PDA

View Full Version : NUCLEAR TREATY


lamboguy
07-14-2015, 07:40 AM
this is a joke and a real insult to not only all of us dumb asses but the rest of the world.

this is only a piece of paper that you can wipe your behind with. if one looks at history they will find that Pursians are pretty shifty when it comes down to promises.

there are 80 million Pursians in Iran, they have just out foxed the rest of the world.

my real question is that we were doing a pretty decent job with the sanction's and might have been on the trail of a pretty decent outcome with a possible revolution in Iran for a future date. why change things up in mid stream?

Tom
07-14-2015, 08:19 AM
Obama and Kerry - DAP Part Duex.

Robert Goren
07-14-2015, 08:48 AM
They have been part of a chemical weapons treaty for ten years and lived up to their end. The one thing I do not get. How anyone can think Iran would not get Nukes without this treaty is beyond me. Not signing the treaty will guarantee a Nuclear Iran. Besides we need Iran and their surrogates to fight ISIS. Their are only two real military Islamic powers in the Middle East, Iran and Sunni radical extremists who get their money from the Saudis. We have to pick one or the other. If you oppose this treaty, then you are siding with ISIS. That is the unpleasant reality whether anyone likes it or not. It is appears to me that ISIS is bigger threat to the US than Iran. Note: ISIS has been very careful not to carry out terrorist attacks in Israel. They are hoping Israel will block any deal with Iran. ISIS are the most evil people on the face of the Earth at present time, but does not mean they are stupid. They know that the United States can not defeat them without the help of a local ally. They also know that moderate the Sunnis that some people think we can partner with does not exist.

dartman51
07-14-2015, 09:05 AM
They have been part of a chemical weapons treaty for ten years and lived up to their end. The one thing I do not get. How anyone can think Iran would not get Nukes without this treaty is beyond me. Not signing the treaty will guarantee a Nuclear Iran. Besides we need Iran and their surrogates to fight ISIS. Their are only two real military Islamic powers in the Middle East, Iran and Sunni radical extremists who get their money from the Saudis. We have to pick one or the other. If you oppose this treaty, then you are siding with ISIS. That is the unpleasant reality whether anyone likes it or not. It is appears to me that ISIS is bigger threat to the US than Iran. Note: ISIS has been very careful not to carry out terrorist attacks in Israel. They are hoping Israel will block any deal with Iran. ISIS are the most evil people on the face of the Earth at present time, but does not mean they are stupid. They know that the United States can not defeat them without the help of a local ally. They also know that moderate the Sunnis that some people think we can partner with does not exist.


How do you know that they've lived up to their end of the deal? Have you been over there to inspect?? Because, we, or no one else have. Not to mention the fact that this current deal will do NOTHING to stop them from going nuclear. We have to give them a 14 day notice before we can inspect current sites, and they reserve the right to challenge. Just the fact that Obama and Kerry spent so much time trying to sell this to the American people, this morning, should give one pause. Then he has to warn Congress NOT to change anything or he would veto it. That tells ANYONE with a brain, that this is garbage, and he knows Congress isn't going to go for it. But, then Libs, like you, gobble every piece of shit that this POTUS shovels out. Why am I not surprised. :rolleyes:

Tom
07-14-2015, 09:14 AM
We do not need Iran for anything,
Iran can not be trusted on anything.
They are our enemy - and will never be anything else.

To trust Iran is just plain stupid.

If they want nukes, we should shower them in some of ours.

Clocker
07-14-2015, 09:18 AM
They have been part of a chemical weapons treaty for ten years and lived up to their end.

They have been cheating on the interim nuclear agreement while negotiating the final one. And Obama and Kerry knew it and didn't push it for fear of not getting an agreement.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/25/5-ways-iran-has-cheated-on-interim-nuclear-deal/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/12/double-dealing-iran-violating-nuclear-sanctions-even-as-talks-drag-on/

elysiantraveller
07-14-2015, 09:31 AM
This is not a deal. No one is getting what they really want here.

Iran views American military adventurism as a serious national security issue - not addressed.

Israel wants a tangible safeguard or barrier to a nuclear Iran - not given.

The US wants clear transparency on the Iranian program to maintain a clear balance of power in the region - not given.

I would go so far as to say this is a step in the WRONG direction as no one gets the assurances they sought. Also, going forward now all three sides have a useless piece of paper to negotiate around.

dartman51
07-14-2015, 09:51 AM
This is not a deal. No one is getting what they really want here.

Iran views American military adventurism as a serious national security issue - not addressed.

Israel wants a tangible safeguard or barrier to a nuclear Iran - not given.

The US wants clear transparency on the Iranian program to maintain a clear balance of power in the region - not given.

I would go so far as to say this is a step in the WRONG direction as no one gets the assurances they sought. Also, going forward now all three sides have a useless piece of paper to negotiate around.

Oh, but we're giving Iran $140 billion and NO ANYTIME, ANYWHERE inspections. That's gotta be a good deal, right??? :rolleyes:

iceknight
07-14-2015, 09:55 AM
Only one country has used nuclear weapons on civilian population in the entire planet. twice.

elysiantraveller
07-14-2015, 10:06 AM
Oh, but we're giving Iran $140 billion and NO ANYTIME, ANYWHERE inspections. That's gotta be a good deal, right??? :rolleyes:

:confused:

I agree with you. This is not a good deal for all parties included. Re-read my post.

Tom
07-14-2015, 10:11 AM
Only one country has used nuclear weapons on civilian population in the entire planet. twice.

Yes, we did.
On an animalistic nation that was waging war on everyone and was not about to stop. Cowardly bastards, the Japs got what they deserved, but nowhere near severe enough.

Many tens of thousand of American lives were saved and that is all that mattered. Had Japan ceased to exist, it would have been acceptable. Every Jap in the country was expendable. We should have hung the Emperor.

Notice both Germany and Japan - after near total annihilation never agian threaten the peace. You don't win wars through negotiation, you win them through annihilation. Lesson to be learned.

And after doing what had to be done, we never used them again.

And the threat of us doing so prevented others from using them as well.

OntheRail
07-14-2015, 11:04 AM
The World is NOT a safer place due to this agreement. Another weak link forged by the Oh-bum-ma Administration. God Help Us All.

TJDave
07-14-2015, 12:10 PM
Israel wants a tangible safeguard or barrier to a nuclear Iran - not given.

Israel was never a party to these negotiations. They have their own nuclear weapons. Lots of them.

Robert Fischer
07-14-2015, 12:38 PM
Most of the stuff we hear about nukes, nuke deals, wars, threats, etc... is completely propaganda.


We just have to kind of go with the flow. We have no other sane choice. We are the good guys. We've got to be safe from the bad guys. What the news says is what we should believe. Looking too deep at things like resources, incentives, etc... is actually counterproductive at this level. This is more like religion. Listen, learn the scripture, and have faith in it.

There's no sense in going beyond that. When in doubt read a major news source, preferably one aligned with our political party.

Tom
07-14-2015, 12:40 PM
Iran is an international sponsor of terrorism.
With all those billions were giving them that now make us the number one sponsor of terrorism.

And you guys laughed at me when I repeatedly called Obama a terrorist.
He has just cemented his legacy...as Osama's replacement.

Time for impeachment.

Tor Ekman
07-14-2015, 12:40 PM
What the news says is what we should believe.:lol::lol::lol: Seriously???

FantasticDan
07-14-2015, 12:52 PM
Time for impeachment.Pretty sure you were calling for that on 01/22/2009 :lol:

Maybe sick some of those animalistic Japs on him? :ThmbUp:

Marshall Bennett
07-14-2015, 01:07 PM
If it weren't for the unfreezing of billions of dollars of assets for Iran to play war with and assist allies, I'd say go with it. I believe letting their uranium enrichment to continue unchecked may be disastrous in a few years. Iran wants nothing more than to nuke Israel off the map as soon as possible. They've let this be known. Without any deal, even as bad as this one seems, it's all systems go for them.
Someone mentioned earlier an Iranian revolution. This would be utter bloodshed. This is the worse case scenario, one more place to send U.S. soldiers.
More factors are to be considered here than simply who the deal is better for.
Iran is an economic shit-hole with not near as much to lose as we do. Of course any deal would look better for them.
I don't think any deal is going to please the United States. This may be, for what its worth, as good as it gets though.
Billions in added assets for Iran is bothersome. Their continued enrichment of uranium going unchecked bothers me even more, however.

Tom
07-14-2015, 01:10 PM
Pretty sure you were calling for that on 01/22/2009 :lol:

Maybe sick some of those animalistic Japs on him? :ThmbUp:

You would call them noble warriors?

Robert Fischer
07-14-2015, 01:20 PM
:lol::lol::lol: Seriously???

Do you have a suggestion for an alternative?

At this level (nukes, war, major events, the good guys and the the bad guys, etc...) the news tells us what the truth is going to be.

What else can we do?

FantasticDan
07-14-2015, 01:26 PM
You would call them noble warriors?You sound like you bought the anti-Japanese propaganda campaigns of that time:

https://artifactsjournal.missouri.edu/2012/03/wwii-propaganda-the-influence-of-racism/

The Japanese people are not animalistic or sub-human, and their extermination would not have been "acceptable", as you describe it.

I'm not excusing any of the war crimes committed by their totalitarian military-controlled govt during WW2, but I'm also not going to paint the Japanese people with the same broad brush you do..

elysiantraveller
07-14-2015, 01:27 PM
Israel was never a party to these negotiations. They have their own nuclear weapons. Lots of them.

Of course they weren't but they are a driving concern in negotiations. The fact is a nuclear Iran poses about as much of a national security threat to the US as a non-nuclear one. It does, however, pose problems to our allies/interests in the region IE Israel.

elysiantraveller
07-14-2015, 01:36 PM
If it weren't for the unfreezing of billions of dollars of assets for Iran to play war with and assist allies, I'd say go with it. I believe letting their uranium enrichment to continue unchecked may be disastrous in a few years. Iran wants nothing more than to nuke Israel off the map as soon as possible. They've let this be known. Without any deal, even as bad as this one seems, it's all systems go for them.
Someone mentioned earlier an Iranian revolution. This would be utter bloodshed. This is the worse case scenario, one more place to send U.S. soldiers.
More factors are to be considered here than simply who the deal is better for.
Iran is an economic shit-hole with not near as much to lose as we do. Of course any deal would look better for them.
I don't think any deal is going to please the United States. This may be, for what its worth, as good as it gets though.
Billions in added assets for Iran is bothersome. Their continued enrichment of uranium going unchecked bothers me even more, however.

I basically agree with all of your analysis except the bolded part. There is no way Iran comes away from that scenario better off. Sure they threaten it but realistically the Iranian nuclear program is the only bargaining chip they have to play on the world stage.

Tom
07-14-2015, 01:42 PM
You sound like you bought the anti-Japanese propaganda campaigns of that time:

https://artifactsjournal.missouri.edu/2012/03/wwii-propaganda-the-influence-of-racism/

The Japanese people are not animalistic or sub-human, and their extermination would not have been "acceptable", as you describe it.

I'm not excusing any of the war crimes committed by their totalitarian military-controlled govt during WW2, but I'm also not going to paint the Japanese people with the same broad brush you do..

They supported the Emperor who supported the military.
Enough said.
When you go to war, be prepared to die.
I would have obliterated the entire island if it would have ended the war one day sooner.

Everyone on it was expendable.

And oh brother, do you libs EVER stop looking for racism?
How about the Germans - I think exactly the same way about all them white dudes that we bombed to hell, expendable. Not only white,. ARYAN WHITE DUDES!

I tend to think that way about anyone who sneak attacks us and murders our troops. I guess killing our troops is not high of the list of things that bother the left.

TJDave
07-14-2015, 01:44 PM
Of course they weren't but they are a driving concern in negotiations. The fact is a nuclear Iran poses about as much of a national security threat to the US as a non-nuclear one. It does, however, pose problems to our allies/interests in the region IE Israel.

So we negotiated with Iran out of concern for Israel?

LottaKash
07-14-2015, 01:50 PM
I'm not excusing any of the war crimes committed by their totalitarian military-controlled govt during WW2,

Yes you are...

You are wanting us to apologize for them trying to annihilate us...?

elysiantraveller
07-14-2015, 01:57 PM
So we negotiated with Iran out of concern for Israel?

Yes, and OPEC.

Clocker
07-14-2015, 03:29 PM
According to FARS, Iran's news agency, the Iranian president says that Iran achieved all of its goals in the new agreement, including maintaining its nuclear program.

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940423001264

Tom
07-14-2015, 03:48 PM
And.....DEATH TO AMERICA!

These are the people Obama deals with.
I think THEY should be wary of with whom they associate.

Marshall Bennett
07-14-2015, 03:51 PM
I basically agree with all of your analysis except the bolded part. There is no way Iran comes away from that scenario better off. Sure they threaten it but realistically the Iranian nuclear program is the only bargaining chip they have to play on the world stage.
Iranian leadership hates Israel with the up-most passion. Religious strong-arms there would die to waste Israel. If Iran had the capability, they'd use it on them. And it wouldn't take them long.
Netanyahu believes with this Nuclear deal and sanctions against Iran being lifted, that a more immediate threat to Israel exist. Allies of Iran will be financed and in a better position to harm Israel. A nuclear attack isn't Israel's only fear from enemies in the middle east.
The short term effects of this deal, while they certainly aren't in Israels best interest, I think they are in ours. It buys us time in dealing with Iran strategically for the next several years, and removes most of the threat of them developing a nuclear capabilities in the near future.
If the middle east explodes into complete mayhem, which it could, the last thing we want are nuclear weapons laying around for the taking by whoever.

TJDave
07-14-2015, 04:50 PM
Yes, and OPEC.

I doubt if Saudi Arabia or other gulf states think this a good deal.

Clocker
07-14-2015, 05:28 PM
I doubt if Saudi Arabia or other gulf states think this a good deal.

You don't think that Obama can parlay this into a new era of cooperation between the Sunnis and the Shiites? :rolleyes:

I have seen a lot of speculation over the last few months that any agreement even remotely this favorable to Iran was likely to push the Saudis to acquire nuke capability.

elysiantraveller
07-14-2015, 06:04 PM
I doubt if Saudi Arabia or other gulf states think this a good deal.

I don't think anyone thinks it's a good deal. It's simply an agreement for all party's to save face after a lengthy and failed round of talks.

elysiantraveller
07-14-2015, 06:14 PM
Iranian leadership hates Israel with the up-most passion. Religious strong-arms there would die to waste Israel. If Iran had the capability, they'd use it on them. And it wouldn't take them long.

I simply refuse to believe this. It makes absolutely zero sense. First of all if that were the case why even bother attending the negotiations? Secondly, that would require first strike ability which this agreement puts out even further. People in power tend to want to stay in power not commit suicide.

Iran is a country that has been ostracized and kicked around for decades by the international community. Wanting a nuclear deterrent is a logical answer to their security concerns, chiefly American domination of the region. Their nuclear program and its threat, either real or perceived, is really the only bargaining chip they have with the international community.

elysiantraveller
07-14-2015, 06:18 PM
According to FARS, Iran's news agency, the Iranian president says that Iran achieved all of its goals in the new agreement, including maintaining its nuclear program.

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940423001264

Obama said the same thing to the American people today about this great victory...

Politicians just politiking.

No one thinks this any sort of meaningful agreement. Everyone went to the store hoping to pick up some shoes and came back with socks.

TJDave
07-14-2015, 06:34 PM
I simply refuse to believe this. It makes absolutely zero sense. First of all if that were the case why even bother attending the negotiations? Secondly, that would require first strike ability which this agreement puts out even further. People in power tend to want to stay in power not commit suicide.

I agree. They will do it the old fashioned way. With billions unfrozen and increased oil sales Hezbollah and Hamas will get a windfall. That is Israel's real threat.

Tall One
07-14-2015, 06:44 PM
Only one country has used nuclear weapons on civilian population in the entire planet. twice.


And what brought it on? Suicide kamikaze pilots destroying US Navy personnel and citizens alike.

Clocker
07-14-2015, 06:47 PM
Obama said the same thing to the American people today about this great victory...

Politicians just politiking.
.

Iran is getting the sanctions lifted and keeping their nuclear program. People in Iran are literally dancing in the streets.

We are getting a highly watered down inspection program that will likely make it impossible to prevent cheating. Obama is lying by omission about that. We have moved the "red line" at least a dozen times over the last few months while Iran kept asking for, and getting, more and more concessions.

elysiantraveller
07-14-2015, 06:51 PM
I agree. They will do it the old fashioned way. With billions unfrozen and increased oil sales Hezbollah and Hamas will get a windfall. That is Israel's real threat.

Absolutely! Let the proxies fight it out. Vastly preferable scenario than the global superpower and a regional superpower slugging it out.

elysiantraveller
07-14-2015, 06:57 PM
Iran is getting the sanctions lifted and keeping their nuclear program. People in Iran are literally dancing in the streets.

Iran's nuclear energy program has never been a target of foreign concern. Forcing them to abandon it has never been a plank of our foreign policy agenda under any administration. They aren't even close to the same thing.

JustRalph
07-14-2015, 07:10 PM
There's a rattle snake living outside my back door. He agrees not to bite me.

There's still a rattle snake outside my back door no matter how much I tout our agreement

woodtoo
07-14-2015, 07:11 PM
Obama says " Inspectors will have 24/7 access to Iran's nuclear facilities"

Fact - if Iran objects a Joint Commission would have 7 day to advice on a way
forward. They would then bicker for a month.

Susan Rice went on PBS to back up Obama, very similar to Benghazi. :bang:

Marshall Bennett
07-14-2015, 07:25 PM
Iran's objective, one they've orchestrated quite well so far, is to build a nuclear weapon of mass destruction. They're number one objective beyond is to annihilate Israel.
I lived in the middle east growing up when my dad was in the oilfield. I know first hand the intense hatred these people have for Israel. The passion runs much deeper than most realize. This hasn't changed over the years.
Choose a country there, it doesn't matter. The mindset is the same with regards to Israel. They hate their guts and want to be rid of them.
I stand by my earlier post 100%.

Clocker
07-14-2015, 07:32 PM
Obama says " Inspectors will have 24/7 access to Iran's nuclear facilities"

Fact - if Iran objects a Joint Commission would have 7 day to advice on a way
forward. They would then bicker for a month.



Obama is correct that there is 24/7 access to the few known nuclear facilities.

He doesn't talk about any other locations. If inspectors want to see any place else in the country, they go through the negotiation process, which can take a month and end up in UN arbitration. This process does not apply to military installations, which apparently are double secret, with inspection details to be negotiated some time down the road.

Tom
07-14-2015, 07:36 PM
I don't think anyone thinks it's a good deal. It's simply an agreement for all party's to save face after a lengthy and failed round of talks.
Yeah, no good to Iran by having sanctions lifted and getting all that US taxpayer money. :rolleyes:

Clocker
07-14-2015, 08:03 PM
Iran's nuclear energy program has never been a target of foreign concern. Forcing them to abandon it has never been a plank of our foreign policy agenda under any administration. They aren't even close to the same thing.

It has been a big concern. We never said they could not have nuclear energy, we said that they could not produce their own fuel. The issue is that nuclear energy is a potentially big time camouflage for nuclear weapons. In 2006, the UN Security Council imposed sanctions on Iran after it refused to comply with a UN order to cease uranium enrichment. We have been fighting about that ever since.

From November, 2013:

Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday that the temporary nuclear deal with Iran isn't a tacit agreement allowing the country to enrich some uranium without pursuing a nuclear bomb.

Kerry was responding to comments from Iran's foreign minister and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani saying that the deal amounted to a recognition of Iran's right to enrich.

"There is no inherent right to enrich," Kerry said on ABC's "This Week." "And everywhere in this particular agreement it states that they could only do that by mutual agreement, and nothing is agreed on until everything is agreed on."

Kerry added: "We do not recognize a right to enrich."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/11/24/kerry-on-iran-we-do-not-recognize-a-right-to-enrich/

We backed down from that again and again until we now have given it all away. Now we have a temporary limitation on how much uranium they can process, how much they can have on hand, how many centrifuges they can operate, and how high tech those centrifuges can be. All those restrictions eventually go away over the next few years.

The energy program makes it much easier to hide a weapons program. If I could get a bet down that they are going to cheat, I'd consider it a mortal lock.

Greyfox
07-14-2015, 08:41 PM
It has been a big concern. We never said they could not :ThmbUp:

Exactly.
Iran is a nation which has enough oil to supply their power needs for over 1,000 years.
Why do they need nuclear power?
Three quesses and the first two don't count.

Tom
07-14-2015, 08:43 PM
vHqSOLRQWsU

Shemp Howard
07-14-2015, 08:49 PM
"God is Great, Death to America, Death to Israel, A curse upon the Jews, Victory to Islam."


Where did I hear that before?

Tor Ekman
07-14-2015, 09:47 PM
:ThmbUp:

Exactly.
Iran is a nation which has enough oil to supply their power needs for over 1,000 years.
Why do they need nuclear power?
Three quesses and the first two don't count.Obama and Democrats have no use whatsoever for nuclear power as a source of "alternative energy" here at home but it's full speed ahead for a country that has about as much need for it as does Saudi Arabia.

Robert Fischer
07-14-2015, 11:51 PM
While I respect RunForTheRoses opinion and have no problem with it, Iceknight has always seemed like a good guy to me. We don't have to agree politically. I haven't read all of his posts, but we've had some good talks about horses and adws iirc.

davew
07-15-2015, 12:52 AM
Obama and Democrats have no use whatsoever for nuclear power as a source of "alternative energy" here at home but it's full speed ahead for a country that has about as much need for it as does Saudi Arabia.

they are really concerned about global warming and greenhouse gases caused by petroleum combustion - that is what they are chanting when we 'hear' death to america

RunForTheRoses
07-15-2015, 08:31 AM
While I respect RunForTheRoses opinion and have no problem with it, Iceknight has always seemed like a good guy to me. We don't have to agree politically. I haven't read all of his posts, but we've had some good talks about horses and adws iirc.

Thats fair, I was really only referring to his America is evil comment which I have heard before from fools. I never noticed his posts before and hold no other animosity.

Robert Goren
07-15-2015, 08:53 AM
A lot of talk about how this treaty gives Iran the A-Bomb, but no talk about how to stop them from getting without this treaty. Does anybody actually believe the sanctions which will not be honored by anyone other than the United States will stop them from getting them. Sanctions almost never work. We had sanctions on Cuba for 60 years and that did not do anything other than hurt businesses that would have dealt with Cuba without them. The United States and Europe imposed sanctions on Russia over the Ukraine and the only that accomplished was sending Europe into recession. Not one Russian soldier has left the Ukraine. In order the sanctions to have any chance of success, Russia must be on board. Does anybody really think that is going to happen as long as we have sanctions on Russia?

Tom
07-15-2015, 10:06 AM
The sanctions were hurting them.
Now, on top of no sanctions, we GIVE them billions of taxpayer dollars.

And we look even weaker and stupider to the world to boot.

We get NOTHING from this treaty.
Hopefully, even enough dems will see this and join the repubs to kill it.

A mid east nuclear arms races is on the horizon.

Clocker
07-15-2015, 10:26 AM
Hopefully, even enough dems will see this and join the repubs to kill it.


It doesn't look good. Congress has the votes to say no, but Obama can veto that. Then it has to go back to Congress and get a 2/3 majority in each house to override the veto. Numbers I saw yesterday for the Senate is that it would take all the GOP plus I think it was 13 Dems. Rough count right now is 8-10 Dems that will vote with the GOP on this.

Robert Goren
07-15-2015, 10:42 AM
It doesn't look good. Congress has the votes to say no, but Obama can veto that. Then it has to go back to Congress and get a 2/3 majority in each house to override the veto. Numbers I saw yesterday for the Senate is that it would take all the GOP plus I think it was 13 Dems. Rough count right now is 8-10 Dems that will vote with the GOP on this.It does not matter if Congress kills it, none of the other signees are going to back us up if congress does kill it.

OntheRail
07-15-2015, 12:29 PM
It does not matter if Congress kills it, none of the other signees are going to back us up if congress does kill it.

Because Obuma is weak and a pussover... an empty suit in golf shoes.

Marshall Bennett
07-15-2015, 12:29 PM
Some, perhaps even a lot of this deal is lousy. Having to give Iran 24 days notice to go in with inspectors is ridiculous. That said, it's still better than nothing I believe. Our European allies aren't opposing it, and they're geographically much closer to Iran than us.
Stupid party politics plays a huge part in this country with anything whether it's any good or not. Immigration policies have failed horribly over the years simply due to politics. The system is completely useless.

iceknight
07-15-2015, 02:07 PM
Yes, we did.
You don't win wars through negotiation, you win them through annihilation. Lesson to be learned. <<Agree.

And after doing what had to be done, we never used them again.

And the threat of us doing so prevented others from using them as well. i disagree with it being not severe enough. in fact, one was more than enough. But this is just my personal opinion and that too after many many decades, so it is not even monday morning Qb-ing.

However, if you read Niels Bohr's biography and several of his non-academic letters, we begin to see how atomic power (as in civilian level) could have been useful for progress everywhere.

On a more present day note, Iran's regime now is vastly different from what they had before 80's. I dont think they were even in the wars against Israel. Now, though, it is different story, so regulation is needed, but denial that they will not get nuke weapons otherwise is somewhat wishful thinking. US intelligence has failed more times than succeeded in the last 20 years. So upfront negotiations are better than solely relying on sanctions and faulty intelligence.

Tom
07-15-2015, 03:02 PM
What good are negotiations with people wh are liars, terro sponsors, and cry Death to You while they talk to you?

If we are worried about Iran, the stop talking and break out Nuke # 3 and launch it now....followed by #4,#5, #6.........whatever it takes.

iceknight
07-15-2015, 05:21 PM
What good are negotiations with people wh are liars, terro sponsors, and cry Death to You while they talk to you?

If we are worried about Iran, the stop talking and break out Nuke # 3 and launch it now....followed by #4,#5, #6.........whatever it takes.Cute rant.

fast4522
07-15-2015, 07:24 PM
Vladimir Putin has handed Barack Hussein Obama his ass again, moneys out going into mother Russia. Even the peanut farmer was not that stupid, just how bad could his next move become?

horses4courses
07-15-2015, 07:41 PM
Vladimir Putin has handed Barack Hussein Obama his ass again, moneys out going into mother Russia. Even the peanut farmer was not that stupid, just how bad could his next move become?

The crook steamrolled, alright.

Tom
07-16-2015, 07:45 AM
Cute rant.

True rant.

elysiantraveller
07-16-2015, 09:19 AM
What good are negotiations with people wh are liars, terro sponsors, and cry Death to You while they talk to you?

If we are worried about Iran, the stop talking and break out Nuke # 3 and launch it now....followed by #4,#5, #6.........whatever it takes.

It's amazing how you talk so callously about slaughtering millions of human beings.

Hank
07-16-2015, 09:45 AM
It's amazing how you talk so callously about slaughtering millions of human beings.

The poor fellow suffers from acute Myopic xenophobic jingoism, a highly contagious disease found primarily in right-wing fascist.

Tom
07-16-2015, 10:02 AM
It's amazing how you talk so callously about slaughtering millions of human beings.

Well, they talk that way, so I guess I have no problem replying in kind.
I am a voice on an internet forum. The ones there saying it are 95% of the way to having the means to do just that. Your priorities seem misplaced.

Tom
07-16-2015, 10:04 AM
The poor fellow suffers from acute Myopic xenophobic jingoism, a highly contagious disease found primarily in right-wing fascist.

Coming from a left wing racist, that means nothing.

elysiantraveller
07-16-2015, 10:14 AM
Well, they talk that way, so I guess I have no problem replying in kind.
I am a voice on an internet forum. The ones there saying it are 95% of the way to having the means to do just that. Your priorities seem misplaced.

Ahh the, "hey they said it first" defense... Didn't know we're in grade school and someone badmouthed your mom... Apologies.

Tom, its a good thing you didn't shape cold war policy because none of us would be around to post your internet forum musings.

Tom
07-16-2015, 10:55 AM
Couldn't do worse than Obama.
Taking the word of an Iranian is stupidity to the max.

Ahh the, "hey they said it first" defense...

I'm not defending anything - I believe in treating people appropriately.
Any action to prevent Iran from getting nukes is appropriate. they are the ones calling for the destruction of Israel, death to us, and are currently sponsoring world-wide terrorism.

I see not great loss if we have to obliterate them all.
Like did to Germany and Japan when they were in that position.

davew
07-16-2015, 11:54 AM
Do they really need ICBMs for Israel? or are they for the wite house?

Marshall Bennett
07-16-2015, 02:00 PM
It's amazing how you talk so callously about slaughtering millions of human beings.
What Tom says here and what he'd do if he actually had the switch to flip and slaughter millions is obviously two different things.
I suppose you could say, by the way, the 2 bombs we dropped on Japan to end WWII slaughtered millions. Ordered, by the way, by a democrat. :)

FantasticDan
07-16-2015, 02:33 PM
I suppose you could say, by the way, the 2 bombs we dropped on Japan to end WWII slaughtered millions. Ordered, by the way, by a democrat. :)Just FYI, but the death toll in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was nowhere near "millions", estimates have it at around 200-250K total by 1950..

TJDave
07-16-2015, 03:13 PM
Do they really need ICBMs for Israel? or are they for the wite house?

Israel has an accurate delivery system for its nukes. Iran has spent billions and, as yet, does not.

Tom
07-16-2015, 03:55 PM
But they will son enough.
Obama just paved the path to nukes and is giving them $140 Billion to finish the job.

But he would walk away rather than take a bad deal.
Bad for who?????

Like the Arab Spring, this one is going to cost lives and further disrupt the middle east.

But hey, small price to pay for your legacy.

Marshall Bennett
07-16-2015, 04:14 PM
Just FYI, but the death toll in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was nowhere near "millions", estimates have it at around 200-250K total by 1950..
That's why I said you "could" say. I doubt any attack would kill million(s). Not immediately anyway.

davew
07-16-2015, 04:17 PM
But they will son enough.
Obama just paved the path to nukes and is giving them $140 Billion to finish the job.

But he would walk away rather than take a bad deal.
Bad for who?????

Like the Arab Spring, this one is going to cost lives and further disrupt the middle east.

But hey, small price to pay for your legacy.

There are multiples more people in the WORLD, that just LOVE what 0bama has done so far.....

elysiantraveller
07-16-2015, 04:27 PM
Israel has an accurate delivery system for its nukes. Iran has spent billions and, as yet, does not.

And one they've been all too proud to parade about at times.

PaceAdvantage
07-16-2015, 04:43 PM
And one they've been all too proud to parade about at times.Considering their circumstances, can you blame them?

Tor Ekman
07-16-2015, 06:13 PM
It's a win-win-win deal . . . Obama gets his "legacy" international treaty . . . Kerry gets his Nobel Peace Award . . . and Iran gets nuke bombs

elysiantraveller
07-16-2015, 07:27 PM
Considering their circumstances, can you blame them?

Not really. I find their behavior amusing.

"We don't have any nuclear weapons... *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge* but check out these sweet medium range ballistic missiles we have..."

TJDave
07-16-2015, 07:52 PM
Not really. I find their behavior amusing.

"We don't have any nuclear weapons... *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge* but check out these sweet medium range ballistic missiles we have..."

It works. They have us wrapped around their little finger. I read where there is a new Christian PAC dedicated to Israel... Not that I'm complaining :lol:

Tom
07-16-2015, 08:47 PM
It could be worse - we could have radical isalm out to get us.
But Obama says no.

davew
07-16-2015, 08:59 PM
It could be worse - we could have radical isalm out to get us.
But Obama says no.

we are safer now as we have ever been, the white house told me so with their press secretary

Tom
07-16-2015, 09:04 PM
Why, Iran is such a nice place these days, Obama decided to leave our hostages there instead of insisting on their release as part to the sell out.

Even Jimmy Carter tried to save Americans.
I have idea who there people are, but I am confident they are white.
Typical white people.

iceknight
07-16-2015, 10:04 PM
And what brought it on? Suicide kamikaze pilots destroying US Navy personnel and citizens alike.Yes, you are right and the US was dragged into the war by Japan and it was still a hard decision for Truman.

But the context here was just remarking on "shower some nukes on iran" comment.

Because of the current knowledge of radiation sickness (which they did nt know then) it is hard to even consider a first strike nuke on civilian populations.

Surgical strikes, drone operations, military sabotage - all those are actions that would not budge my ethical radar - as they are done in self defense against emerging threats.

Tom
07-16-2015, 10:20 PM
If you don't want a nuclear shower, think before you attack us.
In war, there are no civilians.

You kill people and break things.
Whoever kills the most and breaks the most wins.

fast4522
07-16-2015, 10:27 PM
Not really. I find their behavior amusing.

"We don't have any nuclear weapons... *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge* but check out these sweet medium range ballistic missiles we have..."

It is more than obvious by your posts just as it is in my posts though opposing opinions to this very subject. Your not alone in the way you think, it is a easy way out short term but the problem is the fat lady eventually sings. How did that thingie with the cattle grazing end up on the federal land end up? I just might be curious because technically the legal opinion was on your end?

elysiantraveller
07-16-2015, 11:20 PM
It is more than obvious by your posts just as it is in my posts though opposing opinions to this very subject. Your not alone in the way you think, it is a easy way out short term but the problem is the fat lady eventually sings. How did that thingie with the cattle grazing end up on the federal land end up? I just might be curious because technically the legal opinion was on your end?

What is the easy way? I think this deal is garbage.

I would:
1) Sign a formal non-aggression pact with Iran and remove all sanctions for complete Security Council and IAEA oversight over all nuclear sites, programs, and development.
2) Sign formal strategic defense agreements with both the Saudis and Israelis.

Everyone wins.

OntheRail
07-18-2015, 12:42 PM
:rolleyes:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's top leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said a historic nuclear deal with world powers reached this week won't change Iran's policy towards the "arrogant" government of the United States.

Khamenei said Saturday in a televised speech that U.S. policy in the Middle East runs counter to Tehran's strategy and that Iran will continue to support its allies in the Middle East including the Lebanese Hezbollah, Palestinian resistance groups and the Syrian government.




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/iran-us-khamenei_55aa4ec2e4b065dfe89e8470?utm_hp_ref=world&ir=WorldPost&section=world

Marshall Bennett
07-18-2015, 07:24 PM
This is sort of a given. Their opinions of us haven't changed, nor has ours of them. They are the enemy. :)

Tom
07-18-2015, 07:38 PM
:rolleyes:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's top leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said a historic nuclear deal with world powers reached this week won't change Iran's policy towards the "arrogant" government of the United States.

Khamenei said Saturday in a televised speech that U.S. policy in the Middle East runs counter to Tehran's strategy and that Iran will continue to support its allies in the Middle East including the Lebanese Hezbollah, Palestinian resistance groups and the Syrian government.




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/iran-us-khamenei_55aa4ec2e4b065dfe89e8470?utm_hp_ref=world&ir=WorldPost&section=world

What a tool Obama is. He just contributed more to terror than anyone in history, with more to come. Obama Bin Laden.,

Secondbest
07-18-2015, 08:19 PM
I still can't figure out how this schmuck got e!ected then reelected.

horses4courses
07-18-2015, 08:21 PM
I still can't figure out how this schmuck got e!ected then reelected.

You obviously didn't consider the competition.

Tom
07-18-2015, 09:00 PM
You obviously didn't consider the competition.

Neither did the voters.
Maybe they can have a pass the first time, I kind of bought his schtick back then too, but after 4 years of the terrorist, the American people really showed what losers they are. Lazy and stupid.

The fun times will be when ALL the doers stop doing and the leeches in the democrat tent have no one to prey on anymore. Maybe they will sneak over the border to Mexico. :lol:

Hank
07-18-2015, 11:38 PM
I still can't figure out how this schmuck got e!ected then reelected.

Really?The empire had a serious public relations problem GWB. Obama provided a much needed perceptual change,while actually changing nothing the owners of the empire actually care about.IE finance capital/foreign policy. Brilliant.

Tom
07-19-2015, 12:31 AM
That was Term #1.

For Term #2........

Secondbest
07-19-2015, 10:34 AM
You obviously didn't consider the competition.
McCain then Romney both light years ahead of this community organizer.

zico20
02-22-2016, 12:21 AM
That was Term #1.

For Term #2........

Oh dear God. First it was Cuba, then Iran, and now Obama is going for the trifecta. He has had secret talks with North Korea to end the Korean War. This won't end well for the USA or South Korea. I mean, the man has delusions of grandeur. He still has 11 months left in office, that is plenty of time to screw up a third deal with a major adversary. Here is a quote from the article.

Days before North Korea’s latest nuclear-bomb test, the Obama administration secretly agreed to talks to try to formally end the Korean War, dropping a longstanding condition that Pyongyang first take steps to curtail its nuclear arsenal.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/02/21/us-north-korea-agreed-to-peace-talks-before-latest-nuclear-test.html?intcmp=hpbt1

davew
10-14-2016, 04:57 PM
Iran (backed militia) shooting missiles at US ships off Yemen

they are putting all that money to good use - probably have enough left over to buy some nukes from Russia

elysiantraveller
10-14-2016, 10:30 PM
Iran (backed militia) shooting missiles at US ships off Yemen

they are putting all that money to good use - probably have enough left over to buy some nukes from Russia

Unlikely...

Russia signed the NPT. They tend to honor strategic agreements.

FantasticDan
04-19-2017, 11:16 AM
Trump admin announces that Iran continues to be in compliance with 2015 deal.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration has notified Congress that Iran is complying with the terms of the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated by former President Barack Obama, and says the U.S. has extended the sanctions relief given to the Islamic republic in exchange for curbs on its atomic program.

However, in a letter sent late Tuesday to House Speaker Paul Ryan, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the administration has undertaken a full review of the agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

"Iran remains a leading state sponsor of terror, through many platforms and methods," Tillerson wrote. He said the National Security Council-led interagency review of the agreement will evaluate whether it "is vital to the national security interests of the United States."

The certification of Iran's compliance, which must be sent to Congress every 90 days, is the first issued by the Trump administration. The deadline for this certification was midnight.

As a candidate in the 2016 presidential election, Trump was an outspoken critic of the deal but had offered conflicting opinions on whether he would try to scrap it, modify it or keep it in place with more strenuous enforcement. Tuesday's determination suggested that while Trump agreed with findings by the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, that Iran is keeping to its end of the bargain, he is looking for another way to ratchet up pressure on Tehran.

woodtoo
04-19-2017, 11:46 AM
YES, they now realize " they better behave".:headbanger:

Clocker
04-19-2017, 12:58 PM
Trump admin announces that Iran continues to be in compliance with 2015 deal.

Which is to say that the bureaucrat careerists at the State Dept. have continued to monitor the compliance under the current rules while the administration examines the effectiveness of the Obama era rules.

In other earth shattering news, the bureaucrat careerists at the IRS have continued to monitor the compliance of taxpayers with current rules while the administration examines the effectiveness of the Obama era rules.

FantasticDan
04-19-2017, 01:10 PM
Which is to say that the bureaucrat careerists at the State Dept. have continued to monitor the compliance under the current rules while the administration examines the effectiveness of the Obama era rules.Actually, everyone at the State Dept was let go, and their positions left unfilled. The State Dept is now Jared Kushner and a few Amazon Alexas and Echos. :ThmbUp:

Tom
04-19-2017, 06:11 PM
Originally Posted by FantasticDan View Post
Trump admin announces that Iran continues to be in compliance with 2015 deal.

Well, the left all says Trump is a liar, so I guess Iran is in violation.