US and Iran Relations (News and Discussion)

[CousinsCowgirl84]

3 hours ago, PokerPacker said:

I'm surprised they didn't just burn the building down with him in it rather than getting the crane to carry him out.

war crimes bro.

[PokerPacker]

2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

war crimes bro.

Have you seen "What's Eating Gilbert Grape"?

[Riggo-toni]

It's one of those instances where I would like to see a Dothraki style execution.

[visionary]

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

2 hours ago, PokerPacker said:

Have you seen "What's Eating Gilbert Grape"?

Is the movie so bad it’s a war crime?

 

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

[nonniey]

The problem was there weren't enough opponents when the original deal was made.  It was an awful deal. Basically saying yes you can have the bomb but not for 10 years. ( I guess the hope was that the Iranian regime would reform - ie fall sometime in those 10 years).

Edited January 20, 2020 by nonniey

[Larry]

4 minutes ago, nonniey said:

The problem was there weren't enough opponents when the original deal was made.  It was an awful deal. Basically saying yes you can have the bomb but not for 10 years. ( I guess the hope was that the Iranian regime would reform - ie fall sometime in those 10 years).

 

Funny.  That's not remotely close to the way I read the deal described.  The deal I read about was:

 

1) Iran immediately shuts down (I think it was) 90% of their uranium refining operation.

2)  Iran immediately opens up their remaining refining operation to international inspectors, to verify compliance.  

3)  The US immediately lifts all sanctions.  

4)  Iran is permitted to refine Uranium, but has to stop when their Uranium is one year away from weapons grade.  

5)  If the US ever re-imposes sanctions, then the deal's off, and Iran can begin refining their Uranium beyond the "one year away" limit.  

 

About the only complaint I read about it, at the time, was that it basically allowed Iran to do all the state sponsored terrorism they wanted, without fear of sanctions.  (Because any sanctions would allow them to restart their nuclear program).  

 

Looking at the first summary of the agreement I find, it looks like my memory is correct, and the closest it comes to "you can have the bomb but not for 10 years" is that the agreement seems to expire in 10 years unless it's renewed.  (In 2031, if we had stuck with the deal, then Iran would be where they were before the agreement, except they will have gotten rid of most of their centrifuges and most of their refined Uranium.)  (It looks to me like Trump's actions have moved 2031 up to today.)  

[nonniey]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

Funny.  That's not remotely close to the way I read the deal described.  The deal I read about was:

 

1) Iran immediately shuts down (I think it was) 90% of their uranium refining operation.

2)  Iran immediately opens up their remaining refining operation to international inspectors, to verify compliance.  

3)  The US immediately lifts all sanctions.  

4)  Iran is permitted to refine Uranium, but has to stop when their Uranium is one year away from weapons grade.  

5)  If the US ever re-imposes sanctions, then the deal's off, and Iran can begin refining their Uranium beyond the "one year away" limit.  

 

About the only complaint I read about it, at the time, was that it basically allowed Iran to do all the state sponsored terrorism they wanted, without fear of sanctions.  (Because any sanctions would allow them to restart their nuclear program).  

 

Looking at the first summary of the agreement I find, it looks like my memory is correct, and the closest it comes to "you can have the bomb but not for 10 years" is that the agreement seems to expire in 10 years unless it's renewed.  (In 2031, if we had stuck with the deal, then Iran would be where they were before the agreement, except they will have gotten rid of most of their centrifuges and most of their refined Uranium.)  (It looks to me like Trump's actions have moved 2031 up to today.)  

With and expiration on Iran's limitations after 10 years. After 10 years it would have been impossible to reimpose the sanctions (remember prior to the treaty even Russia and China were abiding by much of the sanction requirements). Basically Obama told the Iranians OK you can have the bomb as long as you don't get it on my watch. There is really no disputing it was a ****ty deal designed to do just that. 

Edited January 20, 2020 by nonniey

[Larry]

15 minutes ago, nonniey said:

After 10 years it would have been impossible to reimpose the sanctions

 

. . . because?

 

I will point our that 

 

1)  There were sanctions, before the agreement.  (Otherwise, there would have been no leverage to get Iran to agree to shut down their nuke program.

 

2)  And there are sanctions now.  (I don't know how many countries are participating in them.  But it seems like there's enough that they're having an effect.)  

 

15 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Basically Obama told the Iranians OK you can have the bomb as long as you don't get it on my watch.

 

Basically he did nothing of the sort.  And simply making the same claim a third time will not change that.  

 

Edit:  Followup question.  

 

Recall, this thread is about Trump's policies towards Iran.  

 

Are you actually arguing that well, since Obama's plan expired in 10 years, (and when it expires, then Iran will get nukes), therefore Trump should go ahead and expire it immediately?

 

Ending the agreement now is better than it ending 10 years from now, how?  

 

Edited January 20, 2020 by Larry

[nonniey]

15 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

. . . because?

 

I will point our that 

 

1)  There were sanctions, before the agreement.  (Otherwise, there would have been no leverage to get Iran to agree to shut down their nuke program.

 

2)  And there are sanctions now.  (I don't know how many countries are participating in them.  But it seems like there's enough that they're having an effect.)  

 

 

Basically he did nothing of the sort.  And simply making the same claim a third time will not change that.  

 

Once restrictions on the number centrifuges were to be lifted that would give the Iranians the ability to rapidly produce a bomb if it so desired.  Lifting restrictions on the the number of centrifuges was specifically part of the deal at the 10 year point.  As in the deal specifically stated Iran could have however many centrifuges it wanted at that point.

Edited January 20, 2020 by nonniey

[Larry]

5 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Once restrictions on the number centrifuges were to be lifted that would give the Iranians the ability to rapidly produce a bomb if it so desired.  Lifting restrictions on the the number of centrifuges was specifically part of the deal at the 10 year point.  As in the deal specifically stated Iran could have however many centrifuges it wanted at that point.

 

Ah.  A third repetition of the claim that "the deal stinks, because after it expires, things would be like they were before it was negotiated."

 

Name a way in which, after the deal expired, things would have been worse than they were when there was no deal at all.  

 

Specifically, a reason that justifies ending the deal now, as opposed to 10 years from now.  

 

[Llevron]

5 hours ago, Larry said:

Name a way in which, after the deal expired, things would have been worse than they were when there was no deal at all.  

 

Specifically, a reason that justifies ending the deal now, as opposed to 10 years from now.  

 

 

Obama! 

[visionary]

 

[StillUnknown]

 

This would damn anybody else who says it, but the bar is so ****ing low for this guy, it wont even register

[@DCGoldPants]

6 hours ago, StillUnknown said:

 

This would damn anybody else who says it, but the bar is so ****ing low for this guy, it wont even register

 

Especially a draft dodger who bragged about his Vietnam was avoiding STDs (he didn't).

[CousinsCowgirl84]

It’s possible the concussion symptoms occurred later. They said no injuries 20 minutes after the air strikes were reported.

[Larry]

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

It’s possible the concussion symptoms occurred later. They said no injuries 20 minutes after the air strikes were reported.

 

There you go with them details.  

 

(Occasionally, you make what I think is a valid point.)  

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Skintime]

On 1/20/2020 at 1:32 AM, Larry said:

 

Ah.  A third repetition of the claim that "the deal stinks, because after it expires, things would be like they were before it was negotiated."

 

Name a way in which, after the deal expired, things would have been worse than they were when there was no deal at all.  

 

Specifically, a reason that justifies ending the deal now, as opposed to 10 years from now.  

 

Not at all surprised that he couldn’t follow up. Guess it really was Obama. 

[visionary]

 

Edited January 25, 2020 by visionary

[JCB]

Sniveling little punk. Typical GOP b****.

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

[PCS]