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

mickeyrat · June 2015

BS44325 said:
Now we get some idea of why the sanctions were not working under the corruption of the Clinton state department.

Essentially: Swedish corporations such as Ericsson doing huge business with Iran. They funnel money to the Clinton Global Initiative. Hillary leaves these companies off the sanctions list. Bill Clinton gets $750,000.00 cheque a week or so after the sanction list is released. Ericsson technology used to track internal Iranian opposition.

If you thought Halliburton was bad then this should disgust you. Everything you all hate is here...International corporation making side payments to elite politicians so that they can do business with terror states that both threaten their neighbours and suppress their own people.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/2/clinton-foundations-sweden-fundraising-arm-cashed-/

do you have anything from a more neutral website? not one so overtly right wing? I hardly call this site credible from just a glance at the front page. Sit ton of guns guns guns, celebrites where are thery now etc. GARBAGE.

BS44325 · June 2015

Halifax2TheMax said:
Halliburton was, at a minimum, responsible for at least 18 deaths of US service members for shoddy work. But you're okay with that, aren't you? Profit over morals? Is that your argument now?

No I am not ok with that. My statement was "If you thought Halliburton was bad then this should disgust you". You all clearly think Halliburton was bad therefore I assumed (wrongly I guess) that this story would disgust you. My bad for expecting consistency in outrage.

Halifax2TheMax · June 2015

Who are, "you all?" I speak for myself. Shouldn't you? So now you've boiled it down to "bad" versus "disgust." Semantics. You expect me or us, since you've referred to, "you all," as being disgusted by a one time reference to an article written by a partisan hack published in a right wing newspaper owned by the moonies as something that should disgust me(or us)? Keep reaching for the stars BS, keep reaching. Let's see, on one hand we have, oh I don't know what else to call it other than "common knowledge" that Haliburton, previously directed by one war criminal Dick, my dick is bigger than yours, Cheney versus a thus unsubstantiated quid pro quo involving Hillary Cinton, Iran and a Swedish mobile phone company. Let me know when the senate panel investigating Benghazi and the honorable Tom, I'm a traitor, Cotton subpoenas Hillary and asks her to answer questions as they relate to this so called "disgust." Let me know because I'll be sure to watch it live on CSPAN.

Where's the link to a Prager University video that explains your "disgust?"

JimmyV · July 2015

Color me impressed. I never thought a deal would be reached.

callen · July 2015

Surprised as well. Now to get through congress.

benjs · July 2015

callen said:
Surprised as well. Now to get through congress.

Also pretty shocked. It'll be rejected by Congress, then vetoed by Obama as he's promised he would.

callen · July 2015

benjs said:

callen said:
Surprised as well. Now to get through congress.
Also pretty shocked. It'll be rejected by Congress, then vetoed by Obama as he's promised he would.

Can he just veto it? Really?

Jason P · July 2015

Here are the leading arguments for and against the deal:

FOR

* Creates room for some fresh new up-and-coming state sponsors of terrorism
* Breathes new life into decades-old animosity between U.S. and Saudi Arabia
* Nice to see John Kerry so engaged at work
* Frees Iran to brainstorm all sorts of exciting, outside-the-box ways to destroy Israel
* Fresh material for Rabbi Cohen’s sermon
* Really no way to know if Iran is a terrorist nation bent on destroying the world until we test it
* Just feels kind of empty without current U.S. military intervention in Muslim world

AGAINST

* Zero people involved with this are to be trusted
* Uranium only fun if enriched beyond 3.67 percent
* Stand-your-ground provision allows Iran to fast-track construction of nuclear missile in event it feels at all threatened
* Might lose the comfort and familiarity of unbearably high tensions in Middle East
* Complete waste of perfectly good centrifuges
* Possibility that closer cooperation will humanize Iranian people in Americans’ eyes
* Not complete and utter surrender to demands of U.S.

theonion.com/graphic/case-and-against-iranian-nuclear-deal-50841

Jason P · July 2015

Frustrated Iranian Scientist Forced To Shut Down Project He Spent 12 Goddamn Years Of His Life On

NATANZ, IRAN—Standing in the dim subterranean facility in which he had spent the better part of his peak work years, deeply frustrated Iranian scientist Ali Khatami told reporters today that the recent Iran-U.S. nuclear accords have forced him to shutter the project he has wasted 12 years of his life—12 goddamned years—developing. “Perfect! Let’s just flush a decade of my life down the drain, then, shall we?” Khatami said as he angrily typed a code into a nearby computer to power down over 8,000 P-2 centrifuges he reportedly squandered countless nights diligently overseeing. “Do those assholes even know how hard it is to enrich uranium? How much I sacrificed? I never married, I’m prematurely gray, and now guess what? The prime of my life is gone forever. Unbelievable. This country’s going to fucking hell, man.” The nuclear physicist then paused, sighed, and wondered if he might realistically find work in Yemen.

theonion.com/article/frustrated-iranian-scientist-forced-to-shut-down-p-34676

benjs · July 2015

Jason P - curious to hear your opinion (not the satirical news site's), if you care to share!

benjs · July 2015

callen said:

benjs said:

callen said:
Surprised as well. Now to get through congress.
Also pretty shocked. It'll be rejected by Congress, then vetoed by Obama as he's promised he would.
Can he just veto it? Really?

From the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/congress-iran-nuclear-deal.html):

"Under the terms of legislation passed in May, Congress has 60 days to scrutinize the accord between Iran and the United States, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany, and then to vote to accept or reject it — or to do nothing. The president can veto any resolution of disapproval. Congress needs a two-thirds majority in each house to override the veto, so to put the deal into force, Mr. Obama only needs one-third of one of the houses to stand with him."

Jason P · July 2015

benjs said:
Jason P - curious to hear your opinion (not the satirical news site's), if you care to share!

I've made previous post explaining my position, but in summary I think it is a dumb decision to make a deal when we hold all the cards. People making the argument that we have nukes so why shouldn't they is the same argument the NRA makes when saying more guns save lives. And no matter what the debate is for any topic, the whole "10 years down the road" is complete BS because there is no accountability.

It makes great sense for Iran because economic sanctions get lifted and they can comply or keep on working on uranium enrichment in the darkness and some day down the road yell "Fooled you!" and then what?

The deal should have been shut everything down, we give you energy credits, you get your economy back and we are all cool, like three little Fonzies.

Speaking of the Fonz, this is how the negotiations should have played out, with Sam Jackson playing the role of the current POTUS and Pumpkin and Honey Bunny playing the role of Iran...

https://youtube.com/watch?v=QPPN_gkj_gk

Add in the fact that this admins foreign policy is be far it's weakest link, this deal concerns me greatly. They have allowed ISIS and a poor mans Soviet Union resurrect themselves under their watch.

mickeyrat · July 2015

Jason P said:

benjs said:
Jason P - curious to hear your opinion (not the satirical news site's), if you care to share!
I've made previous post explaining my position, but in summary I think it is a dumb decision to make a deal when we hold all the cards. People making the argument that we have nukes so why shouldn't they is the same argument the NRA makes when saying more guns save lives. And no matter what the debate is for any topic, the whole "10 years down the road" is complete BS because there is no accountability.

It makes great sense for Iran because economic sanctions get lifted and they can comply or keep on working on uranium enrichment in the darkness and some day down the road yell "Fooled you!" and then what?

The deal should have been shut everything down, we give you energy credits, you get your economy back and we are all cool, like three little Fonzies.

Speaking of the Fonz, this is how the negotiations should have played out, with Sam Jackson playing the role of the current POTUS and Pumpkin and Honey Bunny playing the role of Iran...

https://youtube.com/watch?v=QPPN_gkj_gk

Add in the fact that this admins foreign policy is be far it's weakest link, this deal concerns me greatly. They have allowed ISIS and a poor mans Soviet Union resurrect themselves under their watch.

Your last doesn't take into account that both were long simmering and bound to happen at some point. No matter who was in office OR how big dick swinging they might have been.

Simply stating it happened on his watch foesnt accuratrly reflect all past admins role in both. Congresses too.

Jason P · July 2015

mickeyrat said:

Jason P said:

benjs said:
Jason P - curious to hear your opinion (not the satirical news site's), if you care to share!
I've made previous post explaining my position, but in summary I think it is a dumb decision to make a deal when we hold all the cards. People making the argument that we have nukes so why shouldn't they is the same argument the NRA makes when saying more guns save lives. And no matter what the debate is for any topic, the whole "10 years down the road" is complete BS because there is no accountability.

It makes great sense for Iran because economic sanctions get lifted and they can comply or keep on working on uranium enrichment in the darkness and some day down the road yell "Fooled you!" and then what?

The deal should have been shut everything down, we give you energy credits, you get your economy back and we are all cool, like three little Fonzies.

Speaking of the Fonz, this is how the negotiations should have played out, with Sam Jackson playing the role of the current POTUS and Pumpkin and Honey Bunny playing the role of Iran...

https://youtube.com/watch?v=QPPN_gkj_gk

Add in the fact that this admins foreign policy is be far it's weakest link, this deal concerns me greatly. They have allowed ISIS and a poor mans Soviet Union resurrect themselves under their watch.
Your last doesn't take into account that both were long simmering and bound to happen at some point. No matter who was in office OR how big dick swinging they might have been.

Simply stating it happened on his watch foesnt accuratrly reflect all past admins role in both. Congresses too.

You can play the blame game back to the Roman ages if you want, but this administration had a full term in before ISIS and Putin came to power. That is a key sign to bad foreign policy.

Especially since this administration used foreign policy as a key selling point in the last election!

mickeyrat · July 2015

A "normalized" Iran is a threat to the Israeli status quo.

Whether or not a bomb was obtained, this fact , is the greater threat to Israel.

I question whether the Saudis already have one or not. They are the single power in setting oil prices , OPEC is just a dog and pony shoe. While it can do great harm that way , there are too many sources outside of their control. A bomb gives them a big stick.

Jason P · July 2015

mickeyrat said:
A "normalized" Iran is a threat to the Israeli status quo.

Whether or not a bomb was obtained, this fact , is the greater threat to Israel.

I question whether the Saudis already have one or not. They are the single power in setting oil prices , OPEC is just a dog and pony shoe. While it can do great harm that way , there are too many sources outside of their control. A bomb gives them a big stick.

That's another point I mentioned in previous posts ... The Saudis have been record that they will acquire nukes if Iran's program keeps running. It's not like the Saudis have to go through the trouble of creating a nuclear program because they have a shitload of money and connections to players in the Middle East that have them.

Did I mention that this region is volatile?

rgambs · July 2015

It really bothers me that these discussions don't appraise the current situation. Iran is building toward nuclear weapons under the almighty sanctions that people are so upset about lifting. FACT: This deal INCREASES Iran's breakout time even under their lowest level of compliance.
All discussion from conservative sources deliberately ignore this fact, which is a deplorable obfuscation.

rgambs · July 2015

*Double post

mickeyrat · July 2015

rgambs said:
It really bothers me that these discussions don't appraise the current situation. Iran is building toward nuclear weapons under the almighty sanctions that people are so upset about lifting. FACT: This deal INCREASES Iran's breakout time even under their lowest level of compliance.
All discussion from conservative sources deliberately ignore this fact, which is a deplorable obfuscation.

I agree, not only that, Iran seems to have stopped at 20% purity or so. They could have easily continued.

mickeyrat · July 2015

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/10/9/iran-nuclear-programprimer.html

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

Comments

Categories