Back in 1994, American negotiators promised a “good deal” with North Korea. Its nuclear plants were supposed to be frozen and dismantled. International inspectors would “carefully monitor” North Korea’s compliance with the agreement and ensure the country’s return to the “community of nations.” The world, we were told, would be a safer place. . .
The FOX-bots are parroting their tired talking points here too, I see.
Yeah, yeah, we get your spiel. Whatever Obama does is bad. Every decision he makes is the worst period thing period ever period. Benghazi. Death panels. The end of America.
Now please go peddle your nonsense somewhere else.
If inspectors have concerns about undeclared sites, they must submit to Iran a request in writing that explains their concerns. Iran may counter with a proposal for “alternative means” of resolving the issue without actually allowing inspectors to inspect anything. If the inspectors and the regime can’t agree to a solution within two weeks, the dispute gets kicked up to a higher level. In other words, Iran has a license to stall for two full weeks whenever it does something suspicious.
Well, I do not know how meaningful this really is. When you delay things that much everyone knows you are doing something fishy. For whatever, you can always pile excuses the one after the other. But the trust in the actors is quickly lost when you do that.
That is not within the current realm of possibility in terms of national politics in Iran. Even Iranian liberals are entirely in favor of Iran's ability to run a peaceful nuclear program.
Since Iran is simply not going to dismantle their nuclear program entirely, we are back to the GP's question:
And the alternative is?
I would love to hear a realistic response, which I believe is "military force". Please just be honest that this is what you really want.
I would love to hear a realistic response, which I believe is "military force". Please just be honest that this is what you really want.
Since you've made up your mind, why should I bother with a reply?
Invasion isn't required, if they want nukes, so be it... but they will be cut off from the rest of civilization for it. At some point, they'll decide they want contact with the rest of the world more than they want the nukes.
This is NOT a choice between a deal and invasion, there are other options. The world isn't so black and white.
Self important people sitting around a table have reached a deal, a lot has to happen between now and it actually going into effect... (Congress gets their say, Iran's government actually gets a say, then the UN has to pass it)
Then Iran has to stick to it...
Chances of all that happening? Really low... we shall see... but you may be sorry you are such a fan of Iran...
Well, I do not know how meaningful this really is. When you delay things that much everyone knows you are doing something fishy. For whatever, you can always pile excuses the one after the other. But the trust in the actors is quickly lost when you do that.
And yet Saddam pulled that delay and deny plan for more than a decade and yet when America finally said enough is enough the whole world cries about letting inspections do their work and how the process was working...
The amount of beauty required launch 1 ship = 1 Millihelen
Only IRAN is celebrating (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:-1)
The FOX-bots are parroting their tired talking points here too, I see.
Yeah, yeah, we get your spiel. Whatever Obama does is bad. Every decision he makes is the worst period thing period ever period. Benghazi. Death panels. The end of America.
Now please go peddle your nonsense somewhere else.
Inspection Process (Score:5, Interesting)
If inspectors have concerns about undeclared sites, they must submit to Iran a request in writing that explains their concerns. Iran may counter with a proposal for “alternative means” of resolving the issue without actually allowing inspectors to inspect anything. If the inspectors and the regime can’t agree to a solution within two weeks, the dispute gets kicked up to a higher level. In other words, Iran has a license to stall for two full weeks whenever it does something suspicious.
Afte
Re:Inspection Process (Score:2)
Well, I do not know how meaningful this really is. When you delay things that much everyone knows you are doing something fishy. For whatever, you can always pile excuses the one after the other. But the trust in the actors is quickly lost when you do that.
Re: (Score:2)
There is already no trust between the actors, this is why the agreement is a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
And the alternative is?
Re: (Score:3)
You say that as if the solution isn't clear. It is, but sadly so many people can't see it.
Someone has to go first to build trust. It can't be the US for various reasons, so Iran has to go first.
If they are so peaceful, they should follow the route of South Africa. Simply dismantle their nuclear program without conditions.
Then we can start to build trust. If the removal of the nuclear program is conditioned on so many things, then there can be no trust.
Re: (Score:1)
Since Iran is simply not going to dismantle their nuclear program entirely, we are back to the GP's question:
I would love to hear a realistic response, which I believe is "military force". Please just be honest that this is what you really want.
Re: (Score:2)
I would love to hear a realistic response, which I believe is "military force". Please just be honest that this is what you really want.
Since you've made up your mind, why should I bother with a reply?
Invasion isn't required, if they want nukes, so be it... but they will be cut off from the rest of civilization for it. At some point, they'll decide they want contact with the rest of the world more than they want the nukes.
This is NOT a choice between a deal and invasion, there are other options. The world isn't so black and white.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Self important people sitting around a table have reached a deal, a lot has to happen between now and it actually going into effect... (Congress gets their say, Iran's government actually gets a say, then the UN has to pass it)
Then Iran has to stick to it...
Chances of all that happening? Really low... we shall see... but you may be sorry you are such a fan of Iran...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I do not know how meaningful this really is. When you delay things that much everyone knows you are doing something fishy. For whatever, you can always pile excuses the one after the other. But the trust in the actors is quickly lost when you do that.
And yet Saddam pulled that delay and deny plan for more than a decade and yet when America finally said enough is enough the whole world cries about letting inspections do their work and how the process was working...