Iran, six world powers clinch breakthrough nuclear deal

[fskimospy]

I'm interested to hear what people who are opposed to this deal would want the US to do instead. Not vague statements, specifics. You want new sanctions? What kind of new sanctions? Why do you think they would be effective? You want to attack or invade Iran? Say why that is a better plan.

I'm pretty sure their primary complaint about this deal is that Obama was the one who made it.

 

[rudeguy]

I'm interested to hear what people who are opposed to this deal would want the US to do instead. Not vague statements, specifics. You want new sanctions? What kind of new sanctions? Why do you think they would be effective? You want to attack or invade Iran? Say why that is a better plan.

I'm pretty sure their primary complaint about this deal is that Obama was the one who made it.

Sanctions don't work.

I vote for a nice new glass parking lot.

 

[fskimospy]

Sanctions don't work.

I vote for a nice new glass parking lot.

Just to be clear, you think the best option is a preemptive nuclear attack on Iran?

 

[K1052]

Sanctions don't work.

I vote for a nice new glass parking lot.

Another fine example of compassionate conservatism.

 

[brandonb]

Hey, I'm conservative leaning, and I think this deal is wonderful! The best possible solution.

I'd give the thumbs up emoticon but I don't know how. In fact Jhnnn's post is about what I would say (from the last page).

Gotta love the ravers & naysayers.

Listening to Benjy, the Iranians have been six months away from creating nuclear weapons for the last ten years, at least. If that's been true at all, and I think it is, then the Iranians apparently don't want nukes. They could obviously make them if they chose to do so, like a lot of other nations.

They have the right to produce LEU under IAEA supervision, and have been for many years w/o significant incidents, innuendo & supposition aside. They may well have engaged in weapons related research in the past, but they're not alone in that, either.

The US has demanded that they cease their nuclear energy program, give up all nuclear materials, and they refused, hence sanctions. That doesn't mean we actually had the right to make such demands in the first place. It was just part of the multiple diversions created by the Bush admin to distract us from the top down looting of the American economy. It worked beautifully. Witness the moronic twits who still believe it served some other purpose.

Yes, the West is reasonable in demanding that the Iranians adopt additional protocols wrt the handling of nuclear materials. OTOH, we can't expect them to comply when we won't grant that they have the right to such materials in the first place. Therefore, a constructive agreement is necessary, and this looks like a first step in that direction.

But do rave on, fools.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Iran asked for 6 months to show that they are now serious.

So we go into a mode that is Trust but Verify.

They get their 6 months to prove themselves and the inspectors get unlimited access all over. Flood the country with inspectors; some being Israeli. check everything twice and ensure that everything gets accounted for that we know and they have paper trails on.

Israeli may have additional insights - utilize them.

 

[brandonb]

Israeli may have additional insights - utilize them.

More Stuxnet?

 

[boomerang]

Neville Chamberlain thought he stopped the Nazi's.

 

[yllus]

Neville Chamberlain thought he stopped the Nazi's.

What is your alternative course of action?

 

[woolfe9998]

Those who seek nuclear weapons agree, there is no downside to talking.

We've been down this road before with an Iranian trading partner. They know how the game is played. What else would I have us do? If we were intelligent and nation building off the table, my answer would be clear. Given present realities of our incompetence in Iraq and Afghanistan, I guess it's better to wait for a nuclear explosion before we act.

The world needs a military response to nuclear proliferation before winter, not after the bombs have fallen. You cannot realistically expect that for anyone who wants a nuke that peace and stability will follow. The Cold War with Russia was only successfully adverted by rationale players. So long as nuclear proliferation exists it shall one day find a player who is not rationale, and then MAD will fail us.

So long as we are resolved to talking, that day will come.

A military response here is not feasible. Their facilities are too protected, meaning that a massive strike and/or invasion would be required. The consequences of such are unacceptable. I'd support the military option if limited airstrikes could accomplish the purpose but that isn't the case.

I see no downside to negotiations. They very well may not ultimately work but that's irrelevant when other options are not viable.

 

[woolfe9998]

Just to be clear, you think the best option is a preemptive nuclear attack on Iran?

What amazes me is that many of the same people who now apparently want to conduct major military operations against Iran have been whining about extremely limited intervention in Libya and even the possibility of such limited intervention in Syria. Hint: if this administration is in favor of it and/or intends to do it, it's wrong.

 

[Nintendesert]

A military response here is not feasible. Their facilities are too protected, meaning that a massive strike and/or invasion would be required. The consequences of such are unacceptable. I'd support the military option if limited airstrikes could accomplish the purpose but that isn't the case.

I see no downside to negotiations. They very well may not ultimately work but that's irrelevant when other options are not viable.

Again, best fix is to remove sanctions and start wide spread trading with them. The population is young in Iran and the more sex, drugs and Rock 'n Roll the younger generations get the less extreme they will be and the more they'll get hooked on being a world participant and enjoying what it means to live in an era not beginning with dark, stone-age, or medieval.

Cuba could have been converted long ago had we not continued those sanctions, instead we have 50 years of stalemate. We can do better here. War isn't the answer and anyone pushing for it is free to enlist (or better yet answer where they were for the last two wars spanning a decade...) or merc themselves out to the Israelis.

Engagement with Iran and more trade is going to be what causes reform there, not more sanctions or saber rattling which simply is used to manipulate the populace into supporting the regime.

 

[fskimospy]

What amazes me is that many of the same people who now apparently want to conduct major military operations against Iran have been whining about extremely limited intervention in Libya and even the possibility of such limited intervention in Syria. Hint: if this administration is in favor of it and/or intends to do it, it's wrong.

Yep. It's pretty telling that not one of the people complaining about this deal can articulate another course of action that they think is superior. When Obama wants to attack a country he's a warmonger. When Obama uses diplomacy with another country he's an appeaser. The only variable is what script they use.

I'm not aware of any credible analysis of Iran's nuclear facilities that gives a high probability that an air strike will cause enough damage to significantly retard Iran's nuclear program. That means we have to invade. It should go without saying why that's a bad idea. So if you can't blow their facilities up, what do you do?

 

[OverVolt]

The issue with Iran AFAIK is that they trade off the petro dollar. Pakistan has nukes (and a black market for them) but you don't see us going after them with the same fervor.

http://rt.com/news/iran-india-gold-oil-543/

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/29/world/meast/turkey-iran-gold-for-oil/

Its really about circumnavigating the petro dollar by trading oil for gold directly. Thats why we are pissed at Iran. That is why China will go to WWIII over Iran if we invaded etc.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Hmmmm Oil for Gold...Did Iran speak with Ron Paul and his gold standard loving friends?

 

[AViking]

Sanctions don't work.

I vote for a nice new glass parking lot.

I am fascinated by this level of ignorance. You are literally advocating the death of 77,000,000 people rather than negotiation or sanctions.

I'm most likely heading to Iran for a couple weeks of tourism. Probably won't have time to see more than Shiraz, Tehran, and Persepolis but that'll have to do.

 

[rudeguy]

I am fascinated by this level of ignorance. You are literally advocating the death of 77,000,000 people rather than negotiation or sanctions.

I'm most likely heading to Iran for a couple weeks of tourism. Probably won't have time to see more than Shiraz, Tehran, and Persepolis but that'll have to do.

naaah...just feeding the trolls. They were starving in here!


Some details have leaked about the negotiations though. Apparently at one point Kerry held up a picture of a row of centrifuges and yelled "You didn't build that!"

Then to finally seal the deal he told the Iranians "If you like your nukes, you can keep your nukes." But he had his fingers crossed so it doesn't count.

 

[dainthomas]

Yep. It's pretty telling that not one of the people complaining about this deal can articulate another course of action that they think is superior. When Obama wants to attack a country he's a warmonger. When Obama uses diplomacy with another country he's an appeaser. The only variable is what script they use.

This thread in a nutshell

 

[IGBT]

sounds nearly identical to clintons failed North Korean Deal. Look how that turned out.

 

[rudeguy]

sounds nearly identical to clintons failed North Korean Deal. Look how that turned out.

Appeasement. ..it works every time!

 

[michal1980]

Typical liberalism. Look at eskimpospy nuto's posts.

'its better to do something then nothing'.

like they say, the road to hell is paved in good intentions, and liberals are building highways.


There are multiple problems with this deal.

1) the use admits that Iran has the right to nuke power. Something we denied before
2) Iran gets billions of dollars
3) Irans actions that violated various laws have been legitimized. They now can claim they were doing nothing wrong, and the world is folding to their power

The terms have more holes then swiss cheese.

1) Iran can work on its heavy water nuclear reactor. But only at the plant itself. It can continue building every piece it wants to, just not install them at this moment. Heck it can work on a different plant just not the ones in the agreement.

2) Iran will be inspected - But only at the places Iran will allow inspectors. Its like Hitler telling us we can inspection the concentration camps, but he'll give the tour, and choose the time and place

3)We will review the actions of Iran in 6 month. Because once everything fails Obama will admit he was wrong... and then continue doubling down on it.


----

What should be doing,

a) continuing on with the current sanctions
b) cranking the sanctions up.

--------

Neither option works for a liberal. Because they saw something shinny in Iran, a distraction from Obamacare. And so now no matter what, they will go for it on hope.

 

[brycejones]

What is your alternative course of action?

He plans on whining at the Iranian president until the president caves in.

 

[brycejones]

Typical liberalism. Look at eskimpospy nuto's posts.

'its better to do something then nothing'.

like they say, the road to hell is paved in good intentions, and liberals are building highways.


There are multiple problems with this deal.

1) the use admits that Iran has the right to nuke power. Something we denied before
2) Iran gets billions of dollars
3) Irans actions that violated various laws have been legitimized. They now can claim they were doing nothing wrong, and the world is folding to their power

The terms have more holes then swiss cheese.

1) Iran can work on its heavy water nuclear reactor. But only at the plant itself. It can continue building every piece it wants to, just not install them at this moment. Heck it can work on a different plant just not the ones in the agreement.

2) Iran will be inspected - But only at the places Iran will allow inspectors. Its like Hitler telling us we can inspection the concentration camps, but he'll give the tour, and choose the time and place

3)We will review the actions of Iran in 6 month. Because once everything fails Obama will admit he was wrong... and then continue doubling down on it.


----

What should be doing,

a) continuing on with the current sanctions
b) cranking the sanctions up.

--------

Neither option works for a liberal. Because they saw something shinny in Iran, a distraction from Obamacare. And so now no matter what, they will go for it on hope.

Well at least you don't want to nuke'm like some of your compatriots are putting forward as an option here.

 

[IGBT]

Iran is a oil spigot nation. Why should they get any (bribe) money??

 

[michal1980]

Well at least you don't want to nuke'm like some of your compatriots are putting forward as an option here.

Theres no need to nuke them at this time.