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

Options
1…3637394142…103

Comments

  • BS44325
    BS44325 Posts: 6,124
    mickeyrat said:

    Btw it WAS in fact signed by the duly designated representative the iranian minister of foreign affairs. Same with every other party. Look it up.

    Thanks for playing though.

    So if it was "signed" why is the state department saying it wasn't? Probably because the designated representative has zero authority in implementation. The Ayatollah decides everything.
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    BS44325 said:

    mickeyrat said:

    Btw it WAS in fact signed by the duly designated representative the iranian minister of foreign affairs. Same with every other party. Look it up.

    Thanks for playing though.

    So if it was "signed" why is the state department saying it wasn't? Probably because the designated representative has zero authority in implementation. The Ayatollah decides everything.
    Leave it to the NRO to attempt to confuse the issue. Remember, NRO is started by William Kristol and is ground zero for the neocon hawks. We all know their allegiance is to Israel before the US.
    Of course it's not a treaty. A treaty must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate. And of course it isn't legally binding. Either side could walk away from the deal without any immediate consequences. I mean, what are you going to do, sue them in civil court? Subpoena them to the Hague?
    The State Department is absolutely right. It's a series of political commitments. If Iran breaks them, then we have leverage to re-institute sanctions and we would have the rest of the UN right with us, and likely Russia.
  • BS44325
    BS44325 Posts: 6,124
    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mickeyrat said:

    Btw it WAS in fact signed by the duly designated representative the iranian minister of foreign affairs. Same with every other party. Look it up.

    Thanks for playing though.

    So if it was "signed" why is the state department saying it wasn't? Probably because the designated representative has zero authority in implementation. The Ayatollah decides everything.
    Leave it to the NRO to attempt to confuse the issue. Remember, NRO is started by William Kristol and is ground zero for the neocon hawks. We all know their allegiance is to Israel before the US.
    Of course it's not a treaty. A treaty must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate. And of course it isn't legally binding. Either side could walk away from the deal without any immediate consequences. I mean, what are you going to do, sue them in civil court? Subpoena them to the Hague?
    The State Department is absolutely right. It's a series of political commitments. If Iran breaks them, then we have leverage to re-institute sanctions and we would have the rest of the UN right with us, and likely Russia.
    National Review was founded by William Buckley in 1955. The Weekly Standard is William Kristol. Good attempt at trying to put a jew on the masthead of National Review though. I'm sure the Israel haters on here almost bought it.
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mickeyrat said:

    Btw it WAS in fact signed by the duly designated representative the iranian minister of foreign affairs. Same with every other party. Look it up.

    Thanks for playing though.

    So if it was "signed" why is the state department saying it wasn't? Probably because the designated representative has zero authority in implementation. The Ayatollah decides everything.
    Leave it to the NRO to attempt to confuse the issue. Remember, NRO is started by William Kristol and is ground zero for the neocon hawks. We all know their allegiance is to Israel before the US.
    Of course it's not a treaty. A treaty must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate. And of course it isn't legally binding. Either side could walk away from the deal without any immediate consequences. I mean, what are you going to do, sue them in civil court? Subpoena them to the Hague?
    The State Department is absolutely right. It's a series of political commitments. If Iran breaks them, then we have leverage to re-institute sanctions and we would have the rest of the UN right with us, and likely Russia.
    National Review was founded by William Buckley in 1955. The Weekly Standard is William Kristol. Good attempt at trying to put a jew on the masthead of National Review though. I'm sure the Israel haters on here almost bought it.
    You're correct. I mixed the two. However, the opinions espoused by the two magazines are indistinguishable when it comes to foreign affairs. Krauthammer and Lowry, for example, are neo-cons and contributors (and the editor). So regardless of my mixing of the two, my point stands as the NRO aggressively wrote against the Iran deal, so of course they are going to continue to shill against it for silly reasons.
  • benjs
    benjs Toronto, ON Posts: 9,359
    edited November 2015
    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mickeyrat said:

    Btw it WAS in fact signed by the duly designated representative the iranian minister of foreign affairs. Same with every other party. Look it up.

    Thanks for playing though.

    So if it was "signed" why is the state department saying it wasn't? Probably because the designated representative has zero authority in implementation. The Ayatollah decides everything.
    Leave it to the NRO to attempt to confuse the issue. Remember, NRO is started by William Kristol and is ground zero for the neocon hawks. We all know their allegiance is to Israel before the US.
    Of course it's not a treaty. A treaty must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate. And of course it isn't legally binding. Either side could walk away from the deal without any immediate consequences. I mean, what are you going to do, sue them in civil court? Subpoena them to the Hague?
    The State Department is absolutely right. It's a series of political commitments. If Iran breaks them, then we have leverage to re-institute sanctions and we would have the rest of the UN right with us, and likely Russia.
    National Review was founded by William Buckley in 1955. The Weekly Standard is William Kristol. Good attempt at trying to put a jew on the masthead of National Review though. I'm sure the Israel haters on here almost bought it.
    He referred to Kristol as a neocon hawk, not a Jew, not an Israeli. If there's anyone who keeps bringing up the potential for Israeli involvement - it's you, through telling everyone they're all anti-Semites time and time again.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • BS44325
    BS44325 Posts: 6,124
    benjs said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mickeyrat said:

    Btw it WAS in fact signed by the duly designated representative the iranian minister of foreign affairs. Same with every other party. Look it up.

    Thanks for playing though.

    So if it was "signed" why is the state department saying it wasn't? Probably because the designated representative has zero authority in implementation. The Ayatollah decides everything.
    Leave it to the NRO to attempt to confuse the issue. Remember, NRO is started by William Kristol and is ground zero for the neocon hawks. We all know their allegiance is to Israel before the US.
    Of course it's not a treaty. A treaty must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate. And of course it isn't legally binding. Either side could walk away from the deal without any immediate consequences. I mean, what are you going to do, sue them in civil court? Subpoena them to the Hague?
    The State Department is absolutely right. It's a series of political commitments. If Iran breaks them, then we have leverage to re-institute sanctions and we would have the rest of the UN right with us, and likely Russia.
    National Review was founded by William Buckley in 1955. The Weekly Standard is William Kristol. Good attempt at trying to put a jew on the masthead of National Review though. I'm sure the Israel haters on here almost bought it.
    He referred to Kristol as a neocon hawk, not a Jew, not an Israeli. If there's anyone who keeps bringing up the potential for Israeli involvement - it's you, through telling everyone they're all anti-Semites time and time again.
    Not "again and again" but just when I see it. Unfortunately on the AMT that just happens to be often.
  • Halifax2TheMax
    Halifax2TheMax Posts: 42,003
    The neocons are spinning themselves into, well, whatever. Salient point here is that a Russian ship left Iran with most of it's nuclear material, rendering them unable to produce a nuclear weapon. But don't let the sound of the beating war drums distract you. So much for that nuclear deal being "dead."

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/world/middleeast/iran-strait-of-hormuz-rockets.html?_r=0
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • BS44325
    BS44325 Posts: 6,124
    Just like the North Korean deal this one seems to be working out great...

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/nuclear-deal-fuels-irans-hard-liners-1452294637
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,311
    Hmm interesting all that fuel was loaded on russian ships per the agreement.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    BS44325 said:

    Just like the North Korean deal this one seems to be working out great...

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/nuclear-deal-fuels-irans-hard-liners-1452294637

    This is subscriber only. Can you copy and paste the text for us?
  • dignin
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35285095

    Iran has removed the core of its Arak heavy-water nuclear reactor and filled it with cement, according to the country's official news agency Fars.
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,011
    dignin said:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35285095

    Iran has removed the core of its Arak heavy-water nuclear reactor and filled it with cement, according to the country's official news agency Fars.

    it appears that they want sanctions relief and are going to do what is required for that to happen.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • rr165892
    rr165892 Posts: 5,697
    dignin said:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35285095

    Iran has removed the core of its Arak heavy-water nuclear reactor and filled it with cement, according to the country's official news agency Fars.

    Well that's not a biased news source.lol

    Of course they want sanctions lifted.
    Thats why they will show us what we want to see,while being sneaky behind our back.
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,311
    rr165892 said:

    dignin said:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35285095

    Iran has removed the core of its Arak heavy-water nuclear reactor and filled it with cement, according to the country's official news agency Fars.

    Well that's not a biased news source.lol

    Of course they want sanctions lifted.
    Thats why they will show us what we want to see,while being sneaky behind our back.
    So far IAEA seems satisfied. They have other reactors but not a heavy water one any more, which Is what is used to glean Plutonium out of the processing of Uranium. They HAVE been adhereing to this agreement despite what the had liners rhetoric is. Verified.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • dignin
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    rr165892 said:

    dignin said:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35285095

    Iran has removed the core of its Arak heavy-water nuclear reactor and filled it with cement, according to the country's official news agency Fars.

    Well that's not a biased news source.lol

    Of course they want sanctions lifted.
    Thats why they will show us what we want to see,while being sneaky behind our back.
    The BBC?
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,311
    dignin said:

    rr165892 said:

    dignin said:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35285095

    Iran has removed the core of its Arak heavy-water nuclear reactor and filled it with cement, according to the country's official news agency Fars.

    Well that's not a biased news source.lol

    Of course they want sanctions lifted.
    Thats why they will show us what we want to see,while being sneaky behind our back.
    The BBC?
    FARS.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • rr165892
    rr165892 Posts: 5,697
    Well they seemed to be in the thick of it today.
  • josevolution
    josevolution Posts: 31,541
    Iran holding American sailors are they for real .....
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • rr165892
    rr165892 Posts: 5,697
    dignin said:

    rr165892 said:

    dignin said:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35285095

    Iran has removed the core of its Arak heavy-water nuclear reactor and filled it with cement, according to the country's official news agency Fars.

    Well that's not a biased news source.lol

    Of course they want sanctions lifted.
    Thats why they will show us what we want to see,while being sneaky behind our back.
    The BBC?
    dignin said:

    rr165892 said:

    dignin said:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35285095

    Iran has removed the core of its Arak heavy-water nuclear reactor and filled it with cement, according to the country's official news agency Fars.

    Well that's not a biased news source.lol

    Of course they want sanctions lifted.
    Thats why they will show us what we want to see,while being sneaky behind our back.
    The BBC?
    Actually BBC is fair,I was cross pollinating threads with link info.My bad.But my bottom statement stands.
  • BS44325
    BS44325 Posts: 6,124
    Peace in our time

Categories