Top nuclear scientists praise Iran deal

[Doc Savage Fan]

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.

I stated a couple facts which I believe carry weight and then offered an opinion based on those facts. And I've done exactly the same thing previously on other issues related to my opinion regarding Obama's future place in history. I must beg your forgiveness for not knowing the proper way to argue a point. But do please note that you have stated your personal opinion in a previous post regarding Obama's place in history, except you did not offer any basis for your forming such an opinion. Why would you hold me to a standard that you are personally unwilling to hold yourself to?

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.

Your opinion without any substantiation...OK...that's nice.

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.

Why would you want me to react to your opinion like eskimospy reacted to mine? I don't get it...but did I pass? Your motivation mystifies me and you seem to be projecting something I don't understand.

 

[MongGrel]

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.

Personally, I think the first paragraph was just good timing on his part.

He really screwed things up in the second paragraph there.

The country has been downhill ever since.

 

[Moonbeam]

Personally, I think the first paragraph was just good timing on his part.

He really screwed things up in the second paragraph there.

The country has been downhill ever since.

How would you differentiate between a lifelong study of how to end nuclear weapons from just being lucky?

 

[Moonbeam]

I stated a couple facts which I believe carry weight and then offered an opinion based on those facts. And I've done exactly the same thing previously on other issues related to my opinion regarding Obama's future place in history. I must beg your forgiveness for not knowing the proper way to argue a point. But do please note that you have stated your personal opinion in a previous post regarding Obama's place in history, except you did not offer any basis for your forming such an opinion. Why would you hold me to a standard that you are personally unwilling to hold yourself to?


Your opinion without any substantiation...OK...that's nice.

Why would you want me to react to your opinion like eskimospy reacted to mine? I don't get it...but did I pass? Your motivation mystifies me and you seem to be projecting something I don't understand.

I didn't want you to react any which way at all. And I didn't offer my opinion. I put an opinion out there, a totally useless opinion, to which you reacted with 'how nice' Again, the question is isn't how Obama will be remembered, but why did you go there. I worry that many will judge you harshly in future for having done so.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I didn't want you to react any which way at all. And I didn't offer my opinion. I put an opinion out there, a totally useless opinion, to which you reacted with 'how nice' Again, the question is isn't how Obama will be remembered, but why did you go there. I worry that many will judge you harshly in future for having done so.

I'm glad you worry for me...somebody needs to, and you're just the person for the job.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Well, science is involved, so the right has immediately discredited it.

After all, who IS this "science" guy? I never met him. Have you?

 

[Jhhnn]

Again, the question is isn't how Obama will be remembered, but why did you go there. I worry that many will judge you harshly in future for having done so.

He went there to discredit Obama in general & apply that to the specific issue at hand.

"Obama? He's a bum. Can't do anything right." which then justifies any other negative thing DSF might have to say about the agreement w/ Iran.

It's entirely circular in that patented way Righties seem to love. OTOH, it supports existing belief entirely which is all DSF wants anyway.

 

[Jhhnn]

The IAEA seems to like it, too-

“Either we have the most robust safeguard regime in the world, with reduced nuclear activities. Or we have the current, insufficient safeguard arrangement with more extensive nuclear activities,” he said. “From a verification point of view, implementation of the agreement is a clear net gain.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...fb7400-3bad-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html

Notice the spin from the so-called liberal media and all the "concerns" over water under the bridge rather than the future. Perdue's comments at the end are particularly poignant in that "I'll just stay ignorant" way that we've seen so much of in recent years.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

He went there to discredit Obama in general & apply that to the specific issue at hand.

"Obama? He's a bum. Can't do anything right." which then justifies any other negative thing DSF might have to say about the agreement w/ Iran.

It's entirely circular in that patented way Righties seem to love. OTOH, it supports existing belief entirely which is all DSF wants anyway.

Please tell me what you believe to be the fundamental difference between you and I in regard to politicians we fundamentally disagree with.

 

[Jhhnn]

Please tell me what you believe to be the fundamental difference between you and I in regard to politicians we fundamentally disagree with.

Our methods, not to mention your deliberate blind spots & embrasure of obvious distortions of propaganda.

When American nuclear proliferation experts & the IAEA agree that this is a positive move, you simply ignore that & claim it's a bad deal.

Once we get past this little Repub shit fit I figure that Iran will be racing for the mile posts & that they'll eventually leverage that into removal of all trade restrictions & achieve interconnectedness in the world economy. I also figure that the people of Iran will leverage it into a more open society when their own hard liners can't reference the Great Satan breathing down their necks.

They're winners in all this, not in terms of their nuclear program but in terms of everything else. All things considered, it looks to me like they puffed up their nuclear program so that they could trade it away.

We're winners, too, because we probably won't be engaging in another Neocon war of adventurism against a much stronger adversary than Iraq.

Bibi? He dissed the wrong President.

 

[Moonbeam]

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. 10"Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.…

that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.

For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.

The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.

For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed.

But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.

 

[cabri]

You forget that Iran is an Muslim based nation, not a Christian.

New Testament Bible is no concern/guidamce.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Our methods, not to mention your deliberate blind spots & embrasure of obvious distortions of propaganda.

Please elaborate.

 

[Orignal Earl]

You forget that Iran is an Muslim based nation, not a Christian.

New Testament Bible is no concern/guidamce.

Everything Jesus said is of concern/guidance to Muslims

 

[cabri]

Everything Jesus said is of concern/guidance to Muslims

Jesus is only consideted to be a prophet.

Not the voice of Allah

 

[Mxylplyx]

Please elaborate.

Opponents, like yourself, have bought into the false premise that there is some elusive better deal to be had, without any consideration as to how that would be achieved. You refuse to acknowledge that the US rejecting this deal would isolate the US from the rest of the world on this issue. The existing sanctions regime would crumble, and we would get nothing in return. The only leverage the US would have left is the threat of war, which supporters are quick to point out, yet you dismiss despite failing to articulate what other leverage points you think we would have to pressure Iran. These are all very important issues that must be considered in relation to any opposition, yet opponents are content to just brush them aside because any serious opposition cannot be articulated without addressing these points. It's part of a pattern that has developed during the anti-Obama hysteria. Opposition has become an end unto itself. Republicans have no game plan on what the next move would be if the deal were rejected. The predictable fallout would catch them completely by surprise, and then they'd blame Obama for it and call him weak.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Jesus is only consideted to be a prophet.

Not the voice of Allah

Muslims believe Jesus was messenger of God sent to guide the children of Israel with the Gospel
Mohammad was "only" a messenger of God also

 

[ivwshane]

Clearly you've never been in a negotiation before! The strongest negotiator is always the one that talks tough and is the one that wants a better deal! The US didn't talk tough enough and they didn't want a better deal!

You can't refute that logic!


/s

Opponents, like yourself, have bought into the false premise that there is some elusive better deal to be had, without any consideration as to how that would be achieved. You refuse to acknowledge that the US rejecting this deal would isolate the US from the rest of the world on this issue. The existing sanctions regime would crumble, and we would get nothing in return. The only leverage the US would have left is the threat of war, which supporters are quick to point out, yet you dismiss despite failing to articulate what other leverage points you think we would have to pressure Iran. These are all very important issues that must be considered in relation to any opposition, yet opponents are content to just brush them aside because any serious opposition cannot be articulated without addressing these points. It's part of a pattern that has developed during the anti-Obama hysteria. Opposition has become an end unto itself. Republicans have no game plan on what the next move would be if the deal were rejected. The predictable fallout would catch them completely by surprise, and then they'd blame Obama for it and call him weak.

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

Please elaborate.

About obvious propaganda?

You act as if those are the only parts of the deal that matter. Quite the contrary, at least from a non-proliferation POV.

Under the NPT, Iran has the right to enrich reactor fuel. The possibility of breakout is inherent in that proposition. They will not give up that right voluntarily in exchange for anything we might offer. Merely the truth, facts that must be considered in the formulation of any honest opinion.

Once you abandon Neocon delusions of toppling the govt of Iran a negotiated settlement is inevitable & desirable. Which means we must grant them legitimacy, treat with them as equals. That shifts geopolitics in a profound way, opens a path for them to obtain full trade & diplomatic rights among nations.

I submit to you that Iran never intended to build nuclear weapons but rather to force our hand in that much broader context. They escalated in a deft fashion, never providing a justifiable opportunity for aggression on our part, not even from the Bushistas. First the enrichment facilities, always under IAEA supervision. The start of construction of a heavy water reactor at Arak, potentially a rich source of better bomb making material, plutonium. Then the stockpiling of 4% LEU followed by the creation of their hardened Fordow facility & the stockpiling of 20% LEU, all perfectly legal under the NPT. They set out to create better centrifuges that would shorten breakout time, also legal.

While it's a nice face saving maneuver, we didn't force them to negotiate with sanctions. They forced us to negotiate with their nuclear program. Other than maintaining enrichment capacity, a modified heavy water reactor & a small stockpile of 4% LEU, they bargained it away in a verifiable fashion in return for that legitimacy.

We lost in our fight to deny them self determination. They won, and they'll use this to keep on winning. That's reality, so we need to make the best of it.

Or just start shooting to create incalculable possibilities.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Opponents, like yourself, have bought into the false premise that there is some elusive better deal to be had, without any consideration as to how that would be achieved.

And you have bought into the false premise that any deal is better than no deal, without any apparent consideration to the adverse ramifications of a bad deal, especially the lifting of sanctions.

You refuse to acknowledge that the US rejecting this deal would isolate the US from the rest of the world on this issue.

Yet you refuse to acknowledge that rejecting a bad deal would not have isolated the US from the rest of the world on this issue.

The existing sanctions regime would crumble, and we would get nothing in return.

This would not have occurred had we and our allies initially rejected this deal.

The only leverage the US would have left is the threat of war, which supporters are quick to point out, yet you dismiss despite failing to articulate what other leverage points you think we would have to pressure Iran.

False dichotomy. Leaving Iran in isolation was leverage in itself towards a more reasonable deal in the future as growing social unrest in Iran placed significant political pressure on the hardliners. And I believe you’re fooling yourself if you think we have any real leverage now.

These are all very important issues that must be considered in relation to any opposition, yet opponents are content to just brush them aside because any serious opposition cannot be articulated without addressing these points. It's part of a pattern that has developed during the anti-Obama hysteria. Opposition has become an end unto itself. Republicans have no game plan on what the next move would be if the deal were rejected. The predictable fallout would catch them completely by surprise, and then they'd blame Obama for it and call him weak.

You’re demonizing those who disagree with your opinion. There are now some Democrats coming forward that also believe we got a bad deal. Do you actually think it’s rationale or “grown up” to demonize these Democrats as well by comparing them to the “Death to America” extremists in Iran or vilifying them as part of the anti-Obama hysteria. This is how simple minds work imo....everything is black and white. I’ll grant you that opposition has become an end unto itself for some, but your sweeping stereotype only serves to close your mind to some very legitimate concerns. I’ve stated it before and I’ll say it again, whether or not we reject this deal no longer matters in the scheme of things…Pandora’s Box has been opened and history will be the ultimate judge of this matter. In my opinion, our only hope is that Iran’s hardline leadership is soon replaced by moderates who are less willing to spend their ‘new found’ money sponsoring terrorism to further destabilize the region. Iran has caused much suffering and I don’t expect to see this leopard changing its spots anytime soon.

 

[brycejones]

DSF, on what scientific basis do you believe the deal is a bad deal that makes it easier for Iran to make a bomb?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

DSF, on what scientific basis do you believe the deal is a bad deal that makes it easier for Iran to make a bomb?

If they want to make a bomb, they're going to make a bomb whether we have a deal or not....it's just an arbitrary matter of how long it will take. The ramifications of lifting the economic sanctions is actually my biggest concern.

 

[Moonbeam]

Muslims believe Jesus was messenger of God sent to guide the children of Israel with the Gospel
Mohammad was "only" a messenger of God also

Thank you. Actually, I chose not to inform him either that I knew that Iran is Islamic, or that Islam is a religion of peace, because he is a bigot. The fact of the matter, however, was that my words were addressed to DSF, who is a Christian, not to Iran. I had no reason to suppose that nation was reading this thread.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Thank you. Actually, I chose not to inform him either that I knew that Iran is Islamic, or that Islam is a religion of peace, because he is a bigot. The fact of the matter, however, was that my words were addressed to DSF, who is a Christian, not to Iran. I had no reason to suppose that nation was reading this thread.

I had no idea that you were directing your scripture post my way. Do you find my position on Iran to be hypocritical in some way?

 

[Moonbeam]

Doc Savage Fan: And you have bought into the false premise that any deal is better than no deal, without any apparent consideration to the adverse ramifications of a bad deal, especially the lifting of sanctions.

M: If you have your foot on somebodies neck they don't grow up well. It's not very Christian.

DSF: Yet you refuse to acknowledge that rejecting a bad deal would not have isolated the US from the rest of the world on this issue.

M: It's wasn't a bad deal.

DSF This would not have occurred had we and our allies initially rejected this deal.

M; if we rejected the deal Iran would build nuclear weapons.

DSF False dichotomy. Leaving Iran in isolation was leverage in itself towards a more reasonable deal in the future as growing social unrest in Iran placed significant political pressure on the hardliners. And I believe you’re fooling yourself if you think we have any real leverage now.

M: Yup and growing suppression an murder of those folk by folk like yourself, the hard liners. It is the paranoia of the right in two countries that perpetuate and fan the flames of mistrust and suspicion, the ones who do not trust in God or the goodness of human beings, who magnify umbrage and seek an eye for an eye.

DSF: You’re demonizing those who disagree with your opinion. There are now some Democrats coming forward that also believe we got a bad deal. Do you actually think it’s rationale or “grown up” to demonize these Democrats as well by comparing them to the “Death to America” extremists in Iran or vilifying them as part of the anti-Obama hysteria. This is how simple minds work imo....everything is black and white. I’ll grant you that opposition has become an end unto itself for some, but your sweeping stereotype only serves to close your mind to some very legitimate concerns. I’ve stated it before and I’ll say it again, whether or not we reject this deal no longer matters in the scheme of things…Pandora’s Box has been opened and history will be the ultimate judge of this matter. In my opinion, our only hope is that Iran’s hardline leadership is soon replaced by moderates who are less willing to spend their ‘new found’ money sponsoring terrorism to further destabilize the region. Iran has caused much suffering and I don’t expect to see this leopard changing its spots anytime soon.

M: There are Democrats who are more citizens of Israel than the United States, who buy into the eye for an eye mentality and demented notions of Armageddon around the corner.

We are all Iranians. Every child born anywhere has God within it. Get out of loves way. Let the world grow toward it's true destiny, on Earth as it is in heaven. Fear nothing and trust in love. We are all going to die. There is only this now.