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. . .
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Tuesday July 14, 2015 @02:19PM (#50110147)
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.
Yeah. What an utter dolt, getting Iran to sit down with the current Great Powers and hammer out an agreement. What an utter incompetent. He should totally just keep doing what Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II did, because boy oh boy, they should had fantastic fucking success with Iran.
You know, I don't think Obama is the best president ever, not even in the top ten, but it takes a complete fucking retard or partisan lunatic to think that somehow he is some sort of bottom-rung President. But because he's black, because he's a Democrat, and because, well I dunno, because he isn't Ron Fucking Paul, somehow in some peoples' eyes he's the second coming of Satan or something.
Yeah. What an utter dolt, getting Iran to sit down with the current Great Powers and hammer out an agreement.
But, it appears to be a really fucked up agreement he signed. I hesitate to us the word negotiate, because this admin apparently doesn't know how to do that.
We had Iran in a vice and sanctions had them by the balls. We should have been negotiating from a major place of POWER. We should have insisted ALL centrifuges be destroyed, not just 2/3 of them. From what I can tell, we don't have on the spot
It doesn't appear to be a fucked-up agreement. It seems perfectly reasonable, hence the fact it being made. It wasn't just between the US and Iran, remember.
Iran doesn't want nuclear weapons. Hell, they issued a Fatwa decreeing as much, and Mossad seems to believe them. You can keep parroting the nonsense you heard the talking heads spew, but you are spouting abject bullshit.
Yeah. What an utter dolt, getting Iran to sit down with the current Great Powers and hammer out an agreement. What an utter incompetent. He should totally just keep doing what Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II did, because boy oh boy, they should had fantastic fucking success with Iran.
You'll note that Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II didn't manage to get a toothless and unenforceable agreement that is unlikely to inconvenience Iran on its trip to getting a nuclear weapon when it wishes. If getting such an agreement is a mark of success to you it might be time to set the bar higher.
You know, I don't think Obama is the best president ever, not even in the top ten, but it takes a complete fucking retard or partisan lunatic to think that somehow he is some sort of bottom-rung President.
Or the reverse of that. Nixon was a better president and Nixon almost went to jail. Even Jimmy Carter's legacy now looks better in retrospect. The damage he has helped heap on the US won't easily be
I think you're an idiot. Tell me, how is Obama the worst president ever? Is it his cleaning up of Bush's complete fuck up of the economy... or that he's not siding with sociopath murderers in attacking Iran.. or is it the millions of people who now have health insurance.... please, do tell. I get it, you're just a stupid fucking partisan hack who can't stand that Obama won, and your offshoring, company destroying, money sucking robot didn't win. Too fucking bad.
Obama's made some mistakes, yes... but all his mistakes combined don't add up to any given year of Bush II's. But yeh, you're still a fucking idiot and partisan hack. You don't need optimism, you need surgery to have your head removed from your ass. Maybe Obamacare will pay for it.
Attacking Libya (directly) and Syria (by proxy) is what Obama has done that is absolutely fucking stupid, if we are to believe that such matters are determined by the presidential IQ. At this point I guess everyone has forgotten he got a Nobel prize, which must either have been a joke prize or a desperate move to have the US not invade or otherwise destroy countries (well, the US did not invade but still got what it wanted)
What about that little civil war on European soil. Great job. The sociopath murderers
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.
After two weeks, the problem gets handed over to the Joint Commission, a new body whose membership and responsibility is defined in Annex IV to the agreement. Basically, the commission has eight members, one for each of the countries who are party to the agreement, plus the EU. A majority of five commission members may “advise” Iran on how to resolve the inspectors’ concerns. The commission has seven days to address the inspectors’ concerns, after which Iran has three days to implement any recommended measures. So, at minimum, Iran will have 24 days to clean up any suspicious sites before inspectors get a first look.
But what if Iran doesn’t comply with the commission’s requests within three days? Alas, that is a mystery. Section Q ends with the pronouncement that Iran will implement such measures. However, there is a “Dispute Resolution Mechanism” described in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the main body of the deal. This process requires another 50 days — the precise length is difficult to discern from the text, since it involves three separate levels of evaluation. So in practice, Iran may be looking at a minimum of two and a half months before they have to do anything.
And what if the inspectors are still left out in the cold? Then the only option left for the U.S. (or the U.K. or France) is to go to the UN Security Council and try to blow up the entire deal, in accordance with the “snapback” provisions of the deal.
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:Only IRAN is celebrating (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.
Re: (Score:2)
which president hung a banner stating "mission accomplished"? just asking
Re:Only IRAN is celebrating (Score:4, Insightful)
Bush, who was an idiot. Right up there with Obama, who is also an idiot.
Way too many people are rooting for one side or the other, as if these are sports teams. Both sides are idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Way too many people are rooting for one side or the other, as if these are sports teams. Both sides are idiots.
if both sides are idiots then it is even more important that they agree to not be idiots. Where else can you start?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, I think Obama is on track to dig to a new LOW, and carve out a well entrenched place in history as the new WORST president, evar....
I mean...he's making Carter and Bush 2 look like enlightened leaders at this point.
I just hope we can survive another year and a half of him, I'm not optimistic at this point.
Re:Only IRAN is celebrating (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah. What an utter dolt, getting Iran to sit down with the current Great Powers and hammer out an agreement. What an utter incompetent. He should totally just keep doing what Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II did, because boy oh boy, they should had fantastic fucking success with Iran.
You know, I don't think Obama is the best president ever, not even in the top ten, but it takes a complete fucking retard or partisan lunatic to think that somehow he is some sort of bottom-rung President. But because he's black, because he's a Democrat, and because, well I dunno, because he isn't Ron Fucking Paul, somehow in some peoples' eyes he's the second coming of Satan or something.
Re: (Score:2)
But, it appears to be a really fucked up agreement he signed. I hesitate to us the word negotiate, because this admin apparently doesn't know how to do that.
We had Iran in a vice and sanctions had them by the balls. We should have been negotiating from a major place of POWER. We should have insisted ALL centrifuges be destroyed, not just 2/3 of them. From what I can tell, we don't have on the spot
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't appear to be a fucked-up agreement. It seems perfectly reasonable, hence the fact it being made. It wasn't just between the US and Iran, remember.
Iran doesn't want nuclear weapons. Hell, they issued a Fatwa decreeing as much, and Mossad seems to believe them. You can keep parroting the nonsense you heard the talking heads spew, but you are spouting abject bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
They say that, but so far, no one can find verification of said fatwa....
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. What an utter dolt, getting Iran to sit down with the current Great Powers and hammer out an agreement. What an utter incompetent. He should totally just keep doing what Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II did, because boy oh boy, they should had fantastic fucking success with Iran.
You'll note that Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II didn't manage to get a toothless and unenforceable agreement that is unlikely to inconvenience Iran on its trip to getting a nuclear weapon when it wishes. If getting such an agreement is a mark of success to you it might be time to set the bar higher.
You know, I don't think Obama is the best president ever, not even in the top ten, but it takes a complete fucking retard or partisan lunatic to think that somehow he is some sort of bottom-rung President.
Or the reverse of that. Nixon was a better president and Nixon almost went to jail. Even Jimmy Carter's legacy now looks better in retrospect. The damage he has helped heap on the US won't easily be
Re:Only IRAN is celebrating (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama's made some mistakes, yes... but all his mistakes combined don't add up to any given year of Bush II's. But yeh, you're still a fucking idiot and partisan hack. You don't need optimism, you need surgery to have your head removed from your ass. Maybe Obamacare will pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Attacking Libya (directly) and Syria (by proxy) is what Obama has done that is absolutely fucking stupid, if we are to believe that such matters are determined by the presidential IQ.
At this point I guess everyone has forgotten he got a Nobel prize, which must either have been a joke prize or a desperate move to have the US not invade or otherwise destroy countries (well, the US did not invade but still got what it wanted)
What about that little civil war on European soil. Great job. The sociopath murderers
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
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.
After two weeks, the problem gets handed over to the Joint Commission, a new body whose membership and responsibility is defined in Annex IV to the agreement. Basically, the commission has eight members, one for each of the countries who are party to the agreement, plus the EU. A majority of five commission members may “advise” Iran on how to resolve the inspectors’ concerns. The commission has seven days to address the inspectors’ concerns, after which Iran has three days to implement any recommended measures. So, at minimum, Iran will have 24 days to clean up any suspicious sites before inspectors get a first look.
But what if Iran doesn’t comply with the commission’s requests within three days? Alas, that is a mystery. Section Q ends with the pronouncement that Iran will implement such measures. However, there is a “Dispute Resolution Mechanism” described in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the main body of the deal. This process requires another 50 days — the precise length is difficult to discern from the text, since it involves three separate levels of evaluation. So in practice, Iran may be looking at a minimum of two and a half months before they have to do anything.
And what if the inspectors are still left out in the cold? Then the only option left for the U.S. (or the U.K. or France) is to go to the UN Security Council and try to blow up the entire deal, in accordance with the “snapback” provisions of the deal.
http://www.nationalreview.com/... [slashdot.org]> Read more
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.
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...