Nuclear Deal With Iran Prelude to War

[Yamato]

I was the first one to say that Iran's new President was no big deal, because of exactly what we see going on here. It doesn't matter to the war mongers who the President of Iran is. AT ALL. They villainized Ahmadinejad with a thousand lies to start their war and now that the great monster humbly stepped down from power and retired from politics, here we go again. These people are crystal-ball easy to predict.

[+and-then]

The people trying to catapult the false propaganda that there's some kind of nuclear program or threat from Iran should be the first people to stand up and acknowledge how good this deal is towards shutting down any potential nuke program. But they'll be the last people to ever do that, and why? Because it silences Israel's threat mongering. Nobody has even described the deal yet other than talking about it nefariously. I read the deal, and I don't understand what the problem is from the people who "want peace". {Zionists: insert random irrelevant hypocritical excuse for Israel here}

I don't think this deal is a prelude to war, which smacks of conspiracy theory (and provides yet another interesting conspiratorial narrative to get tangled up in), it's the many rounds of sanctions against Iran that were the preludes to war.

On the contrary to the OP, this is a break in the long history of obvious preludes to war we were already putting up with.

Not that you will ever admit it but maybe you can cite the types of changes the agreement brings that permanently change ANYTHING about Iran's nuclear infrastructure? They need centrifuges to create enriched uranium - how many did they give up? They need fuel stocks of 3.5% from the yellowcake they created, how much was destroyed? The 20% stocks - those that are a couple of weeks spinning from being true bomb fuel... while they say they will dilute them back to 3.5%, all this does is gives them a larger amount of fuel stock and makes breakout a couple of weeks longer. To make a bomb they have everything they need - they gave up nothing. If it were not for Obama the talks might not have happened at all. The real issue here is that the world would rather do business today and make a few more coins than look ahead and try to see if a danger exists. Those who hate Israel more than they value their own futures will deserve what happens once the mullahs decide it's time to play hardball. They rule by fear and stealth - their own people would love to see them gone. Yet so many here in the west support them like sycophants...it is amazing.

[Yamato]

I don't support Iran, I support putting hypocrisy in its place. If Iran submits to the deal they won't be able to produce nukes. What is this nonsense they gave up "nothing"? Show me where the NNPT that gives Iran a right to its nuclear program says that Iran can't have 20% enrichment? If you don't like the treaties you sign, change what you signed and then sign it again. Don't stand in gross violation of what you sign when it comes to Israel and then come here and act like you have a shred of credibility left when you're trying to once again apply a 2nd standard in the world exclusively for Israel.

The US Constitution gives the US the power to enter into treaties with other countries. Don't sign those treaties and then throw them out the window as soon as one's politically correct little pet violates it. By law, Iran is allowed 20% enrichment. They can also have their heavy water reactor that they just gave up. Here Iran is giving up what they're legally entitled to have by international treaty. "Nothing", as it were. Every aspect of this deal prevents Iran from building nukes.

[+and-then]

I don't support Iran, I support putting hypocrisy in its place. If Iran submits to the deal they won't be able to produce nukes. What is this nonsense they gave up "nothing"? Show me where the NNPT that gives Iran a right to its nuclear program says that Iran can't have 20% enrichment? If you don't like the treaties you sign, change what you signed and then sign it again. Don't stand in gross violation of what you sign when it comes to Israel and then come here and act like you have a shred of credibility left when you're trying to once again apply a 2nd standard in the world exclusively for Israel.

The US Constitution gives the US the power to enter into treaties with other countries. Don't sign those treaties and then throw them out the window as soon as one's politically correct little pet violates it. By law, Iran is allowed 20% enrichment. They can also have their heavy water reactor that they just gave up. Here Iran is giving up what they're legally entitled to have by international treaty. "Nothing", as it were. Every aspect of this deal prevents Iran from building nukes.

The only thing between them and a nuke will be the decision to assemble it. They gave up NO infrastructure. NOTHING. EVERYTHING they had the day they signed the agreement they STILL have. The only change they made at all was to dilute the 20% to 3.5% - a matter of 2 weeks to correct.

[Yamato]

The only thing between them and a nuke will be the decision to assemble it. They gave up NO infrastructure. NOTHING. EVERYTHING they had the day they signed the agreement they STILL have. The only change they made at all was to dilute the 20% to 3.5% - a matter of 2 weeks to correct.

Well since you're not a nuclear engineer, I won't be consulting with you for information. You don't even have a source for this. They opened up their facilities to even greater scrutiny when they were already under the greatest scrutiny of any nuclear power in history. If we go with your kool aid fears that they have a nuclear weapons program, the unprecedented transparency is going to reveal that. Then you'll accept that information when it comes and use it to fear monger and war monger over. But for some reason, you don't allow yourself that capability at this time. You'll accept the benefits of it when they come however.

[+and-then]

Well since you're not a nuclear engineer, I won't be consulting with you for information. You don't even have a source for this. They opened up their facilities to even greater scrutiny when they were already under the greatest scrutiny of any nuclear power in history. If we go with your kool aid fears that they have a nuclear weapons program, the unprecedented transparency is going to reveal that. Then you'll accept that information when it comes and use it to fear monger and war monger over. But for some reason, you don't allow yourself that capability at this time. You'll accept the benefits of it when they come however.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/11/23/fact-sheet-first-step-understandings-regarding-islamic-republic-iran-s-n

You will note that these are the changes I stated earlier. They give up NO centrifuges. They have 19000 operating.

They neutralize their stocks of 20% back to below 5% - takes about 2 weeks to make it 20% again. They do not create any new 3.5% (they already have enough to build 4 bombs once it is refined to 95% - a matter of about 6 weeks with the existing centrifuges. The "unprecedented access" is mostly an onsite inspection of centrifuges and their components. Since they aren't needing any more centrifuges to handle a weapon construction -big whoop. Actual inspection of Natanz and Fordow is remote - they are going to allow IAEA to look at cctv footage. I have long since accepted that Iran will eventually have their bomb. They have the knowledge and the infrastructure and there is no going back - what irks me is the number of hard headed idiots that keep parrotting the silliness about them not wanting a bomb. No one goes through what these leaders have put their populations through just on some principle of rights. Neither do they go to the expense of hardened underground and redundant facilities for enrichment just for electric power generation. But heaven forbid we admit - even in the slightest way - that someone just might be correct about their ultimate intentions. You're always bellyaching about money - hope you get wallet shock when the mullahs decide to play around with the price of fuel just because they can. When they have an arsenal of weapons they will be untouchable - just like crazy cousin Kim in NK. Only HE doesn't sit on a chokepoint for a huge amount of the world's oil.

[Space Commander Travis]

* You now seem to be saying No one goes through what these leaders have put their populations through just on some principle of rights , so does that mean that you're now beginning to have second thoughts about the right of Israel to visit biblical retribution on this and any other country if they pose an existential threat to Israel, or would it be regrettable if these countries were wiped off the map, but sadly it would be the people of these countries' own fault for not throwing off their leadership?

[Yamato]

http://www.whitehous...public-iran-s-n

You will note that these are the changes I stated earlier. They give up NO centrifuges. They have 19000 operating.

They neutralize their stocks of 20% back to below 5% - takes about 2 weeks to make it 20% again. They do not create any new 3.5% (they already have enough to build 4 bombs once it is refined to 95% - a matter of about 6 weeks with the existing centrifuges. The "unprecedented access" is mostly an onsite inspection of centrifuges and their components. Since they aren't needing any more centrifuges to handle a weapon construction -big whoop. Actual inspection of Natanz and Fordow is remote - they are going to allow IAEA to look at cctv footage. I have long since accepted that Iran will eventually have their bomb. They have the knowledge and the infrastructure and there is no going back - what irks me is the number of hard headed idiots that keep parrotting the silliness about them not wanting a bomb. No one goes through what these leaders have put their populations through just on some principle of rights. Neither do they go to the expense of hardened underground and redundant facilities for enrichment just for electric power generation. But heaven forbid we admit - even in the slightest way - that someone just might be correct about their ultimate intentions. You're always bellyaching about money - hope you get wallet shock when the mullahs decide to play around with the price of fuel just because they can. When they have an arsenal of weapons they will be untouchable - just like crazy cousin Kim in NK. Only HE doesn't sit on a chokepoint for a huge amount of the world's oil.

Drek from the Obama Administration is your source for your claims that the deal Obama supports did nothing. That's a rich attempt at convincing me.

[+and-then]

Drek from the Obama Administration is your source for your claims that the deal Obama supports did nothing. That's a rich attempt at convincing me.

You greatly overestimate yourself Uncle Yam. I post the material to show how biased and even willing to lie you seem to be to make your points.

* You now seem to be saying No one goes through what these leaders have put their populations through just on some principle of rights , so does that mean that you're now beginning to have second thoughts about the right of Israel to visit biblical retribution on this and any other country if they pose an existential threat to Israel, or would it be regrettable if these countries were wiped off the map, but sadly it would be the people of these countries' own fault for not throwing off their leadership?

You seem intent on proving that I am inconsistent. If you disagree with me then make a case WHY any country WOULD - deprive their people to the point of making them want to revolt just to achieve electricity from a source that will(maybe) add a little money to their treasury. Neither I nor Israel have deprived the Iranians of anything - their government chooses to act in a way that the western nations find very questionable and potentially warlike. They are on a path to create a nuclear weapon. They boast of destroying another UN nation. Rational human beings get justly nervous when those two things go hand in hand. But to someone who is all about being a contrarian it doesn't matter because you THINK it will never actually disrupt your life. And in that assumption the sage Colonel will be dead wrong.

[Yamato]

You greatly overestimate yourself Uncle Yam. I post the material to show how biased and even willing to lie you seem to be to make your points.You seem intent on proving that I am inconsistent. If you disagree with me then make a case WHY any country WOULD - deprive their people to the point of making them want to revolt just to achieve electricity from a source that will(maybe) add a little money to their treasury. Neither I nor Israel have deprived the Iranians of anything - their government chooses to act in a way that the western nations find very questionable and potentially warlike. They are on a path to create a nuclear weapon. They boast of destroying another UN nation. Rational human beings get justly nervous when those two things go hand in hand. But to someone who is all about being a contrarian it doesn't matter because you THINK it will never actually disrupt your life. And in that assumption the sage Colonel will be dead wrong.

Still blowing smoke and mirrors in the daily Zionist dog and pony show. There is no evidence of a weapons program in Iran, they're the most inspected country in IAEA history, they have a right to a nuclear program by treaty, and they're being sanctioned economy wide. Again you're a total space cadet when it comes to understanding what liberty is. If I uprooted you and your family if you even have one out of your house, blaming you for hating me isn't a valid excuse for what I did. That's absurd. But, throw common sense out the window and use the hypocrisy to excuse your favorite terrorist group in the world. That's what you do.

I'm biased to dealing with the problems caused in the world by having too much liberty, not the problems caused by not having enough of it. You relish in the Statist practice of oppressing it. You insist on the problems caused by denying it by force.

This is about tyranny vs. liberty. Willful amnesia will set in once again and you'll forget all about my principle when it's time to pick another booger to fear and war monger about.

[+and-then]

If they have no intent to build weapons then the labs at Parchin military base should be opened for inspection. What do they do instead of opening? They bulldoze buildings where the suspected testing occurred, then SCRAPE and REMOVE soil so that no testing can prove that nuclear materials were ever there. Are you really that soft upstairs? Or is arguing just for the sake of arguing a hobby for you? I don't care about your Peter Pan version of peace harmony and universal love of mankind when one of those you want to sing kumbaya with has proven through acts of treachery for decades that they want my country destroyed.

[Yamato]

Paranoia will destroya. I bet "they" want to destroy our country in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Egypt too. Let's nerf the world.

[Frank Merton]

I think we need to give the Iranians the benefit of the doubt for a few more months, to see how it develops, but I must say it seems to me "and then" has specific things to worry about and the others here just have insults.

[Yamato]

I'm "Pali Boy", no insult there.

People who resort to name calling are losers, generally speaking. Losing a debate on substance would spawn such behavior, among other things.

I don't see what a few more months will do decisively towards shutting up the establishment. Mucking around in other peoples' business is a fulltime job that has no expiration date. What is this implied change of policy you're referring to after a few months of benefit, Frank? What is Vietnam going to sit out on while my tax money pays for it again, this time?

[Frank Merton]

I'm "Pali Boy", no insult there.

People who resort to name calling are losers, generally speaking. Losing a debate on substance would spawn such behavior, among other things.

Since I never see substance from you I can draw my conclusions.

[Frank Merton]

The point about a few more months is that is when the really substantive agreement is supposed to be reached. I guess you are ignorant about what was agreed to.

[Stellar]

I'm "Pali Boy", no insult there.

People who resort to name calling are losers, generally speaking. Losing a debate on substance would spawn such behavior, among other things.

Ironic, considering every time I see a post of yours it contains at least one form of insult or name calling. Perhaps you'd be better received if that ended?

[Yamato]

Ironic, considering every time I see a post of yours it contains at least one form of insult or name calling. Perhaps you'd be better received if that ended?

Examples, please. If it's "every time" that shouldn't be hard.

[Mr.United_Nations]

Is this actually going anywhere? another Israel thread derailed by bickering

[+and-then]

Is this actually going anywhere? another Israel thread derailed by bickering

Curious, isn't it?

[Stellar]

Post 1/2:

Examples, please. If it's "every time" that shouldn't be hard.

You relish in the Statist practice of oppressing it.

You enjoy all your freedom apparently believing that government is what makes the difference between the haves and the have-nots, proving your statist mindset once again.

No other sins of the world excuse your statist insistence on spending my money on yours.

I'm in the kitchen paying money for all these federal government projects you think are so important in the world because you're a statist. I'm trying to stop this Zionist charade that's been duped upon the American people that is making us bankrupt. You're not an angry 12 year old? That describes you better than most.

You're so statist you can't even acknowledge a simple statement against tyranny? Unbelievable dude. I showed you made George W. Bush look like a dove a few days ago, and look at you now, really going for broke on the statist meter.

Only a statist is going to support Israel once they get an accounting of the facts.

Hawkish mindsets just like yours touting fantastical claims about wars of religion and clashes of civilization is the same chorus line you were serving back in the days of Bush, in order to defend the foreign policy of invading countries that never attacked us. I couldn't order a better neocon out of a catalog when it comes to internet blogging.

I'm not sure how much credibility someone with that much neocon left in them have in this late hour.

You couldn't even understand the simple fact that Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution is reserved solely to the US Congress when you're grasping for magical BS neocon powers the President of the United States doesn't have.

Still blowing smoke and mirrors in the daily Zionist dog and pony show.

You made the stupid claim here. You back it up with evidence; not more wordy Zionist BS.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Stellar

[Stellar]

I have to separate my posts because I had too many quote tags.

Post 2/2:

Ahh more Zionist smoke and mirrors, insulting me and getting away with it, while trying to goad me into any number of random changes of subject!

There is nothing more worth hating than tyranny, Zionist.

Why don't you put the crack pipe down and pay attention to what the hell you're doing.

But I'm sure you'll come back with some retort about how you're just calling a spade a spade or something-or-other in an effort to appear innocent.

BTW, I'm not the only one that noticed this... I believe joc said the following to you on one occasion:

How about just discuss ideas. This one is a neocon...that one is a statist...he's a racist...he's a zionist...she's a 'lovely girl'...you know? Just sayin'

To which you again came back pretending to be innocent.

Oh, and then there's also RavenHawk who noticed the same:

You call anyone who doesn't see it your way *neocon* or *statist* or whatever. And people are clearly not. When you can't offer a solid counter to someone's point, you resort to insults.

Ironically, when someone calls you anti-semitic, all of a sudden you have "issues" with them throwing out "personal insults".

[green_dude777]

+1

I've been seeing this more frequently. Appropriate definitions are not insults.

I have seen some insults, I also noticed those who claim to be insulted are the same who are actually casting insults. "Smart @**", "little pinko commie" are examples of insults. Statist, conservative, liberal, radical, zionist, bigot, etc. are examples of defined labels. If you don't like the label, don't fit the definition.

Stellar, you wouldn't feel insulted if I called you 'Canadian', would you?

[Stellar]

Stellar, you wouldn't feel insulted if I called you 'Canadian', would you?

"Statist" "Zionist" "Neocon" are derogatory terms. He casts people under those labels and then acts as if their opinion is unimportant because they're "Zionists"... or they are wrong because they are "Statists".

Hell, I've been called a statist simply because I believe in gun control. You think that's valid? No, its simply another derogatory term he uses.

You would feel insulted if I called you an idiot, right? What if I told you "If you don't like the label, don't fit the definition"? Does that make it better?

How about niger (sic)? Redneck? Hippy? Theres a point at which "labels" become insults, and Yamato has a habit of crossing it.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Stellar

[green_dude777]

"Statist" "Zionist" "Neocon" are derogatory terms. He casts people under those labels and then acts as if their opinion is unimportant because they're "Zionists"... or they are wrong because they are "Statists".

Hell, I've been called a statist simply because I believe in gun control. You think that's valid? No, its simply another derogatory term he uses.

You would feel insulted if I called you an idiot, right? What if I told you "If you don't like the label, don't fit the definition"? Does that make it better?

How about niger (sic)? Redneck? Hippy? Theres a point at which "labels" become insults, and Yamato has a habit of crossing it.

Well, I guess we'll just agree to disagree. Redneck, hippy, and niger (sic) are subjective, being loosely defined, and rooted in slang as an insult. Bigot, statist, zionist are defined labels that are neither rooted in slang, or rooted as an insult, and are precisely defined. There are plenty of people who are proud of those labels. Would you not call the westboro baptists zealouts? What about bigots? I would, the definitions fit that group.

If you think he's misusing definitions, well that's something that you, the offended, and Yamato can discuss. I find it funny that two of them that have cried foul before, have used insults; Yamato a "little pinko commie", and I have been called (more than once) a "Smart @**".

Regardless, none of this has anything to do with the topic, it's just a last resort to derail the thread by those who have no point, well other than "Israel was promised a nation by a fictional character who refuses to show himself and clarify the situation". I don't understand why you joined them.