26
   

Iran nuclear deal signed in Geneva

 
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2015 04:39 pm
@Lordyaswas,
Quote:
I also think that the major risk points to all this is when elections or changes at the top happen, including the USA.

Iran does not really need to trade with the US. As long as Europe, Russia and China keep trading with them, any sanction by the US will be a loss to the US, and not so much to Iran.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2015 04:41 pm
@engineer,
My feelings entirely!
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2015 05:09 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Look at George Bush's great achievements


Look at David Cameron and Gordon Brown, they handed your country over to Islam. And Bush did not create ISIS, Mohammad and his bullshit did.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  6  
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2015 05:59 pm
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

I'm sure you said the same thing when Bill Clinton signed his nuke deal with North Korea.

I probably would have. That agreement set the N. Koreans back a full decade in their bomb development. Too bad Bush couldn't open the relationship further. The reality is that there was nothing else you could do with N. Korea. Can't bomb them, can't sanction them. You can cast all the stones you want but you can't propose a better solution. We've done better working the Chinese than we ever did on our own. Now the Chinese know we can negotiate with someone we don't like without shooting them. Maybe there is some hope China will help us out even more.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2015 07:17 am
@Lordyaswas,
So far in the US election polls, Hillary holds steady over everyone else. Hopefully that will continue to be the case. She has indicted she will stand by the deal.

Hillary supports Iran deal

Even if the House and Senate in the US vote against the deal, I doubt they will have enough votes to overturn a veto.

Quote:
WASHINGTON — Before Congress had even begun its official review, Republican leaders vowed Tuesday to kill President Obama’s nuclear accord with Iran, setting up a fierce fight to save the president’s signature diplomatic achievement.

Congress will have 60 days to review the deal, once all documents have been sent to the Capitol, after which it can pass a resolution of approval, pass one of disapproval or do nothing. Mr. Obama would veto a resolution of disapproval, and the opponents could derail the agreement only if they could rally the required two-thirds vote of Congress to override his action.





source
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2015 11:56 am
@revelette2,
Quote:
She has indicted she will stand by the deal.



(meant to say indicated)
0 Replies
 
foundednotlost
 
  3  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2015 12:52 pm
@revelette2,
Quote:

Even if the House and Senate in the US vote against the deal, I doubt they will have enough votes to overturn a veto.


I'm predisposed to agree with you, Revelette. With such concentrated heated noise emanating from Congress implying they're going to vote down the "Iran Nuclear Deal," I, too, doubt they will arrive at enough votes to override Obama's veto. I think Obama, in the end, will prevail and it's not just my wishing fervently he does succeed but the practical winds of change that's blowing. Putin is for it as most European leaders are. Even Saudi Arabia has calmed down some, saying Inspectors must keep constant vigilance on Iran. Still we have to listen to two months of negative rhetoric stemming from Congress which could bore one to tears.
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2015 12:53 pm
Quote:
J.R. Salzman
‏@jrsalzman

This shrapnel is from my amputated arm & came from the Iranian IED that almost killed me. Should I mail it back now?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJ7W8xhUwAALAqA.jpg

J.R. Salzman @jrsalzman

Wow. The Obama crowd was scolding me for not being grateful for the Iran deal that removed sanctions from the country that tried to kill me.
10:25 PM - 14 Jul 2015


https://twitter.com/jrsalzman/status/621170143905734656
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2015 01:00 pm
@foundednotlost,
Quote:
Even Saudi Arabia has calmed down some, saying Inspectors must keep constant vigilance on Iran.


Quote:
Saudi Arabia is Also Trashing Obama's Iran Deal


Quote:
In private, however, Saudi officials fear an Iran released from international pressure and economic sanctions will have more freedom and money to back allies across the region who are opposed by Riyadh.

A Saudi official on Tuesday told Reuters he feared the agreement would make the Middle East more dangerous if it gave too many concessions to an Iranian government that Riyadh blames for turmoil in Yemen, Syria and Iraq.


Quote:
They stopped trusting the U.S. when Obama drew the red-line in Syria and then punted.


http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2015/07/saudi-arabia-is-also-trashing-obamas.html
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2015 01:59 pm
Quote:
Iranian President Rohani In Address To The Iranian Nation Following The Announcement Of The Iran-P5+1 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action: The Superpowers Have Recognized A Nuclear Iran

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/8663.htm

Quote:
Iran's Four Goals Have Been Achieved

"In the negotiations, we aspired to achieve four goals: The first was to continue the nuclear capabilities, the nuclear technology, and even the nuclear activity. The second was to remove the mistaken, oppressive, and inhuman sanctions. The third was to remove the Security Council resolutions that we see as illegitimate. The fourth was to remove the nuclear dossier from Chapter VII of the UN Charter and the Security Council in general. All four goals have been achieved today with the agreement and the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action. Of course, as we know, the extraordinary efforts by diplomats, legal experts, economists, and nuclear scientists continued throughout these past 23 months, in order to oversee these red lines so that we could achieve our goals."

The West's Demands vs Iran's Achievements In The Agreement

Over 6,000 Centrifuges

"At the start of the negotiations, the other side would tell us that during the period of restrictions – which today is set at eight years – Iran could have only 100 centrifuges. After many deliberations, they arrived at 1,000. Because of great opposition [on our part], they said 4,000 and that this would not change. Today, the agreement is carried out under conditions that state that [Iran] will retain over 6,000 centrifuges, over 5,000 of which will be at Natanz and over 1,000 at Fordo. All centrifuges at Natanz will continue to enrich [uranium]."

Eight Years Of Restrictions

"They said, 'The period of your restrictions will be 20 years, in addition to 25 years.' Later they said '20 years and 10 years.' Then they said: 'Last word – 20 years, and we will not capitulate any more.' But in the final days of the negotiations, they went down to eight years."


Oh yeah, a Hell of a deal.
parados
 
  5  
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2015 05:13 pm
@coldjoint,
I guess you didn't bother to read the rest of the deal.

Iran currently has 14,800 kg of low enriched uranium, enough to make about 8 warheads if they were to process it it further. Under the deal they will reduce that to 300kg and are never to have more than 300kg at any one time.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1651/


If Iran were to renege on the deal after they give up their low enriched uranium, it would take them 1 year to achieve enough enriched uranium for one bomb.

http://www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/articles-reports/irans-nuclear-timetable





You keep on not thinking, Pinkie. It's what you are good at.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2015 07:29 pm
@parados,
Quote:
300kg and are never to have more than 300kg at any one time.


Good luck with that.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2015 08:25 pm
@coldjoint,
What do you think inspections are for?

They can't get more without using centrifuges which are under IAEA continuous monitoring. The Iranians also agreed to 25 year monitoring of their uranium ore.

But you keep not thinking, Pinkie. It's what you are good at.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2015 08:38 pm
@parados,
Quote:
What do you think inspections are for?

Quote:
The Nuclear Deal Gives Iran License to Resist Inspections

Looks like inspections are for Iran to approve according to Section Q.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/421166/iran-nuclear-deal-resist-inspection
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2015 08:42 pm
Quote:
But what if Iran doesn’t comply with the commission’s requests within three days? Alas, that is a mystery. Section Q ends with the pronouncement that Iran will implement such measures. However, there is a “Dispute Resolution Mechanism” described in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the main body of the deal. This process requires another 50 days — the precise length is difficult to discern from the text, since it involves three separate levels of evaluation. So in practice, Iran may be looking at a minimum of two and a half months before they have to do anything. And what if the inspectors are still left out in the cold? Then the only option left for the U.S. (or the U.K. or France) is to go to the UN Security Council and try to blow up the entire deal, in accordance with the “snapback” provisions of the deal. Would this president risk blowing up the entire deal because Iran refused access to one suspicious site? That is highly doubtful. Instead, as it has in the past, Iran may keep pushing, inch by inch, until it has carved out a growing space for non-compliance, since the U.S. has no reasonable means to bring it back into line.

No access, no worry. Be happy.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/421166/iran-nuclear-deal-resist-inspection
parados
 
  4  
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2015 08:57 pm
@coldjoint,
Gosh. You keep not thinking, Pinkie. It's what you are good at.

Section Q 79 gives the power to the joint commission if Iran and the IAEA can't come to an agreement on inspection of a site not listed. But you wouldn't know that because you can't think for yourself.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2015 09:03 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Iran and the IAEA can't come to an agreement on inspection of a site not listed.


I said that. The point is the time they have to cover their asses. And now you have the opportunity to again tell me what I do best.


parados
 
  4  
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2015 09:11 pm
@coldjoint,
Wow. Someone at the National Review needs to take a class in reading comprehension. Paragraph 36 does not give Iran 50 days to refuse access to a suspicious site. It gives Iran a 50 day process to complain that any of the EU+5 group isn't holding up their obligations under the deal. The EU+5 obligations have nothing to do with what sites Iran has to let inspectors visit. For instance if Trump were to become President and refuse to lift sanctions as required under the agreement, then Iran could start the process by lodging a complaint and after 50 days if it is voted on that the US has failed to live up to it's obligations then Iran could pull out of the agreement. Because the US would be the party failing to live up the agreement, other countries would not be obligated to put sanctions in place again.

But you keep not thinking, Pinkie. It's what you are so good at.


If the IAEA requests access to a site and is refused, there is nothing to prevent the IAEA from monitoring activity outside the site. It's not like Iran can put centrifuges on invisible magic carpets to fly them out of that site. In fact, that would be the normal procedure to monitor the exterior of such a site until access is granted.

I would suggest you read the full text of the deal yourself Pinkie, but I know that is beyond your capabilities. You have to have someone else do your thinking for you so just keep not thinking, Pinkie. It's what you are good at.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2015 09:14 pm
THe thing that both Obama and the Iranians understand is that we are leaving the region. THis deal reflects that. Since we are not going to go to war over Iran Nukes this is a pretty decent deal from what I have seen so far. THe R's need to get it through their heads that America is a failed superpower. So far they have not.
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2015 09:14 pm
@parados,
Quote:
have someone else do your thinking for you so just keep not thinking,

Irony.
 

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 0.03 seconds on 01/25/2021 at 02:23:57