If anybody wants some intelligent analysis from people who a) have actually read all 159 pages of the agreement and b)have some context in which to place the agreement, let me recomend: http://armscontrolwonk.com/ It get a little tiring listening to conservatives automatically outraged at any deal with Iran and liberals automatically ebullient at any deal without having read a single page of the document, at least from my point of view. There is a podcast on that page by a couple of people who professionally study arms control for a living, so they probably have a better basis for comment than you. They certainly are more knowledgeable on the subject than me.
dismantle all your nuclear facilities, return all American hostages, or we keep the sanctions in place, and then eventually bomb your nuclear capability out of existence And yes, Obama's Joint Chiefs Chairman just said we have that capability <iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UDcnrgrctkA?start=150" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Summary: You never wanted an agreement of any kind - you just want to go to war with Iran. That's fine - but don't pretend otherwise. A negotiation means both sides give something - not one side just making demands.
Commodore. Do you really think any nation in the history of Earth would accept total capitulation without a shot being fired? If you do, you're an idiot. If you don't you're disenginuous for offering a deal that you know nobody would accept. A more honest move would just be to declare war and admit what you are looking for from go.
For anyone actually interested in the details of the agreement and how it works, here is a pretty thorough interview with an actual expert on the topic who's read the actual agreement: http://www.vox.com/2015/7/15/8967147/iran-nuclear-deal-jeffrey-lewis Here's an example of some of the detail on how snapback sanctions work and his overall opinion: ... Jeffrey Lewis: The snapback thing is really clever, I had to read it a couple of times to make sure it said what I think it said. According to the deal, the way this is going to work is that sanctions will be lifted, but in a conditional fashion. If any party to the deal — and, not to spill the beans, that means the United States — is dissatisfied with Iran's compliance, then first it has to go to the joint commission [of the seven states that signed the Iran deal plus the European Union]. If they don't get satisfaction, then they go to the UN Security Council. And they can notify them that they're not satisfied with the compliance of another party. That starts a 30-day clock ticking. The Security Council must act to resolve the concerns of the state. If the Security Council does nothing — which could include them trying to pass something and the US vetoing it — at the end of the 30 days, if there's no action from the Security Council, the sanctions are reimposed automatically. ... Max Fisher: A lot of what you wrote throughout 2014 was skeptical. Not of the idea of the Iran deal, but rather skeptical that they could make it work, that they would get there in time, that they would have all the right conditions. Jeffrey Lewis: That's right. I had no faith whatsoever that they could pull this off. Max Fisher: Now that we're here, what grade would you give it? Jeffrey Lewis: I would give it an A. Max Fisher: A solid A! Jeffrey Lewis: I mean, it's hard. There are two pieces to this. Compared to the deal we could have gotten 10 years ago, if the Bush administration hadn't had their heads up their butts? Not an A! That would have been a great deal! I remember when they had 164 centrifuges, in one cascade, and I said, "You know what, we should let them keep it in warm standby. No uranium, just gas." And people were like, "You're givin' away the store!" Max Fisher: We would kill for that now! They got cut down to 5,000 centrifuges, and it's a huge deal. Jeffrey Lewis: Exactly. And that's been the fundamental experience of this for me. Every six months, the deal we could have gotten six months before looks better. Every time we tried to hold out for a better deal, and every time we got in the position of a worse deal. So, compared to where they started, and what I thought was feasible to achieve, this team I thought did a fantastic job. If this team had been in place in 2003 or 2004 or 2005, it might have looked even better. But they inherited what they inherited, and they did a pretty decent job with it. How could I give them less than A?
There's no win-win deal to be negotiated. Iran wants a nuke, we don't want them to have one. That can't be reconciled. What we should have been negotiating was Iran's surrender to our terms: dismantle your nukes, release our hostages. That's what good democratic superpowers do to weaker tyrants. Gaddafi did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muamm...iliation_and_privatization:_1999.E2.80.932011 Influenced by the events of the Iraq War, in December 2003, Libya renounced its possession of weapons of mass destruction, decommissioning its chemical and nuclear weapons programs. What you are looking for is Iran to dismantle its nuclear program. It's true a bombing campaign is most likely the only way to achieve that, but you exhaust all other options first. Obama himself said the military option was on the table. He was lying and the Iranians didn't believe him, but he said it. History repeating itself
Nukes have little value any longer for a minor nation -- i've not seen one post to suggest otherwise.
Forget the fact that it is going to be hard to trust Iran...What will now prevent other regional countries from trying to seek the same means of radioactive materials in order to "use it for energy?"... If the goal is acquiring energy, why does it have to be nuclear? What prevents a sovereign country to willingly share their info with other regional allies ie. Syria/Iraq And as evidence of how quickly a region can destabilize, look at the destruction that is ISIS... One faction quickly replaces another, and within a few minutes...these dangerous resources suddenly find themselves in the hands of irresponsible people. US grade military weapons are currently in the hands of folks that just don't like us... We are walking down a dangerous path of trusting enemies and distancing allies...Hope congress responds accordingly. All that being said, I have to take some time and read what this says before saying much else...
1. You can't make up a fact and say fact. The last time Iran was proven to be developing nuclear weapons was under the Shah. They aren't currently trying to develop nuclear weapons and they weren't enriching above 20% for weapons grade uranium. They were engaged in some fishy activity, but it hard to find anything that shows they were clearly developing a weapon. Plus they have had ample time to develop one if they truly were pushing for one. 2. The Iranians are supporting the Palestinians. They wouldn't try to nuke Israel and expose a friend to nuclear fallout. Again...they aren't Dr. Evil. 3. I don't know why you are bringing up Syria. They didn't nuke another nation. 4. I'd ask you to read 2 books. All the Shahs Men by Stephen Kinzer and Oil Kings by Andrew Scott Cooper. I felt those books gave good background on Iran. If you get time check them out.
Did anyone see the President's press conference today? I was a master class on dismantling the critics of this deal. I mean just decimated any argument on the right. Oh and no teleprompters
Israel already have aerial refueling capabilities, they have at least 11 tankers and yes they are capable of launching air strikes against Iran. In addition, Israel have had nuclear armed medium range ballistic missiles (capable of striking Iran) for several decades already and recently they added ICBMs capable of striking Asia, Europe North America and South America etc. Iran already have ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel.
That's effectively what the US did in these negotiations. Iran got everything they wanted, the US got nothing they wanted. Again though, if we look at this president's history of making deals, it's not much of a surprise.
^^ Except for when the CNN guy humiliated Obama over the shameful lack of focus on our American hostages as well as over the last minute capitulation. That's been the #1 takeaway from that press conference today.
I would love to see you list each of those items off the top of your head, along with US and Iranian positions entering the negotiations since you are apparently an expert. Tell me exactly what all those ca p itulations were, in detail. Or you could just be talking out of your ass because you heard it was so from whatever talking head you listen to. If reality doesn't suit your preferred narrative, then reality is optional!
They are completely different situations. Despite the media coverage, chemical weapons are not that much more deadly & effective than conventional weapons such as bombs, missiles etc. Nukes are obviously a whole different story. Also not all nuclear states are the same, the likes of US, China, Russia, France and UK have very robust early warning systems to detect ballistic missile launches, robust second strike capability to basically ensure that even after getting hit by a massive surprise nuclear attack they'll still have enough surviving nuclear assets to launch a devastating counter attack. Iran does not posses either of these capabilities,
Nothing can stop Iran from developing a nuke short of war. With or without sanctions, with or without a "deal" If they really want it, they will get it. Clinton didn't fail to stop N. Korea, it was Bush who was Prez when N. Korea tested the bomb. Deep into his presidency. That doesn't mean Bush was to blame, it's that he couldn't do anything. N Korea violated policies and knew Bush was more focused on Iraq . We have to look at a nuclear armed Iran as an inevitability. They want a bomb.
Thumbs, you know I respect you, but do you seriously believe that we will have World War III in less than a year?