Iran deal reached

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
This is not correct. The sanctions against Iran have explicit provisions in them that allow Obama to lift them if he wants. Congress doesn't get a say.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/10/22/obama-could-lift-iran-sanctions-tomorrow-if-he-wanted-to/
I suppose it's possible that he was lying, but Obama said he isn't lifting the remaining sanctions, correct?

As far as having to go before Congress, I believe the Corker bill requires it. Or is this yet another situation where you support the President acting as the Dictator and ignoring US law?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,936
55,293
136
I suppose it's possible that he was lying, but Obama said he isn't lifting the remaining sanctions, correct?

They aren't part of the deal, that's correct, but many of those sanctions could be lifted if he wanted to.

As far as having to go before Congress, I believe the Corker bill requires it. Or is this yet another situation where you support the President acting as the Dictator and ignoring US law?

The Corker bill requires any deal to be submitted to Congress for review. They can choose to approve or disapprove it, but unless they can muster a veto proof supermajority they can't affect the deal at all. (good luck on that one, haha)

Importantly though, that review bill most certainly does not require that Obama put any sanctions he wishes to waive before Congress. It includes a section that says Obama won't waive the sanctions during the review period, but he's free to do so at his discretion any time after that.

Remember, the law isn't based on 'what werepossum wants to happen'. You frequently appear to confuse 'dictatorial action' with 'doing things I don't like'.
 

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106
I suppose it's possible that he was lying, but Obama said he isn't lifting the remaining sanctions, correct?

As far as having to go before Congress, I believe the Corker bill requires it. Or is this yet another situation where you support the President acting as the Dictator and ignoring US law?

The American nonnuclear sanctions are all still being kept in place right now.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
They aren't part of the deal, that's correct, but many of those sanctions could be lifted if he wanted to.

The Corker bill requires any deal to be submitted to Congress for review. They can choose to approve or disapprove it, but unless they can muster a veto proof supermajority they can't affect the deal at all. (good luck on that one, haha)

Importantly though, that review bill most certainly does not require that Obama put any sanctions he wishes to waive before Congress. It includes a section that says Obama won't waive the sanctions during the review period, but he's free to do so at his discretion any time after that.

Remember, the law isn't based on 'what werepossum wants to happen'. You frequently appear to confuse 'dictatorial action' with 'doing things I don't like'.
Um, no. By 'dictatorial action' I clearly mean Obama acting alone where he is required by the Constitution and/or by American law to act in conjunction with Congress. An example would be borrowing money above the debt ceiling. Whether I like what ends up happening is beside the point. I stand corrected on Obama's power after the review period though.

The American nonnuclear sanctions are all still being kept in place right now.
Thank you. That was my understanding, that the remaining sanctions would remain in place.
 

Chaotic0ne

Member
Jul 12, 2015
193
0
0
Bullshit.

Learn more about the Eastern Europeans including history, culture, and politics and then you can stop yelling this bullshit.

I've looked into the situation in Ukraine from multiple sources, to see what both sides are claiming. Both sides are lying or exaggerating to some extent, but its 100% fact that the US backed government and thier little nazis has been shelling civilians in Dontesk. Its NSFW content or I'd post it, but these are videos anyone can google up. The US is backing a tyrannical Fascist regime.

If you really want the facts about the situation then you can't get it from just one side. The Western media is lying their asses off about the Ukraine situation.

These guys are armed/trained/funded by the United States, NATO and the EU. They're called Azov Battalion, and they view themselves as sorta like a modern day Waffen-SS. But these guys are no joke, they're supposedly very good soldiers/killers. As was the actual Waffen-SS. Anyone who supports these guys may as well get a swastika tattooed on their foreheads.

D7RGepr.jpg



This makes the US look like a bunch of clowns from a geopolitical perspective. Its no wonder they don't get any respect. They'll side with tyrants, and muderers whenever it suits them while at the same time sitting on a pulpit preaching human rights to everyone. There needs to be a dramatic change in US foreign policy. People need to understand the facts that the US is NOT a force for good in this world, and they're part of the problem.
 
Last edited:

cabri

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2012
3,616
1
81
I've looked into the situation in Ukraine from multiple sources, to see what both sides are claiming. Both sides are lying or exaggerating to some extent, but its 100% fact that the US backed government and thier little nazis has been shelling civilians in Dontesk. Its NSFW content or I'd post it, but these are videos anyone can google up. The US is backing a tyrannical Fascist regime.

If you really want the facts about the situation then you can't get it from just one side. The Western media is lying their asses off about the Ukraine situation.

These guys are armed/trained/funded by the United States, NATO and the EU. Anyone who supports these guys may as well get a swastika tattooed on their foreheads.

D7RGepr.jpg

Given that the rebels are also hiding within the areas that are being shelled, it is to be expected.

No different than the Gaza situation.

Ukraine either hands over the territory to the Russian proxies (again) or engages in battle to remove them.
 

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106
You realize that the Ukrainian government is still a coalition of the old opposition parties from the protests?
 

Chaotic0ne

Member
Jul 12, 2015
193
0
0
Given that the rebels are also hiding within the areas that are being shelled, it is to be expected.

Oh I totally get it man, its OK to murder innocent civilians who aren't even aware of whats going on if they can confirm one rebel in the vicinity, so lets shell the entire neighborhood.

I'll be honest here, I'm not the most empathetic person by a long shot, and I've been accused of being psycho myself, but the ones who'd bomb civilians to get at a few rebels are complete psychopaths. The ones giving the orders must have missed their risperdal meds that day.

No different than the Gaza situation.
I agree, and both cases are genocide.
 
Last edited:

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106
Considering he said he has read up all about the Ukrainian situation you can tell he is not unaware of reality but that he is just spouting bullshit from his asshole.

And if he was speaking the truth you would know that the Ukrainian government has been cautious about how they use the far right militias and even taken them out of fighting with the expected resulting protests. And that even now the government has to use manpower and resources to deal with the far right rebellions against the Ukrainian government.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
The American nonnuclear sanctions are all still being kept in place right now.

They can't stand for long in the face of Iranian compliance with this agreement. They always were a tool of regime change policy, now swept aside.
 

cabri

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2012
3,616
1
81
Oh I totally get it man, its OK to murder innocent civilians who aren't even aware of whats going on if they can confirm one rebel in the vicinity, so lets shell the entire neighborhood.

I'll be honest here, I'm not the most empathetic person by a long shot, and I've been accused of being psycho myself, but the ones who'd bomb civilians to get at a few rebels are complete psychopaths. The ones giving the orders must have missed their risperdal meds that day.

I agree, and both cases are genocide.


The Russian side also has done so.

The Ukrainian government has held back the amount of firepower being used against the rebels and also has advised the civilians when/where shelling will be done to allow an exodus.

Or do you expect them to just hand over the territory to Russia? :confused:

Gaza is the Hamas militants using the civilians as shields; hoping for public pressure to handicap Israeli strikes against them.
The Russian proxies are attempting to do the same.

Neither is genocide - a race of people is not being attempted to be wiped out.
 
Last edited:

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
I've looked into the situation in Ukraine from multiple sources, to see what both sides are claiming. Both sides are lying or exaggerating to some extent, but its 100% fact that the US backed government and thier little nazis has been shelling civilians in Dontesk. Its NSFW content or I'd post it, but these are videos anyone can google up. The US is backing a tyrannical Fascist regime.

If you really want the facts about the situation then you can't get it from just one side. The Western media is lying their asses off about the Ukraine situation.

These guys are armed/trained/funded by the United States, NATO and the EU. They're called Azov Battalion, and they view themselves as sorta like a modern day Waffen-SS. But these guys are no joke, they're supposedly very good soldiers/killers. As was the actual Waffen-SS. Anyone who supports these guys may as well get a swastika tattooed on their foreheads.

This makes the US look like a bunch of clowns from a geopolitical perspective. Its no wonder they don't get any respect. They'll side with tyrants, and muderers whenever it suits them while at the same time sitting on a pulpit preaching human rights to everyone. There needs to be a dramatic change in US foreign policy. People need to understand the facts that the US is NOT a force for good in this world, and they're part of the problem.


Wait. So, fulfilling our NATO obligations is somehow wrong? Of course they are supported. That doesn't make them automatically wrong. Wow. You think you have an open mind but all you did is let Russian propaganda play on your assumptions ("US-trained! NATO-supported! Obviously BAD!"). There's a good damned reason they deserve protection and there's a good damned reason to give it to them. We'd freakin' LOVE to set up our missile defense shields in Russia's own backyard, as "bad!" As you think that would be, the EU and the NATO Alliance prefers protection and stability over ignoring our obligations and leaving them to fend for themselves. :rolleyes:
 

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106
Wait. So, fulfilling our NATO obligations is somehow wrong?

There are no NATO obligations for Ukraine as they are not actually in NATO.

They have been pushing for entering NATO depending on the politics of the particular governments at any time but they have not yet entered and probably are not going to for quite a while now due to the Ukraine-Russian conflict.

However it is only one small element of the broader Russian aggression against all neighbors including Northern and Eastern Europeans and even Central Asians so Ukraine will continue to get support from the Americans, Poles, and other Eastern European NATO countries.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Wait. So, fulfilling our NATO obligations is somehow wrong? Of course they are supported. That doesn't make them automatically wrong. Wow. You think you have an open mind but all you did is let Russian propaganda play on your assumptions ("US-trained! NATO-supported! Obviously BAD!"). There's a good damned reason they deserve protection and there's a good damned reason to give it to them. We'd freakin' LOVE to set up our missile defense shields in Russia's own backyard, as "bad!" As you think that would be, the EU and the NATO Alliance prefers protection and stability over ignoring our obligations and leaving them to fend for themselves. :rolleyes:

First, establish that our European allies want to host our missile shield.

At least you admit it never was about Iran at all. It's been calculated provocation towards Russia all long.

Which has precisely nothing to do with the agreement with Iran. Russia is, in fact, a party to that agreement.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
First, establish that our European allies want to host our missile shield.

At least you admit it never was about Iran at all. It's been calculated provocation towards Russia all long.

Which has precisely nothing to do with the agreement with Iran. Russia is, in fact, a party to that agreement.
Can you even imagine an evil for which America is not responsible?
 

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106
First, establish that our European allies want to host our missile shield.

At least you admit it never was about Iran at all. It's been calculated provocation towards Russia all long.

Which has precisely nothing to do with the agreement with Iran. Russia is, in fact, a party to that agreement.

Do you want to take a big giant fat guess as to whether those European countries want the missile defense equipment or not?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
There are no NATO obligations for Ukraine as they are not actually in NATO.

They have been pushing for entering NATO depending on the politics of the particular governments at any time but they have not yet entered and probably are not going to for quite a while now due to the Ukraine-Russian conflict.

However it is only one small element of the broader Russian aggression against all neighbors including Northern and Eastern Europeans and even Central Asians so Ukraine will continue to get support from the Americans, Poles, and other Eastern European NATO countries.

What broader aggression? Be specific.

Only the damndest of Ukrainian fools ever thought that flirting with NATO was ever a good idea or that muscling out their elected govt with right wing militias wouldn't make them vulnerable to Russian interference.

Putin made it clear in Georgia that Russia would brook no further expansion of NATO into former Soviet Republics. Yeh, sure, those countries can do pretty much whatever they want except that.

Think of it as the Russian version of the Monroe doctrine. The pro Russian partisans in the East are the equivalent of the Contras.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Do you want to take a big giant fat guess as to whether those European countries want the missile defense equipment or not?

I asked for confirmation of the assertion that they do. None has been forthcoming. The only takers at the time were Poland & the Czech Republic with regrets from the Poles being obvious.

At one point, Putin offered that a joint missile shield should be developed & placed nearer the border with Iran. When the Bush Admin rejected that, their intentions became obvious. The Obama Admin has played the same tune.
 

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106
i asked for confirmation of the assertion that they do. None has been forthcoming. The only takers at the time were poland & the czech republic with regrets from the poles being obvious.

RIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!

caps
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,512
17,016
136
Does anyone actually click on youtube links posters leave with zero comment? I was just curious if I was the only one who didn't.
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,684
5,228
136
Does anyone actually click on youtube links posters leave with zero comment? I was just curious if I was the only one who didn't.


I never do, either. Heck, even with some commentary, I still tend to pass over random youtube links.
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
FTFThem.

It looks like civil unrest; Poles protesting Russia; demanding investigations. Seems that they want NATO protection.

Probably should've edited it into your previous response to jhhnn so that they'd realize that it was part of a reply in direct contradiction to him.