Nuclear Deal with Iran

[masterblaster72 0]

Obama thinks this is the best diplomatic achievement of his career. He also thinks a deal -- no matter how shitty -- is better than no deal at all.

A brief summary:

-- from 19k centrifuges to 5k
-- reduce 98% of stockpile of low-enriched uranium
-- if Iran reneges, it would take at least a year to build one bomb
-- all economic sanctions removed in 2016
-- UN arms and missile embargo/sanctions remain for 5/8 years respectively, though both could end early at discretion of IAEA
-- no anytime/anywhere inspections
-- 15 year limit to these restrictions; no requirement to abandon its nuclear ambitions for decades

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[lawrocket 3]

Now if we could only build some nuke plants of our own.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

A plan is better than no plan.
A deal that is not perfect, is better than no deal at all. Perfect is the enemy of good.
A reduction in the possibility of nuclear weapons grade material in the Middle East is a good thing.

Is it perfect? No.
Is it the best deal we could get? Probably.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jclalor 12]

lawrocket

Now if we could only build some nuke plants of our own.

I think it's just a little bit easier for Iran, nimbyism isn't so much a problem.

[Driver1 0]

jclalor

***Now if we could only build some nuke plants of our own.

I think it's just a little bit easier for Iran, nimbyism isn't so much a problem.

It's not so much nimbyism as it is the cost and length of time it takes to build one.

There will be no addressing the customers as "Bitches", "Morons" or "Retards"!

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

-- no anytime/anywhere inspections

While I generally think the rest of the deal is... something I can live with, this is the part of the deal that does concern me.

From a BBC article summarizing the key points:

Quote

As part of their investigation into the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear programme, IAEA inspectors will also be able to request visits to military sites. However, access is not guaranteed and could be delayed. Iran will have the right to challenge the IAEA request and an arbitration panel will then decide on the issue.

Seems to me that a "right" to verification, without the absolute right to snap, anytime/anywhere inspections - without advance notice, delay or appeal - is weak at best.
This particular treaty will have to be ratified by the US Congress. More than any other issue, the verification issue is one that runs the risk of peeling-off valuable Democratic votes over to the expected GOP opposition.

[quade 4]

Andy9o8

This particular treaty will have to be ratified by the US Congress.

Only 2/3 of the Senate; right?

So, at least the more grown-up part.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andy9o8 2]

quade

***This particular treaty will have to be ratified by the US Congress.

Only 2/3 of the Senate; right?

So, at least the more grown-up part.

Actually, not in this instance since, apparently, it doesn't qualify as an official treaty (so maybe I stand corrected and should have used the word "agreement" instead). In this instance it appears that it will be subject to a majority-only vote of both houses of Congress. My (quick!) source:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/14/heres-how-congress-could-kill-or-preserve-iran-nuclear-deal/

[Anvilbrother 0]

A shit deal if it includes a provision that hog ties any inspections.

But anvilbrother they can inspect, they just have to ask ahead of time and can't show up unannounced......

Only a fool would think they are not going to stall at the request of inspections to cover up things.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[masterblaster72 0]

Fully agree. Without required on-demand inspections, the deal has no teeth and allows Iran to weasel their way through this deal while reaping the benefits of lifted sanctions.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[lawrocket 3]

masterblaster72

Fully agree. Without required on-demand inspections, the deal has no teeth and allows Iran to weasel their way through this deal while reaping the benefits of lifted sanctions.

True. It's a deal for which there is no confirmation plan. Which means it isn't a deal.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[gowlerk 2,190]

Quote

Only a fool would think they are not going to stall at the request of inspections to cover up things.

They haven't done a very good job of covering up in the past. With the technology available to the inspectors, and the NSA watching I doubt they can hide very much. This is something Kerry and the the USA can't talk about, but it's why they have confidence in the monitoring.

Bringing Persia back into the world community is important to containing the Sunni Arab threat posed by ISIS types. It could be the beginning of the unraveling of the damage done fifty years ago when the CIA and US policy supported the Shah over those who wanted to modernize. There is potential danger here, but there is also tremendous opportunity. The re-balancing of power in this region is going to happen. The best the western world can hope for is to steer it. We can't control it any longer.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[JerryBaumchen 1,362]

Hi master,

Quote

Obama . . . also thinks a deal -- no matter how shitty -- is better than no deal at all.

Unless I read the paper wrong this morning, the US is/was not the only country in the negotiations with Iran.

This is not an Obama deal, it is an international deal.

It is US-deal in the sense, for us, Congress does have to approve it.

The other side of the deal is the lifting of sanctions against Iran.

We are not alone in the world,

Jerry Baumchen

[billvon 2,991]

>Seems to me that a "right" to verification, without the absolute right to snap,
>anytime/anywhere inspections - without advance notice, delay or appeal - is weak at
>best.

While I agree, it's not something that we would agree to, so we'd be somewhat hypocritical in demanding the same of others.

[Andy9o8 2]

billvon

>Seems to me that a "right" to verification, without the absolute right to snap,
>anytime/anywhere inspections - without advance notice, delay or appeal - is weak at
>best.

While I agree, it's not something that we would agree to, so we'd be somewhat hypocritical in demanding the same of others.

Well then, logically, that indicts the entire Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. And, I suppose it does. But that's really beside the point.

Principle aside, the unvarnished reality is that life isn't fair. Our side had the superior negotiating position.

[Elisha 1]

Questions for many of you of the political right leaning:

1) Do you really think Iran would be stupid enough to use nukes if they got them? How do we really know they just don't have them already?
2) How is NOT being hypocritical (of us the USA) to have sanctions on Iran due to supporting terrorism but trade with the Saudis? Doesn't SA also support

I don't get the Elephant rhetoric of how all hell will break loose by allowing Iran to get nukes and not SA and how Isreal will somehow just get vaporized. When a Muslim official declares that Isreal should not exist, what do you expect them to say? It's just political rhetoric/posturing.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Do you really think Iran would be stupid enough to use nukes if they got them?

(I'm not your target addressee, but): That misses the point. I mean, yes that's part of the point. Because if a nuclear-armed country destablizes sufficiently that a Taliban-level power gains control of the nuclear arsenal, then yes, they might be nuts enough to use them.

But the real point is not so much that Iran will use them, but that having them will allow them to use their nuclear arsenal as a shield behind which it can do even more serious damage with its mischief than it's been doing for the past 30 years. And that's what makes it truly dangerous; it provides Iran with greatly enhanced freedom of (mischievous) action. You see, it's a lot harder for the US, or NATO, or Israel, or whomever, to say to Iran, "You cross this line, we will fuck you up" if Iran has nuclear weapons than if it does not.

[Anvilbrother 0]

You don't give a country who chants death to America, death to Israel, and has down with America murials plastered on their buildings a nuke.

It's like giving a mental ward a loaded shotgun.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America

Quote

On March 21, 2015, Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei backed and shouted the phrase 'Death to America' while addressing a public gathering in Iran.[12][13][14]

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[billvon 2,991]

>You don't give a country who chants death to America, death to Israel, and has
>down with America murials plastered on their buildings a nuke.

No one has suggested giving them a nuke. What is on the table is what we can do to stop them from building or buying their own. This, at least, will slow them down.

[Andy9o8 2]

billvon

>You don't give a country who chants death to America, death to Israel, and has
>down with America murials plastered on their buildings a nuke.

No one has suggested giving them a nuke. What is on the table is what we can do to stop them from building or buying their own. This, at least, will slow them down.

As long as it can be timely verified.
Can it?

[lawrocket 3]

Andy9o8

***>You don't give a country who chants death to America, death to Israel, and has
>down with America murials plastered on their buildings a nuke.

No one has suggested giving them a nuke. What is on the table is what we can do to stop them from building or buying their own. This, at least, will slow them down.

As long as it can be timely verified.
Can it?


Sure it can. Just ask them.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Anvilbrother 0]

Just remember Baghdad bob is their new spokesperson.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/26650636.jpg

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[billvon 2,991]

>As long as it can be timely verified.
>Can it?

Sounds like it can be. Heck, the IAEA was successfully performing inspections of even Saddam Hussein's weapons programs, and would have been able to complete them within about a month had not the US feared the outcome of those inspections. And while our relationship with Iran is poor, it is better than it was with Hussein shortly before the invasion.

[masterblaster72 0]

lawrocket

******>You don't give a country who chants death to America, death to Israel, and has
>down with America murials plastered on their buildings a nuke.

No one has suggested giving them a nuke. What is on the table is what we can do to stop them from building or buying their own. This, at least, will slow them down.

As long as it can be timely verified.
Can it?


Sure it can. Just ask them.

lol.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[Andy9o8 2]

billvon

>As long as it can be timely verified.
>Can it?

Sounds like it can be.

Sounds to me like there's built-in delay, as I noted above.