China and Iran...

[Soonerjeepman]

talking to a friend tonight...his nephew works for the gov. Didn't tell me what part, although I believe something dealing with military.

Said the 2 to watch are china and iran.

China has been building a runway off of a "no nation" island, for years. Hauling dirt, etc. Guess they are now done or close and it will allow striking capabilities to hit Hawaii or west coast.

Iran, with the "new deal" now, IF they get to 18/20% (not sure what percentage) of nuclear "stuff" - again not sure, that Israel WILL bomb the crap out of them and take that capability away. Israel doesn't give a @hit about the UN.

Again, this was his nephew's take. I believe his nephew has some knowledge of it all.

This may be old news (china) so please spare the historical comments.

[SicEmBaylor]

:eyeroll:

[SoonerProphet]

China has ballistic missiles, why would they need a base in middle of pacific to strike us. To project power is South China Sea, sure, but conventional strikes on Hawaii or wc sounds like the tinfoil hat is tight.

An Israeli attack on Iran would be a strategic folly, similar to the epic folly of Iraq.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

The island base is to claim the South China Sea for oil and gas and to usurp the rightful claims of Vietnam, Phillipines and Japan. They have placed artilery on the island. It is meant as a likely oil and gas processing facility and perhaps ship loading location. Iran wants to rule the ME. Lots of old info here... Iran will get their oil and gas industry back up, they gets lots of money, oil stays at $40-50 a barrel and Total and ENI, BP or Shell will benefit as US sanctions are still on the book. Iran will spend more on arms, get the bomb and push for a single pan-Arabia like they were promised under Hitler. Oh, BTW, all those Chinese construction guys in Africa, they are really Red Army members...

[Serenity Now]

and push for a single pan-Arabia like they were promised under Hitler. Oh, BTW, all those Chinese construction guys in Africa, they are really Red Army members...
Thanks Alex Jones...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

[/QUOTE]
Thanks Alex Jones...[/QUOTE]

No from experience in the oil patch...

Have no clue what Alex Jones thinks of the ChiComs.

[SoonerProphet]

Iran wants to rule the ME. Lots of old info here... Iran will get their oil and gas industry back up, they gets lots of money, oil stays at $40-50 a barrel and Total and ENI, BP or Shell will benefit as US sanctions are still on the book. Iran will spend more on arms, get the bomb and push for a single pan-Arabia like they were promised under Hitler. Oh, BTW, all those Chinese construction guys in Africa, they are really Red Army members...

This is straight up propaganda, brought to us the same shylocks who sold us bovine scatology about Iraq. They were catastrophically wrong then and led us into a charlie foxtrot of historical levels. Why should anyone buy the bs they are peddling to the tune of millions of dollars in lobbying efforts now?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

OK SP, what is the propaganda? Iran wants to rule the ME? US sanction will prevent US oil companies from bidding on projects in Iran? Iran spends more money on weapons? Iran gets the bomb? Pan-Arabia like the Nazis were fueling? Chinese "construction workers" being part of the Red Army?

Your post didn't mention which one you thought was propaganda? Please elucidate and provide examples...

[Serenity Now]

OK SP, what is the propaganda? Iran wants to rule the ME? US sanction will prevent US oil companies from bidding on projects in Iran? Iran spends more money on weapons? Iran gets the bomb? Pan-Arabia like the Nazis were fueling? Chinese "construction workers" being part of the Red Army?

Your post didn't mention which one you thought was propaganda? Please elucidate and provide examples...

I'd guess the Bibi N. party line and the "Red Army" crack. Bibi's been saying for 18 years that Iran was "less than one year away" The poorest procrastinator since James the Marvel. I also can't imagine the Red Army thing. Seems like a modern thinking of Red Dawn.

[SoonerProphet]

OK SP, what is the propaganda? Iran wants to rule the ME? US sanction will prevent US oil companies from bidding on projects in Iran? Iran spends more money on weapons? Iran gets the bomb? Pan-Arabia like the Nazis were fueling? Chinese "construction workers" being part of the Red Army?

Your post didn't mention which one you thought was propaganda? Please elucidate and provide examples...

The idea that Iran wants to rule ME is rather hyperbolic. They are having a hard enough time with propping up Assad. The idea that they could exert control over the entire region is absurd. If the Congress is dumb enough to isolate us and continue with sanctions then yes, big oil will be cut out. How much Iran spends on updating its military or on domestic concerns is a matter of debate, I am certain they will attempt both. The assertion that Iran will get the bomb is pure speculation and guess work. Again, we have heard the fear mongering from these same actors before and it was a f*ckup of epic proportions. Why would we listen to them now? Pan-Arabia, the Nazis, wtf? Don't really know where to start, sounds loony tunes. They are Persian not Arabs and and I have no idea what conflating the mullahs with nazis has anything to do with anything.

[FaninAma]

The next GOP President needs to sell the Israelis a couple more long range ballistic nuclear submarines....the type that can hide submerged for months upon end off the coast of certain middle East countries.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

The idea that Iran wants to rule ME is rather hyperbolic. They are having a hard enough time with propping up Assad. The idea that they could exert control over the entire region is absurd. If the Congress is dumb enough to isolate us and continue with sanctions then yes, big oil will be cut out. How much Iran spends on updating its military or on domestic concerns is a matter of debate, I am certain they will attempt both. The assertion that Iran will get the bomb is pure speculation and guess work. Again, we have heard the fear mongering from these same actors before and it was a f*ckup of epic proportions. Why would we listen to them now? Pan-Arabia, the Nazis, wtf? Don't really know where to start, sounds loony tunes. They are Persian not Arabs and and I have no idea what conflating the mullahs with nazis has anything to do with anything.

Some Links for you...

article 1 (http://tavernkeepers.com/history-of-iran-and-the-nazis/)
article 2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany%E2%80%93Iran_relations)
article 3 (http://www.bankingonbaghdad.com/archive/IranDenial/WJW122205/)
article 4 (http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/nazi-germany-and-persia-iran/blog-258353/?link=ibaf&q=Nazi+pan-arabia+Iran)

On the bomb, what exactly about refining yellow cake, centrifuging gas to isolate fissile uranium and secret military research centers makes you think they aren't trying to get the bomb? If it was for "electricity", they have more than enough natural gas to use in conventional power plants to build the power generation needs they state...

article 5, oops, sorry, Pan-Islamic state... (http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/iran_en.html)

[SoonerProphet]

Some Links for you...

article 1 (http://tavernkeepers.com/history-of-iran-and-the-nazis/)
article 2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany%E2%80%93Iran_relations)
article 3 (http://www.bankingonbaghdad.com/archive/IranDenial/WJW122205/)
article 4 (http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/nazi-germany-and-persia-iran/blog-258353/?link=ibaf&q=Nazi+pan-arabia+Iran)

On the bomb, what exactly about refining yellow cake, centrifuging gas to isolate fissile uranium and secret military research centers makes you think they aren't trying to get the bomb? If it was for "electricity", they have more than enough natural gas to use in conventional power plants to build the power generation needs they state...

article 5, oops, sorry, Pan-Islamic state... (http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/iran_en.html)

Attempting to link the Peacock Throne and it's relations to both imperial Germany and Nazi Germany to the Islamic Republic is a stretch. Can you locate in any single one these articles the connection?

Uranium and enrichment are part of the fuel cycle which they are allowed to have. Military r&d and the acquisition of a nuke are not the same. The nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear research is not just about a power grid or weapons. You have medical, scientific, and, since you got experience there, the mining and petro fields.

Why are you avoiding the facts that much of the hysteria and sky is falling rhetoric regarding the nuclear deal comes directly from the same folks who were spectacularly wrong about Iraq? They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

[Serenity Now]

Attempting to link the Peacock Throne and it's relations to both imperial Germany and Nazi Germany to the Islamic Republic is a stretch. Can you locate in any single one these articles the connection?

Uranium and enrichment are part of the fuel cycle which they are allowed to have. Military r&d and the acquisition of a nuke are not the same. The nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear research is not just about a power grid or weapons. You have medical, scientific, and, since you got experience there, the mining and petro fields.

Why are you avoiding the facts that much of the hysteria and sky is falling rhetoric regarding the nuclear deal comes directly from the same folks who were spectacularly wrong about Iraq? They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

Plus Bibi Net...yahoo. 199 f'n 2. 23 years ago. A baby born then is now walking the street and old men like us can legally think she's hot. WTH?

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/1108/Imminent-Iran-nuclear-threat-A-timeline-of-warnings-since-1979/Israel-paints-Iran-as-Enemy-No.-1-1992

[okie52]

Schumer coming out against the Iran deal may very well kill this deal.

[Serenity Now]

What's wrong with the Iran deal?

Have you watched/listened to Obama's 55 minute talk on it?

[REDREX]

What's wrong with the Iran deal?

Have you watched/listened to Obama's 55 minute talk on it?----You trust what Obama says to be true?---I am still waiting for my insurance cost to do down $2500----Obama will say whatever he thinks will sell a deal true or not

[Sooner in Tampa]

----You trust what Obama says to be true?---I am still waiting for my insurance cost to do down $2500----Obama will say whatever he thinks will sell a deal true or not

Of course...Obammy even stated what a great friend he has been to Israel...with a straight face Nonetheless

[dwarthog]

Inspectors So Far Denied Access to Iran’s Scientists

http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-refuses-u-n-inspectors-access-to-scientists-and-military-officers-complicating-nuclear-deal-1438813826

The stench from this "agreement" is wafting though the air. Hopefully we aren't downwind.

[okie52]

What's wrong with the Iran deal?

Have you watched/listened to Obama's 55 minute talk on it?

I haven't really followed the Iran deal that closely so I wouldn't try to guess if its a good deal or not. But Schumer coming out against it could bury this deal in congress.

[Sooner in Tampa]

What's wrong with the Iran deal?

Have you watched/listened to Obama's 55 minute talk on it?

Two things to come mind immediately...The President made an "agreement" with a country that still holds 4 Americans as hostages and the fact that ANY inspection will come with a 24 day notice before any inspectors can actually perform said inspection.

[Serenity Now]

Much of our deals with Russia were very weak. The task was to kick the can a little down the road for short term safety purposes. That all worked out....at least so far.

In my mind keeping Iran from going full nuclear is important for the next decade. At some point their western minded population is going to emerge and slowly migrate out the mullacracy. Just in the last 5 years they've softened significantly.

If we listen to the Tom Cotton's of the world we will create a self-fulfilling prophecy. That's my worry.

What's the alternative? I mean we're working with them on ISIS and against them on Yemen. Very odd.

[BoulderSooner79]

The deal appears on the surface to have a lot of potential upside without much downside. The downside is that it returns to status quo with them getting sanctioned again and returning to all their current activities - bomb development and other. Over time, they are going to get increasing help from Russia and China regardless making sanctions less effective (unless we suddenly become friendlier with those two).

The upside is Iran coming out of it's shell and joining the world community. That will cause them to create more dependencies with other countries and thus be forced to behave accordingly. Once they have something of value, they wiil have something to lose. This is exactly why the hardliners in Iran are against this deal. They don't give a ratz azz about improving the standard of living of their people - they just want to maintain power. They know if Iran becomes more open, they risk losing power eventually.

My guess is that we're looking at status quo no matter what. The handwringers on both sides have a good chance of scuttling this deal before it gets started. If it does go through, something will happen due to all the distrust on both sides and the resulting pissing match will nullify it and it's back to where we are now.

[okie52]

Liberals, Livid, Say Chuck Schumer 'Unfit' to Lead Senate Dems

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/chuck-schumer-iran-deal-oppose-vote/2015/08/07/id/669030/#ixzz3i9uaCfep.

[okie52]

White House: Schumer's Decision 'Disappointing'

The decision by one of the top Democrats in the U.S. Senate to oppose the nuclear deal between Iran and world powers was "disappointing but not surprising," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said on Friday.

President Barack Obama's hopes of preserving the nuclear deal were dealt a blow on Thursday when New York's Schumer came out against it even as the White House tried to draw attention to other lawmakers who are backing the agreement.

Earnest told reporters that the Obama administration worked closely with Schumer to explain details of the deal even before it was signed in an effort to gain his support.

"Ultimately, it didn't turn out that way. I don't think anybody was surprised," Earnest said.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/schumer-white-house-iran-decision/2015/08/07/id/669076/#ixzz3i9vN38Nq

.

[Curly Bill]

Schumer's not right very often. I guess for once he wanted to see what it was like?!

[SoonerProphet]

Two things to come mind immediately...The President made an "agreement" with a country that still holds 4 Americans as hostages and the fact that ANY inspection will come with a 24 day notice before any inspectors can actually perform said inspection.

The 24 hour notice is for non-nuclear sites. The 4 prisoner deal has nothing to do with nuclear issue, Hezbollah, or Quds, or anything else.

[SoonerProphet]

.

Don't think they will have enough votes to overcome veto. It's okay for Chuck, his pockets just got a bit heavier with some AIPAC change.

[Turd_Ferguson]

The 24 hour notice is for non-nuclear sites. The 4 prisoner deal has nothing to do with nuclear issue, Hezbollah, or Quds, or anything else.

Then why the **** is it called a DEAL? What did the USA get out of this?

[Curly Bill]

Then why the **** is it called a DEAL? What did the USA get out of this?

Obama got to have another pep rally and say look at me and how awesome I am. Why you think he's so butt-hurt that not everyone is celebrating with him?

[olevetonahill]

http://media.makeameme.org/created/wheres-the-deal-b94345.jpg

[SoonerProphet]

Then why the **** is it called a DEAL? What did the USA get out of this?

Reduction of leu from 10,000 kilo to 300, not enough for a bomb. Breakout time has increased from roughly two months to a year. Heavy water facility at Arak dismantled and all plutonium production ends. Reduction of centrifuges. Historically intrusive inspection regime. The ability to inspect military sites such as Parchin, which is above and beyond Additional Protocol to NPT. And, if our dipsh*t Congress had a clue, numerous opportunities for aviation! transportation, banking, etc. However, many sanctions are left in place because they are not part of nuclear deal.

What do we lose?

[Serenity Now]

Reduction of leu from 10,000 kilo to 300, not enough for a bomb. Breakout time has increased from roughly two months to a year. Heavy water facility at Arak dismantled and all plutonium production ends. Reduction of centrifuges. Historically intrusive inspection regime. The ability to inspect military sites such as Parchin, which is above and beyond Additional Protocol to NPT. And, if our dipsh*t Congress had a clue, numerous opportunities for aviation! transportation, banking, etc. However, many sanctions are left in place because they are not part of nuclear deal.

What do we lose?

Facts. Sell that crap somewhere else. We're all full up here. [/Jack Nicholson from As Good As It Gets]

[olevetonahill]

Reduction of leu from 10,000 kilo to 300, not enough for a bomb. Breakout time has increased from roughly two months to a year. Heavy water facility at Arak dismantled and all plutonium production ends. Reduction of centrifuges. Historically intrusive inspection regime. The ability to inspect military sites such as Parchin, which is above and beyond Additional Protocol to NPT. And, if our dipsh*t Congress had a clue, numerous opportunities for aviation! transportation, banking, etc. However, many sanctions are left in place because they are not part of nuclear deal.

What do we lose?


Facts. Sell that crap somewhere else. We're all full up here. [/Jack Nicholson from As Good As It Gets]

Lib Idiots.
Show us this "DEAL"

[REDREX]

OBOTS

[SoonerProphet]

Solid responses, sound reasoning, and obviously answered the question posed. Well done.

[olevetonahill]

Solid responses, sound reasoning, and obviously answered the question posed. Well done.

Ok Sir, Im going to ask you to SHOW me the Deal ok? Whats In this DEAL for us?

[Curly Bill]

Ok Sir, Im going to ask you to SHOW me the Deal ok? Whats In this DEAL for us?

You're just sposed to take Obammy's and the sheep's word that it's a good deal okay?!

[SoonerProphet]

Ok Sir, Im going to ask you to SHOW me the Deal ok? Whats In this DEAL for us?

Show you the deal? Wtf, google it. I just listed several items in the deal that we "got". What else do you get out of a nuclear deal, a Persian rug and a lifetime supply of pistachios?

Instead of pics of old Wendy's adds, cool remarks like obots, and the like, why don't the dissenters articulate it is what the USA loses in this deal.

[dwarthog]

Reduction of leu from 10,000 kilo to 300, not enough for a bomb. Breakout time has increased from roughly two months to a year. Heavy water facility at Arak dismantled and all plutonium production ends. Reduction of centrifuges. Historically intrusive inspection regime. The ability to inspect military sites such as Parchin, which is above and beyond Additional Protocol to NPT. And, if our dipsh*t Congress had a clue, numerous opportunities for aviation! transportation, banking, etc. However, many sanctions are left in place because they are not part of nuclear deal.

What do we lose?

Who is performing the insepctions?

[REDREX]

Solid responses, sound reasoning, and obviously answered the question posed. Well done.---Tell me about all the side deals----Can't seem to find them-------Oh maybe they are not public

[SoonerProphet]

Who is performing the insepctions?

The IAEA.

[SoonerProphet]

---Tell me about all the side deals----Can't seem to find them-------Oh maybe they are not public

Elaborate, what side deals?

[SoonerProphet]

No takers on the what does the USA lose question.

[REDREX]

Elaborate, what side deals?----The side deals Kerry made outside the agreement----clear enough?

[dwarthog]

The IAEA.

Please clear up some confusion for me. I thought that the IAEA part of this deal was strictly between them and Iran, that we do not have access to the details of that agreement, and if I understand correctly the results of the inspections with regards to whether they are in compliance?

[yermom]

----The side deals Kerry made outside the agreement----clear enough?
so you object that Kerry was involved?

what are you talking about?

we aren't all watching Fox or where ever you are getting this from

[REDREX]

so you object that Kerry was involved?

what are you talking about?

we aren't all watching Fox or where ever you are getting this from---Go look it up yourself

[SoonerProphet]

Please clear up some confusion for me. I thought that the IAEA part of this deal was strictly between them and Iran, that we do not have access to the details of that agreement, and if I understand correctly the results of the inspections with regards to whether they are in compliance?

The IAEA inspects the entire fuel cycle and processing, from mining, to enrichment, to application. What is to confused about? We have access to every detail of the agreement, you can read the document online even. Inspectors report to the international community about compliance.

[SoonerProphet]

---Go look it up yourself

So you got nothing?

What do we lose?

[Serenity Now]

---Go look it up yourself

typical.

[Curly Bill]

No takers on the what does the USA lose question.

Credibility? Integrity?

[olevetonahill]

Credibility? Integrity?

Yup
Still have 4 citizens there. also

[REDREX]

typical.---Idiot

[Curly Bill]

Obammy could serve these sheep sh*t on a stick and they'd swear they'd just had the best meal ever served.

[olevetonahill]

Show you the deal?
Wtf, google it. I just listed several items in the deal that we "got". What else do you get out of a nuclear deal, a Persian rug and a lifetime supply of pistachios?

Instead of pics of old Wendy's adds, cool remarks like obots, and the like, why don't the dissenters articulate it is what the USA loses in this deal.


---
Go look it up yourself



So you got nothing?

What do we lose?


---Idiot

More like Hypocrit

[SoonerProphet]

Credibility? Integrity?

Can't argue such a concise and meaningful point like that.

Credibility with who, Israel or the House of Saud? What are they gonna do, stop taking our billions. We will,lose all credibility if we back out of an internationally negotiated agreement.

Integrity, like making sh!t up to create another false need for regime change. Like taking money from lobbyist that represent a foreign nation.

[Curly Bill]

Yummmmm. I love when Obammy serves me sh*t on a stick. Finest meal known to mankind.

If you say so.

[SoonerProphet]

If you say so.

Ahh, so cute. Your Obama dong obsession must be a hit with the ladies you big alpha male.

[Curly Bill]

Ahh, so cute. My Obama dong obsession is a huge hit with the boys down at the bar cause I'm a handwringing beta male.

Cool for you.

[SoonerProphet]

Cool for you.

Okay internet macho tough guy, I surrender to your awesome cleverness.

[Curly Bill]

Okay internet macho tough guy, I surrender to your awesome cleverness.

Damn! You capitulate just as easy as Horseface Kerry did in negotiating with the Iranians!

[dwarthog]

The IAEA inspects the entire fuel cycle and processing, from mining, to enrichment, to application. What is to confused about? We have access to every detail of the agreement, you can read the document online even. Inspectors report to the international community about compliance.

The confusion has to do with the IAEA saying they can't tell congress about some parts of the agreement due to it being confidential between them and Iran. That doesn't sound to me like an agreement which we are privy to all of the details.

As far as the what do we lose question. The answer for today is really nothing.

The concern would be 15+ years out with what Iran does with restrictions removed? It's any ones guess.

There is probably reason to be concerned with others in the region suddenly deciding they have a right to play in the nuclear game.

Nuclear Proliferation if you will.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

SP's last name must be Jarrett.

[yermom]

To be fair, I haven't read too much about this deal, but the current deal doesn't involve any inspections or oversight does it?

[dwarthog]

To be fair, I haven't read too much about this deal, but the current deal doesn't involve any inspections or oversight does it?

I believe the IAEA has been monitoring Iran's nuclear activities or attempting to monitor for a while now.

They "agreed" to the NPT, which really didn't slow them down much.

This new agreement looks to more clearly define Iran's nuclear sites, where "allowed" activities will take place. Some other agreements in there as well, reduce current enriched stock piles, numbers and capabilities of centerfuges etc., which seem to be the key points of the agreement that we know about.

[yermom]

So what is the objectionable part?

[olevetonahill]

So what is the objectionable part?


You aint that dumas are ya, Obammy an Kerry are for it LOL

[yermom]

Well, other than that and it doesn't involve planning military action in the foreseeable future

[Curly Bill]

Well, other than that and it doesn't involve planning military action in the foreseeable future

Yeah, we can kick that can on down the line, like we are with the deficit.

Liberals for a group of people that like to portray themselves as compassionate sure doesn't seem to want to display that towards future generations.

Of course modern liberalism seems to display about the same level of compassion as modern Islam does.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Yeah, we can kick that can on down the line, like we are with the deficit.

Liberals for a group of people that like to portray themselves as compassionate sure doesn't seem to want to display that towards future generations.

Of course modern liberalism seems to display about the same level of compassion as modern Islam does.and, America is the target, as expected.

[FaninAma]

Let Saudi Arabia, Oman, Egypt, Turkey and Kuwait all nuke up. If they want to take Iran out then they need to do it themselves. I would sell Israel about 4 long range nuclear ballistic submarines to park off the coast of Iran and Saudi Arabia just in case the Mullahs are as bat **** crazy as they come off in public.

[BoulderSooner79]

You aint that dumas are ya, Obammy an Kerry are for it LOL

That's the only definitive reason I've seen put forward here (no joke). Everything else is vague chest pounding or nuclear holocaust hyperbole.

[Serenity Now]

The first Salt treaties were five years long. It worked for St. Reagan.

[SoonerProphet]

The confusion has to do with the IAEA saying they can't tell congress about some parts of the agreement due to it being confidential between them and Iran. That doesn't sound to me like an agreement which we are privy to all of the details.

So there are no "secret" deals. Doesn't sound very logical to comment on secret deals when we know exactly what they pertain. They are appendices and annexes to the JCPOA. They are confidential because they contain confidential information that cannot be released to the public domain. One of these issues deals with the controversial Parchin facility. The facility was the subject of some nefarious intel gathering about a decade ago. The other is in regards to Iranian nuclear scientists. Since some of them have ended up dead in recent years, the Persians are a bit wary of having that information public knowledge. I realize the issue of national sovereignty is lost on many, but it is a legitimate concern. The IAEA is also reluctant to give away their methodology to inspections to every dip**** Senator from Arkansas that has no clue how they operate.

Decent article over on Bloomberg that discusses

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-30/-secret-side-deals-on-iran-accord-are-new-target-of-republicans


As far as the what do we lose question. The answer for today is really nothing.

The concern would be 15+ years out with what Iran does with restrictions removed? It's any ones guess.

There is probably reason to be concerned with others in the region suddenly deciding they have a right to play in the nuclear game.

Nuclear Proliferation if you will.

A group of scientist, pfft what do they know, recently wrote a letter regarding the issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/08/08/world/document-iranletteraug2015.html?_r=0

"“We consider that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) the United States and its partners negotiated with Iran will advance the cause of peace and security in the Middle East and can serve as a guidepost for future non-proliferation agreements,”

“This is an innovative agreement, with much more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated non-proliferation framework.”

[Serenity Now]

So there are no "secret" deals. Doesn't sound very logical to comment on secret deals when we know exactly what they pertain. They are appendices and annexes to the JCPOA. They are confidential because they contain confidential information that cannot be released to the public domain. One of these issues deals with the controversial Parchin facility. The facility was the subject of some nefarious intel gathering about a decade ago. The other is in regards to Iranian nuclear scientists. Since some of them have ended up dead in recent years, the Persians are a bit unwary of having that information public knowledge. I realize the issue of national sovereignty is lost on many, but it is a legitimate concern. The IAEA is also reluctant to give away their methodology to inspections to every dip**** Senator from Arkansas that has no clue how they operate.

Decent article over on Bloomberg that discusses

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-30/-secret-side-deals-on-iran-accord-are-new-target-of-republicans


A group of scientist, pfft what do they know, recently wrote a letter regarding the issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/08/08/world/document-iranletteraug2015.html?_r=0

"“We consider that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) the United States and its partners negotiated with Iran will advance the cause of peace and security in the Middle East and can serve as a guidepost for future non-proliferation agreements,”

“This is an innovative agreement, with much more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated non-proliferation framework.”
Scientists? lol. The modern GOP looks at scientists with disdain.

[Curly Bill]

Scientists? lol. The modern GOP looks at scientists who are in the pocket of their benefators with disdain.

Shocking isn't it?

[Serenity Now]

Shocking isn't it?

The only real scientists that the GOP agree with are in the same category as the ones blowing "smoke" in the 1970's trying to disavow the link from cigarettes to lung cancer. History will show that to be true.

[Serenity Now]

Shocking isn't it?

You're slipping. You've not negged me in a few days.

[Curly Bill]

You're slipping. You've not negged me in a few days.

You haven't sent me any suggestive PMs lately.

[Serenity Now]

You haven't sent me any suggestive PMs lately.

A. I'm your huckleberry.
B. The suggestive PM's followed you negging me to the negative in 7 figures. Kind of funy now.

[Curly Bill]

A. I'm your huckleberry.
B. The suggestive PM's followed you negging me to the negative in 7 figures. Kind of funy now.

That was Turd that did that. Obvious case of mistaken identity. I'm innocent!

[Serenity Now]

That was Turd that did that. Obvious case of mistaken identity. I'm innocent!

Both actually. I'm told that the olevet gets into the fights and then you and turd fly in and drop the neg bombs. It's a massive right wing conspiracy.

[Serenity Now]

Shocking isn't it?

Crazy. Apparently, there's a book detailing the mirrored attacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

[Serenity Now]

Interesting read on the 24 day timeline. https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/09/upchuck-senator-schumers-disingenuous-iran-deal-argument/


Schumer starts by repeating the claim that “inspections are not ‘anywhere, anytime’; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling.” This would be very troubling if it were true. It isn’t. The claim that inspections occur with a 24-day delay is the equivalent of Obamacare “death panels.” Remember those? A minor detail has been twisted into a bizarre caricature and repeated over and over until it becomes “true.”

Let’s get this straight. The agreement calls for continuous monitoring at all of Iran’s declared sites — that means all of the time — including centrifuge workshops, which are not safeguarded anywhere else in the world. Inspectors have immediate access to these sites.

That leaves the problem of possible undeclared sites. What happens when the International Atomic Energy Agency suspects that prohibited work is occurring at an undeclared site? This is the problem known as the “Ayatollah’s toilet.” It emerged from the challenge of inspecting presidential palaces in Iraq in the 1990s, which — despite the U.N. Special Commission’s demands for immediate access — the Iraqis argued were off-limits.

Far from giving Iran 24 days, the IAEA will need to give only 24 hours’ notice before showing up at a suspicious site to take samples. Access could even be requested with as little as two hours’ notice, something that will be much more feasible now that Iran has agreed to let inspectors stay in-country for the long term. Iran is obligated to provide the IAEA access to all such sites — including, if it comes down to it, the Ayatollah’s porcelain throne.

But that’s not all. The Iran deal has a further safeguard for inspections at undeclared sites, the very provision that Schumer and other opponents are twisting. What happens if Iran tries to stall and refuses to provide access, on whatever grounds? There is a strict time limit on stalling. Iran must provide access within two weeks. If Iran refuses, the Joint Commission set up under the deal must decide within seven days whether to force access. Following a majority vote in the Joint Commission — where the United States and its allies constitute a majority bloc — Iran has three days to comply. If it doesn’t, it’s openly violating the deal, which would be grounds for the swift return of the international sanctions regime, known colloquially as the “snap back.”

This arrangement is much, much stronger than the normal safeguards agreement, which requires prompt access in theory but does not place time limits on dickering.

What opponents of the deal have done is add up all the time limits and claim that inspections will occur only after a 24-day pause. This is simply not true. Should the U.S. intelligence community catch the Iranians red-handed, it might be that the Iranians would drag things out as long as possible. But in such a case, the game would be over. Either the Iranians would never let the inspectors into the site, or its efforts to truck out documents or equipment, wash down the site, or bulldoze buildings, etc., would be highly visible. These tactics would crater the deal, with predictable consequences. (Schumer also takes a shot at the snap back. Say what you will about the probability of getting all parties to agree to reimpose sanctions, but agreements like this have never had such an enforcement provision before.)

Found this funny: "The Washington Post’s Emily Heil has suggested we retire that hackneyed cliché, replacing it instead with this bon mot from former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine:

“Sharing a media market with Chuck Schumer is like sharing a banana with a monkey,” Corzine was quoted as saying in New York magazine. “Take a little bite of it, and he will throw his own feces at you.”

[olevetonahill]

Both actually. I'm told that the olevet gets into the fights and then you and turd fly in and drop the neg bombs. It's a massive right wing conspiracy.

I fight my own battles ya dipwad. If Curly and Turd wanta jump thats their business.

[dwarthog]

So there are no "secret" deals. Doesn't sound very logical to comment on secret deals when we know exactly what they pertain. They are appendices and annexes to the JCPOA. They are confidential because they contain confidential information that cannot be released to the public domain. One of these issues deals with the controversial Parchin facility. The facility was the subject of some nefarious intel gathering about a decade ago. The other is in regards to Iranian nuclear scientists. Since some of them have ended up dead in recent years, the Persians are a bit wary of having that information public knowledge. I realize the issue of national sovereignty is lost on many, but it is a legitimate concern. The IAEA is also reluctant to give away their methodology to inspections to every dip**** Senator from Arkansas that has no clue how they operate.

Decent article over on Bloomberg that discusses

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-30/-secret-side-deals-on-iran-accord-are-new-target-of-republicans



A group of scientist, pfft what do they know, recently wrote a letter regarding the issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/08/08/world/document-iranletteraug2015.html?_r=0

"“We consider that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) the United States and its partners negotiated with Iran will advance the cause of peace and security in the Middle East and can serve as a guidepost for future non-proliferation agreements,”

“This is an innovative agreement, with much more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated non-proliferation framework.”


I have no issues with national sovereignty and a desire by Iran to protect it's "assets". Keeping that kind of info away from Joe "it was Seal Team 6" Biden is a very wise move indeed.

I would imagine those interested in finding out who their key atomic scientists are don't necessarily need it handed to them on a silver platter to figure it out.

It is encouraging that a group of scientists have given their stamp of approval to the deal. No doubt one could find similar sentiment with regards to the original NPT which Iran signed. That didn't seem to slow them down much.

Hopefully it does work. Given their history of disregard for previous "agreements", I don't see cause for optimism.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I fight my own battles ya dipwad. If Curly and Turd wanta jump thats their business.

Ribbit.

[SoonerProphet]

I have no issues with national sovereignty and a desire by Iran to protect it's "assets". Keeping that kind of info away from Joe "it was Seal Team 6" Biden is a very wise move indeed.

I would imagine those interested in finding out who their key atomic scientists are don't necessarily need it handed to them on a silver platter to figure it out.

It is encouraging that a group of scientists have given their stamp of approval to the deal. No doubt one could find similar sentiment with regards to the original NPT which Iran signed. That didn't seem to slow them down much.

Hopefully it does work. Given their history of disregard for previous "agreements", I don't see cause for optimism.

You are right, if Mossad can't find them out not many intel agencies could. But protecting being outed in public forums seems like proper decorum.

As for the original NPT and their disregard for previous agreements, I assume you mean enrichment and weaponization since you didn't cite any specific examples.

Enrichment is a right under the NPT. For decades Iran has tried to get enriched uranium from outside providers, France initially then Russia. Those nations reneged or delayed the deliveries. Iran choose to pursue domestic enrichment capabilities and began to acquire centrifuges. Doing so brought on more international pressure and refusal to negotiate. Again, not a sympathizer but objective observer, but issues of sovereignty and legality come into play. Iran tried to negotiate a deal to reduce centrifuges in the early days of the wot, but were rebuffed by the various clowns on W's for. pol. team.

As for weaponization. There is zero credible evidence that Iran has ever pursued a weaponization program.

[Serenity Now]

The head of the "Anti Iran Nuclear Club" steps down because he thinks the deal is as good as we can get. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/world/middleeast/head-of-group-opposing-iran-accord-quits-post-saying-he-backs-deal.html?_r=0

Three dozen (That's close to 36 for a few of you) retired generals and admirals support it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/retired-generals-and-admirals-back-iran-nuclear-deal/2015/08/11/bd26f6ae-4045-11e5-bfe3-ff1d8549bfd2_story.html

[Serenity Now]

The head of the "Anti Iran Nuclear Club" steps down because he thinks the deal is as good as we can get. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/world/middleeast/head-of-group-opposing-iran-accord-quits-post-saying-he-backs-deal.html?_r=0

Three dozen (That's close to 36 for a few of you) retired generals and admirals support it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/retired-generals-and-admirals-back-iran-nuclear-deal/2015/08/11/bd26f6ae-4045-11e5-bfe3-ff1d8549bfd2_story.html
I figure the deal is kind of like Traber. The Aggies think he's too nice to OU and says mean things about OSU. Sooner fans think he's too critical of OU and talks about OSU too much. I don't like Traber but it's not because I think he's anti OU. It's because he's an arrogant jerk. Doesn't mean he's biased. He's just an arse. So, the Iran deal is criticized by the hawks on each side. Maybe it's right in the middle?

[dwarthog]

You are right, if Mossad can't find them out not many intel agencies could. But protecting being outed in public forums seems like proper decorum.

As for the original NPT and their disregard for previous agreements, I assume you mean enrichment and weaponization since you didn't cite any specific examples.

Enrichment is a right under the NPT. For decades Iran has tried to get enriched uranium from outside providers, France initially then Russia. Those nations reneged or delayed the deliveries. Iran choose to pursue domestic enrichment capabilities and began to acquire centrifuges. Doing so brought on more international pressure and refusal to negotiate. Again, not a sympathizer but objective observer, but issues of sovereignty and legality come into play. Iran tried to negotiate a deal to reduce centrifuges in the early days of the wot, but were rebuffed by the various clowns on W's for. pol. team.

As for weaponization. There is zero credible evidence that Iran has ever pursued a weaponization program.

Yes, with regards to the original NPT the objective was to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

Enrichment is still required for "peaceful" uses. Nuclear power plants etc.

More material is required for a nuclear plant than is required to build a nuclear weapon if my understanding of the differences is correct.

That would indicate more centrifuges are required to make the necessary material for a nuclear power plant than for a weapon which seems to be somewhat at odds with claiming a win on forcing them to reduce the number of centrifuges with the stated goal to enable peaceful nuclear energy pursuits.

Hopefully the monitoring program will be up to the task.

[dwarthog]

I figure the deal is kind of like Traber. The Aggies think he's too nice to OU and says mean things about OSU. Sooner fans think he's too critical of OU and talks about OSU too much. I don't like Traber but it's not because I think he's anti OU. It's because he's an arrogant jerk. Doesn't mean he's biased. He's just an arse. So, the Iran deal is criticized by the hawks on each side. Maybe it's right in the middle?

Talking to yourself????

[Serenity Now]

Talking to yourself????

Yes. Trying to up my post count. ;)

It just seem more logical to do that than to edit. Traber still sucks.

[dwarthog]

Yes. Trying to up my post count. ;)

It just seem more logical to do that than to edit. Traber still sucks.

Well done. Don't forget to call yourself a dumbazz too when replying to yourself. :wink: Save those old guys Vet etc. from having to type it in. :-)

Yes, Traber still sucks.

[Serenity Now]

Well done. Don't forget to call yourself a dumbazz too when replying to yourself. :wink: Save those old guys Vet etc. from having to type it in. :-)

Yes, Traber still sucks.

I should just put it in a signature.

[SoonerProphet]

Yes, with regards to the original NPT the objective was to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

Enrichment is still required for "peaceful" uses. Nuclear power plants etc.

More material is required for a nuclear plant than is required to build a nuclear weapon if my understanding of the differences is correct.

That would indicate more centrifuges are required to make the necessary material for a nuclear power plant than for a weapon which seems to be somewhat at odds with claiming a win on forcing them to reduce the number of centrifuges with the stated goal to enable peaceful nuclear energy pursuits.

Hopefully the monitoring program will be up to the task.

It is not the amount of material but the level of enriched uranium. Uranium spun in centrifuges to 90% is weapons grade. The more centrifuges you have the easier it is to enrich the uranium to weapons grade. Nuclear power plants do not need highly enriched uranium to operate. Neither do research reactors.

[dwarthog]

It is not the amount of material but the level of enriched uranium. Uranium spun in centrifuges to 90% is weapons grade. The more centrifuges you have the easier it is to enrich the uranium to weapons grade. Nuclear power plants do not need highly enriched uranium to operate. Neither do research reactors.



The point was the amount of enriched material, not weapons grade level, required to run a nuclear power plant requires more centrifuges not fewer. (Iran wants to use nuclear energy for power)

To enrich the smaller amount needed for weapons grade you need fewer centrifuges.

So fewer centrifuges wouldn't necessarily be much of a road block, IF the info in the link below is accurate.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/feb/25/michael-morell/odd-reality-irans-centrifuges-enough-bomb-not-powe/

[Serenity Now]

The point was the amount of enriched material, not weapons grade level, required to run a nuclear power plant requires more centrifuges not fewer. (Iran wants to use nuclear energy for power)

To enrich the smaller amount needed for weapons grade you need fewer centrifuges.

So fewer centrifuges wouldn't necessarily be much of a road block, IF the info in the link below is accurate.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/feb/25/michael-morell/odd-reality-irans-centrifuges-enough-bomb-not-powe/

But that's a George Soros-funded "fact checking" site. You can't use that. :)

[dwarthog]

But that's a George Soros-funded "fact checking" site. You can't use that. :)

Exactly! I await word that it's inaccurate. :-)

[SoonerProphet]

The point was the amount of enriched material, not weapons grade level, required to run a nuclear power plant requires more centrifuges not fewer. (Iran wants to use nuclear energy for power)

To enrich the smaller amount needed for weapons grade you need fewer centrifuges.


So fewer centrifuges wouldn't necessarily be much of a road block, IF the info in the link below is accurate.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/feb/25/michael-morell/odd-reality-irans-centrifuges-enough-bomb-not-powe/

Technically you could enrich to 90% with 500 centrifuges. It would take awhile but you could do it, even with Iran's dated machines.

Technically the old cia guy is correct, what he fails to mention or what the nitwit Chuck Rose fails to follow up is Russian supplies of uranium for the major reactor at Bushehr. The current reduction of centrifuges and all of the "modern" ones iran had is they key to the centrifuge debate.

[dwarthog]

Technically you could enrich to 90% with 500 centrifuges. It would take awhile but you could do it, even with Iran's dated machines.

Technically the old cia guy is correct, what he fails to mention or what the nitwit Chuck Rose fails to follow up is Russian supplies of uranium for the major reactor at Bushehr. The current reduction of centrifuges and all of the "modern" ones iran had is they key to the centrifuge debate.

I have to wonder how having "working" centrifuges, (I.E. not infected with stuxnet), I'm just guessing the international community will play nicer with an official agreement in place and not find ways to inhibit the centrifuges ability to work correctly, will enable the Iranian's to get a better feel for what can be done with an actual working centrifuge and how they will leverage that knowledge when at year 11 of the agreement they get to upgrade to current centrifuge technology.