Iran (and Obama?) Lied about Nukes

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

I don't know how fettered or unfettered the inspection process is. I imagine it's been spelled out quite specifically in the agreement's language.

The answer is NO

[fast4522]

Originally Posted by tucker6

Obama is an idiot.

I don't see that, he has been very calculating in his attempts when in office to provide a get out of jail card to everyone in his administration. No idiot could pull this off, lets see how far he opens his mouth in the cumming days and months

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Tom

BS.
Iran getting nukes is NOT working.
And this is exactly what this deal does.

If Trump negotiated, i would be calling for HIS arrest for treason.
You need to stop worrying about politics and start living in the real world.

I would ask how ignorant are you, but I already know the answer. You are incredibly ignorant. Iran was within years, maybe months of getting nuclear weapons before the deal was signed. They were free to continue their research and development and we would have been able to do nothing to stop them or even monitor their progress.

Then we signed the deal and they stopped their uranium enrichment; they dismantled their facilities; they destroyed their centrifuges. And they allowed inspectors in to assure that they were doing these things.

What do you think their reaction is going to be when they learn that we have broken the treaty and are now imposing onerous sanctions despite the fact that they have done nothing to violate the treaty.


You have nothing to say about who should be arrested for Treason or any other crime.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Tom

BS.
Iran getting nukes is NOT working.
And this is exactly what this deal does.

If Trump negotiated, i would be calling for HIS arrest for treason.
You need to stop worrying about politics and start living in the real world.

I would ask how ignorant are you, but I already know the answer. You are incredibly ignorant. Iran was within years, maybe months of getting nuclear weapons before the deal was signed. They were free to continue their research and development and we would have been able to do nothing to stop them or even monitor their progress.

Then we signed the deal and they stopped their uranium enrichment; they dismantled their facilities; they destroyed their centrifuges. And they allowed inspectors in to assure that they were doing these things.

What do you think their reaction is going to be when they learn that we have broken the treaty and are now imposing onerous sanctions despite the fact that they have done nothing to violate the treaty.


You have nothing to say about who should be arrested for Treason or any other crime.

While I frequently disagree with Elysiantraveler, I must say that he is way less partisanly political than you and way more likely to be living in the real world.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by tucker6

One simple question Dan. Does the West have unfettered inspection capability for compliance on matters nuclear?

Yes.

Secondly the chain of supply is monitored.

The inspection process Iran agreed to and is complying with is far more invasive than what Saddam faced...

If we look at the invasion of Iraq this abandonment of the deal is even more absurd. Iraq wasn't complying, we invaded, found nothing.

I hate to agree with him now as I didn't then but Obama's statement is correct. If you support this you are merely a Trumpbot or partisan hack.

Trumps own Secretary of State says Iran is honoring the agreement.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by fast4522

We can not be in any agreement with Iran when nothing can be verified.
My guess is they have been refining enrich Uranium all along, they will not come back to allow verification and will soon be exposed.

But they aren't. Everyone even Trump's brand new SOS agrees they aren't. Still haven't answered the question.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by tucker6

One simple question Dan. Does the West have unfettered inspection capability for compliance on matters nuclear?

One simple question you keep ducking...

Is a 10 year delay (again your admission) worth throwing away for a zero year delay?

[fast4522]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

But they aren't. Everyone even Trump's brand new SOS agrees they aren't. Still haven't answered the question.

Everything that was Obama will be ripped out at the root, there is nothing that we will have with his name associated with in policy. Count on it.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

One simple question you keep ducking...

Is a 10 year delay (again your admission) worth throwing away for a zero year delay?

Absolutely without equivocation. Do you correct a known mistake now or in seven years when you have fewer options for correction? That's the central question here. I think we all know the deal is bad, but the essence of the dilemma is knowing when to cut bait and start over. I agree with Trump. The time is now. We will never be stronger in a negotiation than we are now. I know you don't believe that, but it's true nevertheless.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Explain how Iran is getting nukes in this deal.

You frequently opine without posting anything of substance.

Of course they were not getting nukes out of the deal, but it is very possible that they will get them now that we have broken our word and backed out of the deal.

Not only is that a real possibility, but our backing out gives Iran an extra incentive to develop nuclear weapons.

[fast4522]

Originally Posted by tucker6

Absolutely without equivocation. Do you correct a known mistake now or in seven years when you have fewer options for correction? That's the central question here. I think we all know the deal is bad, but the essence of the dilemma is knowing when to cut bait and start over. I agree with Trump. The time is now. We will never be stronger in a negotiation than we are now. I know you don't believe that, but it's true nevertheless.

If Iran starts something in the region, being in agreement with them may prove to be problematic if we want to respond. This insurance for them no longer exists as of today, and their economy is now shit.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by fast4522

If Iran starts something in the region, being in agreement with them may prove to be problematic if we want act. This insurance for them no longer exists as of today.

B-I-N-G-O

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by fast4522

We can not be in any agreement with Iran when nothing can be verified.
My guess is they have been refining enrich Uranium all along, they will not come back to allow verification and will soon be exposed.

Your guess? What the $%^* gives your guess any validity? The fact that you seem to think there is no verification process tells me all i need to know about your opinion.

[tucker6]

I have been in very many negotiations in my life, and one truism prevails. If you are behind in the negotiation, change playing fields (parameters). You rarely win a negotiation once you are behind EXCEPT if you change significant parameters of what is being discussed. Trump knew he could not maneuver enough within the confines of the current agreement to make it better for the US, so he changed the playing field in hopes that negotiations would be more fruitful under new conditions. This is normal business.

[fast4522]

Got news for you, we know what they have and where it is.