Iran deal reached

[Jhhnn]

It's about how well the government guards their weapons.

It's also about how possession of nuclear weapons are used as very effective propaganda tool to embolden groups in many other ways. See Russia as an example of what nuclear weapons can motivate people to do despite the weapons never actually being used.

So why do you oppose a deal that will demonstrably reduce Iran's potential to breakout into weapons production? A deal that allows them an opening for much bigger and better things? A deal where the world's only superpower abandons their policy of regime change?

Crazy Mullahs? Crazy like a fox. They challenged arrogant Neocon imperialism and won. We need their govt to be there to follow the agreement. We need for it to be there forever to comply with IAEA inspections & protocols.

I figure this deal & more of the same is what they wanted all along, not nuclear weapons at all. They're plenty smart enough to follow it to the letter. We won't be doing them the way we did Iraq for the benefit of the Israelis.

More than that, they know what they're doing, that internal pressures for liberalization will mount as a result & very likely succeed. They're apparently willing to accept that.

 

[cliftonite]

The same posters who are advocating military action against Iran (cubby, tasteslikechicken, etc) were the same posters who were amongst the biggest cheerleaders for the Iraq war.

 

[ivwshane]

It's about how well the government guards their weapons.

It's also about how possession of nuclear weapons are used as very effective propaganda tool to embolden groups in many other ways. See Russia as an example of what nuclear weapons can motivate people to do despite the weapons never actually being used.

But then again we've gone over this same discussion time and time and time again. You're stance is nuclear weapons won't be detonated. My (and others too) stance is nuclear weapons will likely be used to destabilize neighbors. Your stance doesn't actually make any counterpoint to that. We have an actual real-world example of a nation who uses the threat of nuclear weapons to successfully destabilize and exert control over neighboring countries.

The purpose of having nuclear weapons is not to use them in battle, it's to (1) eliminate attacks from foreign entities, (2) motivate people through propaganda, and (3) greatly reduce the size and scope of responses to anything the nation's leaders want to do.

What examples do you have of countries destabilizing other countries using the threat of nukes to do it?

 

[Jaskalas]

The same posters who are advocating military action against Iran (cubby, tasteslikechicken, etc) were the same posters who were amongst the biggest cheerleaders for the Iraq war.

The difference being that Iran has a nuclear program.

 

[ivwshane]

The difference being that Iran has a nuclear program.

So they knew when bush was saying Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program that he was lying? Or is not knowing that no nuclear weapon program existed different than knowing a program does exist? I'm just trying to understand how pushing for war was different in the two situations, unless hindsight plays some role.

 

[nickqt]

So they knew when bush was saying Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program that he was lying? Or is not knowing that no nuclear weapon program existed different than knowing a program does exist? I'm just trying to understand how pushing for war was different in the two situations, unless hindsight plays some role.

Let's not forget that Iran has an acknowledged nuclear program, and that as of 2012, the CIA and Mossad have stated that Iran had no nuclear weapon program.

But hey, for the jingoists, bombing anyone and everyone who seems scary to them is OK. Flowers await our troops this time, I'm sure!

 

[Jaskalas]

Israel has nuclear weapons.
So the question as far as prospect of a nuclear war between Iran and Israel is not whether Iran is nice or mean. It's whether Iran is suicidal or not. And it's pretty clear that both Iran as a culture, and the current regime in power are anything but suicidal, and there won't be a nuclear war whether Iran has a nuke or not. Just like there wasn't a nuclear war between US and USSR. Mutually Assured Destruction.

Preaching MAD, on behalf of religious zealots that both practice martyrdom and hold CORE in their beliefs that the Mahdi demands "ending" the world. All the while they act as a Terrorist Kingpin across the Middle East, for which handing off such weapons provides plausible deniability and little chance of direct retaliation.

Middle East Theocracies are NOT the same as world class superpowers such as the USA and USSR during the Cold War. The best and the brightest should not be the gold standard for how trickle down nuclear proliferation will resolve for lesser nations full of religious dogma, cultural superstition, severe homicidal oppression, and a daily life of violence and bloodshed.

Your parallel that "Hey, if it worked for the Cold War..." does not hold weight. There were times where we were pretty !@#$ing close to pressing the red button and the only thing that stopped us was the logic and reason available to world class superpowers. That you think it's a great idea to play that game again... with desperate tinpot dictators and tyrannical religious zealots is quite mind boggling.

The outcome will not be the same every time... you are very much playing Russian roulette with nuclear war every time you let a new nation load the dice on the nuclear stage. It REALLY IS just a matter of time if we allow such development to continue unchecked and unopposed militarily.

There must come a day when an invasion is the answer to nuclear proliferation. It might be that Iran isn't the time for that ultimatum... but someone has to be, and lives WILL be lost - but the price is paid in a desperate bid to stop the next nuclear war.

You want gun control - you had DAMN WELL stand for nuclear arms control.

 

[ivwshane]

It's interesting that you bring up their religious practices/beliefs while ignoring that one of their beliefs is against using nuclear weapons.

I'm just curious how you came to the conclusion that the Middle East power players weren't like the US and USSR?

Preaching MAD, on behalf of religious zealots that both practice martyrdom and hold CORE in their beliefs that the Mahdi demands "ending" the world. All the while they act as a Terrorist Kingpin across the Middle East, for which handing off such weapons provides plausible deniability and little chance of direct retaliation.

Middle East Theocracies are NOT the same as world class superpowers such as the USA and USSR during the Cold War. The best and the brightest should not be the gold standard for how trickle down nuclear proliferation will resolve for lesser nations full of religious dogma, cultural superstition, severe homicidal oppression, and a daily life of violence and bloodshed.

Your parallel that "Hey, if it worked for the Cold War..." does not hold weight. There were times where we were pretty !@#$ing close to pressing the red button and the only thing that stopped us was the logic and reason available to world class superpowers. That you think it's a great idea to play that game again... with desperate tinpot dictators and tyrannical religious zealots is quite mind boggling.

The outcome will not be the same every time... you are very much playing Russian roulette with nuclear war every time you let a new nation load the dice on the nuclear stage. It REALLY IS just a matter of time if we allow such development to continue unchecked and unopposed militarily.

There must come a day when an invasion is the answer to nuclear proliferation. It might be that Iran isn't the time for that ultimatum... but someone has to be, and lives WILL be lost - but the price is paid in a desperate bid to stop the next nuclear war.

You want gun control - you had DAMN WELL stand for nuclear arms control.

Hence being for this deal

 

[Jhhnn]

You want gun control - you had DAMN WELL stand for nuclear arms control.

The agreement with Iran is intended to accomplish just that & will very likely succeed, now & in the foreseeable future. It's based on scientific principles & verification unlike the "Crazy Mullahs!" trope.

Memo from the White House- "Dear Neocons, Dearest Bibi- No War for you!"

 

[Jaskalas]

“Iran already has enough nuclear material for 10 to 12 bombs,” Kerry said

But don't worry... inspectors will be able to determine if they've packaged the material into weapons casing... 24 days later, if we say pretty please, and if the ayatollahs are feeling generous that month.

Hence being for this deal

The deal is transparent - peace at any cost. Peace with a nuclear Iran.

I'm just curious how you came to the conclusion that the Middle East power players weren't like the US and USSR?

Islamic violence and terrorism the world over. Iran's sworn history and statements of being our enemy hell bent on our destruction. The instability and insanity of tinpot dictators and religious zealots.

You trash religion, and you trash weapons... in the USA.
In the Middle East you eagerly rubber stamp Nuclear Armed Religion.
I'm curious how you came the conclusion that the world can survive that.

 

[K1052]

“Iran already has enough nuclear material for 10 to 12 bombs,” Kerry said[/URL][/SIZE]

But don't worry... inspectors will be able to determine if they've packaged the material into weapons casing... 24 days later, if we say pretty please, and if the ayatollahs are feeling generous that month.

The fissile material he's referring to still needs to be enriched to weapons grade and developed into a workable (and deliverable weapon). That takes a lot longer than 24 days. Also any enrichment above reactor grade would be easily detectable.

 

[ivwshane]

“Iran already has enough nuclear material for 10 to 12 bombs,” Kerry said

But don't worry... inspectors will be able to determine if they've packaged the material into weapons casing... 24 days later, if we say pretty please, and if the ayatollahs are feeling generous that month.



The deal is transparent - peace at any cost. Peace with a nuclear Iran.



Islamic violence and terrorism the world over. Iran's sworn history and statements of being our enemy hell bent on our destruction. The instability and insanity of tinpot dictators and religious zealots.

You trash religion, and you trash weapons... in the USA.
In the Middle East you eagerly rubber stamp Nuclear Armed Religion.
I'm curious how you came the conclusion that the world can survive that.

You didn't answer the question unless you think the US/USSR has done none of those things itself. I'd also like to point out that Iran has been one of the most stable players in the region (well after they undid our handiwork).

 

[fskimospy]

“Iran already has enough nuclear material for 10 to 12 bombs,” Kerry said

But don't worry... inspectors will be able to determine if they've packaged the material into weapons casing... 24 days later, if we say pretty please, and if the ayatollahs are feeling generous that month.

This is not an accurate representation of the deal and you know this.

The deal is transparent - peace at any cost. Peace with a nuclear Iran.

You mean peace with a non-nuclear Iran. That's the point of this deal.

Islamic violence and terrorism the world over. Iran's sworn history and statements of being our enemy hell bent on our destruction. The instability and insanity of tinpot dictators and religious zealots.

You trash religion, and you trash weapons... in the USA.
In the Middle East you eagerly rubber stamp Nuclear Armed Religion.
I'm curious how you came the conclusion that the world can survive that.

Remember, of all available options this deal does the most to PREVENT Iran from getting nuclear weapons. I feel like you may be getting your evaluation of this deal from some duplicitous sources with an agenda.

Have you looked into evaluations of this deal from objective sources? If you do, you might be very happy at what you see, assuming your goal is peace with a non-nuclear Iran.

I think that's the biggest problem here, is that the goal of the people coming out against this deal is not peace with a non-nuclear Iran. Their goal was war with Iran.

 

[nickqt]

“Iran already has enough nuclear material for 10 to 12 bombs,” Kerry said

But don't worry... inspectors will be able to determine if they've packaged the material into weapons casing... 24 days later, if we say pretty please, and if the ayatollahs are feeling generous that month.



The deal is transparent - peace at any cost. Peace with a nuclear Iran.



Islamic violence and terrorism the world over. Iran's sworn history and statements of being our enemy hell bent on our destruction. The instability and insanity of tinpot dictators and religious zealots.

You trash religion, and you trash weapons... in the USA.
In the Middle East you eagerly rubber stamp Nuclear Armed Religion.
I'm curious how you came the conclusion that the world can survive that.

The sky is falling.
Run.
Panic.
Scream.

 

[cabri]

The fissile material he's referring to still needs to be enriched to weapons grade and developed into a workable (and deliverable weapon). That takes a lot longer than 24 days. Also any enrichment above reactor grade would be easily detectable.

How, if access to military sites are prohibited?

 

[cabri]

You didn't answer the question unless you think the US/USSR has done none of those things itself. I'd also like to point out that Iran has been one of the most stable players in the region (well after they undid our handiwork).

Iran itself may be stable - however, they continue to promote instability in the region

 

[K1052]

How, if access to military sites are prohibited?

Because they aren't.

Inspections can be requested at any site and Iran has a certain number of days to approve/deny. If denied the question goes to a commission for a final decision. Failure to allow inspections approved by the comission constitutes a breach of the agreement.

 

[K1052]

Iran itself may be stable - however, they continue to promote instability in the region

Pretty sure we did the best job at that in the last couple decades.

 

[ivwshane]

Iran itself may be stable - however, they continue to promote instability in the region

Again, the claim was that Iran is different from the US/USSR. Them promoting instability in the region is no different than what the US/USSR has done.

 

[cabri]

Because they aren't.

Inspections can be requested at any site and Iran has a certain number of days to approve/deny. If denied the question goes to a commission for a final decision. Failure to allow inspections approved by the comission constitutes a breach of the agreement.

You apparently have not been paying attention to what has been coming out of the Iranian leadership since the "agreement".

Until this line in the sand is challenged, we will not know.
Similar to the lines that Saddam drew for how many years...

 

[cabri]

You didn't answer the question unless you think the US/USSR has done none of those things itself. I'd also like to point out that Iran has been one of the most stable players in the region (well after they undid our handiwork).

Iran itself may be stable - however, they continue to promote instability in the region

Again, the claim was that Iran is different from the US/USSR. Them promoting instability in the region is no different than what the US/USSR has done.

I believe you had two phrases. I responded to the second.

Iran wants to be THE powerhouse in the region.

With KSA and Israel challenging that perception; Iran will continue to attempt to destabilize those opponents using proxies (to keep their hands clean)

 

[Jhhnn]

The fissile material he's referring to still needs to be enriched to weapons grade and developed into a workable (and deliverable weapon). That takes a lot longer than 24 days. Also any enrichment above reactor grade would be easily detectable.

Facts are immaterial to the formulation of right wing opinion. He's been a party to this thread all along & has had many placed right under his nose, time & time again.

He believes what he wants to believe about Iran the same way that Fundie zealots believe in Jesus. He'll fail to comprehend the significance of any information running counter to that Faith.

 

[K1052]

You apparently have not been paying attention to what has been coming out of the Iranian leadership since the "agreement".

Until this line in the sand is challenged, we will not know.
Similar to the lines that Saddam drew for how many years...

I've seen it. Even a cursory understanding of what goes on over there would lead one to infer that their government often says one thing to appease the hardliners then does another to work with political reality, this is just another instance.

 

[Jhhnn]

How, if access to military sites are prohibited?

You keep missing the whole point wrt those sites. It has never been alleged that they are enrichment sites. Iranian enrichment sites have all been closely monitored by the IAEA from the very beginning. They have never alleged that weapons grade material has ever been produced. If the avenues to production of weapons grade material are closed off, weapons simply cannot exist.

Hell, that's why we were willing to make a deal at all. We need to accept the fact that Iran can produce nuclear weapons if they set their minds to it. The object of an agreement is to dissuade them of fulfilling that desire & to extend the time frame in which they might do so.

That entails an enormous and basically irreversible change in our foreign policy, abandonment of regime change in Iran.

The de-escalation in that is profound & a source of great consternation to hard liners on both sides who've used it & this nuclear issue to leverage domestic political support for authoritarian agendas. They're also the people most likely to miscalculate under heightened tensions & start a war that nobody needs other than themselves & the profiteers.

These guys are really afraid that Iran will live up to the agreement, not that they won't.

 

[Jhhnn]

I've seen it. Even a cursory understanding of what goes on over there would lead one to infer that their government often says one thing to appease the hardliners then does another to work with political reality, this is just another instance.

Yep. What they say doesn't matter. What they do is really what matters. We'll see, but I don't see them squandering what is such a huge victory for their govt & their people. This changes everything, like Kissinger going to China.