Kerry: the money we are giving Iran will fund terrorism

[Clocker]

When asked about whether some the $150 billion in sanctions relief to Iran would go to terrorist groups, Kerry reiterated that, after settling debts, Iran would receive closer to $55 billion. He conceded some of that could go to groups considered terrorists, saying there was nothing the U.S. could do to prevent that.

“I think that some of it will end up in the hands of the IRGC or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists,” he said in the interview in Davos, referring to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps. “You know, to some degree, I’m not going to sit here and tell you that every component of that can be prevented.”

There's "nothing the U.S. could do to prevent that"?

How about we don't give them the money? That's something we can do to prevent it.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/21/kerry-sure-some-of-the-money-were-paying-iran-will-go-toward-terrorism/

[horses4courses]

Where you been lately, clock?
Early release?

[mostpost]

Where you been lately, clock?
Early release?
I asked him the same question. He won't answer. His contract with the RNC forbids him to give out any personal information.

[mostpost]

There's "nothing the U.S. could do to prevent that"?

How about we don't give them the money? That's something we can do to prevent it.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/21/kerry-sure-some-of-the-money-were-paying-iran-will-go-toward-terrorism/
I don't think we are giving Iran any money. We are releasing money that was already theirs as a part of the Nuclear weapons treaty. They agreed to end their nuclear weapons development program and we agreed to end the sanctions.

Of course you think it is better for them to continue with their Nuclear program.

One more thing. Where the hell were you?

[MONEY]

One more thing. Where the hell were you?

He already answered that question.

Post #1296

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1932223#post1932223

[Clocker]

They agreed to end their nuclear weapons development program

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing025.gif

And what did Santa bring you for Xmas, little boy?

[Saratoga_Mike]

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing025.gif

And what did Santa bring you for Xmas, little boy?

You don't trust the self-inspection aspect at their military facilities? I'm no Trump fan, but he is so right about Obama (by extension Kerry): worst negotiator of all time.

[ebcorde]

referred to the continental congress as terrorists. I'm sick of the hearing the word. terrorism to one is freedom to another.

Just allow all people to vote and have free elections. that goes for everyone.

[Tom]

No, terrorism is specifically the acts of animals like ISIS.
We held free election if Iraq and Crapistan.
Those mad dogs ware not interested in freedom for anyone.
They killed people who voted.

Terrorists are a specific group of mad dogs who need to killed on site.

[OntheRail]

I don't think we are giving Iran any money. We are releasing money that was already theirs as a part of the Nuclear weapons treaty. They agreed to end their nuclear weapons development program and we agreed to end the sanctions.

Of course you think it is better for them to continue with their Nuclear program.

One more thing. Where the hell were you?

Sure Skippie... they'll fund ISIS to do direct attacks on US soil ( Make easier by the Dem's blockage of Senate Bill # (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/01/20/senate-democrats-block-bill-restrict-syrian-refugees-entering-us/79063266/) that would have tightened vetting requirements for Syrian refugees seeking asylum in the United States.) while backdooring their weapons goals. So do you really believe your safer today from Obama's and Kerry's bungling deals plus Reid's inaction?

[Saratoga_Mike]

referred to the continental congress as terrorists. I'm sick of the hearing the word. terrorism to one is freedom to another.

Just allow all people to vote and have free elections. that goes for everyone.

Shocking that you embrace moral relativism.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Sure Skippie... they'll fund ISIS to do direct attacks on US soil ( Make easier by the Dem's blockage of Senate Bill # (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/01/20/senate-democrats-block-bill-restrict-syrian-refugees-entering-us/79063266/) that would have tightened vetting requirements for Syrian refugees seeking asylum in the United States.) while backdooring their weapons goals. So do you really believe your safer today from Obama's and Kerry's bungling deals plus Reid's inaction?

No, that would be Saudi money. The Iranians are Shia, while members of ISIS are Sunnis. Still a bad nuke deal, but your funding point is incorrect.

[Clocker]

referred to the continental congress as terrorists. I'm sick of the hearing the word. terrorism to one is freedom to another.

Just allow all people to vote and have free elections. that goes for everyone.

Some people don't believe in democracy and don't want to have free elections. That is why they are quite content to live in kingdoms and dictatorships. And to impose their preferences on others by terror.

[Tom]

Some people don't believe in democracy and don't want to have free elections. That is why they are quite content to live in kingdoms and dictatorships. And to impose their preferences on others by terror.

Oh, you mean DEMOCRATS!

[thaskalos]

Some people don't believe in democracy and don't want to have free elections. That is why they are quite content to live in kingdoms and dictatorships. And to impose their preferences on others by terror.
Our OWN country does not believe in democracy when it comes to other countries having "free elections", either. The only "free elections" we like are the ones that lead to what WE consider a "favorable outcome".

[mostpost]

You don't trust the self-inspection aspect at their military facilities? I'm no Trump fan, but he is so right about Obama (by extension Kerry): worst negotiator of all time.
What are you talking about? Are you referring to military facilities or nuclear facilities. There is no Iranian self inspection of the facilities that were used in the Iranian Nuclear program. That will be done by the IAEA without Iranian oversight or interference.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/iran-deal
"Will Iran be able to inspect its own nuclear facilities?

No. There is no “self-inspection” of Iranian facilities, and the IAEA has in no way given responsibility for nuclear inspections to Iran. Not now and certainly not in the future.
That is not how the IAEA does business. As IAEA Director General Amano noted, the arrangements between the IAEA and Iran are technically sound and consistent with the Agency’s long-established practice. They do not compromise the IAEA’s safeguards standards in any way. As we have said before—and as we briefed Congress fully in classified settings—the U.S. government’s nuclear experts are confident in the Agency’s technical plans for investigating the possible military dimensions (PMD) of Iran’s former program. Iran will not get additional sanctions relief until the IAEA verifies that Iran has completed its nuclear steps, including those related to PMD.


I hope you are not suggesting that Iran is going to start a clandestine nuclear arms program at one or several of its military bases. That would be impossible to do without being observed. Satellites could easily detect any unusual construction. Materials purchase could be detected. And, if I am not mistaken, Iranian inspection of their military-NOT NUCLEAR-facilities is still under the supervision of the IAEA.

[mostpost]

Sure Skippie... they'll fund ISIS to do direct attacks on US soil ( Make easier by the Dem's blockage of Senate Bill # (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/01/20/senate-democrats-block-bill-restrict-syrian-refugees-entering-us/79063266/) that would have tightened vetting requirements for Syrian refugees seeking asylum in the United States.) while backdooring their weapons goals. So do you really believe your safer today from Obama's and Kerry's bungling deals plus Reid's inaction?
Read a newspaper once in a while. Iran is one of the major Arab countries fighting ISIS. It would have made more sense if you had said Hezbollah. But that would have been the first time you made sense. Another opportunity wasted. :(

[Saratoga_Mike]

What are you talking about? Are you referring to military facilities or nuclear facilities. There is no Iranian self inspection of the facilities that were used in the Iranian Nuclear program. That will be done by the IAEA without Iranian oversight or interference.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/iran-deal
"Will Iran be able to inspect its own nuclear facilities?

No. There is no “self-inspection” of Iranian facilities, and the IAEA has in no way given responsibility for nuclear inspections to Iran. Not now and certainly not in the future.
That is not how the IAEA does business. As IAEA Director General Amano noted, the arrangements between the IAEA and Iran are technically sound and consistent with the Agency’s long-established practice. They do not compromise the IAEA’s safeguards standards in any way. As we have said before—and as we briefed Congress fully in classified settings—the U.S. government’s nuclear experts are confident in the Agency’s technical plans for investigating the possible military dimensions (PMD) of Iran’s former program. Iran will not get additional sanctions relief until the IAEA verifies that Iran has completed its nuclear steps, including those related to PMD.


I hope you are not suggesting that Iran is going to start a clandestine nuclear arms program at one or several of its military bases. That would be impossible to do without being observed. Satellites could easily detect any unusual construction. Materials purchase could be detected. And, if I am not mistaken, Iranian inspection of their military-NOT NUCLEAR-facilities is still under the supervision of the IAEA.

Take your own suggestion AND read a newspaper (rather than lapping up WH spin):

http://www.wsj.com/articles/irans-secret-self-inspections-1440026399

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/22/world/middleeast/prospect-of-self-inspections-by-iran-feeds-opposition-to-nuclear-deal.html

Let me educate you on this matter. In mid-summer the Associated Press broke the story: the Parchin military facility would be self-inspected by the Iranians. Of course the head of IAEA claimed the story was based on a "draft" and his people would have "necessary" access to the facility.

I believe the AP story had it right. You can believe the WH, but spare me the lecturing when you aren't well informed.

[mostpost]

Take your own suggestion AND read a newspaper (rather than lapping up WH spin):

http://www.wsj.com/articles/irans-secret-self-inspections-1440026399

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/22/world/middleeast/prospect-of-self-inspections-by-iran-feeds-opposition-to-nuclear-deal.html

Let me educate you on this matter. In mid-summer the Associated Press broke the story: the Parchin military facility would be self-inspected by the Iranians. Of course the head of IAEA claimed the story was based on a "draft" and his people would have "necessary" access to the facility.

I believe the AP story had it right. You can believe the WH, but spare me the lecturing when you aren't well informed.
Let's start with what Parchin is and what it is not. It is a military base. It is not now any kind of nuclear facility. Prior to 2003 some experimentation related to nuclear weapons was carried out there. Some time after 2003, the facility was bulldozed and rebuilt strictly as a military base.

The reason the IAEA wants to conduct inspections there is so it can determine what types of experiments were carried out prior to 2003. It is not to monitor any current activities because there are no current activities.

The second thing to discuss is the AP story which has more holes than the Chicago Bulls defense against the Golden State Warriors. The IAEA, which has done this kind of things many times, tells the Iranians what to sample, where to get the samples from, and how to maintain the chain of custody. The IAEA has procedures in place which guarantee that this is done.

Then there is the so called secret agreement between the IAEA and Iran. The document as published by AP was not a final draft. Chances are it was not even a preliminary draft. Chances are it was a forgery. The style and wording of the document were vastly different from previous IAEA documents on similar subjects. The way in which Iran referred to itself in the document differed from ways in which it has referred to itself in the past.

I choose to believe what comes out of the White House when I see that other sources confirm what the WH puts out. You choose to not believe, just because something comes out of the White House.

[davew]

Let's start with what Parchin is and what it is not. It is a military base. It is not now any kind of nuclear facility. Prior to 2003 some experimentation related to nuclear weapons was carried out there. Some time after 2003, the facility was bulldozed and rebuilt strictly as a military base.

The reason the IAEA wants to conduct inspections there is so it can determine what types of experiments were carried out prior to 2003. It is not to monitor any current activities because there are no current activities.

The second thing to discuss is the AP story which has more holes than the Chicago Bulls defense against the Golden State Warriors. The IAEA, which has done this kind of things many times, tells the Iranians what to sample, where to get the samples from, and how to maintain the chain of custody. The IAEA has procedures in place which guarantee that this is done.

Then there is the so called secret agreement between the IAEA and Iran. The document as published by AP was not a final draft. Chances are it was not even a preliminary draft. Chances are it was a forgery. The style and wording of the document were vastly different from previous IAEA documents on similar subjects. The way in which Iran referred to itself in the document differed from ways in which it has referred to itself in the past.

I choose to believe what comes out of the White House when I see that other sources confirm what the WH puts out. You choose to not believe, just because something comes out of the White House.

Are you a spy working in the middle east? How do you know the accuracy of any of this?

[OntheRail]

Read a newspaper once in a while. Iran is one of the major Arab countries fighting ISIS. It would have made more sense if you had said Hezbollah. But that would have been the first time you made sense. Another opportunity wasted. :(
I'm sure you heard of the Enemy of My Enemy... Well maybe not as it's not been released in a DNC talking points memo to the KAD's.

Iran is not our Friend, not every a Frenemy. Just because they played Ob's and Curry like a couple of bunkins who in turn have the wool pulled over your eye's does not change the point of my statement.

[OntheRail]

Let's start with what Parchin is and what it is not. It is a military base. It is not now any kind of nuclear facility. Prior to 2003 some experimentation related to nuclear weapons was carried out there. Some time after 2003, the facility was bulldozed and rebuilt strictly as a military base.

The reason the IAEA wants to conduct inspections there is so it can determine what types of experiments were carried out prior to 2003. It is not to monitor any current activities because there are no current activities.

The second thing to discuss is the AP story which has more holes than the Chicago Bulls defense against the Golden State Warriors. The IAEA, which has done this kind of things many times, tells the Iranians what to sample, where to get the samples from, and how to maintain the chain of custody. The IAEA has procedures in place which guarantee that this is done. So is the IAEA using Yelp or Skye to tell the Iranians how to self inspect. :lol:

Then there is the so called secret agreement between the IAEA and Iran. The document as published by AP was not a final draft. Chances are it was not even a preliminary draft. Chances are it was a forgery. The style and wording of the document were vastly different from previous IAEA documents on similar subjects. The way in which Iran referred to itself in the document differed from ways in which it has referred to itself in the past.

I choose to believe what comes out of the White House when I see that other sources confirm what the WH puts out.You choose to not believe, just because something comes out of the White House.

As long as it's a Democrat in it... once it changes party that shoes on the other foot... right Skippy ;) .

[ebcorde]

No, terrorism is specifically the acts of animals like ISIS.
We held free election if Iraq and Crapistan.
Those mad dogs ware not interested in freedom for anyone.
They killed people who voted.

Terrorists are a specific group of mad dogs who need to killed on site.

How old are you? you had to be in one of the gulf wars. Most have a kill them all attitude. give it another 20 years we will be like Israel except it's all on OUR DIME!

[ebcorde]

just drop the bleeping bomb and get it over with, I'm tired of hearing about it

[dartman51]

Are you a spy working in the middle east? How do you know the accuracy of any of this?


Damn, Dave, where have you been. Don't you know MOPO is a mind reader, and knows EVERYTHING. He knows what people are thinking at ANY given time, AND he knows what they MEANT to say, even when they say something entirely different. The man is simply amazing :eek: ..........NOT!!!!! :rolleyes: He also knows what's ACTUALLY going on anywhere in the world, despite what reports might otherwise say. :rolleyes:

[davew]

Damn, Dave, where have you been. Don't you know MOPO is a mind reader, and knows EVERYTHING. He knows what people are thinking at ANY given time, AND he knows what they MEANT to say, even when they say something entirely different. The man is simply amazing :eek: ..........NOT!!!!! :rolleyes: He also knows what's ACTUALLY going on anywhere in the world, despite what reports might otherwise say. :rolleyes:

We have 0bama posting on this board, disguised as a retired USPS worker?

Back to thread title, Kerry admitted some money MIGHT be used for terrorism, not that it WILL.

[mostpost]

Are you a spy working in the middle east? How do you know the accuracy of any of this?
Let's start with the possibility that the so called secret agreement is a fake.
Here is a link to one of several stories which discuss this possibility.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/former-nuclear-safeguards-official-says-parchin-document-looks-fake_us_55d67d53e4b020c386de2f7e
Excerpt:WASHINGTON --(Tarq Rauf) A veteran international nuclear official questioned the authenticity of a document The Associated Press relied upon for its controversial report that Iran would be allowed to inspect Parchin, a site suspected of hosting illicit nuclear activity over a decade ago. He said the document contains wrong terminology and other signs it may be fake.
Here is a link to an annotated version of the agreement in which Rauf points out why he believes the document is fake.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/275416209/IAEA-Parchin-Agreement
None of this is absolute proof but it does raise questions.

Then I said that IAEA was monitoring Parchin to try and determine what activities had taken place there in the past-around 2003. This CNN story confirms that.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/21/middleeast/iran-nuclear-inspection/
Excerpt:The examination of Parchin is part of an inquiry by the International Atomic Energy Agency into Iran's past nuclear activity. It is separate from inspections of other sites agreed to under July's deal between Iran and six world powers, which are more focused on ongoing work.

Finally, there is the claim that Iran will be self inspection and that IAEA will have no access to the Parchin facility.
From the CNN link: But in a statement, (Yukiya Amano) the IAEA director general appeared to clarify what had happened.

"As a result of experience gained over the years, the agency has, in certain circumstances, permitted states' representatives to carry out activities in support of the agency's verification work. This is done in a way that ensures that the agency's verification processes are not compromised," Amano said.

"In the case of Parchin, the Iranian side played a part in the sample-taking process by swiping samples," he said. "Authentication by the agency of the samples was achieved through use of an established verification process."

Amano said that the IAEA had monitored the process and that the samples had been taken to Vienna, Austria, where IAEA experts would analyze them.

As for IAEA inspectors not being allowed on site.
Late last month, an IAEA report indicating that Iran was in broad compliance with its nuclear commitments, but noting indications of construction activity at the Parchin site, was leaked to media outlets, including CNN.

The document -- part of the agency's routine review of Iran's program -- stated that the IAEA "has continued to observe, through satellite imagery, the presence of vehicles, equipment and probable construction materials."

On Monday, Amano said he had visited the site with his deputy Sunday.

"We entered a building which the agency had previously only been able to observe using satellite imagery," he said. "Inside the building, we saw indications of recent renovation work. There was no equipment in the building."

So, when satellite images indicated possible suspicious construction activities, IAEA was physically able to enter areas where those activities were taking place and determine nothing improper was taking place.

[mostpost]

just drop the bleeping bomb and get it over with, I'm tired of hearing about it
I am astounded by how casually people talk about killing millions of people when those people are perceived as enemies and how outraged they are when a few people are killed by those enemies. The millions you propose to kill by dropping the bleeping bomb are as innocent as those killed in Paris and San Bernardino.

[Tom]

Are you a spy working in the middle east? How do you know the accuracy of any of this?

Same why he knows all else he drops in here.......faith!

[davew]

Same why he knows all else he drops in here.......faith!


They should consider politics - can take a simple question and turn it into a big pile of verbage that doesn't cover question.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Let's start with what Parchin is and what it is not. It is a military base. It is not now any kind of nuclear facility. Prior to 2003 some experimentation related to nuclear weapons was carried out there. Some time after 2003, the facility was bulldozed and rebuilt strictly as a military base.

The reason the IAEA wants to conduct inspections there is so it can determine what types of experiments were carried out prior to 2003. It is not to monitor any current activities because there are no current activities.

The second thing to discuss is the AP story which has more holes than the Chicago Bulls defense against the Golden State Warriors. The IAEA, which has done this kind of things many times, tells the Iranians what to sample, where to get the samples from, and how to maintain the chain of custody. The IAEA has procedures in place which guarantee that this is done.

Then there is the so called secret agreement between the IAEA and Iran. The document as published by AP was not a final draft. Chances are it was not even a preliminary draft. Chances are it was a forgery. The style and wording of the document were vastly different from previous IAEA documents on similar subjects. The way in which Iran referred to itself in the document differed from ways in which it has referred to itself in the past.

I choose to believe what comes out of the White House when I see that other sources confirm what the WH puts out. You choose to not believe, just because something comes out of the White House.

You haven't contradicted anything I posted, except the "holes" in the story comment, which I don't concede. I labeled it a military facility, and that was entire point of the AP story. I love the forgery assertion. And yes, the Iranians will certainly follow the directions of the IAEA to the letter. You may be more gullible than Obama and Kerry, if that's possible.

Why must you always play the role of partisan hack? Why can't you be an honest liberal like a Michael Kinsley? I rarely agreed with Michael Kinsley, but I always admired his intellectual consistency/honesty. I wish I could say the same for you. I'll tip my hat to NJStinks on this point. I disagree with him 95% of the time, but he isn't a hack.

My bottom line: Obama and Kerry were desperate for a deal, the former for legacy-building reasons and the latter for the Noble Peace Prize (that didn't work out). So I'm skeptical.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I am astounded by how casually people talk about killing millions of people when those people are perceived as enemies and how outraged they are when a few people are killed by those enemies. The millions you propose to kill by dropping the bleeping bomb are as innocent as those killed in Paris and San Bernardino.

I agree with you on this point - too much talk of indiscriminate bombing. If we truly cared about eradicating terrorism, we* would demand the Saudis stop fomenting it. You might agree with me on this point.

*Given your nature, you may want to reflexively defend Obama on this point. No need - my comment applies to Dems and Reps alike.

[Clocker]

My bottom line: Obama and Kerry were desperate for a deal, the former for legacy-building reasons and the latter for the Noble Peace Prize (that didn't work out). So I'm skeptical.

Obama was desperate for anything even remotely resembling an agreement with Iran. A major campaign issue for him in 2008 was that he could talk to and negotiate with anyone, no matter how unfriendly, even Iran.

He was running against the neocon, war-hawk image he painted of Bush and Cheney (and McCain), and tried to sell himself as the great peacemaker who could pacify Iran on the strength of his wisdom and rhetoric. It was a big selling point in his campaign, along with his promises to close Gitmo, strengthen gun controls, bring health care costs down, enact cap and trade, and run the most transparent, bipartisan, post-racial administration in history.

[Clocker]

I agree with you on this point - too much talk of indiscriminate bombing.

I think about half the people that bring this up mean it, and the other half are rattling liberal cages. :p

[Tom]

What about discriminate bombing? :rolleyes:

Hey mostie, where is the line drawn between bombing and drone strikes on by-standers?

[OntheRail]

You know if you or I did want Obama and Kerry have done.... sending funds to a known supports of terrorist. We'd be up on Federal Charges.

[Clocker]

The agreement that never was:

President Barack Obama never submitted his Iranian nuclear deal for ratification by the Congress because he knew it would have no chance of passing. That does not make the United States unique: The Iranian parliament has never approved it either (that body passed a heavily amended version) and the Iranian president has never signed it. The Iranian cabinet has never even discussed it. And the other members of the P5+1 – Britain, China, Germany, France and Russia – have likewise given it short legal shrift. Indeed, President Obama "may end up being the only person in the world to sign his much-wanted deal, in effect making a treaty with himself," as the Gatestone Institute's Amir Taheri has said.

In other words, Iran is not legally bound to do anything, something which a State Department official admitted last November in a letter to Kansas GOP Rep. Mike Pompeo of the House Intelligence Committee, in which she stated the deal "is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document." Instead, the official wrote, its success "will depend not on whether it is legally binding or signed, but rather on the extensive verification measures" and our "capacity to reimpose and ramp up our sanctions if Iran does not meet its commitments." And how is that going?



http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2016-01-21/obamas-iran-nuclear-deal-is-a-bad-deal-off-to-a-worse-start

[Tom]

In other words, Iran is not legally bound to do anything, something which a State Department official admitted last November in a letter to Kansas GOP Rep. Mike Pompeo of the House Intelligence Committee, in which she stated the deal "is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document.

But mostie says give them the money anyway.

Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today,
I wish, I wish he'd go away...

When I came home last night at three,
The man was waiting there for me
But when I looked around the hall,
I couldn't see him there at all!
Go away, go away, don't you come back any more!
Go away, go away, and please don't slam the door...

Last night I saw upon the stair,
A little man who wasn't there,
He wasn't there again today
Oh, how I wish he'd go away...

[Clocker]

He wasn't there again today
Oh, how I wish he'd go away...

The little man is going away in 360 days and change.

http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?p0=263&iso=20170120T00&msg=Time%20left%20until%20Obama%20leaves%20office% 22

We can only hope his worshipers follow him into oblivion.

[mostpost]

The agreement that never was:



http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2016-01-21/obamas-iran-nuclear-deal-is-a-bad-deal-off-to-a-worse-start
Any agreement is only as good as the good faith of the parties involved. It does not matter if it is approved by a Congress or a parliament. The important thing is that there are procedures in place to verify compliance. In the case of this particular agreement, such procedures are in place. The IAEA has access to all Iranian nuclear facilities and it has authorization to inspect any facilities which it suspects of engaging in such activities. The IAEA has even been inside the Parchin base, despite denials by the ill informed Right.

The question is; is it better to have no agreement and zero chance of monitoring Iranian actions toward developing a nuclear weapon; or is it better to have an agreement and to have inspection teams on the ground, in country. A fool will choose the former; a wise man will opt for the latter.

[Tom]

Any agreement is only as good as the good faith of the parties involved. It does not matter if it is approved by a Congress or a parliament.

That is so ridiculous! Even for YOU! :lol::lol::lol:

If it is not approved, it is not an agreement.

[Clocker]

The question is; is it better to have no agreement and zero chance of monitoring Iranian actions toward developing a nuclear weapon; or is it better to have an agreement and to have inspection teams on the ground, in country. A fool will choose the former; a wise man will opt for the latter.

Or is it better to pretend to have an agreement and pretend to go through the motions, and we all live happily ever after, until Obama is out of office with his legacy and Iran has the bomb?

There is no binding and enforceable agreement, and Iran is going through whatever Kabuki dance it has to in the short run to get sanctions removed and to continue working on a bomb. And anyone that doesn't believe in Uncle Barack's fairy tale is labeled a fool by the true believers.

[mostpost]

The agreement that never was:



http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2016-01-21/obamas-iran-nuclear-deal-is-a-bad-deal-off-to-a-worse-start
"Trust but verify." Isn't that what Ronald Reagan said? And we are verifying. From your righty link above:
And with international inspectors last week certifying that Iran has, thus far, complied with the provisions of the agreement, oil and financial sanctions on the country were officially lifted and as much as $100 billion of its frozen assets were released.
Notice the words "Complied with the provisions of the agreement." That means they did what they were asked to do. It means that we now are required to do what we promised to do.

Of course, Mr. Zuckerman tries to obfuscate by bringing up Iranian testing of ballistic missiles, which were not part of this agreement and which are still subject to sanctions; and by bringing up the exchange of prisoners in which "Innocent" :rolleyes: Americans were exchanged the leaders of ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Freddy Krueger. :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

Or is it better to pretend to have an agreement and pretend to go through the motions, and we all live happily ever after, until Obama is out of office with his legacy and Iran has the bomb?

There is no binding and enforceable agreement, and Iran is going through whatever Kabuki dance it has to in the short run to get sanctions removed and to continue working on a bomb. And anyone that doesn't believe in Uncle Barack's fairy tale is labeled a fool by the true believers.
What part of we have inspectors in Iran and they are inspecting Iran's nuclear facilities is failing to get through your incredibly thick and obtuse skull? Nothing in the agreement says that the removal of sanctions is permanent. In fact it has been clearly stated that a return to past actions will mean a return of the sanctions. Having no agreement meant that we had no inspectors and no way knowing what Iran was doing. Having an agreement means we have that ability.

[Clocker]

Notice the words "Complied with the provisions of the agreement." That means they did what they were asked to do. It means that we now are required to do what we promised to do.

No, it means they got the inspectors to believe that they did what they were asked to do.

From the same article:

And the IAEA confirmed it has not been able to determine the full picture of Iran's efforts as the country has not yet "come clean" about them. "The truth of Iran's work on nuclear weapons is probably far more extensive than outlined by the IAEA in this report," David Albright of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security told the Financial Times. But the Obama administration accepted a pledge in the agreement with Iran that it did not have to disclose its past nuclear weapons work or fully cooperate with the IAEA investigation in order to receive sanctions relief.

[Clocker]

What part of we have inspectors in Iran and they are inspecting Iran's nuclear facilities is failing to get through your incredibly thick and obtuse skull?

"We" do not have inspectors in Iran. Part of the agreement, which no one except Obama has formally agreed to, is the condition that inspectors can only come from countries that have formal diplomatic relations with Iran. What could go wrong there? :rolleyes:

And once again, unable to prove your points, you must resort to throwing around words like "fool", "thick and obtuse", etc. Thanks for playing.

[Greyfox]

What part of we have inspectors in Iran and they are inspecting Iran's nuclear facilities is failing to get through your incredibly thick and obtuse skull? Nothing in the agreement says that the removal of sanctions is permanent..

Inspectors will have to give 24 days notice before inspecting a facility.
Do you see a problem with that part of the agreement?? I do.

[mostpost]

No, it means they got the inspectors to believe that they did what they were asked to do.

From the same article:
The question is do you really believe what you post or are you being deliberately deceptive. Here is the full paragraph from which you cherry picked your quote.
Meanwhile, "for the first time, the [International Atomic Energy Agency] linked various instances of previously reported clandestine activities into a coherent account of Tehran's nuclear-weapons development process," the Foundation for Defense of Democracies' Olli Heinonen noted last month; that he added, revealed that its "clandestine nuclear activities represented a parallel nuclear program (from mining to uranium conversion and enrichment) carried out alongside its declared one." Indeed, Iran had a program up to 2003, according to the report, and a scaled back version until 2009. And the IAEA confirmed it has not been able to determine the full picture of Iran's efforts as the country has not yet "come clean" about them. "The truth of Iran's work on nuclear weapons is probably far more extensive than outlined by the IAEA in this report," David Albright of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security told the Financial Times.

Note the portion in red. The activities referred to are activities which ceased in 2009 and in most cases in 2003. That is the past; we are concerned with the present and future.

[Clocker]

Note the portion in red. The activities referred to are activities which ceased in 2009 and in most cases in 2003. That is the past; we are concerned with the present and future.

Note the portion after that which says that no one knows what they were doing or how far they got, and that we have only their word that they ceased.

Again, all you are doing is parroting the White House, and your proof is that the White House says that they believe what Iran is telling them or what Iran is letting the inspectors see.

[mostpost]

Inspectors will have to give 24 days notice before inspecting a facility.
Do you see a problem with that part of the agreement?? I do.
Your first statement is not accurate.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/iran-nuclear-deal-inspections-iaea/2015/07/27/id/659065/
If I am not mistaken, that is a conservative website.
It says:
it's important to distinguish between Iran's declared nuclear sites, "where we know they have nuclear activity, where we have daily access or more precisely, the international inspectors have daily access," as compared to "undeclared sites where our or other intelligence agencies point us to suspicious activity."
The above was from US Energy Secretary Earnest Moniz who also said; In the case of the undeclared sites, Moniz said, the agreement establishes "for the first time a finite time period for Iran, or any other country for that matter, to respond to the allegations, provide the access, or be in material breach."


The same article from the same conservative website also states that it is possible to detect nuclear activity long after that 24 day time frame.

In fact, in 2003, exactly that happened," he said. "Iran denied some nuclear activities in Tehran. The International [Atomic Energy] Agency finally got access after six months, and they found uranium and caught them red-handed.

[mostpost]

"We" do not have inspectors in Iran. Part of the agreement, which no one except Obama has formally agreed to, is the condition that inspectors can only come from countries that have formal diplomatic relations with Iran. What could go wrong there? :rolleyes:

And once again, unable to prove your points, you must resort to throwing around words like "fool", "thick and obtuse", etc. Thanks for playing.
I throw around words like "fool" "thick and obtuse" etc after proving my points in the vain hope of forcing you to see the truth. I should know better. :bang:

[Greyfox]

Your first statement is not accurate.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/iran-nuclear-deal-inspections-iaea/2015/07/27/id/659065/
If I am not mistaken, that is a conservative website.

My first statement about the need for 24 days notice to Iran was taken from the BBC, which is not considered a conservative website and it is usually very accurate with it's reporting.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33521655

[mostpost]

"We" do not have inspectors in Iran. Part of the agreement, which no one except Obama has formally agreed to, is the condition that inspectors can only come from countries that have formal diplomatic relations with Iran. What could go wrong there?
Antics with semantics. It is an international agreement with international inspectors. IAEA is the inspection service of choice for all such situations.

[Clocker]

Antics with semantics. It is an international agreement with international inspectors. IAEA is the inspection service of choice for all such situations.

Is any country other than Iran allowed to pick and chose the nationality of its inspectors, with the blessing of Barack Obama?:confused:

[mostpost]

My first statement about the need for 24 days notice to Iran was taken from the BBC, which is not considered a conservative website and it is usually very accurate with it's reporting.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33521655
I should have been clearer. You said the inspectors would have to give 24 days notice before inspecting a facility-any facility. The Newsmax article states that IAEA has 24/7 access to any Iranian facility currently engaged in nuclear research. In other words they can go in anytime without permission. The 24 day rule applies if they suspect a clandestine operation. The same article says-as I pointed out-that such activity can be detected months after it is suspected.

So let's say that IAEA, through satellite imagery or intelligence sources, detects activity at a site where none previously existed. 24 days would be no impediment to proving their case.

Also, it does not seem to me that Iran would have 24 days to hide their actions. Again from the Newsmax article;
The 24-day period breaks down by allowing a 14-day period for the IAEA to determine if an inspection is needed, seven days for the P5+1 countries to rule for access, and a three-day period for Iran to provide that access, said Moniz.

[Greyfox]

So let's say that IAEA, through satellite imagery or intelligence sources, detects activity at a site where none previously existed. 24 days would be no impediment to proving their case.
[/B]

24 days wouldn't be an impediment to covering up a clandestine activity?? :rolleyes:
We couldn't disagree more on that belief.

[Tom]

mostie, only a blithering idiot would EVER trust ANYTHING Iran said.
they are a nation of mad dog terrorists, liars, murderers. They have no integrity, no morals, no ethics. They are vermin at best.

Nazi-light.

[Clocker]

Obama and the UN relaxed or ignored a number of the original requirements of the "agreement" in order to pat themselves on the back, proclaim that Iran was in compliance and give them billions of dollars for their obviously nefarious purposes.

The White House and its supporters did victory laps, arguing that Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal and its willingness to swap prisoners had proven the wisdom of the president’s Iran policy. But there are many reasons to believe that these developments, far from strengthening American national security, are actually dangerous wins for Iran.

Before all else, it should be noted that American officials had to relax certain requirements of the deal so Iran could receive sanctions relief in the first place. Language barring the testing of ballistic missiles was removed from the agreement’s text and buried in the annex to a UN Security Council resolution. The U.S. also dropped a stipulation that Iran resolve questions about its past nuclear activities, choosing to address those questions in a secret side deal between the IAEA and Iran. As a result, even though Iran conducted two ballistic-missile tests last fall and did not fully cooperate with an IAEA investigation into its nuclear history, the IAEA was able to certify that Tehran met the Implementation Day requirements to have sanctions lifted because these issues had been dropped from the agreement.

The steps Iran did take to roll back its nuclear program in exchange for the suspension of sanctions are limited and easily reversible. Since Iran will continue enriching uranium and developing advanced centrifuges, they’ll continue to get closer to a nuclear weapon while the deal remains in effect. And although Tehran sent most of its enriched uranium out of the country, in return it received an equivalent amount of uranium ore from Kazakhstan, which can be converted into enriched uranium in a few months.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430284/iran-nuclear-deal-obama-dangerous-fantasy

[LottaKash]

mostie, only a blithering idiot would EVER trust ANYTHING Iran said.
they are a nation of mad dog terrorists, liars, murderers. They have no integrity, no morals, no ethics. They are vermin at best.

Nazi-light.

How he could he have possibly missed the "death to America" signs, all these years ?...

[Clocker]

How he could he have possibly missed the "death to America" signs, all these years ?...

And the Supreme Leader shouting "Death to America" as the agreement was being finalized. :eek:

Iran’s supreme leader rallied his country to endorse the ongoing nuclear negotiations with the US — while at the same time shouting, “Death to America!” along with the unruly crowd.

Ayatollah Khamenei addressed the rowdy mob and derided the sanctions against his country, demanding they be removed at once and not gradually, the Times of Israel reported.

“Sanctions must be lifted immediately,” Khamenei told the crowd.

When the congregation broke out with an impromptu “Death to America” chant, Khamenei couldn’t help but chime in.

“Of course, yes, death to America, because America is the original source of this pressure,” he said.



http://nypost.com/2015/03/23/irans-supreme-leader-screams-death-to-america-amid-ongoing-nuclear-talks/