Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » "Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last" (Page 13)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  ...  10  11  12  13   
Author Topic: "Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last"
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So as part of the deal we get to:
* take all their highly enriched uranium
* monitor all of their known centrifuges
* monitor the uranium mines
* monitor factories that make centrifuges
* inspect all known nuclear sites
and you think they will be closer to a bomb because they may try to rebuild their nuclear program from scratch at military facilities. I really don't see how you get to that conclusion.

Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Couldn't (wouldn't) they label some of their facilities as military? Why start from scratch?
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Presumably we (and the other 5 nations negotiating with Iran) would not allow that sort of bait and switch about known nuclear facilities.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Without any understanding on how hard it is to hide a nuclear facility in the first place, I can't properly express how silly that sounds.

If they had an unknown facility, they could then shield it by calling it a military facility.

In their shoes, I can't see letting inspectors have free reign of the entire country but in our shoes, anything short of that seems equally unacceptable...

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If they had an unknown facility, they could then shield it by calling it a military facility.
Then it wouldn't be unknown anymore, and we could probably call them on having a previously undeclared facility. (As well as it being a matter of time before our intelligence sources manage to sort out whether or not it's something to be concerned about)

[ May 04, 2015, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The intelligence question is the biggest part. How much do we NEED even a limited look inside with these inspectors?

That question drives a lot of the negotiation. You can be more lax if you feel confident you can "catch them cheating" either way. You must take what you can get when you are opperating totally in the dark.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tehran swaps 'death to America' billboards for Picasso and Matisse
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So now that my prediction has in fact been shown true, that the Administration would call this a treaty by another name and claim they don't need Congressional support, are any of the those that accused me of spewing untrue Republican propaganda going to come out and admit they were wrong? Or - another prediction here - are you just going to claim that this is a completely different situation and perfectly legitimate (now that you've had a chance to read the liberal talking points on it).
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Who were those people, Seriati?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What did the arrangement contain that would have required a treaty to implement?

Also, what falls outside of the bounds of what Congress explicitly acknowledged he had the authority to negotiate when they passed authorization for him to make and agreement and set the rules that they'd use to review and approve or reject it?

The claim was, as you note, that he'd make a Treaty, but then implement it without sending it to Congress. As it stands, it appears that he has both not made a Treaty, and that he has obtained preemptive, if conditional, Congressional approval for it.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Tehran swaps 'death to America' billboards for Picasso and Matisse

Thsnk you, KB. Good catch.

"But the pieces have been gathering dust in the basement of the museum for more than 30 years. Censors in Iran classed some as un-Islamic, pornographic or “too gay”, and they have never been shown in public"

I'm just astonished the Islamists held onto *original warhol* pieces for half a century. Go figure.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DW, the thing about nuclear facilities is that a secret reactor is nothing without the support infrastructure. Not only would they need to hide centrifuges and reactors but also a uranium mine, personnel, and supply to chain to keep it running. Otherwise, we'd going to find out about it when uranium, personnel, or spare centrifuge parts disappear from the known sites.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not sure what you are responding to NH. The difficulty of hiding question?

(if so) My point stands. Our confidence in our ability to "find out" was likely key in our negotiation.

Or am I missing something?

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mostly this comment:
quote:
If they had an unknown facility, they could then shield it by calling it a military facility.
So even if they shielded a facility, it probably won't do them much good in keeping their program a secret. If adhered to, the agreement would give us a high degree of certainty of finding out. Unless they managed to build a whole new program from scratch from mining uranium on up.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First: I haven't read anything about the agreement past what was posted here or listened to what made a good soundbite on the news.

But if, hypothetically the negotiators agreed to give military facilities a pass, then you label what you want to hide as military and hand over a list of anything legit you will let them see.

If you are confident you already KNOW all military facilities and any new ones popping up would be suspicious. If they DID want to hide anything, they have time to do so in advance.

This may have no bearing on the actual agreement but the way it was presented here, didn't make sense to me. The only reason you agree to letting them call places "off limits" is because we feel we can either already spot them fibbing or will gain the ability to catch them with a foot in the door OR any additional information is worth it in return for lifting sanctions.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But if, hypothetically the negotiators agreed to give military facilities a pass, then you label what you want to hide as military and hand over a list of anything legit you will let them see.
Except the "no military facilities" was not a condition of the agreement, but rather political rhetoric in Iran external to the negotiation process. The reality, as I understand it, is that they've agreed to sign onto a UN inspection protocol which happens to include relevant military facility access. So while there's no explicit "you can inspect our bases" in the agreement (technical domestic accuracy to take home to the people) de facto access has actually been granted by nature of joining the preexisting arrangement.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Which alings more to what I expected to happen. Thanks for the clarification.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg,

"I will acknowledge that I find the result depressing.

Jewish, democratic, and current borders - Israel can only have two of those three characteristics. I have never even seen an argument why all three are possible. Instead, there is inciting fear and hatred as a smokescreen to hide the inevitable. noel c, how do you see this playing out? By 2025 when the majority of human beings living West of the Jordan River are not Jews, would you have the Muslims ethnically cleansed, would you have most of them living within Israel but not eligible to vote, what's your plan? "...

I see Israel retaining democracy, and it's *Jewishness* in an isolation of non-voting "Palestinian refugee" enclaves within Israel proper for the distant foreseeable future. Barry has made this possible by uniting the most unlikely of allies... Israel, and Saudi Arabia, which is now threatened by a nuclear Iran.

Now that the Saudis are soliciting nuclear capability from Korea (and Pakistan) are you just a little disturbed by the sudden ubiquity of "peaceful nuclear programs" in this geographic sea of oil?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-nuclear-deal-raises-stakes-for-iran-talks-1426117583

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
... Israel will strike Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Noel, an Israel ruling over a separate population of resident aliens will lose its Jewishness, or rather, extremist and intolerant streams of Judaism will come to dominate Israel.


Can you see the signs of that beginning to occur?

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No Greg,

Problems associated with the minority ethnic-Arab Israeli citizenry are entirely distinct from the "Palestinian" issue, and have more to do with relative birth rates than political brinksmanship. If Jewish Israelis choose to suppress their population growth, then the numbers alone will dictate the future of Israel.

What I see in the present is an impoverished population of Arabs living in self-governed settlements under the Palestinian Authority, walled off from desirable water supplies, and trade routes. With the rise of ISIL they are forgotten as a useful propaganda tool for the actuization of Islamic homogeneity in the region, and with the nuclearization of Iran even ISIL becomes ultimately irrelevant.

That is why Saudi Arabia has put us on notice that their partnership with the U.S. is under reconsideration.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Twenty-nine of the nation’s top scientists — including Nobel laureates, veteran makers of nuclear arms and former White House science advisers — wrote to President Obama on Saturday to praise the Iran deal, calling it innovative and has “more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated nonproliferation framework.”
LINK
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:


That is why Saudi Arabia has put us on notice that their partnership with the U.S. is under reconsideration.

I gave that a quick search whirl and found this:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-02/saudi-arabia-leaving-us-behind-russia

That is a queer development indeed considering Russia's historical and continued partnership with Iran. WTF

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Saudi Arabia is currently hurting Russia more than any other country is hurting Russia, by driving down oil prices.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Saudi Arabia is currently hurting Russia more than any other country is hurting Russia, by driving down oil prices.

Not so much.
quote:
Saudi Arabia's finance ministry, seeking to cut waste as state revenues shrink because of low oil prices, is telling government bodies to return unspent money which they were allocated in this year's budget, sources familiar with the policy told Reuters.
Oh, and Iran launched a long-ranged ballistic missile which they're forbidden to do even by the terms of Obama's weak ass deal with them.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This, I take it, is the upteenth out of the last 2 or 3 actual things we should be terrified about? Should we be worried that they are testing Ebola warheads or packing ISIS fighters in the saddlebags?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There are "strong indications" that Iran violated U.N. Security Council resolutions related to ballistic missiles when it test fired a new missile, the White House said Tuesday .
White House press secretary Josh Earnest said that when it comes to Iran's ballistic missile program, "unfortunately, that's not new."

"We have seen Iran almost serially violate the international community's concerns about their ballistic missile program," Earnest said.

Republicans were right, deal didn't last. Only took about 6 months to prove them right.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, to clarify: we're worried about ballistic missiles and not nuclear development at the moment, right?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  ...  10  11  12  13   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1