Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Would you support the Agreement with Iran?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Would you support the Agreement with Iran?

    If you were a US Senator, would you support the agreement with Iran?
    65
    Yes
    33.85%
    22
    No
    66.15%
    43

  • #2
    I would need a copy to read. I don't trust the bunch running Iran further than I can throw them.

    Pruitt
    Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

    Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

    by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

    Comment


    • #3
      If I were a US Senator, I would support the agreement with Iran. A lot of work went into it. And also, I think the Iranians could have produced a weapon a long time ago if they really wanted to. They have the sophistication, for sure. I think they are following something of a policy of being "deliberately ambiguous", as the Israelis have said of themselves.

      Comment


      • #4
        It's weak and I dislike the Iranian veto power over inspections. I don't trust kerry nor the mullahs. Imo this 'deal' is fubar.
        Credo quia absurdum.


        Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

        Comment


        • #5
          This treaty is the first in my lifetime I have ever seen political groups outside the government actively opposing to the extent that they are taking out advertising against it.

          Having a defacto traitor as Secretary of State doesn't do anything to increase my confidence either.

          Any Senator should oppose it, if for no other reason, solely on the basis that Obama took it to the UN before bringing it to Congress in direct violation of the Constitution.
          Just because Obama doesn't like dealing with Congress and is easily butt hurt when he doesn't get his way like some petulant child, doesn't give him the Right to do an end run around the laws of the country he swore he'd uphold.

          Comment


          • #6
            Agree.

            The 'agreement' is a sellout. Kerry is a de facto traitor and the administration going to the UN indicates that they do not care or respect the sovereignty of the United States or its laws and traditions.

            The Iranians cannot be trusted to do anything unless forced.

            Sincerely,
            M
            We are not now that strength which in old days
            Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
            Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
            To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              This treaty is the first in my lifetime I have ever seen political groups outside the government actively opposing to the extent that they are taking out advertising against it.

              Having a defacto traitor as Secretary of State doesn't do anything to increase my confidence either.

              Any Senator should oppose it, if for no other reason, solely on the basis that Obama took it to the UN before bringing it to Congress in direct violation of the Constitution.
              Just because Obama doesn't like dealing with Congress and is easily butt hurt when he doesn't get his way like some petulant child, doesn't give him the Right to do an end run around the laws of the country he swore he'd uphold.
              Originally posted by Massena View Post
              Agree.

              The 'agreement' is a sellout. Kerry is a de facto traitor and the administration going to the UN indicates that they do not care or respect the sovereignty of the United States or its laws and traditions.

              The Iranians cannot be trusted to do anything unless forced.

              Sincerely,
              M
              "De facto traitor"?

              Is that the new phrase for political figures who do things we don't like?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                "De facto traitor"?

                Is that the new phrase for political figures who do things we don't like?
                De facto (/dɨ ˈfæktoʊ/, /deɪ-/,[1] Latin: [deː ˈfaktoː]) is a Latin expression that means "in fact, in reality, in actual existence, force, or possession, as a matter of fact" (literally "from fact").[2][3] In law, it often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but not officially established." It is commonly used in contrast to de jure (which means "according to (the) law"; literally "from law") when referring to matters of law, governance, or technique (such as standards) that are found in the common experience as created or developed without or contrary to a regulation. When discussing a legal situation, de jure designates what the law says, while de facto designates action of what happens in practice.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto
                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                  De facto (/dɨ ˈfæktoʊ/, /deɪ-/,[1] Latin: [deː ˈfaktoː]) is a Latin expression that means "in fact, in reality, in actual existence, force, or possession, as a matter of fact" (literally "from fact").[2][3] In law, it often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but not officially established." It is commonly used in contrast to de jure (which means "according to (the) law"; literally "from law") when referring to matters of law, governance, or technique (such as standards) that are found in the common experience as created or developed without or contrary to a regulation. When discussing a legal situation, de jure designates what the law says, while de facto designates action of what happens in practice.
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto
                  Which doesn't answer my question...

                  Comment


                  • #10

                    Nuclear Creepout: Iran's Third Path to the Bomb

                    EXCERPT;
                    ...
                    Such an abrupt change of heart by the Iranian regime is certainly possible, but more worrisome is the prospect that Iran's nuclear policy after the agreement goes into effect will be much the same as it was before—comply with the letter and spirit of its obligations only to the degree necessary to ward off unacceptably costly consequences. This will likely take the form of what I call nuclear creepout—activities, both open and covert, legal and illicit, designed to negate JCPOA restrictions without triggering costly multilateral reprisals.

                    It is important to bear in mind that the JCPOA bars signatories from re-imposing any sanctions or their equivalents on Iran, except by way of a United Nations Security Council resolution restoring sanctions. "That means there will be no punishments for anything less than a capital crime," explains Robert Satloff. The language demanded by Iranian negotiators, and accepted by the Obama administration, makes small-scale cheating virtually unpunishable.

                    Moreover, the specific terms of the JCPOA appear to have been designed to give the Iranians wide latitude to interpret their own obligations. Two, in particular, should raise eyebrows.
                    ....
                    Indeed, the JCPOA appears to have been drafted by diplomats who failed to imagine that the Iranians might seek to bolster their latent nuclear weapons capacity under the new rules of the game with as much guile and gusto as they did under the old. Considering that the Obama administration's one-year projected breakout time for Iran is deeply flawed to begin with, Iranian exploitation of these loopholes could bring it perilously close to the finish line even while remaining officially in compliance with the JCPOA. If the international community has less time to respond to a breakout attempt, an attempt presumably becomes more likely.

                    But the real danger is that the mullahs will put off a breakout attempt in the next decade or so, while creeping out of their vaguely worded obligations. With so many opportunities to escape the strictures of the JCPOA, the mullahs would be fools not to offer the minimal degree of compliance necessary to keep it in force (while continually stretching the boundaries of how minimal that degree can be). Openly exploiting the JCPOA's loopholes while enjoying its rewards will do more to intimidate Iran's regional rivals than a reckless dash for the end zone or a high-risk covert attempt, while paving the way for eventual grudging international acquiescence to the Islamic Republic's construction of a bomb.
                    http://www.meforum.org/5396/iran-creepout


                    Of course, if they perceive the timing of the 12th Iman appearance is sooner, they might ramp up quicker.
                    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                      Which doesn't answer my question...
                      I didn't advance the term but you seemed unclear possibly on the meaning.

                      Endangering the National safety, circumventing the Constitutional process for treaty approval, subjugating USA sovereignty to a foreign power (U.N.) when added to other prior actions, would seem a large case of evidence (in fact) for Treason is accumulating. IMO.
                      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        From Wikipedia - Policy of Deliberate Ambiguity

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

                        A policy of deliberate ambiguity (also known as a policy of strategic ambiguity, strategic uncertainty) is the practice by a country of being intentionally ambiguous on certain aspects of its foreign policy or whether it possesses certain weapons of mass destruction. It may be useful if the country has contrary foreign and domestic policy goals or if it wants to take advantage of risk aversion to abet a deterrence strategy. Such a policy can be very risky as it may cause misinterpretation of a nation's intentions, leading to actions that contradict that nation's wishes.
                        Contents






                        Examples

                        Beijing and Taipei


                        Iraq

                        • Saddam Hussein employed a policy of intentional ambiguity about whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction prior to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Not believing that U.S. forces would ultimately invade Iraq, Saddam Hussein persisted in a “cat and mouse” game with U.N. inspectors to ensure the Iraqi population and its neighbors would believe it had weapons of mass destruction. If it became clear that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, it would lose the fear and control it held over its population and the appearance of dominance over its neighboring adversaries—specifically Iran. If it became clear that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, it would have violated United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 and risk invasion by the U.S. and its allies. The “cat and mouse” game that Iraq played with U.N. inspectors was designed to allow it to avoid violation of U.N. Resolution 687, while at the same time ensuring its population and its neighbors still believed it may have weapons of mass destruction.[1]

                        Israel

                        • Whether or not it possesses nuclear weapons.
                        • Israel practices deliberate ambiguity over the issue of targeted killings, never confirming or denying whether Israel is involved in the deaths of suspected terrorists on foreign soil.

                        Russia

                        In early April 2015, an editorial in the British newspaper The Times, with a reference to semi-official sources within the Russian military and intelligence establishment, opined that Russia′s warnings of its alleged preparedness for a nuclear response to certain non-nuclear acts on the part of NATO, were to be construed as ″an attempt to create strategic uncertainty″ to undermine Western concerted security policy.[2]
                        United Kingdom


                        United States

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
                          It's weak and I dislike the Iranian veto power over inspections. I don't trust kerry nor the mullahs. Imo this 'deal' is fubar.
                          I agree on all points!
                          Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                            "De facto traitor"?

                            Is that the new phrase for political figures who do things we don't like?
                            No, it is a concise and correct term:


                            de facto

                            De facto is a Latin expression that means "in fact, in reality, in actual existence, force, or possession, as a matter of fact" (literally "from fact"). In law, it often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but not officially established."
                            John Kerry by his actions with the VVAW alone is a de facto traitor.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              From the Nuclear Threat Initiative - a detailed history of the Iranian Nuclear Program

                              http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/iran/nuclear/

                              excerpt

                              ran's interest in nuclear technology dates to the 1950's, when the Shah of Iran began receiving assistance through the U.S. Atoms for Peace program. Although Iran signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as a non-nuclear weapon state in 1968 and ratified it in 1970, the Shah may have had nuclear weapons ambitions. However, the 1979 Iranian Revolution and subsequent Iran-Iraq war limited the nuclear program's expansion. In the 1990's Iran began pursuing an indigenous nuclear fuel cycle capability by developing a uranium mining infrastructure and experimenting with uranium conversion and enrichment. In 2002 and 2003, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, an opposition group based in Paris, revealed the existence of undeclared nuclear facilities at Arak and Natanz. Iran then admitted to small-scale enrichment experiments and plans to construct an enrichment facility, a heavy water production plant, a heavy water-moderated research reactor, and a fuel fabrication facility. Iran suspended its enrichment and conversion activities in 2003, but resumed uranium conversion in 2005, and started enrichment in 2006, increasing the enrichment level to almost 20% in 2010.
                              The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors found Iran in non-compliance with its Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement in 2005, and the UN Security Council has passed seven resolutions demanding that Iran halt its enrichment and reprocessing activities. Tehran insists that its nuclear activities are purely peaceful and possession of nuclear fuel cycle capabilities is its inalienable right.
                              Since 2002, Iran, the IAEA, and various groupings of world powers―first with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (the EU-3), and later accompanied by China, Russia, and the United States (P5+1)―have made numerous attempts to negotiate a settlement to the dispute. Several rounds of talks in Geneva in October and November 2013 yielded substantial progress, culminating in a 6-month Joint Plan of Action (JPOA) and the Framework for Cooperation (FFC) between the IAEA and Iran. The JPOA placed restrictions on Iran's nuclear program in return for limited sanctions relief while the parties worked to attain a "mutually-agreed long-term comprehensive solution that would ensure Iran's nuclear programme would be exclusively peaceful." [1] After failing to meet several deadlines for a comprehensive agreement, Iran and the P5+1 negotiated a final Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on July 14, 2015, agreeing on terms limiting Iran’s nuclear capacity while implementing a phased-out approach to sanctions relief.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X