Iran deal reached

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
K1052

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,624
46,297
136
michal1980 said:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421453/iran-deal-hidden-congress-Obama-admin-house-republican-

Obama making side deals with Iran, and doesnt allow congress to review them.

I was completely totally wrong when I called him King Obama....

No wait, I wasnt.

Cant believe how much of a totalitarian government the liberals are approving off.
Click to expand...

The IAEA will negotiate terms/timing of site inspections with Iran. This has been known for quite a while now. If Iran refuses there is a mechanism in the deal for the IAEA to send the issue to the joint commission for a determination. If Iran failed to abide by the determination of the commission then sanctions would go back into effect.

A less hyperbolic source:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-inspectors-access-any-site-iran-true/
 
Murloc

Murloc

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2008
5,382
65
91
michal1980 said:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421453/iran-deal-hidden-congress-Obama-admin-house-republican-

Obama making side deals with Iran, and doesnt allow congress to review them.

I was completely totally wrong when I called him King Obama....

No wait, I wasnt.

Cant believe how much of a totalitarian government the liberals are approving off.
Click to expand...
look, the US chose that the president owns foreign policy right?

But now, since it's used against your ideals and not for military action, is suddendly wrong?
 
C

cabri

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2012
3,616
1
81
K1052 said:
The IAEA will negotiate terms/timing of site inspections with Iran. This has been known for quite a while now. If Iran refuses there is a mechanism in the deal for the IAEA to send the issue to the joint commission for a determination. If Iran failed to abide by the determination of the commission then sanctions would go back into effect.

A less hyperbolic source:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-inspectors-access-any-site-iran-true/
Click to expand...

Minimum of 24 days from the time of a formal rejection of a visit until the pot boils.

And access to military sites is still not hammered out - Iran is saying publicly NO.

What can happen in those 24 days? There are no restraints on what Iran can do?
 
K1052

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,624
46,297
136
cabri said:
Minimum of 24 days from the time of a formal rejection of a visit until the pot boils.

And access to military sites is still not hammered out - Iran is saying publicly NO.

What can happen in those 24 days? There are no restraints on what Iran can do?
Click to expand...

It would be basically impossible to do any real weapons work under the terms. Playing a location shell game with such a project is wildly impractical.
 
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
K1052 said:
It would be basically impossible to do any real weapons work under the terms. Playing a location shell game with such a project is wildly impractical.
Click to expand...

You're seeing the one trick fear pony from another angle, that's all. It's like Iraqi mobile poison gas factories, just a lot more fanciful & even more desperate.

It's all bullshit, anyway. If weapons grade materials are not produced, weapons cannot exist. Finito, other than in the usual birther/Benghazi mindfuck scenario where weapons are produced like people growing marijuana in the basement.
 
C

cabri

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2012
3,616
1
81
K1052 said:
It would be basically impossible to do any real weapons work under the terms. Playing a location shell game with such a project is wildly impractical.
Click to expand...

1) Iran is presently stating that military facilities are off limits.
2) One can only inspect where work is suspected to be being done.

Can not do an inspection where you do not know where it is.

24 days should be enough time to dismantle the evidence or prohibited behavior (if it does exists).

If an inspection is asked of a site and refused; that in itself should raise suspicions.
 
K1052

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,624
46,297
136
cabri said:
1) Iran is presently stating that military facilities are off limits.
2) One can only inspect where work is suspected to be being done.

Can not do an inspection where you do not know where it is.

24 days should be enough time to dismantle the evidence or prohibited behavior (if it does exists).

If an inspection is asked of a site and refused; that in itself should raise suspicions.
Click to expand...

That's nice for Iran but they'll have to play ball since we all know that they had nuclear work at military sites. See previous post about IAEA requesting access and what happens if they don't get it. They were never going to give up unfettered instant access to all military installations in the country, no nation would.

This is just a lot of pointless hand wringing. If they don't abide by the terms and spirit of the deal it will obviously collapse and they'll be back to square one. I don't think this is likely given the enormous domestic Iranian interest in resolving this issue to they can stop being strangled economically.
 
norseamd

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106
CZroe said:
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.
Click to expand...

So this is what was actually occurring.

There was the football match between the Poles and Russians in the EURO 2012 tournament.

However the organizers got the amazing idea of playing the Pole-Russian match in Poland on Russia Day on June 12. So what more or less occurred was the the Russians decided to march to the stadium for nationalistic celebration knowing full well the legacies of centuries of Russian conquest and oppression of the Poles which only actually ended very recently with the overthrow of the Soviets which was actually the first of any communistic country that was controlled by the Russians. And it was actually the Poles who more or less were responsible for the collapse of the Soviets which started with the rise of Solidarity. And if I remember right the grand strategy mage Zbigniew Brzezinski was actually very involved with the Poles over the Cold War considering he was a Pole himself and was the son of a diplomat and was in both Germany and the USSR in the years leading up to World War 2 as a young boy and thus got to watch the rise of Nazism and Stalinism and the destruction of his home country and then watch the Germans and Russians partition the country among themselves over some tea.
 
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
cabri said:
1) Iran is presently stating that military facilities are off limits.
2) One can only inspect where work is suspected to be being done.

Can not do an inspection where you do not know where it is.

24 days should be enough time to dismantle the evidence or prohibited behavior (if it does exists).

If an inspection is asked of a site and refused; that in itself should raise suspicions.
Click to expand...

The whole bit about "prohibited behavior" is meaningless in the context of the agreement.

Let's say that they did, in fact, do research work w/ explosive triggers & neutron initiators prior to 2003, as alleged. I suspect that any nation capable of doing so has done the same. Knowing how is an issue of national security for any nation that has the tech to do so. It doesn't mean they will or won't or that they even intend. What was the status of such research prior to the Bush Admin making a big deal out of it for Iran but nobody else? How important is that baggage?

It's only really important if you want to avoid the central issues of the creation of weapons grade materials & the reduction of stocks of LEU. This agreement radically extends breakout time from what it is today & offers enormous incentives for Iran to abide by it.

Wait... what was I thinking? Righties never abandon a perfectly good bit of FUD even when it's been made irrelevant.
 
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
CZroe said:
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.
Click to expand...

And just how does it support the idea of "broader aggression" by Russia?

Other than by conspiracy theory, of course.
 
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
norseamd said:
So this is what was actually occurring.

There was the football match between the Poles and Russians in the EURO 2012 tournament.

However the organizers got the amazing idea of playing the Pole-Russian match in Poland on Russia Day on June 12. So what more or less occurred was the the Russians decided to march to the stadium for nationalistic celebration knowing full well the legacies of centuries of Russian conquest and oppression of the Poles which only actually ended very recently with the overthrow of the Soviets which was actually the first of any communistic country that was controlled by the Russians. And it was actually the Poles who more or less were responsible for the collapse of the Soviets which started with the rise of Solidarity. And if I remember right the grand strategy mage Zbigniew Brzezinski was actually very involved with the Poles over the Cold War considering he was a Pole himself and was the son of a diplomat and was in both Germany and the USSR in the years leading up to World War 2 as a young boy and thus got to watch the rise of Nazism and Stalinism and the destruction of his home country and then watch the Germans and Russians partition the country among themselves over some tea.
Click to expand...

So, uhh, Russian nationals can be hooligans? Who knew?

Wake me when Russia engages in any sort of real provocation against a NATO member, OK?
 
C

Chaotic0ne

Member
Jul 12, 2015
193
0
0
CZroe said:
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:
Click to expand...

Yes, Russia has plans for global domination and to conquer Europe first. The heroic US and NATO roll in to save the day to keep the evil Russians at bay....:rolleyes:

Most of these threats people hear about in the media are imaginary and only to justify continued high military industrial complex budgets. And because people are stupid enough to believe anything they hear on Fox/CNN/NBC/CBS - without question. If a talking head on Fox says it, then it must be true. This is the state of mental stupor the average American is in. Even though most couldn't even point to Russia on a map, let alone Ukraine.
 
Last edited:
C

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
It's like the Russian reset button all over again:
https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/624909057573408768

eknti.jpg
 
C

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Jhhnn said:
So what? Stupid rhetoric will persist on both sides as a way to appease the less rational, slowly wean them from their outrage addiction.

You scored enough that you wanted to share, right?
Click to expand...

Really? I wasn't aware I scored anything. This is great news! ;)

I keep checking the title of this subforum, and it still just says "Politics and News", not "Only the Politics and News Jhhnn Preapproves Of" :D
 
Last edited:
C

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Blackjack200 said:
Walker: We'll bomb Iran on day 1.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...take-military-action-against-iran-on-day-one/
Click to expand...

Last time I checked, there is a distinct difference in meanings between the words "will" and "might", and also "bomb" and "military action". Apparently you must have a better dictionary than I have to understand how those words can be used interchangeably. Please help out this poor, misguided soul :D



Also, if you would be so kind, please do point out where in this transcript is the phrase "We'll bomb Iran on day 1", I trust you are correct, but it would seem my abilities to decipher language are failing me at the moment :D :D :D
“I believe that a president shouldn’t wait to act until they put a cabinet together or for a certain period of time. I believe that they should be prepared to act on the very first day they take office. It’s very possible, God forbid that this would happen, but it’s very possible that the next president could be called on to take aggressive actions, including military actions, on their very first day in office, and I don’t want a president who is not prepared to act on day one. So as far as me, as far as my position, I’m going to be prepared to be president on day one.”
Click to expand...



Walker's comments are most certainly worthy of being added in as part of the discussion of this whole situation and what effects they have. But, you cannot falsify what he said in order to make your own opinions more credible. That's just plain wrong on so many levels.
 
Last edited:
Blackjack200

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
Mike Huckabee is running for President of Israel apparently

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...27/its-been-a-good-morning-for-mike-huckabee/

He responded within two hours, doubling down on his criticism of the Obama administration’s Iran policy Monday morning: He refused to walk back his controversial suggestion that the president’s proposed nuclear deal with the country “will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven,” again defending those remarks to reporters -- and sent a fundraising e-mail to supporters titled, "Obama directly attacks me."

"What's 'ridiculous and sad' is that President Obama does not take Iran's repeated threats seriously. For decades, Iranian leaders have pledged to 'destroy,' 'annihilate,' and 'wipe Israel off the map' with a 'big Holocaust,’” Huckabee said Monday. “'Never again' will be the policy of my administration, and I will stand with our ally Israel to prevent the terrorists in Tehran from achieving their own stated goal of another Holocaust."

"I do solemnly swear, that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the nation of Israel.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom