Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Six Obama redlines/concessions on the Iranian nuke deal

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Guest


Guest
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/6-major-u.s.-concessions-in-iran-deal/article/2568247


Uranium enrichment
During negotiations, the U.S. eventually set a ceiling of 500 to 1,500 centrifuges for enriching uranium.

Obama, in touting Tuesday's deal, boasted "Iran will remove two-thirds of its installed centrifuges." But two-thirds of centrifuges is equivalent to 6,000 — or roughly four times more than what was just months ago seen as the ceiling. Furthermore, the "removed" centrifuges won't be dismantled, they will merely be stored.

Nuclear bunker
But the deal not only preserves Fordow under the notion that it will be used for scientific research, but the international community will be working with the Iranians on developing new centrifuge technology at the facility.

Ballistic missiles
Just last week, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate, "under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking."

Caving into a late demand by the Iranians, the agreement will get rid of the U.N. embargo on conventional arms sales to Iran within five years, and ballistic missiles within eight years.

Sanctions
Within six months to a year, Iran will have access to $100 billion to $150 billion in unfrozen assets due to the unwinding of sanctions, a total that doesn't include the economic windfall to come once international firms begin doing business in Iran. As a leading sponsor of terrorism according to the State Department, Iran would thus have more money available to distribute to terrorist groups such as Hezbollah.

Inspections
After the April parameters were announced, Obama declared, "If Iran cheats, the world will know it." But that's unlikely under the negotiated deal. Though inspectors would have access to Iranian facilities, they would not have "anytime, anywhere" inspections. Instead, the inspections must be done in consultation with Iran, and the agreement provides various ways for Iran to delay inspections for up to 24 days – meaning they'd have plenty of time to hide any nuclear work.

Lastly-
Sunset Clause
Though Iranians would be getting substantial relief under the current deal in the near-term, the Obama administration agreed to make the restrictions on its nuclear program only temporary. The U.S. originally proposed making the deal last for 20 years, but under the newly negotiated deal, the restrictions on its nuclear program would begin to erode after 10 years. By that time, under the deal, hundreds of billions of dollars would have been pumped into the Iranian economy and Iran would have been able to stockpile conventional weapons and ballistic missiles, making the jump to a nuclear weapons power with ease.

All leading to a Mid East Nuclear Arms race.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM
Looks like you gotta go suck eggs on this deal, PaceDog (and your buddy Netanyahu).

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest
Why on earth would you be taking pleasure in this deal?

Markle

Markle
PkrBum wrote:Why on earth would you be taking pleasure in this deal?

Desperation.

Regardless of what or far left Progressive good friends feel about the "deal" they obediently follow the instruction of semi-retired President Obama and their beloved far left web sites such as the DailyKOS, AlterNet, TheNation and others such as MSNBC and CNN.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM
PkrBum wrote:Why on earth would you be taking pleasure in this deal?
I don't I won't take any pleasure until Israel gives up its arsenal of secret nuclear weapons that it has built since 1967. Then we will have a true nuclear-free Middle East, and a basis to hopefully form a lasting peace in the region.

The hypocrisy in this whole thing is watching Benjamin Netanyahu whine about his enemies wanting nuclear weapons while he sits on a large and unaccounted-for stash of nuclear warheads, and the means to deliver them to places where Israel has no enemies. Would this define a dangerous aggressor?

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM
Markle wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Why on earth would you be taking pleasure in this deal?

Desperation.

Regardless of what or far left Progressive good friends feel about the "deal" they obediently follow the instruction of semi-retired President Obama and their beloved far left web sites such as the DailyKOS, AlterNet, TheNation and others such as MSNBC and CNN.

Your silly propaganda is what shows true desperation, semi-demented poster Markle.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Why on earth would you be taking pleasure in this deal?
I don't I won't take any pleasure until Israel gives up its arsenal of secret nuclear weapons that it has built since 1967. Then we will have a true nuclear-free Middle East, and a basis to hopefully form a lasting peace in the region.

The hypocrisy in this whole thing is watching Benjamin Netanyahu whine about his enemies wanting nuclear weapons while he sits on a large and unaccounted-for stash of nuclear warheads, and the means to deliver them to places where Israel has no enemies. Would this define a dangerous aggressor?

If they are secret, how do you know?

Guest


Guest
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Why on earth would you be taking pleasure in this deal?
I don't I won't take any pleasure until Israel gives up its arsenal of secret nuclear weapons that it has built since 1967. Then we will have a true nuclear-free Middle East, and a basis to hopefully form a lasting peace in the region.

The hypocrisy in this whole thing is watching Benjamin Netanyahu whine about his enemies wanting nuclear weapons while he sits on a large and unaccounted-for stash of nuclear warheads, and the means to deliver them to places where Israel has no enemies. Would this define a dangerous aggressor?

Iran has been attacking israel via proxy for decades and vows to wipe it and jews (and us) off of the earth.

You have some very screwed up views and values... and biases apparently.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM
PkrBum wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Why on earth would you be taking pleasure in this deal?
I don't I won't take any pleasure until Israel gives up its arsenal of secret nuclear weapons that it has built since 1967. Then we will have a true nuclear-free Middle East, and a basis to hopefully form a lasting peace in the region.

The hypocrisy in this whole thing is watching Benjamin Netanyahu whine about his enemies wanting nuclear weapons while he sits on a large and unaccounted-for stash of nuclear warheads, and the means to deliver them to places where Israel has no enemies. Would this define a dangerous aggressor?

Iran has been attacking israel via proxy for decades and vows to wipe it and jews (and us) off of the earth.

You have some very screwed up views and values... and biases apparently.

I will admit, Iran has been attacking Israeli forces who illegally invade Lebanon via proxies, to thwart Israeli aggression there. Iran otherwise has no means to "wipe-out" Israel and it has no means to "wipe-out" the United States.

No one wants to address the fact that Israel has already done every covert/secret/criminal act that Iran is only accused of doing, in order to create an unaccounted-for and very advanced nuclear arsenal that is the worst-kept secret in the world. Don't lay on me a bunch of BS that Israel needs to be a nuclear power because it has so many enemies....... None of Israel's enemies possess nuclear weapons themselves. If they want them it is because Israel was the first nation to aggressively introduce them to the region. If Israel wanted to truly find peaceful solutions to the problems facing the Middle East, they should not have done this.

Now that Obama has brokered the Iran deal, I think he should pressure Netanyahu to come clean about Israel's nuclear facilities and arsenal. The world needs to know if Israel has the bomb. If Israel has the bomb, they are imminently more powerful than their neighbors are, and they then do not need billions of dollars in military aid from the U.S. every year.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest
Israel's actions are always defensive and after the fact.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM
Demssuck wrote:Israel's actions are always defensive and after the fact.

That is your bullshit opinion, PeeDawg.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

gatorfan


ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Why on earth would you be taking pleasure in this deal?
I don't I won't take any pleasure until Israel gives up its arsenal of secret nuclear weapons that it has built since 1967. Then we will have a true nuclear-free Middle East, and a basis to hopefully form a lasting peace in the region.

The hypocrisy in this whole thing is watching Benjamin Netanyahu whine about his enemies wanting nuclear weapons while he sits on a large and unaccounted-for stash of nuclear warheads, and the means to deliver them to places where Israel has no enemies. Would this define a dangerous aggressor?

I guess you don't consider Pakistan a danger although they have nuclear weapons and provided safe harbor to Bin Laden. Now that's hypocrisy at its finest.....

You sure hate Israel, what happened - get mugged or arrested there at some point in the past?

2seaoat


Why on earth would you be taking pleasure in this deal?

Because that person has sufficient intelligence to understand the issues.  I have answered every single one of the critics charges of this agreement on another thread.  The threshold question is intelligence.  It boils down to invasion of Iran to stop them from expanding their nuclear programs into weapon grade production, or diplomacy stopping the same.  Weigh any criticism against the alternatives proposed by the war mongers, and then convince me by asking a question of the most dangerous void of this agreement.  I will answer your question and clearly show that the agreement is the "better" choice than any other alternative.   Go for it....this entire thread has idiotic out of context criticism without ONE viable alternative which exists in the real world.

boards of FL

boards of FL
PkrBum wrote:Why on earth would you be taking pleasure in this deal?



You have yet to present an alternative.


_________________
I approve this message.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM
gatorfan wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Why on earth would you be taking pleasure in this deal?
I don't I won't take any pleasure until Israel gives up its arsenal of secret nuclear weapons that it has built since 1967. Then we will have a true nuclear-free Middle East, and a basis to hopefully form a lasting peace in the region.

The hypocrisy in this whole thing is watching Benjamin Netanyahu whine about his enemies wanting nuclear weapons while he sits on a large and unaccounted-for stash of nuclear warheads, and the means to deliver them to places where Israel has no enemies. Would this define a dangerous aggressor?

I guess you don't consider Pakistan a danger although they have nuclear weapons and provided safe harbor to Bin Laden. Now that's hypocrisy at its finest.....

You sure hate Israel, what happened - get mugged or arrested there at some point in the past?

No, Palestine is the last place on Earth where I would voluntarily travel. There and Africa.

Pakistan's nuclear weapons are intended for its traditional enemy, India. Of course, you know this already.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

2seaoat


You have yet to present an alternative.


No.....there is one, and only one alternative.  War.  If you reject diplomacy, by making moronic criticism without diplomatic alternatives and without context, then you are arguing for war with Iran.  The Russians and Chinese would support Iran, and have contiguous land routes which Russia can control and would feed a nightmare deployment which would make Iraq seem like harmless war games.

If you believe that the Iranians were close friends and allies of America for forty years prior  to the shah's overthrow, you know most Iranians crave modernity and political change, yet some would choose to lose the battle for modernity and real lasting peace in the mideast under some illusion that bombing another country can solve every problem....it rarely has.



Last edited by 2seaoat on 7/16/2015, 12:38 pm; edited 1 time in total

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM
2seaoat wrote:You have yet to present an alternative.


No.....there is one, and only one alternative.  War.  If you reject diplomacy, by making moronic criticism without diplomatic alternatives and without context, then you are arguing for war with Iran.  The Russians and Chinese would support Iran, and have contiguous land routes which Russia can control and would feed a nightmare deployment which would make Iraq seem like harmless war games.

If you believe that the Iranians were close friends and allies of America for forty years prior  to the shah's overthrow, you know most Iranians crave modernity and political change, yet some would choose to loose the battle for modernity and real lasting peace in the mideast under some illusion that bombing another country can solve every problem....it rarely has.

You are forgetting.... As are the shortsighted warmongers.... Iran has a chokehold on the Straits of Hormuz, and the daily passage of roughly 17 super-tankers laden with oil for the world from nations with ports on the Persian Gulf. The shipping lanes are just 2 miles wide at the narrowest point through the Straits and would be nothing for Iran to close.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

gatorfan


ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
gatorfan wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Why on earth would you be taking pleasure in this deal?
I don't I won't take any pleasure until Israel gives up its arsenal of secret nuclear weapons that it has built since 1967. Then we will have a true nuclear-free Middle East, and a basis to hopefully form a lasting peace in the region.

The hypocrisy in this whole thing is watching Benjamin Netanyahu whine about his enemies wanting nuclear weapons while he sits on a large and unaccounted-for stash of nuclear warheads, and the means to deliver them to places where Israel has no enemies. Would this define a dangerous aggressor?

I guess you don't consider Pakistan a danger although they have nuclear weapons and provided safe harbor to Bin Laden. Now that's hypocrisy at its finest.....

You sure hate Israel, what happened - get mugged or arrested there at some point in the past?

No, Palestine is the last place on Earth where I would voluntarily travel. There and Africa.

Pakistan's nuclear weapons are intended for its traditional enemy, India. Of course, you know this already.

Well you certainly know the Pakistani Army party line. As I’m sure you are aware the real danger is the terrorist element that is growing throughout that country possibly gaining access to nukes and also the increased fanaticism of Pakistan’s Army. The Pakistani government is not exactly doing great either, nor is the economy. Pakistan is also a “shoot first” country indicating a real willingness to go nuclear early…..

But all of that is OK because you think they would only attack India.

All righty then……

boards of FL

boards of FL
2seaoat wrote:You have yet to present an alternative.


No.....there is one, and only one alternative.  War.  If you reject diplomacy, by making moronic criticism without diplomatic alternatives and without context, then you are arguing for war with Iran.  The Russians and Chinese would support Iran, and have contiguous land routes which Russia can control and would feed a nightmare deployment which would make Iraq seem like harmless war games.

If you believe that the Iranians were close friends and allies of America for forty years prior  to the shah's overthrow, you know most Iranians crave modernity and political change, yet some would choose to loose the battle for modernity and real lasting peace in the mideast under some illusion that bombing another country can solve every problem....it rarely has.



The problem there is that PkrBum subscribes to a college freshmen brand of libertarianism, which is a school of thought that is generally against war.  That is why I'm curious as to what PkrBum's alternative is to the Iran deal.

Personally, I'm not going to knock a policy unless I'm aware of a better alternative, so I'm curious as to whether or not PkrBum actually has a better alternative in mind, or if his criticism is simply blind, parroted, partisan talking points.

I think we all know what the answer is there, though I wanted to give him the chance to clear that up.


_________________
I approve this message.

gatorfan


2seaoat wrote:You have yet to present an alternative.


No.....there is one, and only one alternative.  War.  If you reject diplomacy, by making moronic criticism without diplomatic alternatives and without context, then you are arguing for war with Iran.  The Russians and Chinese would support Iran, and have contiguous land routes which Russia can control and would feed a nightmare deployment which would make Iraq seem like harmless war games.

If you believe that the Iranians were close friends and allies of America for forty years prior  to the shah's overthrow, you know most Iranians crave modernity and political change, yet some would choose to loose the battle for modernity and real lasting peace in the mideast under some illusion that bombing another country can solve every problem....it rarely has.

Whatever its real or imagined flaws this treaty was a necessary accomplishment. One would hope that the Iranian people will benefit from easing of sanctions and pressure their government to cease support of terrorist entities and scale back the fanaticism of Islamists. The young folks of Iran want the same things every young person wants - a chance to be a success and live to enjoy it. Hopefully this treaty is a step in the right direction.

2seaoat


The young folks of Iran want the same things every young person wants - a chance to be a success and live to enjoy it. Hopefully this treaty is a step in the right direction.

Probably the most intelligent thing posted on this thread, because it goes to the essence of why diplomacy was the only alternative.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan
Bibi stepped in it bigtime when he accepted the GOP offer to address Congress just before Israel's election. If you don't believe that, I suggest you read this:


Netanyahu’s speech and the American Jewish condition

US Politics Philip Weiss on March 1, 2015 - See more at:

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/03/netanyahus-speech-israel#sthash.0iXncqD7.dpuf

"...It is my belief that much of the Jewish establishment’s view of the world is a trauma-induced delusion. Because we don’t need to be hidden. Others do, including many Palestinians from Jews. The actual Jewish condition in Israel is: they are occupiers. The abused has become the abuser, as the recovery movement explains. But still: the fear is there..."





Guest


Guest
Israel has yet to say they will wipe Iran off the map or death to that nation. On the other hard, this is all the ayatollahs talk about

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM
Demssuck wrote:Israel has yet to say they will wipe Iran off the map or death to that nation. On the other hard, this is all the ayatollahs talk about

Fearmongering speculation on PaceDog/KarlRove/Demssuck's part........ Question

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

2seaoat


Israel has yet to say they will wipe Iran off the map or death to that nation. On the other hard, this is all the ayatollahs talk about

This is all Syria, and Egypt used to talk about....diplomacy can work, and Egypt is a good example.  Mutual interests work as Israel and the Saudis have shown over the last decade.  The Middle East can find peace when those who have exploited the people of the Middle East are isolated and their interests are not pandered to as the first priority.  As alluded to earlier, young people will seek modernity, and in modernity the dark ages of crusades and antisemitism will shrivel in the light of rationality and mutual gain in trade and resources being used for the people of the region instead of being funneled into MIC.

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum