Disgusted with obama administration - Part II

• sleeper

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1788517 wrote:Sigh.
  
  We got them to stop plutonium production (the quickest path to a bomb).
  We got them to sign and adhere to the Additional Protocol, which they have balked at for years.
  We got them to stop enriching to levels above 5%.
  We got them to ship their HEU out of country and to downblend the rest.
  We got them to really reduce one enrichment facility and close another.
  
  So, yeah, we got nothing.

  Yeah but Obama...
• QuakerOats

  ptown_trojans_1;1788517 wrote:Sigh.
  
  We got them to stop plutonium production (the quickest path to a bomb).
  We got them to sign and adhere to the Additional Protocol, which they have balked at for years.
  We got them to stop enriching to levels above 5%.
  We got them to ship their HEU out of country and to downblend the rest.
  We got them to really reduce one enrichment facility and close another.
  
  So, yeah, we got nothing.

  
  
  We got them to say all that .......................
• Spock

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1788517 wrote:Sigh.
  
  We got them to stop plutonium production (the quickest path to a bomb).
  We got them to sign and adhere to the Additional Protocol, which they have balked at for years.
  We got them to stop enriching to levels above 5%.
  We got them to ship their HEU out of country and to downblend the rest.
  We got them to really reduce one enrichment facility and close another.
  
  So, yeah, we got nothing.

  and when they kick out the UN inspectors 19 times in a row like Iraq did.....you probably wont have a problem with that?
• FatHobbit

  

  Spock;1788528 wrote:and when they kick out the UN inspectors 19 times in a row like Iraq did.....you probably wont have a problem with that?

  Someone will blame Bush
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  sleeper;1788522 wrote:Yeah but Obama...

  Yeah, true. Obama is the worst.

  QuakerOats;1788526 wrote:We got them to say all that .......................

  Got anything else to add there chief?
  I'm waiting on the boilerplate anti-Obama stuff.
  

  Spock;1788528 wrote:and when they kick out the UN inspectors 19 times in a row like Iraq did.....you probably wont have a problem with that?

  So, because of the IAEA experience in Iraq during the 90s and 2000s, it makes the deal bad? Now, you are grasping at straws.
  Yeah, let's not do any deal because of the failure of Iraq. But, oh wait, guess what, in the end the IAEA was correct from back in the day. Let's take their word for it.
  If Iran kicks out inspectors and starts to renege on the deal, the matter will go back to the UNSC and the complex matrix set up on sanctions will come into play. It is all laid out in the annexes.

  FatHobbit;1788534 wrote:Someone will blame Bush

  Naturally.
• Con_Alma

  ptown_trojans_1;1788535 wrote:Yeah, true. Obama is the worst.
  
  Got anything else to add there chief?
  ....

  What's with the nickname "chief"? I thought that stopped being used in the 90s?
  
  How much $$$ did we give them for a deal that can possibly have an end to it in a decade or so?
  
  Did we really give $100s of billions of dollars to fuel their terror in the future but we are trying to say it's a good deal because it delays that future??
  
  Did we actually give them sanction relief before we required any proof of the acting on and adhering to the deal?
  
  This "snapback" provision is meaningless. Once the sanctions are lifted... they are can never be put back in place because of the size and scope they formerly had with all other nations.
  
  Does this deal prohibit Iran from reacquiring conventional arms after 5 years?
  
  Is there any research and develop restriction included in the deal to keep them in the future from preparing more efficient and advanced centrifuges?
  
  They had two Scientist who worked on their "illegal nuclear program". They even smuggled nuclear components for Iran. It's my understanding this deal lifts sanctions on them as well.
  
  This not a good deal but at least Assad likes it.
  
  We tell Iran to eliminate their program immediately or we will do it for them ...and them we follow through. We owe them nothing economically as the democratic de-stabilizing force in the region. What we do owe someone is a giant apology to our only true ally in that area.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  How much money did we give: $0. The funds that were frozen were Iranian to begin with. It was oil and other assets that have been frozen. The sanctions released their own money. So, we didn't give them anything that wasn't already theirs. I love how that always gets misconstrued.
  
  Yes, the sanctions relief is lifted only after the IAEA verifies that Iran is adhering to the deal. There are complex steps in place before the sanctions start to get lifted. Iran wanted the sanctions to end once the deal was signed, but we said no to that. The relief is gradual. That is laid out in the annex of the agreement as well.
  
  It depends on the snapback. If the IAEA comes to the UNSC and says Iran is violating or not adhering to portions of the agreement, then the process goes to the what is laid out in the annex of the agreement, which is pretty complex, but is possible. It is possible if Iran is cheating that sanctions do come back.
  
  Conventional arms are not covered by the deal. It is only a narrow agreement on the nuclear side of things. I would be in favor of additional dialogue on conventional restrictions.
  
  R&D: They cannot enrich above 5%, but can do research on other centrifuges, which is their right under the NPT and the ability to have peaceful nuclear energy.
  
  On the scientists, meh. Sometimes we let those slide for the greater good. But, hey the biggest proliferater in the world is AQ Khan, he should be in a US jail, but is not due to our relationship with Pakistan. So, if some scientist get some sanctions lifted on them as well as long as the IAEA can verify the nuclear program, that outweighs the lifting.
  
  So, we should dictate our foreign policy to if Assad likes it? That doesn't make sense.
  
  Sigh on the last point. That policy has not worked for 15 years. What you all cannot wrap your heads around is Iran is not going to give up its right to enrich. They are not. We have tried since early Bush years and it was not working.
  
  Iran was also close to a plutonium facility, which was a gamechanger. Once that would have become operational, Iran would have had two paths to a bomb. Now, that is gone. Also, Iran would have more HEU now. And, honestly, military force, really? Tell me how that works? Exactly. Then tell me the next steps. Point is, if you cross that bridge, there is no turning back.
  
  Also, Israel's reaction is more nuance and they actually support the deal more than you think. Read up in the Israeli press on that.
  
  I swear sometimes I may have been the only one that read the freaking deal on here.
• Con_Alma

  ptown_trojans_1;1788543 wrote:How much money did we give: $0. The funds that were frozen were Iranian to begin with. It was oil and other assets that have been frozen. The sanctions released their own money. So, we didn't give them anything that wasn't already theirs. I love how that always gets misconstrued.
  
  Yes, the sanctions relief is lifted only after the IAEA verifies that Iran is adhering to the deal. There are complex steps in place before the sanctions start to get lifted. Iran wanted the sanctions to end once the deal was signed, but we said no to that. The relief is gradual. That is laid out in the annex of the agreement as well.
  
  It depends on the snapback. If the IAEA comes to the UNSC and says Iran is violating or not adhering to portions of the agreement, then the process goes to the what is laid out in the annex of the agreement, which is pretty complex, but is possible. It is possible if Iran is cheating that sanctions do come back.
  
  Conventional arms are not covered by the deal. It is only a narrow agreement on the nuclear side of things. I would be in favor of additional dialogue on conventional restrictions.
  
  R&D: They cannot enrich above 5%, but can do research on other centrifuges, which is their right under the NPT and the ability to have peaceful nuclear energy.
  
  On the scientists, meh. Sometimes we let those slide for the greater good. But, hey the biggest proliferater in the world is AQ Khan, he should be in a US jail, but is not due to our relationship with Pakistan. So, if some scientist get some sanctions lifted on them as well as long as the IAEA can verify the nuclear program, that outweighs the lifting.
  
  So, we should dictate our foreign policy to if Assad likes it? That doesn't make sense.
  
  Sigh on the last point. That policy has not worked for 15 years. What you all cannot wrap your heads around is Iran is not going to give up its right to enrich. They are not. We have tried since early Bush years and it was not working.
  
  Iran was also close to a plutonium facility, which was a gamechanger. Once that would have become operational, Iran would have had two paths to a bomb. Now, that is gone. Also, Iran would have more HEU now. And, honestly, military force, really? Tell me how that works? Exactly. Then tell me the next steps. Point is, if you cross that bridge, there is no turning back.
  
  Also, Israel's reaction is more nuance and they actually support the deal more than you think. Read up in the Israeli press on that.
  
  I swear sometimes I may have been the only one that read the freaking deal on here.

  The lifting of sanctions is a gift to them in terms of money. How much will that provide them? We Have the ability to release or give them that money.
  
  No we shouldn't make decision based on Assad liking them or not but him liking our decisions is an indication of the benefit to those whose actions we are trying to diminish as a De-stabalizing force in the area.
  
  There's no way the level of worldwide sanctions will revert to what they were if Iran does not comply. It being "possible" is not good enough. Certainty of it happening shouldl have been the only consideration.
  
  I have no intention nor desire to turn back if military force is used.
  
  I already said conventional arms weren't covered. That's a negative aspect of this "deal".
  
  Letting the scientists "slide" is a negative aspect to this deal. You asked a previous poster what else he had. These are some of things that came mind influencing the opinion of it being a bad deal.
  
  How much do you think I believe Israel supports the deal. I think you are making an assumption there.
  
  If Iran isn't willing to give up it's willingness to enrich there's no reason to make a deal. Their historical credibility dictates this. There's no reason to release the frozen assets....or give them their money since that verbiage seems to please you more.
  
  
  These are the things that lend to the opinion of it being a bad deal...not....I hate Obama.
• like_that

  

  Pretty much ptown's logic is he understands the technical portions of the deal much better than anyone else, but any red flags with the deal he just brushes aside (scientists? Meh. Unfreezing assets, ain't our money who cares? Kick down the road type of deal? Don't pay attention to that. Nuclear infrastructure is still in place, but that's ok because Iran never had a nuclear program amirite, etc etc). So yea, if you brush the flaws aside its a good deal, unfortunately when evaluating a deal you simply can't brush aside every flaw, thus it's not even close to a good deal. When you make any deal with that many holes that could backfire on you its not a good deal. You refuse to look at any of the holes and focus on your technical expertise on the subject and trust the IAEA to be 100% accurate with their inspections. You're kidding yourself if Obama was worried about the long term when he made this deal. He is as short sighted as it gets for any president we ever had. He wants to get things "done" and parade them around as a success (see Obamacare, bergdahl, etc as examples). In the end I am hope I am wrong and Iran never gets their hands on nuclear weapons, but I am not confident at all. I can already see the media narrative if they do though. "The landscape now is so much different than x amount of years ago."
• sleeper

  

  Short of a war with Iran, which would be a disaster, what was the alternative?
  
  The thing about a deal is that Iran has to agree to the terms so there is always going to be some gives and takes. Obama, nor Trump, nor Clinton was going to get everything they wanted out of the deal.
  
  I'll give Obama a pass on this one.
• Con_Alma

  I'm not seeing the long term "give" provided by Iran thus resulting in a worthless deal.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1788549 wrote:I'm not seeing the long term "give" provided by Iran thus resulting in a worthless deal.

  Here's the thing Con_Alma, short of a war with Iran we aren't going to get everything we want with Iran. Short term deals are the best we can ask for to slow/limit Iran getting a weapon.
  
  Do you want a war with Iran? I don't. Sure, we would absolutely shit stomp the living hell out of them but it would cost billions if not trillions to actually win the war, not to mention further the destabilization of the ME.
• Con_Alma

  I don't disagree with much of that. But if we aren't gaining a long term benefit from these actions I'm not in favor of doing a deal just for the sake of doing a deal....especially with a regime that has the track record such as this one. I have seen nothing suggesting the world is better off long term because this much advertised deal took place.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1788556 wrote:I don't disagree with much of that. But if we aren't gaining a long term benefit from these actions I'm not in favor of doing a deal just for the sake of doing a deal....especially with a regime that has the track record such as this one. I have seen nothing suggesting the world is better off long term because this much advertised deal took place.

  In the long term, we are all dead.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1788557 wrote:In the long term, we are all dead.

  
  LOL This is very true.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1788566 wrote:LOL This is very true.

  My point is a long term deal with Iran is a pipe dream at best. There was no way Iran was ever going to agree to any long term deal.
  
  Is it the best deal? No. Is it the optimal deal given the constraints in negotiations? I believe so.
  
  I do agree the way its been marketed is overstated but the backlash is also ridiculous.
• Con_Alma

  Understand and agree. It supports my opinion that there isn't a reason to do the deal we did. Without long-term benefits we are wasting our time.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1788574 wrote:Understand and agree. It supports my opinion that there isn't a reason to do the deal we did. Without long-term benefits we are wasting our time.

  Waste of time and the government? Blasphemy!
  
  But seriously, the government is a waste of time. 90% of the people who work for the government are leeches and trash of society.
• Apple

  

  Today BHO stated his belief that ISIS can be defeated "By saying you are not strong, you are weak".
  
  From The Weekly Standard, however, video is all BHO.
  http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2001691
  
  Pathetic. Simply Pathetic.
• Spock

  

  Obama and his "ISIL" shit bothers me. WHy is he the only person on the planet that doesnt say "ISIS"
• superman

  Spock;1788608 wrote:Obama and his "ISIL" shit bothers me. WHy is he the only person on the planet that doesnt say "ISIS"

  This has been well documented. Saying ISIS reminds everyone about his failures in Iraq and Syria.
• iclfan2

  

  Confirmation that released Guantanamo prisoners have killed people...
  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/03/23/officials_say_guantanamo_transfers_have_killed_americans_130072.html
  
  
  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
• QuakerOats

  ptown_trojans_1;1788543 wrote:How much money did we give: $0. The funds that were frozen were Iranian to begin with. It was oil and other assets that have been frozen. The sanctions released their own money. So, we didn't give them anything that wasn't already theirs. I love how that always gets misconstrued.

  
  Translation --- they foment terrorism worldwide, some of which results in dead Americans; we freeze assets we have control over. They continue to foment terrorism worldwide, some of which results in dead Americans; we unfreeze assets we have control over.
  
  They win / we lose.
  We lose a lot.
  Maybe we don't know how to win anymore.
  Maybe we have participation trophy winners from years ago now participating in negotiations.
  The rise of Trump.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Carry on ...........
• QuakerOats

  obama formally reveals true colors .........little difference between communism and capitalism.
  
  http://www.infowars.com/obama-theres-little-difference-between-communism-and-capitalism/
  
  
  Stunning that such a radical could be in the WH leading our fall from within.
  
  
  Just stunning.
• Automatik

  

  STUNNING.