[quote]2busy wrote:
I’m really beginning to like Carly.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/04/02/false-choice-and-flawed-deal/[/quote]
Have you read the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear program? Which of its articles do you disagree with, and why?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Hey Biz, this article pretty much sums up my theory on the rise of ISIS:
How should we combat it? Do we need to invade Iraq again?
That was a very interesting article. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I’m in favor of a strategy based upon two pillars - (1) foreign internal defense conducted by army special forces in conjunction with support by the American intelligence community; and (2) targeted kill/capture missions
conducted by special operations forces and drones. This conversation with Stanley McChrystal is pertinent to the second pillar.
http://m.foreignaffairs.com/discussions/interviews/generation-kill
[quote]loppar wrote:
In conclusion, the solution is an immediate military assistance to Ukraine, and a US training center in Lviv. [/quote]
Sorry Loppar, I must have been thinking of another poster. But that was a great reply, more in line with my way of thinking than who ever that other guy was.
[quote]loppar wrote:
I mean, military aid was so lavishly spent on that joke of the Iraq army and Ukrainians get unarmed Hummers? [/quote]
Sure…all the armored, anti-RPG, anti-land mine, top of the line assault vehicles…ie Mraps…went to local US police departments.
Never know when a riot’s gonna break out or you have a hostage situation ya know.
oh brother.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
So Loppar, would you say that the title of this thread is an accurate representation of current affairs?
Are you, as a Frenchman, personally alarmed at Obama’s Iranian capitulation?
Or is it merely worthy of a shrug and a “tant pis”?
[/quote]
A Frenchman? I would’ve picked him as Croatian.
[/quote]
Incorrect. He said he operates a rickshaw out of Calcutta a few pages back.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]2busy wrote:
I’m really beginning to like Carly.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/04/02/false-choice-and-flawed-deal/[/quote]
Have you read the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear program? Which of its articles do you disagree with, and why?[/quote]
Yes.
All of them, because of Iran’s previous track record with following international rules and agreements is rather dismal.
http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/sc11333.doc.htm
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/28/us-iran-sanctions-un-idUSKBN0F300H20140628
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37859#.VSHhL3XN_PE
An oldie but a goody
[quote]2busy wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]2busy wrote:
I’m really beginning to like Carly.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/04/02/false-choice-and-flawed-deal/[/quote]
Have you read the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear program? Which of its articles do you disagree with, and why?[/quote]
Yes.
All of them, because of Iran’s previous track record with following international rules and agreements is rather dismal.
http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/sc11333.doc.htm
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/28/us-iran-sanctions-un-idUSKBN0F300H20140628
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37859#.VSHhL3XN_PE
[/quote]
Are you saying that genocidal religious fanatics don’t play by the rules ?
[quote]2busy wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]2busy wrote:
I’m really beginning to like Carly.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/04/02/false-choice-and-flawed-deal/[/quote]
Have you read the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear program? Which of its articles do you disagree with, and why?[/quote]
Yes.
All of them, because of Iran’s previous track record with following international rules and agreements is rather dismal.
http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/sc11333.doc.htm
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/28/us-iran-sanctions-un-idUSKBN0F300H20140628
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37859#.VSHhL3XN_PE
[/quote]
So you have no objections to the technical specifications of the framework for a final agreement? The issue of trust is less salient than critics of the deal contend, as there is an inherent paucity of trust in the international political system. I’m well aware of Iranian intransigence under its international legal obligations; specifically, those created by several United Nations Security Council Resolutions issued under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
Obama emphasized that any accord was not contingent on trusting the Iranians or a change in their controversial tactics.
"Even for somebody who believes, as I suspect Prime Minister Netanyahu believes, that there is no difference between Rouhani and the supreme leader and theyâ??re all adamantly anti-West and anti-Israel and perennial liars and cheaters - even if you believed all that, this still would be the right thing to do,â?? he said. “It would still be the best option for us to protect ourselves. In fact, you could argue that if they are implacably opposed to us, all the more reason for us to want to have a deal in which we know what they are doing and that, for a long period of time, we can prevent them from having a nuclear weapon.”
The technical obligations of a final agreement would increase Iran’s breakout time from 2-3 months as it stands presently to over a year. The international community would have 400-600% more time to respond to an Iranian sprint to enrich enough fissile material for a bomb. How is maintaining the tenuous status quo of an Iran perpetually on the nuclear threshold superior to a final deal? Iran’s accession to the IAEA Additional Protocol will be permanent, and increased inspection and monitoring measures will ensure an Iranian nuclear program that is more transparent and limited than it has been for many years.
?But this has been as hard as anything I do, because of the deep affinities that I feel for the Israeli people and for the Jewish people. It?s been a hard period.?
LOL at “deep affinities”
[quote]Bismark wrote:
http://www.cfr.org/iran/p51-joint-comprehensive-plan-action-jcpoa-irans-nuclear-program/p36376?cid
Text of the P5+1 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s Nuclear Program, which provisions the framework of the final agreement.[/quote]
I have one major problem with the agreement, even if the Iranians stick with every single rule, it still ends in 15 years. After which they will be as much a part of the nuclear proliferation treaty as the US, Russia, China, etc. I.E. they will be free to do what they want. It’s counting on a Iranian change of heart somehow some way between now and then.
It does nothing to stem an arms race in the ME. As long as other countries perceive the threat of a nuclear Iran, they are inclined to at the very least keep up.
It’s great that the sanctions ‘snap in’ to place again if Iran violates the terms. It won’t matter much if Iran is just buying time to maneuver.
Of course this is all my opinion. I do not trust Iran. I do not trust them, at all in anyway.
I do not like that they are allowed to keep all their centrifuges, I do not like that they get to keep every nuclear capability they currently have, yet they ‘promise’ to keep the U-235 yield low. It only keeps the break out time to a year. The indication that they could be nuclear weapons ready in less than that is frightening, particularly since we have been told that Iran is at least a year from having a nuclear weapon. It seems to sneak under the table that their capability is greater than advertised. I have a lot of issues with the plan. It’s largely based on the fact that I do not trust Iran, nor do I recognize them as legitimate.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
We’re fighting with them in Iraq, against them in Yemen! Can’t keep track without a score card.
[/quote]
As Jon Stewart said, we’ve finally figured out how to wage a proxy war against ourselves.
That was funny…
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Thanks for your response. I have nothing to say however. I don’t talk politics here anymore. Takes up too much time anyway.[/quote]
Your not fooling anyone. Take your break, come back when you’re ready. Everybody needs PWI R&R from time to time.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]2busy wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]2busy wrote:
I’m really beginning to like Carly.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/04/02/false-choice-and-flawed-deal/[/quote]
Have you read the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear program? Which of its articles do you disagree with, and why?[/quote]
Yes.
All of them, because of Iran’s previous track record with following international rules and agreements is rather dismal.
http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/sc11333.doc.htm
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/28/us-iran-sanctions-un-idUSKBN0F300H20140628
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37859#.VSHhL3XN_PE
[/quote]
So you have no objections to the technical specifications of the framework for a final agreement? The issue of trust is less salient than critics of the deal contend, as there is an inherent paucity of trust in the international political system. I’m well aware of Iranian intransigence under its international legal obligations; specifically, those created by several United Nations Security Council Resolutions issued under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
Obama emphasized that any accord was not contingent on trusting the Iranians or a change in their controversial tactics.
"Even for somebody who believes, as I suspect Prime Minister Netanyahu believes, that there is no difference between Rouhani and the supreme leader and theyÃ?¢??re all adamantly anti-West and anti-Israel and perennial liars and cheaters - even if you believed all that, this still would be the right thing to do,Ã?¢?? he said. “It would still be the best option for us to protect ourselves. In fact, you could argue that if they are implacably opposed to us, all the more reason for us to want to have a deal in which we know what they are doing and that, for a long period of time, we can prevent them from having a nuclear weapon.”
The technical obligations of a final agreement would increase Iran’s breakout time from 2-3 months as it stands presently to over a year. The international community would have 400-600% more time to respond to an Iranian sprint to enrich enough fissile material for a bomb. How is maintaining the tenuous status quo of an Iran perpetually on the nuclear threshold superior to a final deal? Iran’s accession to the IAEA Additional Protocol will be permanent, and increased inspection and monitoring measures will ensure an Iranian nuclear program that is more transparent and limited than it has been for many years.[/quote]
Anybody miss the fact that the break out time for Iran has largely been thought to be a year or more as is? Now we’ve come to find out it’s 25% of that, and nobody seems to notice? WTF?
Bismark
In your humble opinion, does Iran sponsor terrorism?
[quote]pat wrote:
I have one major problem with the agreement, even if the Iranians stick with every single rule, it still ends in 15 years.[/quote]
No, it does not.
-Important inspections and transparency measures will continue well beyond 15 years. Iran’s adherence to the Additional Protocol of the IAEA is permanent, including its significant access and transparency obligations. The robust inspections of Iran’s uranium supply chain will last for 25 years.
-Even after the period of the most stringent limitations on Iran’s nuclear program, Iran will remain a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits Iran’s development or acquisition of nuclear weapons and requires IAEA safeguards on its nuclear program.
[quote]pat wrote:
After which they will be as much a part of the nuclear proliferation treaty as the US, Russia, China, etc. I.E. they will be free to do what they want.[/quote]
You haven’t read or have fundamental misunderstandings of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The five permanent members of the UN Security Council constitute the de jure nuclear weapon states. Their obligations under international law differ from those of the non-nuclear weapon states, Iran included. As I pointed out above, a final agreement will not abrogate Iran’s treaty obligations under the following two articles.
Article II
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transfer or whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
Article III
[quote]pat wrote:
I do not like that they are allowed to keep all their centrifuges, I do not like that they get to keep every nuclear capability they currently have, yet they ‘promise’ to keep the U-235 yield low.[/quote]
Again, I encourage you to read the actual text of the JCPOA.
Enrichment
Iran has agreed to reduce by approximately two-thirds its installed centrifuges. Iran will go from having about 19,000 installed today to 6,104 installed under the deal, with only 5,060 of these enriching uranium for 10 years. All 6,104 centrifuges will be IR-1s, Iran’s first-generation centrifuge.
Iran has agreed to not enrich uranium over 3.67 percent for at least 15 years.
Iran has agreed to reduce its current stockpile of about 10,000 kg of low-enriched uranium (LEU) to 300 kg of 3.67 percent LEU for 15 years.
All excess centrifuges and enrichment infrastructure will be placed in IAEA monitored storage and will be used only as replacements for operating centrifuges and equipment.
Iran has agreed to not build any new facilities for the purpose of enriching uranium for 15 years.
Iran’s breakout timeline - the time that it would take for Iran to acquire enough fissile material for one weapon is currently assessed to be 2 to 3 months. That timeline will be extended to at least one year, for a duration of at least ten years, under this framework.
Iran will convert its facility at Fordow so that it is no longer used to enrich uranium
Iran has agreed to not enrich uranium at its Fordow facility for at least 15 years.
Iran has agreed to convert its Fordow facility so that it is used for peaceful purposes only - into a nuclear, physics, technology, research center.
Iran has agreed to not conduct research and development associated with uranium enrichment at Fordow for 15 years.
Iran will not have any fissile material at Fordow for 15 years.
Almost two-thirds of Fordow’s centrifuges and infrastructure will be removed. The remaining centrifuges will not enrich uranium. All centrifuges and related infrastructure will be placed under IAEA monitoring.
Iran will only enrich uranium at the Natanz facility, with only 5,060 IR-1 first-generation centrifuges for ten years.
Iran has agreed to only enrich uranium using its first generation (IR-1 models) centrifuges at Natanz for ten years, removing its more advanced centrifuges.
Iran will remove the 1,000 IR-2M centrifuges currently installed at Natanz and place them in IAEA monitored storage for ten years.
Iran will not use its IR-2, IR-4, IR-5, IR-6, or IR-8 models to produce enriched uranium for at least ten years. Iran will engage in limited research and development with its advanced centrifuges, according to a schedule and parameters which have been agreed to by the P5+1.
For ten years, enrichment and enrichment research and development will be limited to ensure a breakout timeline of at least 1 year. Beyond 10 years, Iran will abide by its enrichment and enrichment R&D plan submitted to the IAEA, and pursuant to the JCPOA, under the Additional Protocol resulting in certain limitations on enrichment capacity.
Iran’s time to breakout will increase by 400-600%. Increased inspections and transparency measures will make the prospect of an Iranian breakout or sneak-out much less likely to be successful. Everyone who desires preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state should be for a final agreement.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Bismark
In your humble opinion, does Iran sponsor terrorism?[/quote]
Iran gives Hezbollah $60-100 million annually, and Hamas $5 million. Both organizations are listed on the State Department’s foreign terrorist organization list, and both meet the criteria for terrorist classification. So the answer to your question is yes, both groups are de jure and de facto terrorist organizations. Do I believe that a nuclear Iran will pass on a bomb to one of its beneficiaries? No, and there is no evidence to the contrary. The theoretical argument is among the weakest I’ve seen. I believe that Iran desires nuclear weapons capability to establish deterrence vis-a-vis the West, and in particular, the United States. Note that nuclear capability - characterized by the possession of the materials, expertise and technical capacity to make a nuclear bomb at will -is not the same as being a nuclear weapon state.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Bismark
In your humble opinion, does Iran sponsor terrorism?[/quote]
Iran gives Hezbollah $60-100 million annually, and Hamas $5 million. Both organizations are listed on the State Department’s foreign terrorist organization list, and both meet the criteria for terrorist classification. So the answer to your question is yes, both groups are de jure and de facto terrorist organizations. Do I believe that a nuclear Iran will pass on a bomb to one of its beneficiaries? No, and there is no evidence to the contrary. The theoretical argument is among the weakest I’ve seen. I believe that Iran desires nuclear weapons capability to establish deterrence vis-a-vis the West, and in particular, the United States. Note that nuclear capability - characterized by the possession of the materials, expertise and technical capacity to make a nuclear bomb at will -is not the same as being a nuclear weapon state.[/quote]
Well, color me stupid, but I have to ask: if Iran is a STATE SPONSOR OF TERRORISM, then why THE FUCK… I mean, WHY THE MUTHER FUCK… is that god damned communist piece of shit in the white house talking about cutting sanctions?
Why is he TALKING to them AT ALL?
They are paying money to organizations that KILL PEOPLE. People who happen to be OUR ALLIES. People who happen to be OUR SOLDIERS.
If terrorists are our enemy, and the definition of TREASON is giving aid and comfort to our enemy, how is President Obama not guilty of TREASON if he lowers sanctions on Iran, a KNOWN sponsor of terror?
Riddle me that?
I mean, I’m not talking out of my ass here… Our President is openly courting a known terrorist state, while at the same time, openly (or barely beneath the surface) alienating our allies.
Surely any intelligent person with two eyes can see this…
So what is it about President Obama that gives him a pass for such FAILURES in leadership and blatant incompetence and downright treasonous behavior?
WHY THE FUCK IS THAT ASSHOLE TALKING TO TERRORISTS?
We should be KILLING terrorists, not talking to them.
There aren’t many shades of grey on this. Either you GIVE MONEY TO TERRORISTS, or you DO NOT give money to terrorists. Iran gives money to terrorists, ergo, THEY ARE FUCKING TERRORISTS!!!
We like to kill terrorists, but we want to give Iran a way out? And give them A NUCLEAR BOMB IN THE PROCESS? Does not compute…
Like I said, color me stupid - I’m just an ex felon without a high school diploma, you are the expert. But has all your book learning thrown your common fucking sense to the wind?