Top nuclear scientists praise Iran deal

[fskimospy]

A 2 month vs. a 12 month breakout period and ballistic missiles in 8 years...awesome deal! History will not be kind to this president imo.

We need to start keeping a running tally of all the things you've declared that history won't be kind to Obama over. It's one of those passive aggressive attacks on someone that has the convenient benefit of requiring no factual basis.

A number of your 'history won't be kind' predictions look pretty foolish already, but I guess that doesn't stop you from making new ones.

 

[Paratus]

What a pathetic attempt at propaganda to push the deal as if flails in public polling. What some group of scientists think about this matter is completely irrelevant. This isn't a scientific matter, it's a geopolitical one.

This is the kind of stupidity that happens when you start mixing science with politics. Scientists should keep to science. Leave the politics to the idiots...errr... politicians.

If I may be permitted a few examples from science fiction:

These are the decisions you get when actions are taken while informed by good science.

This is what you get when you don't:

Politicians using science to understand reality as an input to making political decisions is a good thing.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't swing that way. That's an output port only. Not judging those that prefer otherwise, just clarifying.

As for my comment, dear boy, it has to do with libs on here stuck in their belief that they are as pure as the virgin snow and are above any form of questioning by those they deem to be inferior, i.e., anyone that has the temerity to disagree with them. Sorry to disappoint you, but we still live in a country where people are allowed to disagree. Sure, there points of disagreement may be completely invalid, but with the typical lib 'my sh*t don't stink because I'm an evolved human' attitude, all you're doing is causing people to dig in their heels. You have no honest interest in engaging in a meaningful discussion. All that I see from your side is, 'we're doing x because we know better, eff of and die if you dare to disagree - actually, eff off and die period'. The US in fractured beyond repair at this point.

For the record, the scientists may very well provide useful input to this discussion, which should be taken seriously. But as others have said, that's only part of the issue; they may indeed be highly competent at what they do (certainly more than anyone on this board), but that doesn't qualify them as negotiators or competent at understanding other factors that would go into this agreement.

But whatever. I don't bow down and worship those with a D after their name (I don't bow down and worship the Rs either, btw) so think what you will; I couldn't care less.

I'm glad there is one thing you have any information on, its proper ass maintenance. When it comes to taking it up the ass, no one knows better then FerrelGeek.

Rightwingers have to be against the Iran deal, simply because Obama is for it. There is no other recourse for them. They don't need to understand it (most of them can't anyways), just they have to claim its bad. The less they understand it, the more they are against it.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Won't disagree with this. But scientific input is only one part of the equation. Remember, Kirk could beat Spok at chess because his moves weren't always the logical, scientific choice.

If I may be permitted a few examples from science fiction:

These are the decisions you get when actions are taken while informed by good science.

This is what you get when you don't:

Politicians using science to understand reality as an input to making political decisions is a good thing.

 

[Moonbeam]

Sure but I would think he was still conservative enough that you would say he had the CBD thing you talk about.

Your post mentioned a propensity for war as a symptom and given Reagan's military buildup, calling the USSR evil, Iran contra, and other hawkish behavior it would seem he qualifies for your CBD thingy using your parameters regardless of how he compares to today's Republicans.

He died from a brain defect after all right? Ok that was low.

Reagan was a liberal who hated communism, nuclear weapons, and the idea of mutual assured destruction with a messianic passion. He was also a deep and creative strategist with a vision he developed over a lifetime unlike other Democrats and Republicans. His goal was the complete elimination of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth. He believed he could break the Soviet Union by winning the Cold War, that we could defeat them economically by initiating an arms race and force them to change their system.

Unfortunately, it was also during his Presidency that notions of the evils of government began that have lead to massive income inequality and the decimation of the middle class, the decline of union power, business regulations, social programs, greed is good, etc.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

We need to start keeping a running tally of all the things you've declared that history won't be kind to Obama over. It's one of those passive aggressive attacks on someone that has the convenient benefit of requiring no factual basis.

A number of your 'history won't be kind' predictions look pretty foolish already, but I guess that doesn't stop you from making new ones.

Yet you seem to have no problem stating your opinion without any factual basis. The irony here is incredibly thick. Are you butthurt about something?

 

[realibrad]

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't swing that way. That's an output port only. Not judging those that prefer otherwise, just clarifying.

As for my comment, dear boy, it has to do with libs on here stuck in their belief that they are as pure as the virgin snow and are above any form of questioning by those they deem to be inferior, i.e., anyone that has the temerity to disagree with them. Sorry to disappoint you, but we still live in a country where people are allowed to disagree. Sure, there points of disagreement may be completely invalid, but with the typical lib 'my sh*t don't stink because I'm an evolved human' attitude, all you're doing is causing people to dig in their heels. You have no honest interest in engaging in a meaningful discussion. All that I see from your side is, 'we're doing x because we know better, eff of and die if you dare to disagree - actually, eff off and die period'. The US in fractured beyond repair at this point.

For the record, the scientists may very well provide useful input to this discussion, which should be taken seriously. But as others have said, that's only part of the issue; they may indeed be highly competent at what they do (certainly more than anyone on this board), but that doesn't qualify them as negotiators or competent at understanding other factors that would go into this agreement.

But whatever. I don't bow down and worship those with a D after their name (I don't bow down and worship the Rs either, btw) so think what you will; I couldn't care less.

To me, the point of the scientists was to give validity of the agreement in terms of the effectiveness. The scientists seem to be saying that the things put into place will be effective in stopping Iran from building a nuke. If the ultimate goal is to stop Iran, and this agreement is in place until 2040, then how is this a bad thing? There are political issues, but the science is there, the scientists back it saying it will be effective.

So what are the political issues that this deal does not address?

 

[fskimospy]

Yet you seem to have no problem stating your opinion without any factual basis. The irony here is incredibly thick. Are you butthurt about something?

You should read more carefully. I didn't say that people shouldn't offer their opinions, I just find it amusing that you've been steadily invoking the poor judgment of history for Obama's entire presidency based on little, and some of those already look foolish.

 

[Greenman]

I've read in several places that the Iranian government is very happy with the deal they made, the term I saw more than once was "great victory". I guess if our government likes the deal, and the Iranians love the deal, it's a win win all the way around.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You should read more carefully. I didn't say that people shouldn't offer their opinions, I just find it amusing that you've been steadily invoking the poor judgment of history for Obama's entire presidency based on little, and some of those already look foolish.

I'm sure that most everyone's opinion that doesn't agree with yours looks foolish to you...funny how that works. Seriously, what is your problem?

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm sure that most everyone's opinion that doesn't agree with yours looks foolish to you...funny how that works. Seriously, what is your problem?

My guess is that because he is a very logical and rational thinker and reads and remembers what you say, he is aware that many of your statements about how Obama will be judged by history look to him to be contrary to how history is playing out. His problem, in my opinion, then, would be amazement, in the face of these apparent facts, that you continue to have faith in your opinions and continue to espouse them. He suggests that you may do so because you are passive aggressive, that is to say, fearful to mount a logical attack for fear of contradiction, but still needing to express your contempt by leaking it out indirectly. If he is correct, perhaps the problem is that you don't want to see it.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

My guess is that because he is a very logical and rational thinker and reads and remembers what you say, he is aware that many of your statements about how Obama will be judged by history look to him to be contrary to how history is playing out. His problem, in my opinion, then, would be amazement, in the face of these apparent facts, that you continue to have faith in your opinions and continue to espouse them. He suggests that you may do so because you are passive aggressive, that is to say, fearful to mount a logical attack for fear of contradiction, but still needing to express your contempt by leaking it out indirectly. If he is correct, perhaps the problem is that you don't want to see it.

You can speculate till the cows come home and won't be any the wiser for it. Do you have an opinion as to the truth of what he says? If so, please share.

 

[Moonbeam]

You can speculate till the cows come home and won't be any the wiser for it. Do you have an opinion as to the truth of what he says? If so, please share.

I leave the truth of what I thought he said up to you. If I get any wiser my head will hit the ground and my feet will kick uselessly in the air so that was not my intention.

 

[CitizenKain]

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't swing that way. That's an output port only. Not judging those that prefer otherwise, just clarifying.

As for my comment, dear boy, it has to do with libs on here stuck in their belief that they are as pure as the virgin snow and are above any form of questioning by those they deem to be inferior, i.e., anyone that has the temerity to disagree with them. Sorry to disappoint you, but we still live in a country where people are allowed to disagree. Sure, there points of disagreement may be completely invalid, but with the typical lib 'my sh*t don't stink because I'm an evolved human' attitude, all you're doing is causing people to dig in their heels. You have no honest interest in engaging in a meaningful discussion. All that I see from your side is, 'we're doing x because we know better, eff of and die if you dare to disagree - actually, eff off and die period'. The US in fractured beyond repair at this point.

For the record, the scientists may very well provide useful input to this discussion, which should be taken seriously. But as others have said, that's only part of the issue; they may indeed be highly competent at what they do (certainly more than anyone on this board), but that doesn't qualify them as negotiators or competent at understanding other factors that would go into this agreement.

But whatever. I don't bow down and worship those with a D after their name (I don't bow down and worship the Rs either, btw) so think what you will; I couldn't care less.

While all I see from the rightwingers like yourself is meaningless noise about how bad Obama is and there never once been a ounce of actual, useful criticism from the right. The right spent years screaming about the ACA, and have yet to offer a valid replacement. The right will spend years screaming about this deal, again without offering a valid replacement.

If you want to pretend that somehow now the rightwing has useful input into something, go on ahead, reality has proven otherwise.

 

[Jhhnn]

What a pathetic attempt at propaganda to push the deal as if flails in public polling. What some group of scientists think about this matter is completely irrelevant. This isn't a scientific matter, it's a geopolitical one.

This is the kind of stupidity that happens when you start mixing science with politics. Scientists should keep to science. Leave the politics to the idiots...errr... politicians.

And the return to character assassination via your own propaganda. These men have nothing to gain from making their educated opinions public unlike the detractors of the deal.

Irrational fear is still a big seller almost 14 years after 9/11. So is massive distortion of the facts in pursuit of emotionally driven votes.

Facts & Science are the basis of honest geopolitics. Iran has achieved & will maintain the capabilities to create nuclear weapons in any scenario other than war & invasion. They will not relinquish that as a matter of national security. That renders all the raving on the Right into dis-informational & delusional bullshit.

Therefore, science must be employed to formulate & verify Iran's compliance with this agreement. The truth is that the NPT as currently written allows for the unlimited production & stockpiling of 20% LEU & a very short breakout timeline. The new agreement does not. The new agreement also allows for real time continuous monitoring of production facilities, something the NPT does not. The new agreement does a lot more, as well.

The objective is not just to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons but also to take away the reasons Iran might want them- you know, regime change, the active efforts to undermine & destroy their govt.

 

[ivwshane]

Yes, of course, your precious libs are the sum of all virtues. You're an idiot, plain and simple. And would you tell your wife/gf/whatever to start using a little lube with their strap-on? Your arse is constantly chaffed these days.

Lol! Ah the righty mentality...all absolutes, all black or white, never a shade of gray.
I'm sorry I don't buy your defensive position that all sides are equal but that doesn't mean I automatically believe dems are perfect angels. Maybe in your world that's how you view things but in reality, my world, there are such things as a lessor of two evils.

Then again, in your world you appear to see nothing but asses and strap ons. Perhaps it's time for you to take down your floor to ceiling mirrors

 

[ivwshane]

A good sign of propaganda is the use of misleading or biased information. Can the discreditors point to biased or misleading statements by the scientists?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I leave the truth of what I thought he said up to you. If I get any wiser my head will hit the ground and my feet will kick uselessly in the air so that was not my intention.

We won't know the validity of my opinions on how history will treat Obama until I'm long dead...but until then, please humor me....and I'll do the same for you.

 

[Moonbeam]

We won't know the validity of my opinions on how history will treat Obama until I'm long dead...but until then, please humor me....and I'll do the same for you.

I am sorry but my point is not whether your predictions are accurate or not. My point is why do you make them when you will not even live to know if you are right. It was suggested that you make them because you are passive aggressive, that you want to denigrate Obama without the use of data and reason to back up your opinion. This is the charge I brought to your attention and to which I asked you to consider or not. eskimo says he sees a pattern and adduces a cause. Do you see one and what do you see as the cause.

If you say that Obama will not be judged by history well, you are creating a history of where you want history to go. This shows a bias, a reflection, only, of your opinion.

Why spoil my opinion that Obama will be historically very significant in a positive way.

 

[FerrelGeek]

If that is the case, that helps immensely. As long as there is no viable way for the Iranians to cheat and get away with it, that goes a long way to easing my concerns.

To me, the point of the scientists was to give validity of the agreement in terms of the effectiveness. The scientists seem to be saying that the things put into place will be effective in stopping Iran from building a nuke. If the ultimate goal is to stop Iran, and this agreement is in place until 2040, then how is this a bad thing? There are political issues, but the science is there, the scientists back it saying it will be effective.

So what are the political issues that this deal does not address?

 

[cabri]

I am sorry but my point is not whether your predictions are accurate or not. My point is why do you make them when you will not even live to know if you are right. It was suggested that you make them because you are passive aggressive, that you want to denigrate Obama without the use of data and reason to back up your opinion. This is the charge I brought to your attention and to which I asked you to consider or not. eskimo says he sees a pattern and adduces a cause. Do you see one and what do you see as the cause.

If you say that Obama will not be judged by history well, you are creating a history of where you want history to go. This shows a bias, a reflection, only, of your opinion.

Why spoil my opinion that Obama will be historically very significant in a positive way.

Possibly because you choose one path and he chooses another.

Until the paths end; neither will know which path is correct and/or both may end up at the same place.
Given that neither has traveled that path, not anyone else; who knows.

However, you choose to denounce him because he chooses a different path than you; but do not appreciate when such is pointed out. why is it that it has to be your path that is the only one allowed/correct.

You have a crystal ball?

 

[FerrelGeek]

I do see an a**, every time I read one of your posts

I do in fact know that there are many shades of grey out there - even more that 50

I've dealt with the lesser of multiple evils for most of my life, son; more than you could possibly imagine.

You've learned nothing of me if you haven't read my disparaging comments on the stupid party - the Rs.

If it wouldn't be for loss of much of our history (and some of my family), you could nuke DC for all I care. A plague on both their houses. None of the genuinely care about the bottom 90% of this country; anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

Lol! Ah the righty mentality...all absolutes, all black or white, never a shade of gray.
I'm sorry I don't buy your defensive position that all sides are equal but that doesn't mean I automatically believe dems are perfect angels. Maybe in your world that's how you view things but in reality, my world, there are such things as a lessor of two evils.

Then again, in your world you appear to see nothing but asses and strap ons. Perhaps it's time for you to take down your floor to ceiling mirrors

 

[realibrad]

If that is the case, that helps immensely. As long as there is no viable way for the Iranians to cheat and get away with it, that goes a long way to easing my concerns.

From the article that was posted, it said that Iran was weeks away from getting material to use in a Nuke. At the very least, this deal seems to give us more than a few weeks time to try at peace. I really don't understand the trouble with this deal.

Scientists seem to think its possible to keep Iran from getting a nuke without us knowing. If they break the rules, we can put the sanctions back into place that were collapsing their economy. This deal does not mean we cant go to war with them if they break the rules.

I have tried to understand the downside of this deal, and I cannot find one.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I am sorry but my point is not whether your predictions are accurate or not. My point is why do you make them when you will not even live to know if you are right. It was suggested that you make them because you are passive aggressive, that you want to denigrate Obama without the use of data and reason to back up your opinion. This is the charge I brought to your attention and to which I asked you to consider or not. eskimo says he sees a pattern and adduces a cause. Do you see one and what do you see as the cause.

If you say that Obama will not be judged by history well, you are creating a history of where you want history to go. This shows a bias, a reflection, only, of your opinion.

Why spoil my opinion that Obama will be historically very significant in a positive way.

I was hoping that you would do me a kindness and humor me, and that I would gladly reciprocate (which I will do anyway regardless of whether or not you begrudge me this small kindness). Anyway, I don't understand your motive for reiterating eskimospy's opinion. Do you believe his opinion carries more weight than mine even though both are subjective speculation?

On this particular issue, I believe that we made a very bad deal with Iran and have given several reasons why I believe this over the past few weeks.

The last thing I want to do is spoil your opinion that Obama will be historically very significant in a positive way. But please tell me, why do you offer opinions "when you will not even live to know if you are right"? Look in the mirror and tell me what you see.

 

[Moonbeam]

Doc Savage Fan: I was hoping that you would do me a kindness and humor me, and that I would gladly reciprocate (which I will do anyway regardless of whether or not you begrudge me this small kindness). Anyway, I don't understand your motive for reiterating eskimospy's opinion. Do you believe his opinion carries more weight than mine even though both are subjective speculation?

M: I didn't weigh in on the validity of eskimo's or your opinion regarding the treaty. I weighed in on his contention that your use of Obama's place in history carried any weight as an argument to determine who had the better opinion. He suggested you have a history of bringing up Obama's place in history, suggesting it will be negative, as a way to suggest Obama is wrong on the treaty. If so, this would not be a proper way to argue a point.

DSF: On this particular issue, I believe that we made a very bad deal with Iran and have given several reasons why I believe this over the past few weeks.

M: I have the opposite opinion.

DSF: The last thing I want to do is spoil your opinion that Obama will be historically very significant in a positive way. But please tell me, why do you offer opinions "when you will not even live to know if you are right"? Look in the mirror and tell me what you see.

M: I was the mirror. I offered my opinion so you could react to it like eskimo reacted to yours. I have no idea what the future will see in Obama partially because his history isn't over yet. He may become the Secretary of the United Nations in a few years and lead the world into a thousand year peace. But is so it will only be because I'm the 100th monkey.