No credibility as you sir, are a "Muzzie". So naturally you would deny the undercover Obama is a Muslim. As far as Obama killing lots of Muslims, that is just part of his cover.
You say the sanctions don't work, but Iran seemed pretty desperate to get them lifted.... I love the "merely" before you talk about 100 billion dollars....if there's a more typical liberal comment, it's been a long time since I've heard it.
So basically you're just telling us that you actually don't know any of the details of the mechanics of the deal you're criticizing. At least that's a start.
That too, I have forgotten about that. I recall one of the expert thinking that was too good to be true, but it is true for a good reason.
For all those claiming that the celebrity Obama is a Muslim... He's actually a socialist capitalist Muslim atheist Hawaiian Kenyan. Jeez.
Last response to you Bobby. Merely was your term, not mine. The deal is much more than lifting sanctions. You have no idea what is in the deal and yet you are dead set against it. We call that blind follower.
Can anyone explain why so many nuclear arms proliferations experts around the world and so many nuclear scientists think its a great deal? These are people that have gone line by line and understand all the nuances as opposed to just hearing a few political talking points and regurgitating them. http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...deal-despite-congressional-concerns/30261893/ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/w...ise-iran-nuclear-deal-in-letter-to-obama.html http://www.vox.com/2015/7/15/8967147/iran-nuclear-deal-jeffrey-lewis And on...
You're an intelligent poster for the most part, unfortunately most of your posts seem like they echo Fox News talking points. Every article from experts on the subject, scientists, and people who have studied and analyzed this treaty have been positive. This isn't just Obama doing, which is something a lot of people seem to gloss over. This is an international agreement between multiple world powers. Politics though :/
I'm not just blaming Obama.... I think it's a bad deal because I don't think there is any reason to believe Iran will comply. A lot of the posters who talk about what "nuclear arms proliferation experts" have to say about the issue don't realize that they are talking about the deal with the assumption that Iran complies. I don't feel that's a safe or realistic assumption to make so I'm obviously going to disagree with the results they come to despite their expertise on the subject. When you start out with faulty assumptions, the only way you get an accurate result is on accident. I look at this from a "what happens if Iran doesn't comply" standpoint, and, well there's not much that would be done to them, so why would they comply? They have a lot to gain by ignoring the deal and continuing to build a nuke and very little to lose if they get caught. Any time you are in a situation like that, you have to almost assume that they won't comply...even if you were predisposed to thinking they would, which in this case you shouldn't be.
Muslims from differing sects kill each other every day just like it used to be in Ireland where differing sects of Christians frequently killed each other. P.S. -- My apologies for going MIA for seemingly long periods. I've been busy with other projects, both personal and political.
Mostly because they actually read the deal whereas Bobby and others are just talking out of their asses. They're the same people that were against the deal before it was even released to the public. The same people that have no viable alternative plan whatsoever that doesn't include impending war. It's boring.
I think you have to address Major's question here. What exactly is it that you want be done??? Because Russia and China were about to bail on the sanctions, and even countries like India were ready to say enough with it. We didn't have a strong negotiating position here. The right is against this deal - but I can't understand why. Tell me what it is you'd want instead? That we don't pass the deal, that there are no inspections, no limits, that Iran keeps all it's enriched uranium, and can do whatever it wants and Russia and the rest of the world just starts trading with them? Is that what you prefer? Just explain to me what your logic is because I am not seeing it.
Since this deal essentially does nothing more than gives Iran 100 billion in frozen assets and lifts all sanctions on them, yet doesn't really significantly affect their ability to get a nuke unless they just decide to follow the deal out of the goodness of their hearts....why do a deal at all? Basically the question that needs to be answered is, why would Iran abide by this deal after they have their assets back and the sanctions are lifted? If they violate the deal, do we REALLY think that all of those countries, that you've already admitted were tired of having in place, are going to put new sanctions in place? Like I said before, this deal is all carrot and no stick.
Have you read the deal? That is not how it works at all. Iran has to go through a lot of steps to get sanctions step by step. First of all they have to get rid of all that nuke fuel which will set them back big time. Do you understand that?
Before they do anything at all, they get access to 100 billion in frozen assets. Again, why not just do a deal to get access to that, then not do anything else? If the support for sanctions are really crumbling, why not just get your assets and wait for countries to drop out one by one all the while developing a nuke? Once they have a nuke, everything changes and their position grows a lot stronger, why not just keep going on? My point is that there isn't a strong enough incentive for Iran to not just cheat. Who knows, maybe the naive are right and Iran will be good kids and stop enriching for a decade....but I HIGHLY doubt it. If we see them having their first successful nuke test within a few years, just remember that I told you that it was likely to happen.
Considering the dates of the first (7/18) and third (7/15) story, did they even have time or access to the deal to know what was in it when they began talking about it? And how do the people who wrote the letter to Obama know the Iranians were “only a few weeks” away from having fuel for a bomb?
That's why this deal is so amazing. You have to credit what has happened here. While Russia and China are faltering on the continuation of sanctions, they also did not want Iran to have a nuke and destabilize the region with more military action. So they did put enough pressure in coordination with the other powers. You have to appreciate the artful diplomacy that happened. It will go down in history as pretty incredible. The 100 billion doesn't get released right away - it's only after Iran complies with parts of the deal - parts that are not easy to reverse once they have complied. A weapons program is not something you can erase and rebuild overnight. It's not easy - it takes a lot of time to build a reactor, produce or mine enough uranium, reprocess it, and then purify it weapons-grade. Iran will have to give up quite a bit to get it's money back, and even then it's not easy to move $100 billion around. Finally, the $100 billion is not the main incentive for Iran. It's the economic growth and development - investment - that they are really after. Their economy is in shambles. They will just begin on the road to recovery.
Full text was accessible immediately on 7/14 (Jeffrey Lewis, who is in the 3rd story, mentioned on his 7/15 podcast that he DL it from some Russian source who apparently leaked it --- http://armscontrolwonk.com/archive/5558/we-have-a-deal). No idea how they know. Spy & Intelligent?
Why wouldn't nuclear arms experts - this is one of the biggest moment of their lives - know every detail about the deal? The VERY FIRST paragraph of the Vox article explains it - all you had to do was read it, which you apparently did not: Jeffrey Lewis was so eager to read the Iran nuclear deal that he woke up at 3:30 am California time to pore through all 150-plus pages of the text. Lewis is a nukes super nerd: He's the director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, and also runs an excellent arms control blog network and arms control podcast and has a regular arms control column in Foreign Policy. He is the person to talk to on this. As far as what the scientists know or don't know, it's also in the article that you chose to criticize apparently without reading: Most of the 29 who signed the letter are physicists, and many of them have held what the government calls Q clearances — granting access to a special category of secret information that bears on the design of nuclear arms and is considered equivalent to the military’s top secret security clearance.
