Iran

[Fozzz 152]

Ahmari is fucking garbage.

[Caracara 41]

10 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Sohrab Ahmari is a former WSJ columnist who writes for Commentary magazine. He is also a fellow Iranian-American who is a must read, especially involving Iran. I leave you with this excellent piece that he has written.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/iran/obama-killed-his-own-iran-deal/

Quote

Iran can unilaterally deny international observers access to military sites, and it can shield an extensive trove of technical knowledge related to its nuclear program from inspectors. It can import tons of low-enriched uranium, manufacture nuclear fuel, test nuclear-capable delivery vehicles, and restart its centrifuges and develop a stockpile of fissionable material within weeks rather than a year. None of this is a violation of the terms of the JCPOA and its annexes.

sounds like a terrible deal

[Hank Kingsley 21598]

12 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Sohrab Ahmari is a former WSJ columnist who writes for Commentary magazine. He is also a fellow Iranian-American who is a must read, especially involving Iran. I leave you with this excellent piece that he has written.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/iran/obama-killed-his-own-iran-deal/

Did you actually read it?  It's just a short hit piece on Obama with absolutely zero substance. Could have been written by Joe fucking Plumber and you'd never know the difference. 

 

[David Dennison 19441]

4 minutes ago, Caracara said:

sounds like a terrible deal

It was working, even according to Mike Pompeo.

But we flaked because our president is a child, thereby losing all credibility with friends and enemies alike, and all but guaranteeing that Iran will start developing nuclear weapons again.

 

[Caracara 41]

Just now, David Dennison said:

It was working, even according to Mike Pompeo.

But we flaked because our president is a child, thereby losing all credibility with friends and enemies alike, and all but guaranteeing that Iran will start developing nuclear weapons again.

 

Quote

Iran can unilaterally deny international observers access to military sites, and it can shield an extensive trove of technical knowledge related to its nuclear program from inspectors. It can import tons of low-enriched uranium, manufacture nuclear fuel, test nuclear-capable delivery vehicles, and restart its centrifuges and develop a stockpile of fissionable material within weeks rather than a year. None of this is a violation of the terms of the JCPOA and its annexes.

It still reads like an awful deal that people could claim was working due to an inability to verify, right up to the point it didn't. 

[wildcat09 29557]

7 minutes ago, Caracara said:

sounds like a terrible deal

See, this is the danger of not having any idea of what things mean but being certain that you do. You read that Iran can have low-enriched uranium and think that's an indictment of the nuclear deal, because you don't understand that nuclear weapons require highly enriched uranium. Things like this would be valuable to know when negotiating a nuclear deal. Pompeo fucked up Kim Jong Un's surname, and Trump is functionally illiterate. But you trust this band of grifter idiots to do a better job than Obama's team did with the JCPOA.

In other news, I have some wonderful oceanfront property in Arizona for sale that can be yours if you act today! 

[David Dennison 19441]

1 minute ago, Caracara said:

It still reads like an awful deal that people could claim was working due to an inability to verify, right up to the point it didn't. 

 

Now we can't do a thing. At least we had IAEA inspectors on the ground. 

[BabaYaga 15532]

11 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It was working, even according to Mike Pompeo.

But we flaked because our president is a child, thereby losing all credibility with friends and enemies alike, and all but guaranteeing that Iran will start developing nuclear weapons again.

 

Yeah, no

"U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says the Iranian documents obtained by Israel show that Iran lied about its pursuit of nuclear weapons and its deception undercuts the international nuclear deal it signed in 2015."

 

Quote

 

11 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

 

 

 

Quote

 

 

 

Edited May 9, 2018 by BabaYaga

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Caracara 41]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

See, this is the danger of not having any idea of what things mean but being certain that you do. You read that Iran can have low-enriched uranium and think that's an indictment of the nuclear deal, because you don't understand that nuclear weapons require highly enriched uranium. Things like this would be valuable to know when negotiating a nuclear deal. Pompeo fucked up Kim Jong Un's surname, and Trump is functionally illiterate. But you trust this band of grifter idiots to do a better job than Obama's team did with the JCPOA.

In other news, I have some wonderful oceanfront property in Arizona for sale that can be yours if you act today! 

Your unshakeable belief that Trump is stupid, and that all his advisors are stupid, and he's just stumbling along, writing up ideas on napkins, never gets old. 

[DixonHur 11941]

31 minutes ago, Caracara said:

De Facto theocracies and cult countries don't get nukes. That's a sound policy.

Too late, we already have them.

[wildcat09 29557]

Just now, Caracara said:

Your unshakeable belief that Trump is stupid, and that all his advisors are stupid, and he's just stumbling along, writing up ideas on napkins, never gets old. 

You can have this oceanfront property in Arizona for $500,000.00 but you've got to sign in the next ten minutes! Do we have a deal?

[BabaYaga 15532]

13 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

 

Now we can't do a thing. At least we had IAEA inspectors on the ground. 

Doing what?  Inspecting after a month's delay on certain areas Iran deems necessary while being denied from others?  This is absurd.  Who can then "report" back what exactly?  In the limited area we were allowed to verify, we didn't find anything?  Which Iran can then flaunt as "proof"?  Give me a break.  And if there are hints of malfeasance, under the terms they cannot go through the international community, but directly through Iran - just to even make the claims.  Who then, after months of deliberations and stalling, must "agree" to inspections.  They don't have to.  There are even provisions where the soil sampled must come from the Iranians. 

 

Then after all that, assuming they are caught red-handed, Iran retains the right to simply exit the deal.  Of course with hundreds of billions and any progress made to that point.  Then what?

[DixonHur 11941]

15 minutes ago, Caracara said:

It still reads like an awful deal that people could claim was working due to an inability to verify, right up to the point it didn't. 

Do you know what heavy water is?  We don't need access to the military sites to know if they're enriching Uranium.  I swear, it's like no one in the entire GOP ever took a science class.

[Caracara 41]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

You can have this oceanfront property in Arizona for $500,000.00 but you've got to sign in the next ten minutes! Do we have a deal?

I'll be snapping up cheap land in North Korea thanks.

[DixonHur 11941]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

You can have this oceanfront property in Arizona for $500,000.00 but you've got to sign in the next ten minutes! Do we have a deal?

My interest is piqued, tell me more.  Is it on the Atlantic or Pacific side?

[wildcat09 29557]

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Doing what?  Inspecting after a month's delay on certain areas Iran deems necessary while being denied from others?  This is absurd.  Who can then "report" back what exactly?  In the limited area we were allowed to verify, we didn't find anything?  Which Iran can then flaunt as "proof"?  Give me a break.  And if there are hints of malfeasance, under the terms they cannot go through the international community, but directly through Iran - just to even make the claims.  Who then, after months of deliberations and stalling, must "agree" to inspections.  They don't have to.  There are even provisions where the soil sampled must come from the Iranians. 

 

Then after all that, assuming they are caught red-handed, Iran retains the right to simply exit the deal.  Of course with hundreds of billions and any progress made to that point.  Then what?

Do you what a half-life is?

[sheeeit 129]

19 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

See, this is the danger of not having any idea of what things mean but being certain that you do. You read that Iran can have low-enriched uranium and think that's an indictment of the nuclear deal, because you don't understand that nuclear weapons require highly enriched uranium. Things like this would be valuable to know when negotiating a nuclear deal. Pompeo fucked up Kim Jong Un's surname, and Trump is functionally illiterate. But you trust this band of grifter idiots to do a better job than Obama's team did with the JCPOA.

In other news, I have some wonderful oceanfront property in Arizona for sale that can be yours if you act today! 

The irony of this post is spectacular.  Calling someone out for not understanding something and then posting something that you clearly have no understanding of.  How do you think low-enriched uranium becomes highly enriched genius?   

[Anastasis 23699]

 

Just now, sheeeit said:

The irony of this post is spectacular.  Calling someone out for not understanding something and then posting something that you clearly have no understanding of.  How do you think low-enriched uranium becomes highly enriched genius?   

Let me try, let me try.  It's the same process as making low enriched uranium, but is easier. 

Edited May 9, 2018 by Anastasis

[kevwun 16269]

A bunch of concerned guys stare at it until it becomes highly enriched.

Edited May 9, 2018 by kevwun

[sheeeit 129]

23 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

 

Now we can't do a thing. At least we had IAEA inspectors on the ground. 

I have also like reading about this line of thinking.  Yesterday we had inspectors on the ground that Iran obviously knew about so people asked about the sites that were not eligible to be inspected and the retort was we will know from our IC.  Today, we, apparently, have no inspectors on the ground, but, even more amazing, our IC can longer do anything apparently.  Yesterday our IC was so good that it did not matter that we did not have access to certain sites.  Today, our IC is so bad that they we have no way of knowing anything at all.  

[David Dennison 19441]

14 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Doing what?  Inspecting after a month's delay on certain areas Iran deems necessary while being denied from others?  This is absurd.  Who can then "report" back what exactly?  In the limited area we were allowed to verify, we didn't find anything?  Which Iran can then flaunt as "proof"?  Give me a break.  And if there are hints of malfeasance, under the terms they cannot go through the international community, but directly through Iran - just to even make the claims.  Who then, after months of deliberations and stalling, must "agree" to inspections.  They don't have to.  There are even provisions where the soil sampled must come from the Iranians. 

 

Then after all that, assuming they are caught red-handed, Iran retains the right to simply exit the deal.  Of course with hundreds of billions and any progress made to that point.  Then what?

We're going to find out.

Sucks that our dimwit president didn't realize he could try to negotiate a better deal without throwing a temper tantrum and pissing off our closest allies. 

[DixonHur 11941]

6 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

How do you think low-enriched uranium becomes highly enriched genius?   

By getting a Cabinet post in the Trump administration?

[BabaYaga 15532]

Guess we're not even going to bring up these opaque side deals that were never mentioned when Rhodes was first tasked with "selling" this craptastic deal to the public.  The ones the previous administration refused to ever disclose, even to members of Congress upon request. 

 

Quote

Side deals exposed

 

[David Dennison 19441]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

Guess we're not even going to bring up these opaque side deals that were never mentioned when Rhodes was first tasked with "selling" this craptastic deal to the public.  The ones the previous administration refused to ever disclose, even to members of Congress upon request. 

 

 

Marc Theissen, huh?

Seems legit.

[Anastasis 23699]

Just now, David Dennison said:

We're going to find out.

Sucks that our dimwit president didn't realize he could try to negotiate a better deal without throwing a temper tantrum and pissing off our closest allies. 

I think that a big part of the problem is that Trump is feeling emboldened with the "success" of his approach to NK, so he wants to got all Trump on Iran as well. I don't think this one is going to work quite the same way. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Trump will do what his handlers tell him.

[BabaYaga 15532]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

We're going to find out.

Sucks that our dimwit president didn't realize he could try to negotiate a better deal without throwing a temper tantrum and pissing off our closest allies. 

Why on God's green earth would Iran negotiate tougher sanctions on themselves?  The inspections are all but toothless.  They essentially get to inspect themselves.  To the point of being able to provide the soil the inspectors get to inspect? 

 

They receive hundreds of billions.  The missiles are off limits completely.  Snap-back sanctions take a unanimous decision that could take months if not years to arbitrate.  And even then, if they are guilty, they can simply exit the deal - as they were able to write this in the language of the treaty.   The re-imposition of sanctions as written by Iran frees them completely from all commitments and restrictions. 

 

Moreover, there is a key commitment in the agreement that signatories are prohibited from "re-introducing or re-imposing the sanctions" and, later in the text, are banned from "imposing discriminatory regulatory and procedural requirements in lieu of the sanctions and restrictive measures covered by the [agreement].  So how exactly are we strengthening this?

[BabaYaga 15532]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Marc Theissen, huh?

Seems legit.

Quote

Quote

Side deals - try reading vs attacking the source and dismissing for once

 

 

[JBJ 3780]

15 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Our deal didn't effect the reactors supplied by Russia and China.  And the Chinese facility does it's own enrichment.  Parchin (a military explosives testing facility for nuclear-grade weaponry) isn't affected, which Iran has already denied access to for U.N. inspectors.

The U.S.-supplied reactor in Tehran and UN-operated facilities in Bonab aren't affected, but we already have oversight there.

The deal affected Fordow, which wasn't even supposed to exist under the 2003 deal - built underground but discovered by our intelligence agencies. 

And it affects Nantaz, which also isn't supposed to exist, but was discovered by anti-government media groups before Iran technically was required to disclose it.

[DixonHur 11941]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I think that a big part of the problem is that Trump is feeling emboldened with the "success" of his approach to NK, so he wants to got all Trump on Iran as well. I don't think this one is going to work quite the same way. 

By success, I assume you mean closing the barn door after the cows got out?

Just in case you've forgotten, NK recently completed testing of their nuke capable ICBMs.  And now as a reward for developing nukes, Trump is going to lift their sanctions?  Sounds like a win win for Kim.

 

[David Dennison 19441]

3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Why on God's green earth would Iran negotiate tougher sanctions on themselves?  The inspections are all but toothless.  They essentially get to inspect themselves.  To the point of being able to provide the soil the inspectors get to inspect? 

 

They receive hundreds of billions.  The missiles are off limits completely.  Snap-back sanctions take a unanimous decision that could take months if not years to arbitrate.  And even then, if they are guilty, they can simply exit the deal - as they were able to write this in the language of the treaty.   The re-imposition of sanctions as written by Iran frees them completely from all commitments and restrictions. 

 

Moreover, there is a key commitment in the agreement that signatories are prohibited from "re-introducing or re-imposing the sanctions" and, later in the text, are banned from "imposing discriminatory regulatory and procedural requirements in lieu of the sanctions and restrictive measures covered by the [agreement].  So how exactly are we strengthening this?

So let's flake and free them to do whatever they want.

Bold strategy, Cotton.

[DixonHur 11941]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

So let's flake and free them to do whatever they want.

Bold strategy, Cotton.

Exactly, playing hide and seek with one eye is hard, so I'll close them both...that should help.

[BabaYaga 15532]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So let's flake and free them to do whatever they want.

Bold strategy, Cotton.

Funny how in the 2012 debates Obama lauded how effective and drastic the sanctions imposed on Iran were working.  How those sanctions are what brought Iran to the table.

Then he trotted out his legacy-fulfilling shit sandwich of a deal that was never ratified.  Filled with holes.  Denigrated by Dems and GOP'ers alike.  Lied about.  Rife with side deals we still haven't seen the text and terms of.....but we have to stay in it....

Yeah, bold strategy indeed.  So was Obama lying before about the effectiveness  of the sanctions on top of the lies we know about when he and Rhodes set out to use the media and sell if the American people?

[JBJ 3780]

43 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Do you know what heavy water is?  We don't need access to the military sites to know if they're enriching Uranium.  I swear, it's like no one in the entire GOP ever took a science class.

LEU reactors don't use heavy water.  Neither did the Manhattan Project or Chernobyl for that matter.

And further for that matter none of Iran's Uranium facilities use heavy water, but the deal did stop one that was under construction.

Edited May 9, 2018 by JBJ

[Bat Guano 363]

For the sake of argument let's assume all the criticisms of the deal as it stood until yesterday are valid (I don't know that that's the case; there are arguments on both sides). That still leaves the question of what replaces the deal. In other words, how does exiting the deal improve our position? We are now negotiating from a much weaker position than we were when the deal was made, so there's no way in hell we can come close to that deal, much less improve it. For those of you saying the withdrawal was a good move, what is the next step? Baba, JBJ, Iconoclast - what say you?

Edited May 9, 2018 by Bat Guano

[relapse98 634]

9 minutes ago, JBJ said:

LEU reactors don't use heavy water.  Neither did the Manhattan Project or Chernobyl for that matter.

And further for that matter none of Iran's Uranium facilities use heavy water, but they are building one.

You mean other than the actual first heavy water reactor in the world that was created by the...

 

wait for it...

 

Manhattan Project?

 

 

[kevwun 16269]

I believe John McCain once sang a song about what's next.

[JBJ 3780]

4 minutes ago, relapse98 said:

You mean other than the actual first heavy water reactor in the world that was created by the...

 

wait for it...

 

Manhattan Project?

 

 

Maybe after the bomb was already developed.  The old reactors (Hayward?) used graphite.

Edited May 9, 2018 by JBJ

[BabaYaga 15532]

5 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

For the sake of argument let's assume all the criticisms of the deal as it stood until yesterday are valid (I don't know that that's the case; there are arguments on both sides). That still leaves the question of what replaces the deal. In other words, how does exiting the deal improve our position? We are now negotiating from a much weaker position than we were when the deal was made, so there's no way in hell we can come close to that deal, much less improve it. For those of you saying the withdrawal was a good move, what is the next step? Baba, JBJ, Iconoclast - what say you?

The deal only "mothballed" Iran's nuclear ambition for 15 years. That's assuming they comply with both the spirit and letter of the deal. What Israel achieved with their intelligence coup shows Iran not only has not complied with the spirit of the deal but never had any intention of complying with the letter of the deal.

So you want to continue with a deal that you know the other side has, is and will continue to cheat? That is sheer lunacy.

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

Live Mike Baker former covert operations officer explains why the Iran deal was bogus.

Never realized, the billion dollar cash drops were for inspections of the civilian facilities, not even the military ones.

What a fucking joke.

 

[relapse98 634]

 

Just now, JBJ said:

Maybe after the bomb.  All the old reactors used graphite.

Again, negative. Hiroshima was August 6, 1945.

The first heavy water reactor, CP-3, went critical May 15, 1944. So before the bomb and was only the 2nd reactor (CP-1 when moved and rebuilt became CP-3).

[BabaYaga 15532]

Then there's this little piece of irony:

March 9, 2015: Senator Tom Cotton and 46 other senators sign an open letter to the Parliament of Iran. The letter warns that any deal reached without legislative approval could be revised by the next president “with the stroke of a pen.”

[sheeeit 129]

2 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

For the sake of argument let's assume all the criticisms of the deal as it stood until yesterday are true (I don't know that that's the case; there are arguments on both sides). That still leaves the question of what replaces the deal. In other words, how does exiting the deal improve our position? We are now negotiating from a much weaker position than we were when the deal was made, so there's no way in hell we can come close to that deal, much less improve it. For those of you saying the withdrawal was a good move, what is the next step?

It depends on what happens.  The US puts sanctions back on Iran.  We have little to no trade with Iran so it does not mean much by itself.  But maybe other countries will have to decide if they want to stay in the good graces of the US or Iran?  It is a complex thing.  I am not saying it is a good strategy or the right strategy, but the US has tremendous power to influence others.  

Plus, Israel is still the wild card.  IMO (and it is only an opinion) I think the leaders of Iran are scared to death of Israel.  They will never, ever admit that, but I believe that it is true.  I also believe that the leaders of the rest of the world do not want Israel bombing Iran facilities.  The deal that was done put Israel in a tough spot as they could not really do anything to Iran after the deal was put in place.  By the US dropping out, Israel becomes a wild card once again.  

It is possible that those 2 things will force the rest of the world to renegotiate a deal with Iran that has actual teeth.  Again, just an opinion.

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

7 minutes ago, kevwun said:

I believe John McCain once sang a song about what's next.

 

Ole Mccain and his neocon warmongers LOVE THE BEACH BOYS folks!

[JBJ 3780]

2 minutes ago, relapse98 said:

 

Again, negative. Hiroshima was August 6, 1945.

The first heavy water reactor, CP-3, went critical May 15, 1944. So before the bomb and was only the 2nd reactor (CP-1 when moved and rebuilt became CP-3).

I'll accept after the bomb was developed, but before it was dropped.  The point still being that both us and Russia developed nuclear weaponry without heavy water, and that Iran's path forward doesn't require heavy water.

Edited May 9, 2018 by JBJ

[Lagunamadre 1975]

1 hour ago, Caracara said:

Now out come the tinfoil hats. Obama and Colbert never verified their involvement.   There's been a bit of a coup in SA in the last year. Look into it.

De Facto theocracies and cult countries don't get nukes. That's a sound policy.

It's not a conspiracy that 15 of the 9/11 hijackers and their leader Bin Laden were Wahabis from Saudi. The Wahabi indoctrination is still alive and well in Saudi schools. 

[wildcat09 29557]

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

The deal only "mothballed" Iran's nuclear ambition for 15 years. That's assuming they comply with both the spirit and letter of the deal. What Israel achieved with their intelligence coup shows Iran not only has not complied with the spirit of the deal but never had any intention of complying with the letter of the deal.

So you want to continue with a deal that you know the other side has, is and will continue to cheat? That is sheer lunacy.

...showing that Iran had a nuclear program before it entered into a deal limiting its nuclear program does not indicate what you think it indicates. 

[kevwun 16269]

6 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Maybe after the bomb was already developed.  The old reactors (Hayward?) used graphite.

Nope, the US had 3 active heavy water plants during the Manhattan Project.

[relapse98 634]

2 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Nope, the US had 3 active heavy water plants during the Manhattan Project.

Forget it. Its like arguing facts with someone that yells Fake News. Doesn't know anything about the actual manhattan project, but will swear they only had graphite reactors.