Iran Deal, the reset..... and halt

How exactly did I prove your point "once again?" You really are a hoot. You expect any of us to believe that you have faith in the UN and that if Iran went "through them" in delivering aid, you would accept it as legitimate? I might be an idiot in your view but I'm not that much of an idiot to believe that. I'll ask again, did the Saudi's go to the UN prior to bombing Yemen? Why should the Iranians and why are you now espousing their involvement? Should the Israelis go through the UN in addressing issues with Gaza or the West Bank?

I don't really expect you to answer though I do expect a pithy comeback about how you're the teacher and you "schooled" me.

If you believe that vessel is carrying banned nuclear arms, components, missile technology or anything else related to Iran's nuclear program, you would be correct. However, I seriously doubt the Iranians are exporting nuclear related material of any kind to Yemen. Please cite the specific UN resolution "or sanctions endorsed by the UN" that prohibit their "buying or selling of certain armaments." A small blockade of Canadian ships or is the US Navy enforcing the will of its commander in chief? Per your suggestion? What? Do you have a direct line to the commander of the sixth fleet or are you wearing your LBC attire tonight, having seized control, a la Al Haig style, and are in control? Non-proliferation? You're the one blindly supporting a state that exported nuclear technology and know how and still hasn't become a signatory to the NPF, not to mention to have committed war crimes on multiple occasions.

Yes, I'm not concerned about Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon and here's why: they're not a doomsday cult or death cult as much as the end of days folks (Sarah Palin, Tom Cotton) and doomsday preppers would like them to be; NK, Pakistan and India have the bomb and nothing's happened yet; Soviet Union/Russia and US have a 70 year "Cold War" and it's been managed; the idea that Iran would nuke Israel, ensuring it's immediate and total destruction by the West, is immature thinking and fear mongering; Iranian possession of nuclear weapons would give them a seat at the table and ensure that they are dealt with from a position of mutual respect rather than weak lorded over by the powerful. The US and the West have been fucking with them since 1954, if not before, and I don't blame them for saying enough is enough. Plus, they saw what happened next door in Iraq. The illusion of strength sure has you quaking, though, doesn't it?

Hans Blix, Scott Ritter and the UN inspection teams got it right in Iraq. They reported that it was highly doubtful Iraq had WMDs or had reconstituted their nuclear, biological or chemical programs in violation of UN sanctions. Rove/Cheney slimed them repeatedly in the court of public opinion and wouldn't allow Iraq more time to comply with weapons inspections, all because the UN was not going along with the pre-determined and planned outcome, hatched prior to Bush taking office, by the Neocons as early as 1998. I believe the UN and the rigorous inspection process criteria being demanded in the negotiations can and will be effective as we can always fall back to our sanctions/military options.

EDIT TO ADD THE FOLLOWING: On March 7, ten years ago, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the UN Special Commission on Iraq (UNMOVIC) reported to the UN Security Council on the latest results of their inspections in Iraq, monitoring enforcement of the Council’s demand that Saddam Hussein eliminate his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and related programs.

The IAEA’s Director General, Mohamed ElBaradei, and UNMOVIC’s Executive Chairman, Hans Blix, both reported progress, following the return of UN inspectors to Iraq in November 2002, in resolving critical questions about the current status of Iraq’s WMD programs.

Based on more than a hundred visits to suspect sites and private interviews with a number of individual scientists known to have been involved with WMD programs in the past, ElBaradei stated that the IAEA had “to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq” and predicted that the agency should be able to provide that Security Council with an objective and thorough assessment of Iraq’s nuclear related capabilities “in the near future.”

Blix reported that destruction of Iraq’s al Samoud ballistic missiles, which had exhibited ranges beyond that allowed by the UN, was underway. Concerning the status of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs, Blix was less categorical. No stockpiles or active programs had been found, but it had not yet been possible to document destruction of all the weapons known to have been produced prior to the 1991 Gulf War. Blitz predicted that months but not years, would be needed to complete the job.

Washington Dismisses the Inspectors’ Findings

The Bush administration’s response to the inspectors’ reports was swift and negative, because their conclusions contradicted the allegations previously made by the U.S. government – for example, with regard to the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraqi WMD. The next day, President George W. Bush delivered a radio address to the American people, arguing that the inspection teams did not need any more time, because Saddam was “still refusing to disarm.”

Given Saddam Hussein’s “long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes,” the United States needed to be willing to use military force rather than waiting “to see what [he] would do with weapons of mass destruction.”

The administration was meanwhile seeking to win UN Security Council authorization to use military force against Iraq to achieve WMD disarmament. Prospects for receiving even a simple majority were uncertain, and three of the other four permanent (veto-wielding) members were opposed, so the issue was never put to a vote.

http://armscontrolnow.org/2013/03/05/the-cost-of-ignoring-un-inspectors-an-unnecessary-war-with-iraq/

So, keep spouting from your morally superior pulpit and when it comes to a war with Iran, make sure Canada takes the lead while the US sits this one out.

Being in favor of having another country possess nuclear weapons is insane. I don't care if it's Iran or Norway.

Now Saudi Arabia is pledging to match Iran's nuclear capacity if a deal passes.

Looks like some wishes will be granted. Nukes for everyone. What could go wrong with everyone in the Middle East having nukes? They all seem to get along so well.

nytimes.com/2015/05/14/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-promises-to-match-iran-in-nuclear-capability.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

This is an example of our administration not seeing the big picture and only focusing on keeping election promises and creating a ego-based legacy. Obama, in his attempt to reduce nuclear weapons, is potentially going to start a nuclear arms race in the middle east with this deal.

If the deal goes down, at least six countries with Sunni Muslims are going to start nuclear programs because they know that Iran, a Shi'a Muslim faith is just going to use the grace period to rebuild their economy while they focus on their original goal because they know the UN is incompetent and they can probably get 4-5 years of going full steam ahead while clowning the UN.

Aafke said:

You're giving a Russian example right now, but be sure there will be also a lot of these types of mistakes" have been made by the US in those days. I don't think any new nuclear arms race will help the human race to evolve. But stating the present status quo, is the best outcome we can all hope for, isn't right in my opinion. Unfortunately it isn't in human nature to disarm without pressure from inside society or due to another outside force. If a society has some advantage above other societies , It is seen to be a greater treat. Those other societies will do everything in their power to overcome these advantages. Therefore I don't see a realistic solution in the near future, for these kind of arms races.

But in my opinion not speaking out in debates about these arms races is condoning them....And it's against my nature to do so, so I will battle them with words, although I don't think it does have any influence in the short or even long run.

Agreed that the US has lots of examples as well. And it doesn't even have to be a military example.

In 1961, a bomber on a training mission over North Carolina with two active H-bombs broke apart in mid-flight but somehow they didn't detonate when they hit the ground.

I believe there is a nuke somewhere off the east coast when another training mission flight had problems and let it loose before crash landing.

And a freak accident by a maintenance worker almost turned Missouri into a fall-out zone in the 80's ...

Just over 300 miles from St. Louis, the Damascus silo housed a 110-foot tall Titan II intercontinental ballistic missile. After a freak accident with a socket wrench, a massive fuel leak ended with a fiery explosion on September 19, 1980.

The resulting blast sent the warhead, three times more powerful than all of the bombs dropped by all of the armies in World War II (including Hiroshima and Nagasaki) combined, two hundred yards into the nearby woods.

The nine megaton bomb did not detonate.

"If it had detonated, it would have created firestorms throughout much of Arkansas," Schlosser said. "And the radioactive fallout would have, depending on the prevailing winds, headed towards the eastern seaboard. But if the winds were in a more circular rotation, who knows?"

ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/09/24/eric-schlosser-command-control-nuclear-miss/16144021/

A socket wrench could have killed millions of people by accident. We are lucky that vast amounts of water separated the US and Russia during the Cold War.

Reducing the US nuclear stockpile is one of the main goals of our current administration. These talks are part of that goal.

I just think their was some short-sightless on our part to not realize the chain reaction of events that could play out. Much like we let the Arab Spring play out over the last few years ago. It seemed cool at the time, yet now we have DAESH (fuck ISIS ... they don't deserve the "I")

The big problem is the hate-relationship between the two major Islam religions ... And there is a lot of hate between them.

Giving one of these groups access to nukes will lead to bad things. The US should recognize this and do all they can to prevent. Because the other side will work to get nukes as quickly as possible.

And if the US can't stop Iran from getting nukes, how can we justify stopping our allies from getting nukes.

And let's not forget that the 9/11 hijackers originated from our good buddy, Saudi Arabia.