Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
OverSword

For or Against Leaving Iran Nuke Deal

For or Against Leaving Iran Nuke Deal?  

58 members have voted

  1. 1. For or against.

    • I support the Presidents decision to pull the USA out of the Iran Nuclear Treaty
      33
    • I am against the Presidents decision to pull the USA out of the Iran Nuclear Treaty
      16
    • I am unsure how I feel
      9


299 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

and then
On 5/16/2018 at 5:32 PM, Paranormal Panther said:

I'd just stay out of the whole region unless  until we were attacked.

And if that attack happens to be with a satellite-borne nuke, a few hundred miles over the heartland?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
RavenHawk
9 minutes ago, and then said:

And if that attack happens to be with a satellite-borne nuke, a few hundred miles over the heartland?

From a defensive ICBM.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
On 5/17/2018 at 2:07 PM, Phaeton80 said:


Oh dear :D

Sounds a bit extreme, tendentious, black & white, simplistic.. Or erm.. well.. ridiculous, or completely false.

Thanks for proving your Western extremism once again, in your feud against.. Eastern extremism.

 

To be as intelligent as you seem to esteem yourself, you certainly are lacking in any ability to sway opinions.   Your support of said Eastern extremism is a regular occurrence and is readily observable to any who care to read your words.  How, exactly, does that make you superior in any way?  Other than being a legend in your own mind? :huh:

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
On 5/18/2018 at 8:35 AM, third_eye said:

~

 

[00.03:05]

 

~

Its bad enough that the current Administration lies so elaborately for their own vested self interests, it doesn't need misinformed people making more inane lies for them ...

~

Nor Islamic trolls who pretend to desire what's best for anyone who isn't Muslim.  Begone, foul Dwimmerlaik!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
4 hours ago, and then said:

And if that attack happens to be with a satellite-borne nuke, a few hundred miles over the heartland?

Iran would be destroyed. Its leaders know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
6 hours ago, and then said:

Nor Islamic trolls who pretend to desire what's best for anyone who isn't Muslim.  Begone, foul Dwimmerlaik!

NOw you are not only being stupid but also silly, is this how you sway opinions with your superior Christian extremism for the propensity to lie, just to brag about sullying the good teachings of Jesus ?

~

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
4 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

Iran would be destroyed. Its leaders know that.

Which would do what, exactly, to save the lives of the tens of millions here who would die in the aftermath?  Religious extremist regimes do not play by rational rules like MAD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
8 minutes ago, third_eye said:

NOw you are not only being stupid but also silly, is this how you sway opinions with your superior Christian extremism for the propensity to lie, just to brag about sullying the good teachings of Jesus ?

~

An den?  An what? :w00t:   I love the way you become verbose and tongue-tied at the same time, Third... too funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
5 minutes ago, and then said:

An den?  An what? :w00t:   I love the way you become verbose and tongue-tied at the same time, Third... too funny.

No, not tongue tied, you got spiritually brain freeze ...

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnchorSteam

Interesting...

In the last few days, the "Support" answer to the above question has increased 5%. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acidhead
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, and then said:

Nor Islamic trolls who pretend to desire what's best for anyone who isn't Muslim.  Begone, foul Dwimmerlaik!

I agree 100%.

I used to be this angry outspoken idiot who defended Muslim dominate countries.  

Not anymore.  

Each and every single country infiltrated by Islam has seen it's nation become majority Islamic.

No more.

Not to the free world.  It's not compatible. 

Democracy has one flaw... Majority rules.

This is war by attrition... Wait it out.  

Unless Islam is reformed, like other religions, it will feel the full force of resistance.  

Mohammed can suck on it.  

You are never going to win.  

Our thirst for every lasting freedom will never die.

 

Edited by acidhead
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
13 hours ago, and then said:

To be as intelligent as you seem to esteem yourself, you certainly are lacking in any ability to sway opinions.   Your support of said Eastern extremism is a regular occurrence and is readily observable to any who care to read your words.  How, exactly, does that make you superior in any way?  Other than being a legend in your own mind? :huh:


:D  Thanks for the giggle mr hyperbole, Im not the one rationalizing political and financial support of Saudi Arabia. Or the US policies that facilitated or even spawned groups like ISIS. Call me an anti Christian, anti American, anti Israel.. pro Assad, a Muslim apologizer, or extremist supporter.. It does nothing but confirm your weak position, its just comical. Especially after attacking me for lamenting the (extremist) ridiculous claim 'Irans entire reason for being is to destroy the west'.

I have never supported extremism in any form, not Western extremism, nor Eastern extremism. Everyone with a balanced mind knows that. You on the other hand passionately continuously defend and promote the Western approved variant, and point your self righteous fingers at the Eastern in disgust from a feigned moral highground.. Like the natural- born hypocrite you are.

Your strange, disconcerting musings about me being somehow superior must follow from a sense of low worth, feelings of inferiority. You might want to talk to your psychologist about that.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
7 hours ago, and then said:

An den?  An what? :w00t:   I love the way you become verbose and tongue-tied at the same time, Third... too funny.


Talk about misconceived feelings of superiority.

You are a piece of work AT, my god man. You are a shrink's wet dream, the proverbial golden pot at the end of the rainbow.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

EU and Iran Will Attempt to Salvage Nuclear Deal Following Trump's Breach of Agreement

 

Quote

The EU will aim to continue trade with Iran, Arias told reporters. The EU's announcement came a day after the European Commission declared it would introduce a law to ban companies on the continent from complying with Trump's sanctions—further isolating the Trump administration in its stance against Iran. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
36 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Wait.. WHAT ? The EU will pass a "law" (actually a "Regulation", but more on this later) that prevents European companies from refusing to trade with a non-EU country ? 

Lets think about that... a regulation - binding on all member nations - that effectively COMPEL private companies to do business with a non-EU nation ? 

Firstly... how can that POSSIBLY be worded ? How can you phrase a legal document that requires private companies to do business ? 

Secondly.. this is an empty threat. The Commission can propose such a regulation.. but it takes both the Council and the Parliament to approve it. Now, the Parliament might approve it on ideological grounds. E.G. "We Hate Donald Trump". But the Council ? That requires the agreement of all 27 member-state governments. I'm not sure that they would all be comfortable with the EU forcing them into such a position, considering that this issue has nothing to do with internal EU trade etc. 

Thirdly, and related to the above point: doesn't this just reveal the over-reach of the EU commission ? Had this occured two years ago, the Brexit vote would have been a landslide ! The "leave" supporters claimed that such authoritarian behavior could NEVER happen. 

This is an empty threat. If the EU somehow DOES attempt to draft - and pass - such a regulation then it would be incredibly divisive. And anyway, it would take MONTHS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

This is an empty threat. If the EU somehow DOES attempt to draft - and pass - such a regulation then it would be incredibly divisive. And anyway, it would take MONTHS. 

I agree with you with the likelihood of this happening.  However, should Iran drop a bomb on Israel or SA, as Paranormal stated: “Iran would be destroyed. Its leaders know that.  But I can see where the EU would pass a regulation, making it illegal to retaliate against Iran on anyone upon use of force, citing everything from disturbing the peace to interfering with trade.  This would just go to show how dysfunctional the EU is.  What will be really interesting will be when Iran uses a second bomb and claims that it is only defending itself and the EU will ignore it.  At this point, the EU will cease to exist.  By that time, the West will have been destroyed and the disunity will lead to war.  So to answer to Paranormal’s implied question, “how could Iran get away with it?”  This is how.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
19 hours ago, and then said:

Which would do what, exactly, to save the lives of the tens of millions here who would die in the aftermath?  Religious extremist regimes do not play by rational rules like MAD.

They said the same thing about Iraq before the neoconservative cabal further ruined that country. Iran has a tyrannical regime, but it's not suicidal. The leaders have extreme views that are antithetical to democratic ideas, but they're educated and intelligent enough to full well know what the consequences will be if they truly attack and/or truly threaten us. I was swayed by hysterical hyperbole twice, to my constant shame, but I won't be fooled a third time.   

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
17 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Firstly... how can that POSSIBLY be worded ? How can you phrase a legal document that requires private companies to do business ?

Apparently that's based on a statute that was written in the 90's 

EU to reactivate 'blocking statute' against US sanctions on Iran for European firms

 

Quote

EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker announced that the bloc plans to kickstart a 1996 law that would prohibit European companies from complying with US sanctions on Iran.

Juncker said that the law would be launched Friday morning at 10:30 a.m. local time (0730 GMT).

He added that European leaders "also decided to allow the European Investment Bank to facilitate European companies' investment in Iran," and said the Commission would continue to cooperate with Iran.

 

Quote

A blocking statute is a law enacted in a local jurisdiction that attempts to hinder application of a law made by a foreign jurisdiction. The 1996 legislation protects "against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country." It was originally developed to get around a US trade embargo on Cuba and sanctions related to Iran and Libya, though it was never enacted because the disagreements were settled politically. In the current proposed application, the law would attempt to shield European companies that do business with Iran from future US sanctions by prohibiting the companies from respecting US sanctions. It also would not recognize any court rulings that enforce the American-issued penalties.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LV-426

US vows 'strongest sanctions in history' on Iran

"Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said the US is imposing the "strongest sanctions in history" on Iran.

In a speech in Washington, America's top diplomat said Iran would be "battling to keep its economy alive" after the sanctions took effect."

"What are the demands Washington is making?

Mr Pompeo laid out 12 conditions for any "new deal" with Iran, including the withdrawal of its forces from Syria and an end to its support for rebels in Yemen.

Others include Tehran:

  • Giving the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) a full account of its former nuclear military programme, and giving up such work forever
  • Ending its "threatening behaviour" towards its neighbours, including "its threats to destroy Israel, and its firing of missiles into Saudi Arabia and the UAE"
  • Releasing all US citizens, and those of US partners and allies, "detained on spurious charges or missing in Iran""

 

I particularly look forward to the last one, given this updated story today:

Jailed British-Iranian faces new charge

"Jailed British-Iranian Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is facing a new charge against her in Iran, her campaign says.

Her husband said the 39-year-old, who denied the new allegation of spreading propaganda, was told to expect a conviction by the judge.

The prime minister's spokesman said the government was urgently seeking more information from Iranian authorities.

Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe is serving a five-year jail sentence in Iran after being convicted of spying."

img.jpg

 

Always worth remembering what kind of people you're dealing with in the Iranian government - the kind that imprison a young mum for absolutely nothing.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
On 20/05/2018 at 12:38 PM, and then said:

Which would do what, exactly, to save the lives of the tens of millions here who would die in the aftermath?  Religious extremist regimes do not play by rational rules like MAD.

True, but the leaders of said extremists for some reason never seem to want to strap on the explosive vests themselves. America needs to very clearly say “we know where you live” and toddle off and leave them in peace. “Leave us in peace, we’ll leave you in peace. Attack us, and there won’t even be pieces of you.”.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
11 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

True, but the leaders of said extremists for some reason never seem to want to strap on the explosive vests themselves. America needs to very clearly say “we know where you live” and toddle off and leave them in peace. “Leave us in peace, we’ll leave you in peace. Attack us, and there won’t even be pieces of you.”.

But it never works out that way.  Human nature works as it is better to ask forgiveness than ask for permission.  You can’t expect them to leave you alone.  You have to start off leaving them in pieces, then you know they will leave you alone.  We are dealing with a leaderless ideology.  That’s the only way it works out because if you don’t do it to them first, they will do it to you.  Their collective memory is only as long as the memory of the current leaders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

Welp that worked out grand now didn't it 

 

Iran to boost production of uranium enrichment material – state atomic agency

 

Quote

Tehran has said it is revamping its uranium enrichment program, phased out under the nuclear deal. As part of the new build-up, it will boost production of UF6, a gas needed to produce fuel for nuclear reactors and weapons.

The move was announced by Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization (AEOI) spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which oversees Iran’s compliance with the 2015 JCPOA deal, will be notified of the changes on Tuesday, he told the ISNA news agency.

 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Posted (edited)

The Obama administration granted a license letting Iran access the United States financial system despite officials’ pledges that they would prohibit it, according to a draft report from the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

“On Feb. 24, 2016, the Treasury Department issued a specific license to Bank Muscat to authorize the conversion of Iran’s rials to euros through ‘any United States depository institution …,’” the draft report said. “Even after the specific license was issued, U.S. government officials maintained in congressional testimony that Iran would not be granted access to the U.S. financial system.”

“The Obama administration during the negotiation of the Iran deal misled the American people,” said Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), subcommittee chairman. “I think they did so because they were desperate to get a deal.”

When the nations involved in the Iran nuclear agreement implemented the deal, Iran had $5.7 billion in assets at Bank Muscat in Muscat, Oman, maintained as Omani rials, according to the subcommittee. Iran wanted to access that money, and using the U.S. financial system to convert it “was the most efficient means, even though U.S. sanctions prohibited it,” according to the report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/06/obama-administration-allegedly-gave-iran-access-to-us-financial-system.html

Edited by aztek
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
5 hours ago, aztek said:

The Obama administration granted a license letting Iran access the United States financial system despite officials’ pledges that they would prohibit it, according to a draft report from the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

“On Feb. 24, 2016, the Treasury Department issued a specific license to Bank Muscat to authorize the conversion of Iran’s rials to euros through ‘any United States depository institution …,’” the draft report said. “Even after the specific license was issued, U.S. government officials maintained in congressional testimony that Iran would not be granted access to the U.S. financial system.”

“The Obama administration during the negotiation of the Iran deal misled the American people,” said Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), subcommittee chairman. “I think they did so because they were desperate to get a deal.”

When the nations involved in the Iran nuclear agreement implemented the deal, Iran had $5.7 billion in assets at Bank Muscat in Muscat, Oman, maintained as Omani rials, according to the subcommittee. Iran wanted to access that money, and using the U.S. financial system to convert it “was the most efficient means, even though U.S. sanctions prohibited it,” according to the report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/06/obama-administration-allegedly-gave-iran-access-to-us-financial-system.html

It is truly unbelievable how corrupt the Obama administration was and we are just skimming the surface.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.