Iran nuclear deal signed in Geneva

@coldjoint,

coldjoint wrote:

[ A joint commission votes on access if ]
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.

No, Pinkie you said this...

Quote:

I
Looks like inspections are for Iran to approve according to Section Q.

Iran can agree to inspections and if they don't then it goes to a commission. That means Iran doesn't have the final approval.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

Just keep on not thinking, Pinkie. It is what you do best.

(You might want to check the definition of irony before you use the word.)

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

(You might want to check the definition of irony before you use the word.)

You might want to check why you accuse people of doing what you do.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

THe thing that both Obama and the Iranians understand is that we are leaving the region.

So you can provide details of the proposed closure of the two US military bases in Bahrain. I can't, in fact all the news points to a permanent British base on the island, which would indicate an even greater Western presence in the region.

Really, anything that's from a legitimate news source and not the product of your fevered imagination will suffice.

0 Replies

@coldjoint,

Quote:

This shrapnel is from my amputated arm & came from the Iranian IED that almost killed me. Should I mail it back now?

Invading countries implies certain risks to your health.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

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.

America is not a failed superpower. The Republicans are correct to reject any such thinking.

We are very much willing to go to war over Iranian nukes. Had this deal not been reached, Mr. Obama would have ordered the bombing of Iran's illegal nuclear sites.

0 Replies

@coldjoint,

Unintentional irony on your part?

Just keep not thinking, Pinkie. It's what you're good at.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Iran can agree to inspections and if they don't then it goes to a commission. That means Iran doesn't have the final approval.

Going to a commission is not 24/7 inspections. It could take over 3 weeks, 24 days for inspectors to get access to a site. Imagine what can be shutdown and hidden in 3 weeks. What if after 3 weeks they do not want to grant access to a site?

3 Replies

@Olivier5,

We didn't invade Iran did we? I wonder how those Iranian weapons got to Iraq? Oh that's right, Iran sold them to the insurgents and terrorists.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

They gave them to the Iraqi people so they could defend themselves against invaders. The war was illegal, you should never have been there, (and neither should we). Saddam had no WMDs, the invasion was based on lies.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Going to a commission is not 24/7 inspections. It could take over 3 weeks, 24 days for inspectors to get access to a site. Imagine what can be shutdown and hidden in 3 weeks. What if after 3 weeks they do not want to grant access to a site?

Those words sound pretty hollow when one remembers Hans Blix asking for more time to carry out inspections and being refused by George Bush.

0 Replies

Quote:

Furthermore, the compromise suggests that inspector access to even military sites with a strongly suspected past connection to nuclear weaponization — even Parchin, which at one point may have been one of Iran's key nuclear facilities — won't be absolute.

Kind of leaves you with the idea that Iran is in control. No matter what the spinners say..
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-iran-deal-still-didnt-deal-with-these-2-huge-issues-2015-7#ixzz3gATRDoM9

0 Replies

Quote:

Is Iran Treaty In Accordance With Shari’ah?

Read more at http://politichicks.com/2015/07/is-iran-treaty-in-accordance-with-shariah/

Something to keep in my since Iran is a theocracy. They play by different rules.

And we should make it clear to the American public what Islamists believe and why. We can count the bodies to see they are acting on those beliefs.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

What if after 3 weeks they do not want to grant access to a site?

In that case, we will be forced to draw another red line in the sand.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

We didn't invade Iran did we? I wonder how those Iranian weapons got to Iraq? Oh that's right, Iran sold them to the insurgents and terrorists.

And the US never provided any weapons to any insurgents?

A terrorist is someone who tries to spread terror among innocent civilians. Someone who attack invading soldiers is not a terrorist, unless you think the marines were terrified little pussies being attacked for no reason...

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Baldimo is cut from the same cloth as the Iranians who constantly talk about the MI5/CIA coup that overthrew a democratically elected government and installed an autocratic Shah.

There's enough **** on both sides.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

overthrew a democratically elected government

Overthrew a prime minister that had been elected by Parliament, a guy who was in power for two and half years, spending much of it acting under emergency powers because he felt that democracy was too slow to get the required work done.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
overthrew a democratically elected government

Overthrew a prime minister that had been elected by Parliament, a guy who was in power for two and half years, spending much of it acting under emergency powers because he felt that democracy was too slow to get the required work done.

Emergency powers that were dully sanctioned by the parliament. But the way Mossadegh ruled Iran was neither here not there. He was about to nationalize the oil industry, something the UK/US could not let happen.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote:
overthrew a democratically elected government

Overthrew a prime minister that had been elected by Parliament, a guy who was in power for two and half years, spending much of it acting under emergency powers because he felt that democracy was too slow to get the required work done.

Emergency powers that were dully sanctioned by the parliament. But the way Mossadegh ruled Iran was neither here not there. He was about to nationalize the oil industry, something the UK/US could not let happen.

It should be remembered that the overthrow of Mosaddegh was carried out by the same clerics who rule Iran today. The US and UK played only a small role in the coup.

The UK did indeed have a legitimate complaint about the oil industry however. Mosaddegh was little more than a common thief.

The US wasn't interested in Mosaddegh's oil thievery. We just went along with the coup because, since it was going to happen regardless, we'd best go along with it.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

The Iranians don't see it that way, and it's their country.

Our prime minister is elected by parliament. Presidential elections aren't more democratic than parliamentary systems, they're just different.

Regardless of what emergency powers he may have been using the reason he was deposed was because he was going to use Iran's oil to benefit Iran, not Western oil interests.

In many ways it was just like the illegal invasion of Iraq, the West pretending it's to help the people, but it's just about oil.

0 Replies

Iran nuclear deal signed in Geneva

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know