), I can focus on the rest of your argument. Your post is all opinion - and you have made several incorrect claims. We actually do have access to its nuclear and military sites; what we have to ask permission to visit is anything else that is undeclared (all the sites declared by the way are the nucelar and military sites). If some other "site" exists that we don't know about, how can we list it in this deal? If we want access to something, we will ask. If Iran says no then they will be forced to comply by the council or face the same sanctions that you claim are effective (the real meat of which was completed in 2009 by this administration).
Look, with or without an agreement, the world is stuck with an Iran that continues to run a big nuclear program and remains slippery and dangerous. The real test of the deal is whether it is better than the alternatives. It is. I would also like to point out that it is not based on "trust" - the entire deal is written from the perspective that we, in fact, shouldn't trust Iran.
You're right to point out that Iran will at some point could be a nuclear power. If it keeps its word and avoids further restrictions on its program, Iran will have the know-how and eventually the capacity to arm itself. Yet it will also face greater restraints than it does today. Iran’s ability to enrich uranium and to develop a weapon will be severely constrained for somewhere between ten and 15 years. After that, it will be subject to the full force of the international treaty against proliferation. The government has agreed to intrusive monitoring of all its nuclear facilities (which I explained in detail), and the sanctions can be reimposed if Iran violates it.
The real alternatives are to wait for a better deal, or to go to war (I have not heard from you or anyone else any other realistic options). Some argue that since sanctions won concessions, more sanctions will win more concessions. Yet if America walked away now, China, Russia and the EU would lose faith in the process and sanctions would crumble instead. Moreover, to think that Iran would surrender the heart of its program is a reckless gamble. Threatened, it would be more likely to dig in its heels. Iran’s nuclear expertise has grown since 2000, and would expand further still in the years before talks were possible once again. Delay could thus end up making an ambitious agreement even harder.
War: is a poor form of arms-control. Even if we had the stomach for a months-long campaign, and even if it could take out all of Iran’s many nuclear sites, bombing cannot destroy nuclear know-how. Instead the program would go underground, beyond the reach of monitors. An attack would thus be a route to a nuclear-armed Iran. Should Iran dash for the bomb, war might make sense as a last resort, but that option will not disappear just because of this agreement.
You mention Iran becoming more of a pest in the region, and this deal will make Iran more powerful, but it will also lead the country to become more open. The regime agreed to constrain its nuclear program because, as in China, it calculated that it is more likely to survive if Iranians feel that they have a shot at prosperity. Unlike North Korea’s Kim dynasty, which cheated on its nuclear pact, Iran’s supreme leader decided that being a pariah was worse for his regime than rejoining the world.
That choice only makes sense if Iran can now attract trade and investment. The more Iran trades with the rest of the world, the more susceptible it will grow to international pressure. As the country becomes enmeshed in the global economy, interest groups will emerge within Iran’s complex, factional politics who will argue that the country’s future is better served by decent relations with foreigners than by bad ones. The more Iranians benefit from ties with the outside world, the stronger those moderating voices will become.
A country of Iran’s size and sophistication will get a bomb if it really wants one. Nothing can change that. But this pact offers the chance of holding Iran back and shifting its course. The world should, and is embracing it. The GOP candidates and some American republicans are very much in the minority, and for good reason.
I don't know. The opponents of the deal argued Iran was months away from getting a nuke, which meant they'd have it by October. You would think it's a good thing that is not going to happen.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,373,658 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
I don't know. The opponents of the deal argued Iran was months away from getting a nuke, which meant they'd have it by October. You would think it's a good thing that is not going to happen.
At least one of the opponents of the deal has been arguing Iran was months away from the bomb for years now.
This is not about the nuclear deal has has never been about the nuclear situation.
The Nuclear deal is just a smoke screen.
if they capitulated on every point of the nuclear deal (which they are not going to), next they would be asking for not supporting people in Lebanon. then people inside West Bank Gaza, Then Syria. then Iraq.
Then "Human rights".
Thanks for posting. You did make the claim (several times) that we do not have a robust system of inspection and verification, and I explained (in detail) that we do. So, given that we in fact do (and I will repeat some parts below), I can focus on the rest of your argument. Your post is all opinion - and you have made several incorrect claims. We actually do have access to its nuclear and military sites; what we have to ask permission to visit is anything else that is undeclared (all the sites declared by the way are the nucelar and military sites). If some other "site" exists that we don't know about, how can we list it in this deal? If we want access to something, we will ask. If Iran says no then they will be forced to comply by the council or face the same sanctions that you claim are effective (the real meat of which was completed in 2009 by this administration).
Look, with or without an agreement, the world is stuck with an Iran that continues to run a big nuclear program and remains slippery and dangerous. The real test of the deal is whether it is better than the alternatives. It is. I would also like to point out that it is not based on "trust" - the entire deal is written from the perspective that we, in fact, shouldn't trust Iran.
You're right to point out that Iran will at some point could be a nuclear power. If it keeps its word and avoids further restrictions on its program, Iran will have the know-how and eventually the capacity to arm itself. Yet it will also face greater restraints than it does today. Iran’s ability to enrich uranium and to develop a weapon will be severely constrained for somewhere between ten and 15 years. After that, it will be subject to the full force of the international treaty against proliferation. The government has agreed to intrusive monitoring of all its nuclear facilities (which I explained in detail), and the sanctions can be reimposed if Iran violates it.
The real alternatives are to wait for a better deal, or to go to war (I have not heard from you or anyone else any other realistic options). Some argue that since sanctions won concessions, more sanctions will win more concessions. Yet if America walked away now, China, Russia and the EU would lose faith in the process and sanctions would crumble instead. Moreover, to think that Iran would surrender the heart of its program is a reckless gamble. Threatened, it would be more likely to dig in its heels. Iran’s nuclear expertise has grown since 2000, and would expand further still in the years before talks were possible once again. Delay could thus end up making an ambitious agreement even harder.
War: is a poor form of arms-control. Even if we had the stomach for a months-long campaign, and even if it could take out all of Iran’s many nuclear sites, bombing cannot destroy nuclear know-how. Instead the program would go underground, beyond the reach of monitors. An attack would thus be a route to a nuclear-armed Iran. Should Iran dash for the bomb, war might make sense as a last resort, but that option will not disappear just because of this agreement.
You mention Iran becoming more of a pest in the region, and this deal will make Iran more powerful, but it will also lead the country to become more open. The regime agreed to constrain its nuclear program because, as in China, it calculated that it is more likely to survive if Iranians feel that they have a shot at prosperity. Unlike North Korea’s Kim dynasty, which cheated on its nuclear pact, Iran’s supreme leader decided that being a pariah was worse for his regime than rejoining the world.
That choice only makes sense if Iran can now attract trade and investment. The more Iran trades with the rest of the world, the more susceptible it will grow to international pressure. As the country becomes enmeshed in the global economy, interest groups will emerge within Iran’s complex, factional politics who will argue that the country’s future is better served by decent relations with foreigners than by bad ones. The more Iranians benefit from ties with the outside world, the stronger those moderating voices will become.
A country of Iran’s size and sophistication will get a bomb if it really wants one. Nothing can change that. But this pact offers the chance of holding Iran back and shifting its course. The world should, and is embracing it. The GOP candidates and some American republicans are very much in the minority, and for good reason.
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.
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.
