Obama's Iran Nuke Deal

[Midnightrider]

I never made such a declaration. It's clear to anyone that they can.
Look up Qom and get back to me.

Look up the December 2003 deal and get back with me.

Look up the enrichment facility they hid, but very minor mistakes (from which they've surely learned) made the IAEA question, unsuccessfully, and get back with me.

Then it should be easy for you to show how. Instead you point to a failed stationary reactor and ac carriers- essentially cities that carry around all of the infrastructure.

Like I said, make your point about Qom if thats what you want to argue.

 

[This_person]

How is that remotely relevant to Iran getting nukes? Do you honestly think Iran wants nukes because WE have them?

It was said in response to you saying, "Will they nuke Israel the second they can? They say they will. I doubt it because suicide is not a Shia trait. However, it would certainly become a possibility. That said, Israel nuking them has been a possibility for 50 years. not to mention us."

 

[Larry Gude]

It was said in response to you saying, "Will they nuke Israel the second they can? They say they will. I doubt it because suicide is not a Shia trait. However, it would certainly become a possibility. That said, Israel nuking them has been a possibility for 50 years. not to mention us."

Jesus Effing Christ. You sincerely believe Iran would try to nuke Israel? Knowing FULL well Israel WILL nuke them? Is there ANYTHING in Iran's history that even begins to suggest they are suicidal? Anything today? If they're suicidal, why have they not long ago attacked Israel? What's stopped them? If they want death, what has stopped them?

It is a RATIONAL act for any nation to consider what a nuclear weapon program will do for them. It is rational to want nuclear energy. Why? To protect your nation. To see to its prosperity. To see to its success.

 

[This_person]

Then it should be easy for you to show how. Instead you point to a failed stationary reactor and ac carriers- essentially cities that carry around all of the infrastructure.

You must be right, there's absolutely no technology that exists for portable nuclear technology, or nuclear technology that we can't find from satellites. That's why India, Pakistan, and North Korea never took us by surprise.

Like I said, make your point about Qom if thats what you want to argue.

The lessons you can't see from Qom, the original agreement for on-demand inspections, etc., are apparent. If you can't see them on your own, that's not my issue.

 

[This_person]

Jesus Effing Christ. You sincerely believe Iran would try to nuke Israel? Knowing FULL well Israel WILL nuke them? Is there ANYTHING in Iran's history that even begins to suggest they are suicidal? Anything today? If they're suicidal, why have they not long ago attacked Israel? What's stopped them? If they want death, what has stopped them?

It is a RATIONAL act for any nation to consider what a nuclear weapon program will do for them. It is rational to want nuclear energy. Why? To protect your nation. To see to its prosperity. To see to its success.

You find Iran a rational world actor?

 

[Larry Gude]

You find Iran a rational world actor?

compared to whom????? Us????

 

[Larry Gude]

You find Iran a rational world actor?

Barack Obama is our elected president. Most powerful position in the world. We chose him because he is clean and articulate. I find that stunningly irrational...until I put it in context of the person we chose before him.

At least I understand Obama. He is motivated purely by desire to have a foreign policy box checked. I think he could have stopped at Cuba and been remembered as a good thing but he can't help himself so, he has this farce to ruin a sense of competence. Again, he makes sense, agree with him or no. Bush, I still am not sure if he was simply dumb or not. Cleary his policies have been disastrous.

So, Iran, compared to us?

 

[Midnightrider]

You must be right, there's absolutely no technology that exists for portable nuclear technology, or nuclear technology that we can't find from satellites. That's why India, Pakistan, and North Korea never took us by surprise. The lessons you can't see from Qom, the original agreement for on-demand inspections, etc., are apparent. If you can't see them on your own, that's not my issue.

with all your other options blown away you reach for the stars

 

[Gilligan]

Look who's handlers let him use the 'puter in the common area again. atonhead:

 

[This_person]

with all your other options blown away you reach for the stars

No, I can only point to the obvious so many times. You clearly reject that existing technology exists. You clearly don't see any lessons to be learned from Qom, from previous agreements we've had of a type Kerry said never existed even though it did, from previous hidden enrichment facilities, etc. I've told you before and it remains true today; I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

 

[This_person]

So, Iran, compared to us?

Yes. As actors on the world stage I believe we are far more rational. But, I wasn't asking about them in comparison to any other nation, us included.

 

[Midnightrider]

No, I can only point to the obvious so many times. You clearly reject that existing technology exists. You clearly don't see any lessons to be learned from Qom, from previous agreements we've had of a type Kerry said never existed even though it did, from previous hidden enrichment facilities, etc. I've told you before and it remains true today; I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

you haven't pointed to anything obvious. You have said 'just imagine where technology has gotten in50 years'. The problem is you haven't shown a single portable breeder reactor. Saying technology exists doesn't make it so, and even if it did it wouldn't mean Iran possesses it. And that's The other huge problem with your 'theory', Iran doesn't have the ability to even build good centrifuges.


but lets assume you are correct and they have the ability to clandestinely build enrichment facilities, breeder reactors and the bomb right now. How does us not having a treaty with them prevent that? What does not having a treaty do for us if they can independently and covertly build a bomb?

 

[This_person]

you haven't pointed to anything obvious. You have said 'just imagine where technology has gotten in50 years'. The problem is you haven't shown a single portable breeder reactor. Saying technology exists doesn't make it so, and even if it did it wouldn't mean Iran possesses it. And that's The other huge problem with your 'theory', Iran doesn't have the ability to even build good centrifuges.


but lets assume you are correct and they have the ability to clandestinely build enrichment facilities, breeder reactors and the bomb right now. How does us not having a treaty with them prevent that? What does not having a treaty do for us if they can independently and covertly build a bomb?

Not having a treaty and having this treaty are about the same. Only Obama is unimaginative and unimpressed by the United States enough to believe the choice was this treaty, war, or no treaty. The choice of desire was a good treaty.

However, what this treaty does is offer a great deal of money now and from future sales of oil, open arms trading ability, leading to a stronger Iranian government in the eyes of most in the middle east, disappointment and disillusionment from strong middle eastern allies, and the ability to openly strengthen their nuclear infrastructure. But, in return, we get to say we can look at the areas Iran is willing to show us. Yep, great deal.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yes. As actors on the world stage I believe we are far more rational. But, I wasn't asking about them in comparison to any other nation, us included.

If we've been rational the last 24 years shouldn't it be easy to explain what we've been,doing and why?

I'll listen....

 

[SamSpade]

Can someone explain to me why we need to make any kind of deal with Iran at all?

 

[GURPS]

Can someone explain to me why we need to make any kind of deal with Iran at all?

because Europe is ready to give in, and end sanctions
... so unless we [the USA] want to be last ones standing when the EU roll over and caves to Iran

Obama's got to do SOMETHING

 

[SamSpade]

because Europe is ready to give in, and end sanctions
... so unless we [the USA] want to be last ones standing when the EU roll over and caves to Iran

Obama's got to do SOMETHING

See, that sounds about the way it seems to me.

If I'm punishing my son, and he wants to make nice, *he* comes to *ME* and says, Dad, I *promise* I won't do it again.
I'll clean up the mess, it'll be better than it was. PROMISE. You can check on me, I'll make good on it.

Until he comes to me with contrition, he gets nothing. The onus is on HIM to make nice, not me.
If he doesn't do that, he's under no such constraint not to do the same damned thing again, except now he knows
that if he holds out long enough, I'll cave.

It looks to me that Iran is doing no such thing - the whole effort begins with us.

Why? What's the urgency?

 

[This_person]

If we've been rational the last 24 years shouldn't it be easy to explain what we've been,doing and why?

I'll listen....

Since our leadership changes every 4-8 years it is hard to keep a coherent and consistent policy.

That said, the question was about Iran being a rational world actor, and you are repeatedly not answering that but rather going after the U.S. why must we keep switching the subject?

 

[This_person]

"Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically, through a negotiation, or it's resolved through force, through war," Obama said during a news conference at the White House.

If Obama believes this (which I don't think he does), why isn't he simply saying that if Congress doesn't approve they are ipso facto declaring war on Iran?

 

[This_person]

What's the urgency?

It won't be a legacy item for Obama, which he can then say was screwed up by the subsequent administration when Iran tests their first nuclear weapon, if not now.