Middle East ......

mickeyrat

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

think its important to revisit the jcpoa.

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-iran-nuclear-deal

Reading that deal it was crap.  After 10 years they could do whatever they wanted.  When we pulled out they ramped up everything and wouldn't let the watchdogs in anywhere.

If we do a new deal it has to not have a time expiration.

No, after 10 years you re-negotiate.  In what world do geopolitical deals have evergreen clauses?  

Japan, Germany both off the top of my head.

surrender agreements to end declared wars are a whole different animal, especially in light of germany being  the cause of borh world wars in the span of 20 years.

not a worthy comparison.

static111

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

Have people completely forgot about WMDs and Mission Accomplished and you're either with us or you're with the terrorists etc?  I get that some people don't want to read history books, but come on this shit happened 20 years ago and created a disaster. Usually history takes much longer to repeat.

Difference is we do know what they are doing.

I mean trumps top intelligence officials said that there was no creditable threat that Iran was capable of making nukes.  Which even if they were is not necessarily reason for a preemptive military strike that could draw us into another endless war.

What do you know that Iran is doing?  

tempo_n_groove

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

Have people completely forgot about WMDs and Mission Accomplished and you're either with us or you're with the terrorists etc?  I get that some people don't want to read history books, but come on this shit happened 20 years ago and created a disaster. Usually history takes much longer to repeat.

Difference is we do know what they are doing.

I mean trumps top intelligence officials said that there was no creditable threat that Iran was capable of making nukes.  Which even if they were is not necessarily reason for a preemptive military strike that could draw us into another endless war.

What do you know that Iran is doing?  

60% enrichment where they only need 20% to run nuclear power.  The amount of centrifuges they have in light of what they need was 20x over what they needed.  If the reporting is right.

PJ_Soul

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

tempo_n_groove said:

just_one said:

Iran wont do shit in the short tems against the US  but give it 5-10 years when all of this has settle and you can bet there will be another 9/11 in US grounds and this will be the justification

If they do have a regime change then we won't have to worry about that.

While I hope for a regime change, that won't mean this won't lead to another 9/11. Remember, 9/11 wasn't committed by a national government. What is happening right now is pretty likely to grow more terrorist networks down the road, just like attacking Iraq did. That is literally the whole problem with what's happening right now, and why regime changes should happen from within, and not because the US wants it. 

The US has no understanding of what the people of Iran, particularly the youth, want.  We don't know regime change will lead to a more radical gov't, a more western-oriented gov't (ideally) or a complete power vacuum like Afghanistan.  All we are doing is rolling dice here.  

 Iran had a big protest not too long ago about who is in power now.  I thought that was pretty telling. 

Yeah, it's pretty telling that the Iranian people need to be the ones who create a regime change. 

tempo_n_groove

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

think its important to revisit the jcpoa.

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-iran-nuclear-deal

Reading that deal it was crap.  After 10 years they could do whatever they wanted.  When we pulled out they ramped up everything and wouldn't let the watchdogs in anywhere.

If we do a new deal it has to not have a time expiration.

No, after 10 years you re-negotiate.  In what world do geopolitical deals have evergreen clauses?  

Japan, Germany both off the top of my head.

surrender agreements to end declared wars are a whole different animal, especially in light of germany being  the cause of borh world wars in the span of 20 years.

not a worthy comparison.

The question was when has it ever happened and this is when.

mickeyrat

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

think its important to revisit the jcpoa.

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-iran-nuclear-deal

Reading that deal it was crap.  After 10 years they could do whatever they wanted.  When we pulled out they ramped up everything and wouldn't let the watchdogs in anywhere.

If we do a new deal it has to not have a time expiration.

No, after 10 years you re-negotiate.  In what world do geopolitical deals have evergreen clauses?  

Japan, Germany both off the top of my head.

surrender agreements to end declared wars are a whole different animal, especially in light of germany being  the cause of borh world wars in the span of 20 years.

not a worthy comparison.

The question was when has it ever happened and this is when.

ending a war is not a diplomatic endeavor. jcpoa was just that. 

the comparison does not fit. 

static111

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

Have people completely forgot about WMDs and Mission Accomplished and you're either with us or you're with the terrorists etc?  I get that some people don't want to read history books, but come on this shit happened 20 years ago and created a disaster. Usually history takes much longer to repeat.

Difference is we do know what they are doing.

I mean trumps top intelligence officials said that there was no creditable threat that Iran was capable of making nukes.  Which even if they were is not necessarily reason for a preemptive military strike that could draw us into another endless war.

What do you know that Iran is doing?  

60% enrichment where they only need 20% to run nuclear power.  The amount of centrifuges they have in light of what they need was 20x over what they needed.  If the reporting is right.

That alone is not proof that they were capable of making a nuke.  Who can say what other research may have been ongoing. And to bring it back to the old days, Obama had an agreement that was being adhered to until trump threw it out.  All of which is pointless and still doesn't justify the potential of pulling the US into another world police forever war.

brianlux

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

Have people completely forgot about WMDs and Mission Accomplished and you're either with us or you're with the terrorists etc?  I get that some people don't want to read history books, but come on this shit happened 20 years ago and created a disaster. Usually history takes much longer to repeat.

Difference is we do know what they are doing.

I mean trumps top intelligence officials said that there was no creditable threat that Iran was capable of making nukes.  Which even if they were is not necessarily reason for a preemptive military strike that could draw us into another endless war.

What do you know that Iran is doing?  

60% enrichment where they only need 20% to run nuclear power.  The amount of centrifuges they have in light of what they need was 20x over what they needed.  If the reporting is right.

That alone is not proof that they were capable of making a nuke.  Who can say what other research may have been ongoing. And to bring it back to the old days, Obama had an agreement that was being adhered to until trump threw it out.  All of which is pointless and still doesn't justify the potential of pulling the US into another world police forever war.

I wish nobody had nukes!  It's OK for us to have stock piles of them, but other countries can't?  It's time for humans to wise up and get rid of those bloody things.  Otherwise, just set them all off and be done with it.  

Just kidding... sort of.

tempo_n_groove

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

Have people completely forgot about WMDs and Mission Accomplished and you're either with us or you're with the terrorists etc?  I get that some people don't want to read history books, but come on this shit happened 20 years ago and created a disaster. Usually history takes much longer to repeat.

Difference is we do know what they are doing.

I mean trumps top intelligence officials said that there was no creditable threat that Iran was capable of making nukes.  Which even if they were is not necessarily reason for a preemptive military strike that could draw us into another endless war.

What do you know that Iran is doing?  

60% enrichment where they only need 20% to run nuclear power.  The amount of centrifuges they have in light of what they need was 20x over what they needed.  If the reporting is right.

That alone is not proof that they were capable of making a nuke.  Who can say what other research may have been ongoing. And to bring it back to the old days, Obama had an agreement that was being adhered to until trump threw it out.  All of which is pointless and still doesn't justify the potential of pulling the US into another world police forever war.

I am going to disagree.  Writing is on the wall that they are trying to do something other than run a power plant.  

Even when we had first agreed to the deal I thought it was dumb.  The last country i'd like to have nuclear capabilities was Iran.  I didn't think they'd ever agree to the rules they were given either.  I know they went sideways after we pulled out of it but to me that shows they had the intention of going rogue anyways.

tempo_n_groove

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

think its important to revisit the jcpoa.

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-iran-nuclear-deal

Reading that deal it was crap.  After 10 years they could do whatever they wanted.  When we pulled out they ramped up everything and wouldn't let the watchdogs in anywhere.

If we do a new deal it has to not have a time expiration.

No, after 10 years you re-negotiate.  In what world do geopolitical deals have evergreen clauses?  

Japan, Germany both off the top of my head.

surrender agreements to end declared wars are a whole different animal, especially in light of germany being  the cause of borh world wars in the span of 20 years.

not a worthy comparison.

The question was when has it ever happened and this is when.

ending a war is not a diplomatic endeavor. jcpoa was just that. 

the comparison does not fit. 

What? I can't think of what Japan and Germany agreed to anything other than diplomacy. Signing a treaty is diplomacy, no?

Gern Blansten

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

Have people completely forgot about WMDs and Mission Accomplished and you're either with us or you're with the terrorists etc?  I get that some people don't want to read history books, but come on this shit happened 20 years ago and created a disaster. Usually history takes much longer to repeat.

Difference is we do know what they are doing.

I mean trumps top intelligence officials said that there was no creditable threat that Iran was capable of making nukes.  Which even if they were is not necessarily reason for a preemptive military strike that could draw us into another endless war.

What do you know that Iran is doing?  

60% enrichment where they only need 20% to run nuclear power.  The amount of centrifuges they have in light of what they need was 20x over what they needed.  If the reporting is right.

That alone is not proof that they were capable of making a nuke.  Who can say what other research may have been ongoing. And to bring it back to the old days, Obama had an agreement that was being adhered to until trump threw it out.  All of which is pointless and still doesn't justify the potential of pulling the US into another world police forever war.

I am going to disagree.  Writing is on the wall that they are trying to do something other than run a power plant.  

Even when we had first agreed to the deal I thought it was dumb.  The last country i'd like to have nuclear capabilities was Iran.  I didn't think they'd ever agree to the rules they were given either.  I know they went sideways after we pulled out of it but to me that shows they had the intention of going rogue anyways.

But the agreement allowed monitoring right? That's why the agreement was put into place to begin with.

We can argue that Iran might have tried to develop weapons anyway but with monitoring it would be very difficult.

trump created this crisis by pulling out of Obama's deal

static111

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

Have people completely forgot about WMDs and Mission Accomplished and you're either with us or you're with the terrorists etc?  I get that some people don't want to read history books, but come on this shit happened 20 years ago and created a disaster. Usually history takes much longer to repeat.

Difference is we do know what they are doing.

I mean trumps top intelligence officials said that there was no creditable threat that Iran was capable of making nukes.  Which even if they were is not necessarily reason for a preemptive military strike that could draw us into another endless war.

What do you know that Iran is doing?  

60% enrichment where they only need 20% to run nuclear power.  The amount of centrifuges they have in light of what they need was 20x over what they needed.  If the reporting is right.

That alone is not proof that they were capable of making a nuke.  Who can say what other research may have been ongoing. And to bring it back to the old days, Obama had an agreement that was being adhered to until trump threw it out.  All of which is pointless and still doesn't justify the potential of pulling the US into another world police forever war.

I am going to disagree.  Writing is on the wall that they are trying to do something other than run a power plant.  

Even when we had first agreed to the deal I thought it was dumb.  The last country i'd like to have nuclear capabilities was Iran.  I didn't think they'd ever agree to the rules they were given either.  I know they went sideways after we pulled out of it but to me that shows they had the intention of going rogue anyways.

And the writing was on the wall that Iraq had WMDs until it wasn't. And here we are again.

Merkin Baller

Gern Blansten said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

Have people completely forgot about WMDs and Mission Accomplished and you're either with us or you're with the terrorists etc?  I get that some people don't want to read history books, but come on this shit happened 20 years ago and created a disaster. Usually history takes much longer to repeat.

Difference is we do know what they are doing.

I mean trumps top intelligence officials said that there was no creditable threat that Iran was capable of making nukes.  Which even if they were is not necessarily reason for a preemptive military strike that could draw us into another endless war.

What do you know that Iran is doing?  

60% enrichment where they only need 20% to run nuclear power.  The amount of centrifuges they have in light of what they need was 20x over what they needed.  If the reporting is right.

That alone is not proof that they were capable of making a nuke.  Who can say what other research may have been ongoing. And to bring it back to the old days, Obama had an agreement that was being adhered to until trump threw it out.  All of which is pointless and still doesn't justify the potential of pulling the US into another world police forever war.

I am going to disagree.  Writing is on the wall that they are trying to do something other than run a power plant.  

Even when we had first agreed to the deal I thought it was dumb.  The last country i'd like to have nuclear capabilities was Iran.  I didn't think they'd ever agree to the rules they were given either.  I know they went sideways after we pulled out of it but to me that shows they had the intention of going rogue anyways.

But the agreement allowed monitoring right? That's why the agreement was put into place to begin with.

We can argue that Iran might have tried to develop weapons anyway but with monitoring it would be very difficult.

trump created this crisis by pulling out of Obama's deal

1000%, and for no other reason than Obama's name was on it. 

Trump's pettiness has led us here. 

mrussel1

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

think its important to revisit the jcpoa.

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-iran-nuclear-deal

Reading that deal it was crap.  After 10 years they could do whatever they wanted.  When we pulled out they ramped up everything and wouldn't let the watchdogs in anywhere.

If we do a new deal it has to not have a time expiration.

No, after 10 years you re-negotiate.  In what world do geopolitical deals have evergreen clauses?  

Japan, Germany both off the top of my head.

surrender agreements to end declared wars are a whole different animal, especially in light of germany being  the cause of borh world wars in the span of 20 years.

not a worthy comparison.

The question was when has it ever happened and this is when.

Cute.  You know that wasn't the point.  If there is an end date to the cease of hostilities, that's called a cease-fire, not a treaty.  There are numerous Japanese agreements and to my knowledge they all had expirations, typically ten years.  But one party needs to launch the abrogation.  

MayDay10

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

Have people completely forgot about WMDs and Mission Accomplished and you're either with us or you're with the terrorists etc?  I get that some people don't want to read history books, but come on this shit happened 20 years ago and created a disaster. Usually history takes much longer to repeat.

Difference is we do know what they are doing.

I mean trumps top intelligence officials said that there was no creditable threat that Iran was capable of making nukes.  Which even if they were is not necessarily reason for a preemptive military strike that could draw us into another endless war.

What do you know that Iran is doing?  

60% enrichment where they only need 20% to run nuclear power.  The amount of centrifuges they have in light of what they need was 20x over what they needed.  If the reporting is right.

That alone is not proof that they were capable of making a nuke.  Who can say what other research may have been ongoing. And to bring it back to the old days, Obama had an agreement that was being adhered to until trump threw it out.  All of which is pointless and still doesn't justify the potential of pulling the US into another world police forever war.

I am going to disagree.  Writing is on the wall that they are trying to do something other than run a power plant.  

Even when we had first agreed to the deal I thought it was dumb.  The last country i'd like to have nuclear capabilities was Iran.  I didn't think they'd ever agree to the rules they were given either.  I know they went sideways after we pulled out of it but to me that shows they had the intention of going rogue anyways.

I mean, if it was forever so peaceful and on the up and up.... why invest the time, money, resources and everything else to build a super secret, impervious underground Nuclear development base?

tempo_n_groove

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

think its important to revisit the jcpoa.

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-iran-nuclear-deal

Reading that deal it was crap.  After 10 years they could do whatever they wanted.  When we pulled out they ramped up everything and wouldn't let the watchdogs in anywhere.

If we do a new deal it has to not have a time expiration.

No, after 10 years you re-negotiate.  In what world do geopolitical deals have evergreen clauses?  

Japan, Germany both off the top of my head.

surrender agreements to end declared wars are a whole different animal, especially in light of germany being  the cause of borh world wars in the span of 20 years.

not a worthy comparison.

The question was when has it ever happened and this is when.

Cute.  You know that wasn't the point.  If there is an end date to the cease of hostilities, that's called a cease-fire, not a treaty.  There are numerous Japanese agreements and to my knowledge they all had expirations, typically ten years.  But one party needs to launch the abrogation.  

Treaty of San Francisco still has some without expirations.  Its still ongoing... So it has happened or it's just not a good enough example?

tempo_n_groove

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

Have people completely forgot about WMDs and Mission Accomplished and you're either with us or you're with the terrorists etc?  I get that some people don't want to read history books, but come on this shit happened 20 years ago and created a disaster. Usually history takes much longer to repeat.

Difference is we do know what they are doing.

I mean trumps top intelligence officials said that there was no creditable threat that Iran was capable of making nukes.  Which even if they were is not necessarily reason for a preemptive military strike that could draw us into another endless war.

What do you know that Iran is doing?  

60% enrichment where they only need 20% to run nuclear power.  The amount of centrifuges they have in light of what they need was 20x over what they needed.  If the reporting is right.

That alone is not proof that they were capable of making a nuke.  Who can say what other research may have been ongoing. And to bring it back to the old days, Obama had an agreement that was being adhered to until trump threw it out.  All of which is pointless and still doesn't justify the potential of pulling the US into another world police forever war.

I am going to disagree.  Writing is on the wall that they are trying to do something other than run a power plant.  

Even when we had first agreed to the deal I thought it was dumb.  The last country i'd like to have nuclear capabilities was Iran.  I didn't think they'd ever agree to the rules they were given either.  I know they went sideways after we pulled out of it but to me that shows they had the intention of going rogue anyways.

And the writing was on the wall that Iraq had WMDs until it wasn't. And here we are again.

The difference is the writing on the wall.  Iran did in fact do the things I mentioned.  Iraq was believed to have WMD in which they did not. Has Iran explained why they enriched uranium to 60% or why they increased the amount of stockpiled centrifuges?

tempo_n_groove

Gern Blansten said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

Have people completely forgot about WMDs and Mission Accomplished and you're either with us or you're with the terrorists etc?  I get that some people don't want to read history books, but come on this shit happened 20 years ago and created a disaster. Usually history takes much longer to repeat.

Difference is we do know what they are doing.

I mean trumps top intelligence officials said that there was no creditable threat that Iran was capable of making nukes.  Which even if they were is not necessarily reason for a preemptive military strike that could draw us into another endless war.

What do you know that Iran is doing?  

60% enrichment where they only need 20% to run nuclear power.  The amount of centrifuges they have in light of what they need was 20x over what they needed.  If the reporting is right.

That alone is not proof that they were capable of making a nuke.  Who can say what other research may have been ongoing. And to bring it back to the old days, Obama had an agreement that was being adhered to until trump threw it out.  All of which is pointless and still doesn't justify the potential of pulling the US into another world police forever war.

I am going to disagree.  Writing is on the wall that they are trying to do something other than run a power plant.  

Even when we had first agreed to the deal I thought it was dumb.  The last country i'd like to have nuclear capabilities was Iran.  I didn't think they'd ever agree to the rules they were given either.  I know they went sideways after we pulled out of it but to me that shows they had the intention of going rogue anyways.

But the agreement allowed monitoring right? That's why the agreement was put into place to begin with.

We can argue that Iran might have tried to develop weapons anyway but with monitoring it would be very difficult.

trump created this crisis by pulling out of Obama's deal

I can agree with this.

mrussel1

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

think its important to revisit the jcpoa.

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-iran-nuclear-deal

Reading that deal it was crap.  After 10 years they could do whatever they wanted.  When we pulled out they ramped up everything and wouldn't let the watchdogs in anywhere.

If we do a new deal it has to not have a time expiration.

No, after 10 years you re-negotiate.  In what world do geopolitical deals have evergreen clauses?  

Japan, Germany both off the top of my head.

surrender agreements to end declared wars are a whole different animal, especially in light of germany being  the cause of borh world wars in the span of 20 years.

not a worthy comparison.

The question was when has it ever happened and this is when.

Cute.  You know that wasn't the point.  If there is an end date to the cease of hostilities, that's called a cease-fire, not a treaty.  There are numerous Japanese agreements and to my knowledge they all had expirations, typically ten years.  But one party needs to launch the abrogation.  

Treaty of San Francisco still has some without expirations.  Its still ongoing... So it has happened or it's just not a good enough example?

Also a war treaty, but forget it.  The point is that having a ten expiration on non-proliferation or similar issues is not a failure in negotiation or any other criticism of either party.  It's fairly common.  Of course Iran would seek to limit it.  The JCPOA was working.  Even the inspectors said they were not enriching.  But here's the thing, even our DNI said they were not enriching TWO WEEKS AGO.  But Trump said he didn't believe our own experts.  Instead he went with the Israelis who claimed in 1988, 2009, 2013 and more years that Iran was "weeks away" from having a nuclear warhead.  They have been weeks away for almost 40 years.  I am not exaggerating.  

mrussel1

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

Have people completely forgot about WMDs and Mission Accomplished and you're either with us or you're with the terrorists etc?  I get that some people don't want to read history books, but come on this shit happened 20 years ago and created a disaster. Usually history takes much longer to repeat.

Difference is we do know what they are doing.

I mean trumps top intelligence officials said that there was no creditable threat that Iran was capable of making nukes.  Which even if they were is not necessarily reason for a preemptive military strike that could draw us into another endless war.

What do you know that Iran is doing?  

60% enrichment where they only need 20% to run nuclear power.  The amount of centrifuges they have in light of what they need was 20x over what they needed.  If the reporting is right.

That alone is not proof that they were capable of making a nuke.  Who can say what other research may have been ongoing. And to bring it back to the old days, Obama had an agreement that was being adhered to until trump threw it out.  All of which is pointless and still doesn't justify the potential of pulling the US into another world police forever war.

I am going to disagree.  Writing is on the wall that they are trying to do something other than run a power plant.  

Even when we had first agreed to the deal I thought it was dumb.  The last country i'd like to have nuclear capabilities was Iran.  I didn't think they'd ever agree to the rules they were given either.  I know they went sideways after we pulled out of it but to me that shows they had the intention of going rogue anyways.

And the writing was on the wall that Iraq had WMDs until it wasn't. And here we are again.

The difference is the writing on the wall.  Iran did in fact do the things I mentioned.  Iraq was believed to have WMD in which they did not. Has Iran explained why they enriched uranium to 60% or why they increased the amount of stockpiled centrifuges?

Iran had statements about this, but it's not like they violated any law or agreement by doing this, did they?  If we exit the JCPOA, then they are under no obligation to honor anything.  

And btw, that is not new news.  That was the case when Trump was negotiating what was effectively a similar deal as the JCPOA.  I am under the firm belief that Israel was very worried that Trump was cutting a deal and so they sought to strike Iran before a deal was made.