|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 10 2015 22:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2015 15:12 Jaaaaasper wrote:On March 10 2015 07:30 xDaunt wrote:On March 10 2015 06:40 Nyxisto wrote:I'm a little baffled by this : http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/world/asia/white-house-faults-gop-senators-letter-to-irans-leaders.htmlWASHINGTON — The fractious debate over a possible nuclear deal with Iran escalated on Monday as 47 Republican senators warned Iran against making an agreement with President Obama and the White House accused them of undercutting foreign policy.
In an exceedingly rare direct congressional intervention into diplomatic negotiations, the Republicans sent an open letter addressed to “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” declaring that any agreement could be reversed by the next president “with the stroke of a pen.”
The letter appeared aimed at unraveling an agreement even as negotiators grow close to reaching it. Mr. Obama, working with leaders of five other world powers, argues that the emerging agreement would be the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, while critics from both parties contend that it would be a dangerous charade that would still leave Iran with the opportunity to eventually build weapons that could destroy Israel or other foes. Sounds like a really petty move aimed at disturbing Obama's foreign policy for domestic political gains. The whole Iran situation is messy enough already. I'm still failing to see what the US would get out of any prospective deal with Iran. Normalization of relations isn't enough. If a deal is struck, the big winner will be Iran. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, Iran is already winning big in the region. Its sphere of influence has increased dramatically during the Obama administration. Both Yemen and Iraq are well on their way to becoming Iranian proxies like Syria and Hezbollah. The thing that the US gets out of this deal is get Iran to actually allow inspections to their nuclear facilities, keep it so Iran is more than a year away from being able to make a bomb at any given time (so we know the time table of worst case next time they stop allowing inspectors), avoid another potential ground war in the middle east, and frankly working with Iran against ISIS is by far the lesser of two evils. Those are the objectives of any deal. The inspections mean nothing in and of themselves. The only thing that would matter is taking a nuclear bomb of the table permanently. And you are kidding yourself if you think this is going to prevent another ground war in the Middle East. If this treaty goes through, there will be monstrous arms race in the Middle East and an inevitable collision course between the Saudis and Iranians. Hell, the arms race has already begun in mere anticipation of this useless deal.
that's not a reasonable position and will be the same as not negotiating. iran has extensive civilian nuclear energy plants and they have legitimate interest under the NPT to develop nuclear energy.
they already got rid of their 20% enriched stockpile and weaponizing technology amounts to some prototype quantity of higher quality centrifuges at laboratory scale. their big processing facility is on old technology.
|
On March 10 2015 22:58 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2015 22:38 xDaunt wrote:On March 10 2015 15:12 Jaaaaasper wrote:On March 10 2015 07:30 xDaunt wrote:On March 10 2015 06:40 Nyxisto wrote:I'm a little baffled by this : http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/world/asia/white-house-faults-gop-senators-letter-to-irans-leaders.htmlWASHINGTON — The fractious debate over a possible nuclear deal with Iran escalated on Monday as 47 Republican senators warned Iran against making an agreement with President Obama and the White House accused them of undercutting foreign policy.
In an exceedingly rare direct congressional intervention into diplomatic negotiations, the Republicans sent an open letter addressed to “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” declaring that any agreement could be reversed by the next president “with the stroke of a pen.”
The letter appeared aimed at unraveling an agreement even as negotiators grow close to reaching it. Mr. Obama, working with leaders of five other world powers, argues that the emerging agreement would be the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, while critics from both parties contend that it would be a dangerous charade that would still leave Iran with the opportunity to eventually build weapons that could destroy Israel or other foes. Sounds like a really petty move aimed at disturbing Obama's foreign policy for domestic political gains. The whole Iran situation is messy enough already. I'm still failing to see what the US would get out of any prospective deal with Iran. Normalization of relations isn't enough. If a deal is struck, the big winner will be Iran. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, Iran is already winning big in the region. Its sphere of influence has increased dramatically during the Obama administration. Both Yemen and Iraq are well on their way to becoming Iranian proxies like Syria and Hezbollah. The thing that the US gets out of this deal is get Iran to actually allow inspections to their nuclear facilities, keep it so Iran is more than a year away from being able to make a bomb at any given time (so we know the time table of worst case next time they stop allowing inspectors), avoid another potential ground war in the middle east, and frankly working with Iran against ISIS is by far the lesser of two evils. Those are the objectives of any deal. The inspections mean nothing in and of themselves. The only thing that would matter is taking a nuclear bomb of the table permanently. And you are kidding yourself if you think this is going to prevent another ground war in the Middle East. If this treaty goes through, there will be monstrous arms race in the Middle East and an inevitable collision course between the Saudis and Iranians. Hell, the arms race has already begun in mere anticipation of this useless deal. that's not a reasonable position and will be the same as not negotiating. iran has extensive civilian nuclear energy plants and they have legitimate interest under the NPT to develop nuclear energy. they already got rid of their 20% enriched stockpile and weaponizing technology amounts to some prototype quantity of higher quality centrifuges at laboratory scale. their big processing facility is on old technology.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, I'm back.
Last time I read anything, Iran was refusing to comply with UN mandated inspections. Why would you believe this would change? Seems rather naive, but that would be in line with the current administration's actions.
Latest report
|
On March 10 2015 14:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2015 14:29 ticklishmusic wrote:Whether the Republican letter might undercut Iran’s willingness to strike a deal was not clear. Iran reacted with scorn. “In our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy,” Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, said in a statement. “It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history.” Not sure where Republicans go from Iran all but pointing and laughing at them? They had a lot harsher criticism of Republicans and their competence (or lack thereof) than what you quoted there too.
Apparently, the Iranian foreign minister has four (like wtf) degrees in International Studies/ Relations.
“I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulflil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.”
So rekt.
On March 11 2015 01:10 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2015 22:58 oneofthem wrote:On March 10 2015 22:38 xDaunt wrote:On March 10 2015 15:12 Jaaaaasper wrote:On March 10 2015 07:30 xDaunt wrote:On March 10 2015 06:40 Nyxisto wrote:I'm a little baffled by this : http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/world/asia/white-house-faults-gop-senators-letter-to-irans-leaders.htmlWASHINGTON — The fractious debate over a possible nuclear deal with Iran escalated on Monday as 47 Republican senators warned Iran against making an agreement with President Obama and the White House accused them of undercutting foreign policy.
In an exceedingly rare direct congressional intervention into diplomatic negotiations, the Republicans sent an open letter addressed to “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” declaring that any agreement could be reversed by the next president “with the stroke of a pen.”
The letter appeared aimed at unraveling an agreement even as negotiators grow close to reaching it. Mr. Obama, working with leaders of five other world powers, argues that the emerging agreement would be the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, while critics from both parties contend that it would be a dangerous charade that would still leave Iran with the opportunity to eventually build weapons that could destroy Israel or other foes. Sounds like a really petty move aimed at disturbing Obama's foreign policy for domestic political gains. The whole Iran situation is messy enough already. I'm still failing to see what the US would get out of any prospective deal with Iran. Normalization of relations isn't enough. If a deal is struck, the big winner will be Iran. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, Iran is already winning big in the region. Its sphere of influence has increased dramatically during the Obama administration. Both Yemen and Iraq are well on their way to becoming Iranian proxies like Syria and Hezbollah. The thing that the US gets out of this deal is get Iran to actually allow inspections to their nuclear facilities, keep it so Iran is more than a year away from being able to make a bomb at any given time (so we know the time table of worst case next time they stop allowing inspectors), avoid another potential ground war in the middle east, and frankly working with Iran against ISIS is by far the lesser of two evils. Those are the objectives of any deal. The inspections mean nothing in and of themselves. The only thing that would matter is taking a nuclear bomb of the table permanently. And you are kidding yourself if you think this is going to prevent another ground war in the Middle East. If this treaty goes through, there will be monstrous arms race in the Middle East and an inevitable collision course between the Saudis and Iranians. Hell, the arms race has already begun in mere anticipation of this useless deal. that's not a reasonable position and will be the same as not negotiating. iran has extensive civilian nuclear energy plants and they have legitimate interest under the NPT to develop nuclear energy. they already got rid of their 20% enriched stockpile and weaponizing technology amounts to some prototype quantity of higher quality centrifuges at laboratory scale. their big processing facility is on old technology. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, I'm back. Last time I read anything, Iran was refusing to comply with UN mandated inspections. Why would you believe this would change? Seems rather naive, but that would be in line with the current administration's actions. Latest report
Ya got anything more than just insulting the administration?
I think you're confusing naivety with goodwill and cynicism with wisdom.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 11 2015 01:10 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2015 22:58 oneofthem wrote:On March 10 2015 22:38 xDaunt wrote:On March 10 2015 15:12 Jaaaaasper wrote:On March 10 2015 07:30 xDaunt wrote:On March 10 2015 06:40 Nyxisto wrote:I'm a little baffled by this : http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/world/asia/white-house-faults-gop-senators-letter-to-irans-leaders.htmlWASHINGTON — The fractious debate over a possible nuclear deal with Iran escalated on Monday as 47 Republican senators warned Iran against making an agreement with President Obama and the White House accused them of undercutting foreign policy.
In an exceedingly rare direct congressional intervention into diplomatic negotiations, the Republicans sent an open letter addressed to “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” declaring that any agreement could be reversed by the next president “with the stroke of a pen.”
The letter appeared aimed at unraveling an agreement even as negotiators grow close to reaching it. Mr. Obama, working with leaders of five other world powers, argues that the emerging agreement would be the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, while critics from both parties contend that it would be a dangerous charade that would still leave Iran with the opportunity to eventually build weapons that could destroy Israel or other foes. Sounds like a really petty move aimed at disturbing Obama's foreign policy for domestic political gains. The whole Iran situation is messy enough already. I'm still failing to see what the US would get out of any prospective deal with Iran. Normalization of relations isn't enough. If a deal is struck, the big winner will be Iran. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, Iran is already winning big in the region. Its sphere of influence has increased dramatically during the Obama administration. Both Yemen and Iraq are well on their way to becoming Iranian proxies like Syria and Hezbollah. The thing that the US gets out of this deal is get Iran to actually allow inspections to their nuclear facilities, keep it so Iran is more than a year away from being able to make a bomb at any given time (so we know the time table of worst case next time they stop allowing inspectors), avoid another potential ground war in the middle east, and frankly working with Iran against ISIS is by far the lesser of two evils. Those are the objectives of any deal. The inspections mean nothing in and of themselves. The only thing that would matter is taking a nuclear bomb of the table permanently. And you are kidding yourself if you think this is going to prevent another ground war in the Middle East. If this treaty goes through, there will be monstrous arms race in the Middle East and an inevitable collision course between the Saudis and Iranians. Hell, the arms race has already begun in mere anticipation of this useless deal. that's not a reasonable position and will be the same as not negotiating. iran has extensive civilian nuclear energy plants and they have legitimate interest under the NPT to develop nuclear energy. they already got rid of their 20% enriched stockpile and weaponizing technology amounts to some prototype quantity of higher quality centrifuges at laboratory scale. their big processing facility is on old technology. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, I'm back. Last time I read anything, Iran was refusing to comply with UN mandated inspections. Why would you believe this would change? Seems rather naive, but that would be in line with the current administration's actions. Latest report
that is consistent with my description of their current capabilities. they do have extensive history of defying NPT inspections but that is also a major reason why they were sanctioned. it is a part of past stuff everyone should know. iran is no angel but they've been more cooperative recently.
e.g. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/10/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-idUSKBN0M60W720150310
|
On March 11 2015 01:35 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2015 14:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 10 2015 14:29 ticklishmusic wrote:Whether the Republican letter might undercut Iran’s willingness to strike a deal was not clear. Iran reacted with scorn. “In our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy,” Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, said in a statement. “It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history.” Not sure where Republicans go from Iran all but pointing and laughing at them? They had a lot harsher criticism of Republicans and their competence (or lack thereof) than what you quoted there too. Apparently, the Iranian foreign minister has four (like wtf) degrees in International Studies/ Relations. Show nested quote + “I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulflil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.” So rekt. Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 01:10 hannahbelle wrote:On March 10 2015 22:58 oneofthem wrote:On March 10 2015 22:38 xDaunt wrote:On March 10 2015 15:12 Jaaaaasper wrote:On March 10 2015 07:30 xDaunt wrote:On March 10 2015 06:40 Nyxisto wrote:I'm a little baffled by this : http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/world/asia/white-house-faults-gop-senators-letter-to-irans-leaders.htmlWASHINGTON — The fractious debate over a possible nuclear deal with Iran escalated on Monday as 47 Republican senators warned Iran against making an agreement with President Obama and the White House accused them of undercutting foreign policy.
In an exceedingly rare direct congressional intervention into diplomatic negotiations, the Republicans sent an open letter addressed to “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” declaring that any agreement could be reversed by the next president “with the stroke of a pen.”
The letter appeared aimed at unraveling an agreement even as negotiators grow close to reaching it. Mr. Obama, working with leaders of five other world powers, argues that the emerging agreement would be the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, while critics from both parties contend that it would be a dangerous charade that would still leave Iran with the opportunity to eventually build weapons that could destroy Israel or other foes. Sounds like a really petty move aimed at disturbing Obama's foreign policy for domestic political gains. The whole Iran situation is messy enough already. I'm still failing to see what the US would get out of any prospective deal with Iran. Normalization of relations isn't enough. If a deal is struck, the big winner will be Iran. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, Iran is already winning big in the region. Its sphere of influence has increased dramatically during the Obama administration. Both Yemen and Iraq are well on their way to becoming Iranian proxies like Syria and Hezbollah. The thing that the US gets out of this deal is get Iran to actually allow inspections to their nuclear facilities, keep it so Iran is more than a year away from being able to make a bomb at any given time (so we know the time table of worst case next time they stop allowing inspectors), avoid another potential ground war in the middle east, and frankly working with Iran against ISIS is by far the lesser of two evils. Those are the objectives of any deal. The inspections mean nothing in and of themselves. The only thing that would matter is taking a nuclear bomb of the table permanently. And you are kidding yourself if you think this is going to prevent another ground war in the Middle East. If this treaty goes through, there will be monstrous arms race in the Middle East and an inevitable collision course between the Saudis and Iranians. Hell, the arms race has already begun in mere anticipation of this useless deal. that's not a reasonable position and will be the same as not negotiating. iran has extensive civilian nuclear energy plants and they have legitimate interest under the NPT to develop nuclear energy. they already got rid of their 20% enriched stockpile and weaponizing technology amounts to some prototype quantity of higher quality centrifuges at laboratory scale. their big processing facility is on old technology. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, I'm back. Last time I read anything, Iran was refusing to comply with UN mandated inspections. Why would you believe this would change? Seems rather naive, but that would be in line with the current administration's actions. Latest report Ya got anything more than just insulting the administration? I think you're confusing naivety with goodwill and cynicism with wisdom.
Facts speak for themselves. The administration wants us to buy into a deal with Iran contingent upon inspections to ensure compliance. Only there are already inspections with which Iran is already failing to comply. So why should we accept your so called "wisdom" in lieu of reality?
Also, in response to your "so rekt" argument, evidently he fails to comprehend our Constitution. Any treaty has to be approved and ratified by our Senate. I am glad that at least 47 of the mostly gutless RINOs in the Senate decided to speak out against this reckless foreign affairs endeavor that this incompetent administration is embarking on. Since the president refuses to consult with the Senate or hear the will of the people on this issue, drastic measures had to be taken to hopefully stop this utter nonsense.
|
On March 11 2015 01:43 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 01:10 hannahbelle wrote:On March 10 2015 22:58 oneofthem wrote:On March 10 2015 22:38 xDaunt wrote:On March 10 2015 15:12 Jaaaaasper wrote:On March 10 2015 07:30 xDaunt wrote:On March 10 2015 06:40 Nyxisto wrote:I'm a little baffled by this : http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/world/asia/white-house-faults-gop-senators-letter-to-irans-leaders.htmlWASHINGTON — The fractious debate over a possible nuclear deal with Iran escalated on Monday as 47 Republican senators warned Iran against making an agreement with President Obama and the White House accused them of undercutting foreign policy.
In an exceedingly rare direct congressional intervention into diplomatic negotiations, the Republicans sent an open letter addressed to “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” declaring that any agreement could be reversed by the next president “with the stroke of a pen.”
The letter appeared aimed at unraveling an agreement even as negotiators grow close to reaching it. Mr. Obama, working with leaders of five other world powers, argues that the emerging agreement would be the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, while critics from both parties contend that it would be a dangerous charade that would still leave Iran with the opportunity to eventually build weapons that could destroy Israel or other foes. Sounds like a really petty move aimed at disturbing Obama's foreign policy for domestic political gains. The whole Iran situation is messy enough already. I'm still failing to see what the US would get out of any prospective deal with Iran. Normalization of relations isn't enough. If a deal is struck, the big winner will be Iran. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, Iran is already winning big in the region. Its sphere of influence has increased dramatically during the Obama administration. Both Yemen and Iraq are well on their way to becoming Iranian proxies like Syria and Hezbollah. The thing that the US gets out of this deal is get Iran to actually allow inspections to their nuclear facilities, keep it so Iran is more than a year away from being able to make a bomb at any given time (so we know the time table of worst case next time they stop allowing inspectors), avoid another potential ground war in the middle east, and frankly working with Iran against ISIS is by far the lesser of two evils. Those are the objectives of any deal. The inspections mean nothing in and of themselves. The only thing that would matter is taking a nuclear bomb of the table permanently. And you are kidding yourself if you think this is going to prevent another ground war in the Middle East. If this treaty goes through, there will be monstrous arms race in the Middle East and an inevitable collision course between the Saudis and Iranians. Hell, the arms race has already begun in mere anticipation of this useless deal. that's not a reasonable position and will be the same as not negotiating. iran has extensive civilian nuclear energy plants and they have legitimate interest under the NPT to develop nuclear energy. they already got rid of their 20% enriched stockpile and weaponizing technology amounts to some prototype quantity of higher quality centrifuges at laboratory scale. their big processing facility is on old technology. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, I'm back. Last time I read anything, Iran was refusing to comply with UN mandated inspections. Why would you believe this would change? Seems rather naive, but that would be in line with the current administration's actions. Latest report that is consistent with my description of their current capabilities. they do have extensive history of defying NPT inspections but that is also a major reason why they were sanctioned. it is a part of past stuff everyone should know. iran is no angel but they've been more cooperative recently. e.g. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/10/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-idUSKBN0M60W720150310
More cooperative? The most recent report I quoted says that Iran is still stonewalling. But no worries, they are stonewalling because there is obviously nothing to hide...
|
This is a stupid deal if all that it is going to do is pave the way for an Iranian bomb in 10 years. It's going to be sweet to see nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (and globally, for that matter). What can possibly go wrong?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 11 2015 01:45 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 01:43 oneofthem wrote:On March 11 2015 01:10 hannahbelle wrote:On March 10 2015 22:58 oneofthem wrote:On March 10 2015 22:38 xDaunt wrote:On March 10 2015 15:12 Jaaaaasper wrote:On March 10 2015 07:30 xDaunt wrote:On March 10 2015 06:40 Nyxisto wrote:I'm a little baffled by this : http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/world/asia/white-house-faults-gop-senators-letter-to-irans-leaders.htmlWASHINGTON — The fractious debate over a possible nuclear deal with Iran escalated on Monday as 47 Republican senators warned Iran against making an agreement with President Obama and the White House accused them of undercutting foreign policy.
In an exceedingly rare direct congressional intervention into diplomatic negotiations, the Republicans sent an open letter addressed to “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” declaring that any agreement could be reversed by the next president “with the stroke of a pen.”
The letter appeared aimed at unraveling an agreement even as negotiators grow close to reaching it. Mr. Obama, working with leaders of five other world powers, argues that the emerging agreement would be the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, while critics from both parties contend that it would be a dangerous charade that would still leave Iran with the opportunity to eventually build weapons that could destroy Israel or other foes. Sounds like a really petty move aimed at disturbing Obama's foreign policy for domestic political gains. The whole Iran situation is messy enough already. I'm still failing to see what the US would get out of any prospective deal with Iran. Normalization of relations isn't enough. If a deal is struck, the big winner will be Iran. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, Iran is already winning big in the region. Its sphere of influence has increased dramatically during the Obama administration. Both Yemen and Iraq are well on their way to becoming Iranian proxies like Syria and Hezbollah. The thing that the US gets out of this deal is get Iran to actually allow inspections to their nuclear facilities, keep it so Iran is more than a year away from being able to make a bomb at any given time (so we know the time table of worst case next time they stop allowing inspectors), avoid another potential ground war in the middle east, and frankly working with Iran against ISIS is by far the lesser of two evils. Those are the objectives of any deal. The inspections mean nothing in and of themselves. The only thing that would matter is taking a nuclear bomb of the table permanently. And you are kidding yourself if you think this is going to prevent another ground war in the Middle East. If this treaty goes through, there will be monstrous arms race in the Middle East and an inevitable collision course between the Saudis and Iranians. Hell, the arms race has already begun in mere anticipation of this useless deal. that's not a reasonable position and will be the same as not negotiating. iran has extensive civilian nuclear energy plants and they have legitimate interest under the NPT to develop nuclear energy. they already got rid of their 20% enriched stockpile and weaponizing technology amounts to some prototype quantity of higher quality centrifuges at laboratory scale. their big processing facility is on old technology. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, I'm back. Last time I read anything, Iran was refusing to comply with UN mandated inspections. Why would you believe this would change? Seems rather naive, but that would be in line with the current administration's actions. Latest report that is consistent with my description of their current capabilities. they do have extensive history of defying NPT inspections but that is also a major reason why they were sanctioned. it is a part of past stuff everyone should know. iran is no angel but they've been more cooperative recently. e.g. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/10/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-idUSKBN0M60W720150310 More cooperative? The most recent report I quoted says that Iran is still stonewalling. But no worries, they are stonewalling because there is obviously nothing to hide...
your report is not recent enough.
parallel to negotiation with 5+1 negotiations iran also started a cooperative agreement with the IAEA last year. they are being more cooperative and this is really the significant information that your narrative doesn't take into account. yes, iran is not to be trusted, but the shift in attitude is significant. as i've said when they do move to develop actual weapons the steps will be clear and significant, and there will be very severe consequences for iran. this is deterrence enough. the stuff about stripping all nuclear infrastructure is unrealistic and paranoia. you would probably be shocked to learn that they've had nuclear power since the 1970's with american help.
|
On March 11 2015 01:47 xDaunt wrote:
This is a stupid deal if all that it is going to do is pave the way for an Iranian bomb in 10 years. It's going to be sweet to see nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (and globally, for that matter). What can possibly go wrong?
Pakistan has a nuke right now, a state much less stable than Iran. IMO, probably less will go wrong than currently with mutually assured destruction.
|
The seven Republicans who did not sign the letter are an interesting bunch. I was quite surprised to see Bob Corker, Thad Cochran, and Lamar Alexander among them.
|
On March 11 2015 02:19 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 01:47 xDaunt wrote:
This is a stupid deal if all that it is going to do is pave the way for an Iranian bomb in 10 years. It's going to be sweet to see nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (and globally, for that matter). What can possibly go wrong? Pakistan has a nuke right now, a state much less stable than Iran. IMO, probably less will go wrong than currently with mutually assured destruction.
Pakistan having a nuke isn't as troubling. As sad as it sounds, Pakistan is more stable than the Middle Eastern countries. Also, Any nuclear proliferation from Pakistan going nuclear is already baked into the cake. The problem with Iran getting a nuke is that several other Middle Eastern countries (Saudi Arabia and Egypt have been very frank on this point) will be compelled to get one themselves. Do we really want a generally unstable Middle East loaded with nuclear weapons?
|
Substantiating the claim that Pakistan is more stable than Iran or other Middle Eastern nations is going to take more than a mere utterance of the supposition. If anything, Pakistan simply falls in line alongside other regional powers in terms of stability and rule of law, which naturally begs a question as to why this fear of Iran is more justified than a fear of any other Middle East power's ability or lack thereof to safeguard and properly pursue a nuclear energy program.
|
On March 11 2015 02:40 farvacola wrote:
Substantiating the claim that Pakistan is more stable than Iran or other Middle Eastern nations is going to take more than a mere utterance of the supposition. If anything, Pakistan merely falls in line alongside other regional powers in terms of stability and rule of law, which naturally begs a question as to why this fear of Iran is more justified than a fear of any other Middle East power's ability or lack thereof to safeguard and properly pursue a nuclear energy program.
Whether Pakistan is more stable is irrelevant. The real issue is nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, which is patently a bad thing.
|
Pakistan's stability is very much relevant when the supposed belligerence of Iran is the crux of the arguments pointed towards a complete nuclear ban. Furthermore, if we are to assume that, contrary to the rhetoric of those who signed the letter, a more general anti-proliferation angle is the actionable basis for preventing Iran from pursuing nuclear power, I think the harm that accompanies an incomplete regional proliferation supersedes that of a more complete one, which is likely inevitable in the long-term anyhow. The past decade has made it clear that the U.S. cannot support its interests in the Middle East standing alone.
|
lol
On March 11 2015 02:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 02:19 Livelovedie wrote:On March 11 2015 01:47 xDaunt wrote:
This is a stupid deal if all that it is going to do is pave the way for an Iranian bomb in 10 years. It's going to be sweet to see nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (and globally, for that matter). What can possibly go wrong? Pakistan has a nuke right now, a state much less stable than Iran. IMO, probably less will go wrong than currently with mutually assured destruction. Pakistan having a nuke isn't as troubling. As sad as it sounds, Pakistan is more stable than the Middle Eastern countries. Also, Any nuclear proliferation from Pakistan going nuclear is already baked into the cake. The problem with Iran getting a nuke is that several other Middle Eastern countries (Saudi Arabia and Egypt have been very frank on this point) will be compelled to get one themselves. Do we really want a generally unstable Middle East loaded with nuclear weapons?
and just the next comment
On March 11 2015 02:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 02:40 farvacola wrote:
Substantiating the claim that Pakistan is more stable than Iran or other Middle Eastern nations is going to take more than a mere utterance of the supposition. If anything, Pakistan merely falls in line alongside other regional powers in terms of stability and rule of law, which naturally begs a question as to why this fear of Iran is more justified than a fear of any other Middle East power's ability or lack thereof to safeguard and properly pursue a nuclear energy program. Whether Pakistan is more stable is irrelevant. The real issue is nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, which is patently a bad thing.
Actually, the real issue is that nuclear weapons are a 75 year old piece of technology that intellectual powerhouses like Pakistan and North Korea achieved. Nukes are going to be developed by countries that feel an existential threat not only because they clearly give the regime a massive bargaining power but also because states that gave up their nuclear weapons in the face of Western treaties -- Ukraine -- are demonstrating exactly what happens to you after you give them up.
|
On March 11 2015 02:54 farvacola wrote:
Pakistan's stability is very much relevant when the supposed belligerence of Iran is the crux of the arguments pointed towards a complete nuclear ban. Furthermore, if we are to assume that, contrary to the rhetoric of those who signed the letter, a more general anti-proliferation angle is the actionable basis for preventing Iran from pursuing nuclear power, I think the harm that accompanies an incomplete regional proliferation supersedes that of a more complete one, which is likely inevitable in the long-term anyhow. The past decade has made it clear that the U.S. cannot support its interests in the Middle East standing alone.
I'm not as worried about Iranian state belligerence with nuclear weapons (though I'm not willing write this off entirely) as I am nuclear weapons finding their way into Islamist arsenals. If Iran get nuclear weapons, its regional competitors will also acquire nuclear weapons. Nuclear non-proliferation will be dead. Period. Please tell me how that's a good thing, as well as the prospect of having a Middle East full of lunatics armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons.
|
If Iran uses this potential deal in order to develop weapons, they will have acted belligerently, so it is still a central concern.
Weapons aside, energy concerns are going to prompt most Middle Eastern nations of a minimum size and infrastructure to pursue nuclear energy no matter what. Therefore, the possibility that we improve relations with Iran enough to rely on their regional presence as a counterweight is worth far more thought than any Republicans seem willing to give it. The notion that the Saudis are waiting for word on US-Iranian relations before deciding their nuclear agenda is not very realistic.
|
On March 11 2015 03:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 02:54 farvacola wrote:
Pakistan's stability is very much relevant when the supposed belligerence of Iran is the crux of the arguments pointed towards a complete nuclear ban. Furthermore, if we are to assume that, contrary to the rhetoric of those who signed the letter, a more general anti-proliferation angle is the actionable basis for preventing Iran from pursuing nuclear power, I think the harm that accompanies an incomplete regional proliferation supersedes that of a more complete one, which is likely inevitable in the long-term anyhow. The past decade has made it clear that the U.S. cannot support its interests in the Middle East standing alone. I'm not as worried about Iranian state belligerence with nuclear weapons (though I'm not willing write this off entirely) as I am nuclear weapons finding their way into Islamist arsenals. If Iran get nuclear weapons, its regional competitors will also acquire nuclear weapons. Nuclear non-proliferation will be dead. Period. Please tell me how that's a good thing, as well as the prospect of having a Middle East full of lunatics armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons.
See, that's where the non-sequitur is. The current talks do not allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon, and thus your chain or reasoning falls apart.
What it does is effectively, in the worst case scenario, give us a reliable one year warning from the time Iran starts down the road to acquiring a nuclear weapon to the time it actually gets one. In the best case scenario, it's merely the first step to Iran signing the NPT.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
daunt you realize iran is under the threat of israeli nukes much more than vice versa.
|
On March 11 2015 03:37 oneofthem wrote:
daunt you realize iran is under the threat of israeli nukes much more than vice versa.
That's fine with me. Israel is an ally. Iran is not. I'm also much more confident in Israel being rationale with nuclear weapons than Iran.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
