26
   

Iran nuclear deal signed in Geneva

 
 
Olivier5
 
  3  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2015 04:09 pm
@woiyo,
You mean that the US intent was to liberate the Afghans and Iraqis from odious regimes, right?

That may be your point of vue, but I doubt the Iranians see it this way.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2015 04:13 pm
@woiyo,
woiyo wrote:

Our ATTACK was not for "defensive" purposes either.


It was to make Dick Cheney's chums at Halliburton a lot richer.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2015 04:15 pm
From Wikipedia.

Quote:
The Normandy landings (codenamed Operation Neptune) were the landing operations on 6 June 1944 (termed D-Day) of the Allied invasion of Normandy in Operation Overlord during World War II.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy_landings
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2015 02:24 am
This is half the battle.

Quote:
US allies in the Gulf have backed the nuclear deal with Iran, after the US promised them better intelligence-sharing and faster arms transfers.

Qatari Foreign Minister Khalid al-Attiya said the Iran deal represented the best option for regional stability.

He was speaking after talks with visiting US Secretary of State John Kerry, who is trying to win support for the deal in the Sunni-dominated Gulf.

Gulf states accuse Shia Iran of stoking unrest in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33758939
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2015 04:15 pm
@izzythepush,
Screw this crap. I have stock in the military industrial complex. I want war, not a nuclear treaty. How can I make any money with peace treaties all over the place?
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Aug, 2015 09:32 am
Obama: Iran vote most important intl. debate since Iraq war

0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Aug, 2015 04:28 pm
today for the first time i think it possible that this deal does not get approved. if that happens this will be another Obama failure caused by him being a lazy arrogant prick. He never did the political ground work. AGAIN. He charts a course and then tells everyone " I am smarter than you and this is what we need to do, rubber stamp my plan" ....and in this case "do it or else!".

If washington can not approve a plan that it lead the drawing of then we are going to lose a ton of respect around the world. I dont think most people have realized before now just how fucked up Washington is. Are ability to lead on anything will be great diminished. It is as if we are begging China to take over, that we are saying to everyone that we dont want to be a superpower anymore.
izzythepush
 
  5  
Reply Fri 7 Aug, 2015 05:28 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
If washington can not approve a plan that it lead the drawing of then we are going to lose a ton of respect around the world.


Are you sure? America had hardly any respect when George Bush left office, and now you're saying it's got at least a ton.

You have to hand it to Obama.

0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Aug, 2015 05:49 pm
@hawkeye10,
By all accounts he is really doing the political ground work, pressing the flesh, pushing hard. I don't think there is any chance of failure. He already looks veto proof in the Senate and is pretty close in the House as well. I don't think there is any way this fails, but time will tell. I also think everyone knew Schumer was in the pocket of AIPAC so his announcement was no surprise. I will be interested to hear Clinton and Sanders speak. Sanders is supporting the deal (after a call from the President) and Clinton, well supported by AIPAC in the past is behind it as well.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Aug, 2015 06:28 pm
@engineer,
Obama started telling Congresscritters "pass it or else" less than a month ago. Had he done things correctly, had he made an effort, he would have been working congress on this two years ago, or whenever it was he decided to try for a deal. and "pass it or else" is about as drive as it gets in the attempt to line up support .
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Aug, 2015 06:33 pm
@hawkeye10,
That's one way to look at it, but he didn't have a deal to push two years ago and he certainly was pushing for the last six months as the deal was starting to take shape. That is about the same time opponents were resisting any deal sight unseen. I have seen several articles about how Obama is doing it differently this time. You might be reading an old script here.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Aug, 2015 06:56 pm
@engineer,
April 15

Quote:
President Barack Obama and his top aides began the job of selling the outline nuclear agreement with Iran

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-03/obama-lobbies-for-iran-deal-as-u-s-assures-on-sanctions

And to make matters worse when the deal was about done Obama talked all around the world about this deal, trying to sell this deal, while he ignored the people in America who need to support if it is to happen. This would not normally be a problem, but with Obama's long record of being a prick, of thinking that he does not need to lower himself enough to even speak to the people on the hill (of either party) much less work with them, the optics here were always going to drive thing a bad direction. But The Professor never got it or did not care, which is very hard to know. Was he suffering from poor judgment again or was he being a prick again, or both? We probably need to wait for the book to come out before we know. Given the number of books from insiders that we have already seen trying to drive a blade through Obama's legacy we shant have to wait long I think.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sat 8 Aug, 2015 04:17 am
@hawkeye10,
The World wants this, the ordinary Iranians want this and so do the ordinary Americans. Opposed are a bunch of hardline Conservatives, (American and Iranian) who want the people to be more frightened because they're easier to manipulate.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2015 07:04 am
US scientists write the President a letter supporting the agreement.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2015 07:25 am
Chuck Schumer Opposes Iran Nuclear Deal, Shaking Democratic Firewall]

The Story Behind Chuck Schumer’s Opposition To The Iran Deal
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Mon 10 Aug, 2015 12:51 pm
@revelette2,
Chuck Schumer’s Disingenuous Iran Deal Argument

"The good senator from New York may be voting his conscience, but he’s got the facts all wrong. "

Quote:
Consider how Schumer describes the inspections regime in the Iran deal.

Schumer starts by repeating the claim that “inspections are not ‘anywhere, anytime’; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling.” This would be very troubling if it were true. It isn’t. The claim that inspections occur with a 24-day delay is the equivalent of Obamacare “death panels.” Remember those? A minor detail has been twisted into a bizarre caricature and repeated over and over until it becomes “true.”

Let’s get this straight. The agreement calls for continuous monitoring at all of Iran’s declared sites — that means all of the time — including centrifuge workshops, which are not safeguarded anywhere else in the world. Inspectors have immediate access to these sites.

That leaves the problem of possible undeclared sites. What happens when the International Atomic Energy Agency suspects that prohibited work is occurring at an undeclared site? This is the problem known as the “Ayatollah’s toilet.” It emerged from the challenge of inspecting presidential palaces in Iraq in the 1990s, which — despite the U.N. Special Commission’s demands for immediate access — the Iraqis argued were off-limits.

Far from giving Iran 24 days, the IAEA will need to give only 24 hours’ notice before showing up at a suspicious site to take samples. Access could even be requested with as little as two hours’ notice, something that will be much more feasible now that Iran has agreed to let inspectors stay in-country for the long term. Iran is obligated to provide the IAEA access to all such sites — including, if it comes down to it, the Ayatollah’s porcelain throne.

But that’s not all. The Iran deal has a further safeguard for inspections at undeclared sites, the very provision that Schumer and other opponents are twisting. What happens if Iran tries to stall and refuses to provide access, on whatever grounds? There is a strict time limit on stalling. Iran must provide access within two weeks. If Iran refuses, the Joint Commission set up under the deal must decide within seven days whether to force access. Following a majority vote in the Joint Commission — where the United States and its allies constitute a majority bloc — Iran has three days to comply. If it doesn’t, it’s openly violating the deal, which would be grounds for the swift return of the international sanctions regime, known colloquially as the “snap back.”

This arrangement is much, much stronger than the normal safeguards agreement, which requires prompt access in theory but does not place time limits on dickering.

What opponents of the deal have done is add up all the time limits and claim that inspections will occur only after a 24-day pause. This is simply not true. Should the U.S. intelligence community catch the Iranians red-handed, it might be that the Iranians would drag things out as long as possible. But in such a case, the game would be over. Either the Iranians would never let the inspectors into the site, or its efforts to truck out documents or equipment, wash down the site, or bulldoze buildings, etc., would be highly visible. These tactics would crater the deal, with predictable consequences. (Schumer also takes a shot at the snap back. Say what you will about the probability of getting all parties to agree to reimpose sanctions, but agreements like this have never had such an enforcement provision before.)
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Aug, 2015 09:42 am
Saw this, thought I'd post it here.

Quote:
The furore over the killing by a US dentist of Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe has thrown a spotlight on trophy hunting - but while Africa is commonly associated with the sport, American enthusiasts are finding another popular hunting destination - the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Every year, Iran's Environment Protection Agency issues about 500 licences to foreign visitors to hunt rare and protected breeds.

Many of these hunters come from the US, despite the absence of diplomatic relations and a state of tension between the two countries for the past 35 years.

They have been heading there since the US Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (Ofac) made it legal for US agencies to book hunting tours to Iran more than a decade ago.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33818391
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Aug, 2015 10:08 am
@engineer,
I am hoping enough democrats manage to stick together so they will be able keep the senate from overriding the veto. I think in the end, they will, but there is a chance they might not.

Apparently Schumer was leaned on pretty hard, along with some Senators who live in areas where there are either a lot of Jewish voters or Jewish campaign donors.
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Tue 11 Aug, 2015 11:07 am
@revelette2,
Schumer is not doing all he could against the deal by a long shot. It looks like he caved to his interests when he was confident that the Democrats could hold the line on the veto.
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 11 Aug, 2015 11:26 am
@engineer,
Caved to his interests or doing as his constitutes elected him to do, represent them and their ideals. Politicians are not in place to do as they like, they are there to do the work of the people who elected them. They certainly aren't there to do the work of the people who voted for the other guy.
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/10/2021 at 04:34:11