If you trust our and Israel experts, they were 3 months from a nuke, if they wanted to go that route. How do we know that? I guess our experts have way to observe, even without being there to monitor or have any inspection available to come in for any period of time. If you also trust our and Israel experts, they will be 12 months from a nuke, once the deal take place and they honor the initial portion of it (sanction lifted is based on them honoring that). And if you continue to trust people that know these things, in addition to our ability to know their break out time already, now we can see and monitor and that's a huge tool in our pocket to verify what they are doing. You go from 3M to 12M break out time. You go from not being there and relying simpler on our intelligent agencies to also being there and being able to verify. The 100B isn't what prevent them from getting a nuke or what would help them get a nuke. Now, you have experts that tell you things. You can take that in and consider it, or you can have your personal beliefs and views based on your religious views (as you have said so). The question is when it conflict with experts, what do you do?
Experts told Bush that Iraq had WMD's. He made decisions based on that and congress backed him. They were wrong.
I don't know if Bush didn't want the full story or didn't want to get the full story. Experts did not believe Iraq have WMD's. If I remember correctly, it was borne out of literally 1 informant that wasn't that trustworthy to began with. And questions were raised, but they were shut down. Bush admin didn't make a decision based on experts opinion, but based on their selective experts and ignoring others. You don't want to trust and have faith.. well, that's the problem too often. Faith based decision, to me, is harmful too often.
Apparently so do some former Israeli leaders, Mossad chiefs, etc who also support the deal. The GOP opposing the deal also is showing disdain for our many allies that helped negotiate and support the deal - the UK, France, and Germany.
You know..... for being a "closet Muslim", he sure has killed a tremendous amount of brown people that abide by the Koran.
Not to mention morally and financially supporting alleged Muslims who love oppressing and harassing their fellow Muslims. Giving them intelligence information and technology to spy on their fellow Muslims. Approving of the sale of weapons which have ultimately ended up being used against their own populations. Helping to demonize and sometimes kill their enemies. Jail anyone who utters the word democracy too much. Extraditing Muslims escaping political persecution back to their blood thirsty Muslim leaders. Expediting business relationships with muslim majority countries which are designed to accelerate the transfer of wealth out of those countries via corporate vehicles. Heck, he even approved the torture of some Muslim folks and the murder without trial of hundreds more including a couple of American ones. I KNOW A MUZZIE WHEN I SEE ONE GUS.
I don't think you understand the situation. Sanctions do not work if the U.S. is the only one applying them. Do you get that? Congress does not control whether India, China, and Russia will continue to apply sanctions. Do you understand that this is not just the U.S. at the negotiating table? Do you understand that Russia and China really didn't want to squeeze Iran to death? It's amazing that we got Russia and China to put any pressure on Iran. Those countries were ready to call it quits on the sanctions for any promise from Iran not to build nukes. I ask you the question I have asked others - what sort of deal would you have wanted? And do you think Russia and China would have stuck with the terms with? I mean do you understand how global trade and sanctions works?
I don't know if you've read the pieces by scientists, the MIT piece on this deal etc. It most definitely doesn't make it easier for them to get nukes. Without the treaty they will get a nuke about 10 times sooner than with the treaty. It isn't about trusting Iran. There are provisions in this treaty and we can right back to where we are now without the treaty if it's violated.
So then you disagree with Sweet Lou's statement about sanctions not working if the US is the only one applying them? Or do you think that the statement is wrong when it suggests that the US couldn't get the rest of the world to put sanctions back on Iran? For what it's worth, I don't think this deal expedites the Iranians getting a nuke, but it probably doesn't slow them down either...unless they just decide to honor the terms of the deal out of the goodness of their hearts. If they still want a nuke, they'll have one fairly quickly if the intelligence is accurate and once they have one they'll be in a MUCH stronger position. It's pretty naive to believe that they won't violate the terms of the agreement and push forward to having a nuke in the very near future anyway.
Think about it this way, what happens if the Iranians somehow get caught violating this deal....what happens then? Maybe some countries go back with sanctions, but probably not all, maybe not even most and the Iranians still get to have billions worth of formerly frozen assets.....Even if they tear the deal up day one, they are in a MUCH better position than they were before the deal was done.
Oh no Iran has a 2 ton fission bomb deliverable by cargo truck or train -- the Middle East is ruined just like South Korea after North Korea develop a nuke. #obamairandeathtoisrael
You just made the argument that international laws or agreement doesn't matter at all. How did we get multi-nations and government to put in sanction in the first place? It was through UN security council. The day the US reject this deal, that UN security council members (Russia, China) have the US as a reason/excuse to not continue their sanctions. The day that this deal is put in place and Iran break it, guess what, you got both political and legal grounds for sanctions and whatever other remedies called out in the agreement. Russia and China would be much more likely to follow along because Iran broke an agreement. International laws and agreements do matter.
Lou just made the case that Russia and China don't want to have sanctions against Iran anymore....why would we assume they'd change their minds? The agreement was done merely to lift sanctions and re-coup billions in assets. Iran knows that the US doesn't have the political capital to put the sanctions back in place again even if they violate the agreement....and even if by some miracle the US pulls that off, they'll still have recouped billions in assets so they are better off than they were before the agreement.....and they can work towards a new agreement almost immediately. And while they are doing that, they can continue to progress towards a nuke, which once they have it, they will be in a MUCH stronger position to negotiate.
Israel has said for roughly 15 years Iran is just a few months from having nukes. I challenge you to find a US expert that has said 3 months. Note an AIPAC funded think tank in not a US expert.
Umm, they don't. That's been widely known for a long time, and it's long-suspected that they were already violating them. That was part of the impetus for making a deal, and why so make nuclear arms experts are so excited that the West got this good a deal. The "sanction Iran to death" philosophy was not working and was not going to last much longer because Russia and China were not interested in it. The US doesn't need political capital - that's the beauty of the agreement. It already specifies how the sanctions go back in place, and it pretty much only requires one country to want them to make it happen. If Russia and China ignore them, THEY are now in violation of the agreement. You still seem to be upset by the agreement that most arms experts agree delays their time horizon to a nuke substantially. Again, what is your proposed alternative (real one, not unicorn fantasy one where Iran just does whatever we say)?
Okay, then what makes you think nations would re-introduce the sanctions if Iran violates this agreement? This agreement is a coup for Iran because they essentially get a whole lot for nothing. That's why people criticize the deal. Iran, if they choose to ignore the deal and continue to enrich in order to create a nuke, get billions of dollars in previously frozen assets and countless billions more from lifted sanctions all for pretending they'll stop enriching. There is no "stick" to this deal at all, it's all carrot.
I don't know about that, but the more valid argument to me is does sanction even work - the answer is no. Merely to lift sanction and release Billion? I now recall you saying they got everything and we got zero. Ok, great. Have a nice day.
