ADVERTISEMENT

Iran/Nuke deal

IU1

Hall of Famer
Apr 3, 2002
10,888
123
63
Obama is the dumbest President I've seen. And dangerous. There was no reason to capitulate to Iran. He had the upper hand economically and militarily, yet felt the need to allow them to proceed with nuclear technology on a wink/wink deal they won't try and build nuclear weapons. There was no reason to even go to the table with them.

It's simply amazing what a bad idea this deal is and a reminder of how brilliant the framers were in setting up a congressional check on Presidential power. Obama would have done anything to strike a deal with Iran so he can say "look I struck a deal with Iran." You don't negotiate with countries like this, you organize the world community and you squeeze and press until they capitulate, not the other way around.
 
Last edited:
"The accord will keep Iran from producing enough material for an atomic weapon for at least 10 years and impose new provisions for inspections of Iranian facilities, including military sites."http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...an-nuclear-deal-reached/ar-AAcUja5?ocid=HPDHP

I am withholding judgment until I see more of the details. That being said why only 10 years aren't we passing the buck to the next generation. In that 10 years with the sanctions lifted Iran will grow in power and military strength.
 
Sounds like a tough, but fair deal for both sides. Remember Russia and China were involved so "make the sanctions even tougher!" wasn't really an option.

Seems there's a lot of carrots to encourage Iran to do what they've promised and the fact that the sanctions can snap back into place is a good stick.

Remember when this deal was a disaster?

H4vgXwIl.png
 
Obama is the dumbest President I've seen. And dangerous. There was no reason to capitulate to Iran. He had the upper hand economically and militarily, yet felt the need to allow them to proceed with nuclear technology on a wink/wink deal they won't try and build nuclear weapons. There was no reason to even go to the table with them.

It's simply amazing what a bad idea this deal is and a reminder of how brilliant the framers were in setting up a congressional check on Presidential power. Obama would have done anything to strike a deal with Iran so he can say "look I struck a deal with Iran." You don't negotiate with countries like this, you organize the world community and you squeeze and press until they capitulate, not the other way around.
So are you just 6 or 7 years old? That would need to be the case. You can sum up the deal they've been working on for years in just a few minutes and say it's dumb. As most everything else, I'm sure it's not perfect, but it's something. As both you and Congress need to learn, you have to start somewhere.
 
Obama is the dumbest President I've seen. And dangerous. There was no reason to capitulate to Iran. He had the upper hand economically and militarily, yet felt the need to allow them to proceed with nuclear technology on a wink/wink deal they won't try and build nuclear weapons. There was no reason to even go to the table with them.

It's simply amazing what a bad idea this deal is and a reminder of how brilliant the framers were in setting up a congressional check on Presidential power. Obama would have done anything to strike a deal with Iran so he can say "look I struck a deal with Iran." You don't negotiate with countries like this, you organize the world community and you squeeze and press until they capitulate, not the other way around.

Do we get red pistacios again?

I miss those.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IU1
"The accord will keep Iran from producing enough material for an atomic weapon for at least 10 years and impose new provisions for inspections of Iranian facilities, including military sites."http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...an-nuclear-deal-reached/ar-AAcUja5?ocid=HPDHP

I am withholding judgment until I see more of the details. That being said why only 10 years aren't we passing the buck to the next generation. In that 10 years with the sanctions lifted Iran will grow in power and military strength.
I agree with waiting until I know more about the inspection process. I have only heard small parts. I don't believe it addresses Iran's support for Hezbollah and other terrorist groups. It also didn't have any resolution to the Americans being held in Iran. It seems if Iran were to get billions of dollars from this deal, a few Americans would be a minor give back. An opportunity was missed.

Remember the failure to access facilities in Iraq? Military facilities are off limits to inspections. This concerns me a great deal. The missile ban is only 8 years. The deal only covers 10 years. How fast will they have nukes after 10 years of planning and staging equipment and resources? I am skeptical about Iran's sincerity when their leader was seen last week leading a group chanting "death to America" and "death to Israel".

What happens in 10 years? I see other countries in the region building up a nuclear program to be prepared in 10 years when Iran is free to openly build their arsenal without restraint.
 
So are you just 6 or 7 years old? That would need to be the case. You can sum up the deal they've been working on for years in just a few minutes and say it's dumb. As most everything else, I'm sure it's not perfect, but it's something. As both you and Congress need to learn, you have to start somewhere.
This deal will lift sanctions and removes the arms embargo. Iran will suddenly get a flood of money and access to weapons. Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia are the big winners. Look for Hezbollah to start receiving large numbers of advanced Russian made weapons via Iran if this deal moves out of Congress.

Iran doesn't need to build a bomb. They will have billions to buy one from North Korea as well as export their scientists and equipment to help them build a bomb that is small enough to fit on a missile. NK needs the cash, Iran will have the money. We just helped finance terrorists and the buying of dangerous weapons to be used against the US and our allies! I have a lot of experience on designing around patents and roadblocks. It often results in my own patents and advantages. Iran didn't look giddy today because they were losing a major weapons program.

You don't make this deal and come back and alter it. This is the deal and not a starting point. Inspections will be a joke. It doesn't cover what Iran calls military bases. Assuming we know where all of Iran's nuclear production facilities are, they can be moved or classified as military. Is Crane a military site? Could Iran still work toward a bomb from a military base? Iran has many options

Iran's supreme leader was leading a group shouting "death to America" 4 days ago. How well would you trust a government like that?
 
Well this thread has already devolved into imbecilic analysis....
 
You don't negotiate with countries like this, you organize the world community and you squeeze and press until they capitulate, not the other way around.
Of course you negotiate with countries like Iran, just as we've negotiated with the USSR, the PRC, and many other bad actors. Obama was able to "organize the world community" in support of sanctions only because he persuaded them that we were serious about a negotiated resolution. If we kill the P5+1 deal, we'll lose that global support, the sanctions regime will fall apart, and Iran will proceed unhindered to the bomb.
 
Sounds like a tough, but fair deal for both sides. Remember Russia and China were involved so "make the sanctions even tougher!" wasn't really an option.

Seems there's a lot of carrots to encourage Iran to do what they've promised and the fact that the sanctions can snap back into place is a good stick.

Remember when this deal was a disaster?

H4vgXwIl.png
It's always 1938 in Munich.
 
Well this thread has already devolved into imbecilic analysis....
It would be helpful if those who are fulminating against the just-announced deal would articulate what they propose to do instead.

It's impossible to say whether this is a good deal or a bad deal except in relation to the alternatives. I don't see the fulminators grappling honestly with those real world alternatives, none of which is attractive. This frees people up to rant and rave.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
It's always 1938 in Munich.
1994 in North Korea. Clinton announced a deal to curb NK's nuclear program. In 2003 North Korea admitted they had nuclear bombs. They tested them a short time later.

I would not trust a country that supports terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah to live up to an agreement of this importance. I sure would not release sanctions until they proved progress on compliance.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/29/world/asia/north-korea-nuclear-timeline---fast-facts/
 
I have no idea if the deal is good or bad. But the catch is negotiations will never, ever, lead to a perfect deal. Would you even sit down with anyone who says "I will get everything I want from these negotiations, but let's discuss it anyway"?

Rock mentions the alternatives, and that is the point. I see three options, One is a deal, but as above, it has to be something both sides agree to. That is always difficult. Next up is war. Most of the experts I have seen suggest it would be very difficult to knock out the program. So it would involve land troops. Raise your hand if that is your option. Lastly, there is continuing the sanctions. I am very skeptical the sanctions are air tight enough to really work. If Iran were an island, sure. But it isn't. The terrain sucks. Stopping everything moving toward Iran through Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Iraq has to be virtually impossible. We can't keep two prisoners locked into a prison in NY, how are we going to stop ALL supplies from getting through those areas? And as we have pushed Russia on Ukraine we have just increased the likelihood Russia will intentionally work against us in Iran.

Is this the perfect deal, no way. Is it the best deal we can get, I have no idea. I don't know what Iran's bottom line was. But option 2 I believe is worse than even a poor deal, and option 3 is only better if it works and I would take some convincing that it will work. Can we put Iran into an air tight tupperware bowl? Without that, she'll eventually get the bomb anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
1994 in North Korea. Clinton announced a deal to curb NK's nuclear program. In 2003 North Korea admitted they had nuclear bombs. They tested them a short time later.

I would not trust a country that supports terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah to live up to an agreement of this importance. I sure would not release sanctions until they proved progress on compliance.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/29/world/asia/north-korea-nuclear-timeline---fast-facts/

So what is your assessment of why the Agreed Framework deal eventually unraveled?
 
I have no idea if the deal is good or bad. But the catch is negotiations will never, ever, lead to a perfect deal. Would you even sit down with anyone who says "I will get everything I want from these negotiations, but let's discuss it anyway"?

Rock mentions the alternatives, and that is the point. I see three options, One is a deal, but as above, it has to be something both sides agree to. That is always difficult. Next up is war. Most of the experts I have seen suggest it would be very difficult to knock out the program. So it would involve land troops. Raise your hand if that is your option. Lastly, there is continuing the sanctions. I am very skeptical the sanctions are air tight enough to really work. If Iran were an island, sure. But it isn't. The terrain sucks. Stopping everything moving toward Iran through Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Iraq has to be virtually impossible. We can't keep two prisoners locked into a prison in NY, how are we going to stop ALL supplies from getting through those areas? And as we have pushed Russia on Ukraine we have just increased the likelihood Russia will intentionally work against us in Iran.

Is this the perfect deal, no way. Is it the best deal we can get, I have no idea. I don't know what Iran's bottom line was. But option 2 I believe is worse than even a poor deal, and option 3 is only better if it works and I would take some convincing that it will work. Can we put Iran into an air tight tupperware bowl? Without that, she'll eventually get the bomb anyway.
Well said, Marvin!
 
It would be helpful if those who are fulminating against the just-announced deal would articulate what they propose to do instead.

It's impossible to say whether this is a good deal or a bad deal except in relation to the alternatives. I don't see the fulminators grappling honestly with those real world alternatives, none of which is attractive. This frees people up to rant and rave.
The deal postpones Iran getting nukes assuming they are forthright and serious about abiding by the agreement. Going against my judgement and believing that, there are areas we should have held firm on.

1. Release the 4 Americans being held immediately. In private talks, I would explain that this measure is a minor point to their country, but would sway the American public opinion and show good faith to Congress that will vote in 60 days to approve the deal.
2. Sanctions would be released after an initial round of inspections are completed. The sanctions would be phased out after meeting certain stage gates.
3. Explain our knowledge that they have supported and trained organizations that killed Americans and our allies. Note that any terrorist attack against the USA or our allies with a link to Iran will be seen as an attack by proxy from Iran. That will require a reinstatement of a portion of the sanctions.

The major points of the deal won't permanently end their nuclear ambitions, but is better than waiting for Israel to attack their facilities (if they could even damage anything important). The first 2 items above are a must and reasonable. I would expect that to at least pass a veto-proof number of supporters if not actual ratification. #3 would be a nice addition, but I wouldn't expect Iran to ever agree with. We could use it as a give away.
 
So what is your assessment of why the Agreed Framework deal eventually unraveled?
There wasn't a detailed enough agreement. They never took the agreement serious as they requested and received concessions every early request. They were building underground facilities while they were saying they had agreed to stop. They saw us blink once and saw it as a license to continue their program.

Every inspection was met with some condition NK had tied to it. They got nuclear reactors built for them and they still continued to deny or use delaying tactics to frustrate inspectors. They threatened to restart their program in 2000 as compensation for the reactors being delayed. They had already resumed their program.

The deal with Iran does not include military facilities. I am expecting stalemates during requests Iran views as military and IAEA deems as essential for inspection. Iran isn't afraid of being attacked or sanctions from the UN. Russia has their back.
 
1994 in North Korea. Clinton announced a deal to curb NK's nuclear program. In 2003 North Korea admitted they had nuclear bombs. They tested them a short time later.
Let me start here: The Kim Regime is a very bad actor. It's barbaric, crazy, and dangerous. There are no good options to deal with it, because it could exterminate a horrifying number of South Korean civilians if war broke out. NK is subject to crippling sanctions and is apparently motivated only by occasional famines to make concessions. It presents an intractable problem.

Now let me tell the slightly longer version of your absurdly truncated story: A crisis arose with respect to the NK nuclear program in 1993-94, because NK's plutonium reactor was producing enough weapons grade plutonium for perhaps dozens of plutonium bombs within a matter of months, and gripped by famine, NK was threatening to assemble and test those plutonium bombs. With excruciating effort, the Clinton Administration negotiated the Agreed Framework, which put NK's plutonium program on ice, with NK shuttering its plutonium reactors and putting all of its plutonium fuel under international supervision. This resolved an imminent nuclear threat.

Then NK promptly began a secret uranium enrichment program, because NK is a very bad actor. This program came to light during the Bush administration, which had already decided to reject the supposed weakness of the Clinton approach. The response from Team Bush to NK's uranium enrichment program was to repudiate the Clinton-era plutonium agreements.

NK responded by kicking out the inspectors, cranking its plutonium reactor back up, removing its plutonium fuel from the previously sealed containers, and assembling plutonium bombs, which it promptly tested. And all of this while its offending uranium enrichment program remained many many years away from prime time. But now NK has plutonium bombs.

I think our Clinton-Bush experience with NK makes my point and not yours: Yes any deal with NK would be deeply problematic because NK is a very bad actor. But a "bad" deal absolutely was better than no deal when compared to the real world alternatives.

Just as it was in respect to NK, "Iran = Bad" is not an argument against a deal with Iran. It's just loud noises.

Sources on the above: See here, here, here, and here -- among lots of others if you Google "North Korea uranium plutonium Clinton Bush".
 
Obama is the dumbest President I've seen. And dangerous. There was no reason to capitulate to Iran. He had the upper hand economically and militarily, yet felt the need to allow them to proceed with nuclear technology on a wink/wink deal they won't try and build nuclear weapons. There was no reason to even go to the table with them.

It's simply amazing what a bad idea this deal is and a reminder of how brilliant the framers were in setting up a congressional check on Presidential power. Obama would have done anything to strike a deal with Iran so he can say "look I struck a deal with Iran." You don't negotiate with countries like this, you organize the world community and you squeeze and press until they capitulate, not the other way around.
Could you please cite the specific provisions of the agreement you're upset about? Thanks in advance.
 
The deal postpones Iran getting nukes assuming they are forthright and serious about abiding by the agreement. Going against my judgement and believing that, there are areas we should have held firm on.

1. Release the 4 Americans being held immediately. In private talks, I would explain that this measure is a minor point to their country, but would sway the American public opinion and show good faith to Congress that will vote in 60 days to approve the deal.
2. Sanctions would be released after an initial round of inspections are completed. The sanctions would be phased out after meeting certain stage gates.
3. Explain our knowledge that they have supported and trained organizations that killed Americans and our allies. Note that any terrorist attack against the USA or our allies with a link to Iran will be seen as an attack by proxy from Iran. That will require a reinstatement of a portion of the sanctions.

The major points of the deal won't permanently end their nuclear ambitions, but is better than waiting for Israel to attack their facilities (if they could even damage anything important). The first 2 items above are a must and reasonable. I would expect that to at least pass a veto-proof number of supporters if not actual ratification. #3 would be a nice addition, but I wouldn't expect Iran to ever agree with. We could use it as a give away.
This is an agreement on Iran's nuclear program. Period. Iran remains a bad actor, and we have many other issues with Iran, but this agreement is not a grab bag of grievances. It should be assessed on its own merits, without all the other goodies that critics imagine were there for the taking.+
 
  • Like
Reactions: hoot1
There wasn't a detailed enough agreement. They never took the agreement serious as they requested and received concessions every early request. They were building underground facilities while they were saying they had agreed to stop. They saw us blink once and saw it as a license to continue their program.

Every inspection was met with some condition NK had tied to it. They got nuclear reactors built for them and they still continued to deny or use delaying tactics to frustrate inspectors. They threatened to restart their program in 2000 as compensation for the reactors being delayed. They had already resumed their program.

The deal with Iran does not include military facilities. I am expecting stalemates during requests Iran views as military and IAEA deems as essential for inspection. Iran isn't afraid of being attacked or sanctions from the UN. Russia has their back.
What sources grant you the confidence to characterize the just-released agreement as you do?
 
Let me start here: The Kim Regime is a very bad actor. It's barbaric, crazy, and dangerous. There are no good options to deal with it, because it could exterminate a horrifying number of South Korean civilians if war broke out. NK is subject to crippling sanctions and is apparently motivated only by occasional famines to make concessions. It presents an intractable problem.

Now let me tell the slightly longer version of your absurdly truncated story: A crisis arose with respect to the NK nuclear program in 1993-94, because NK's plutonium reactor was producing enough weapons grade plutonium for perhaps dozens of plutonium bombs within a matter of months, and gripped by famine, NK was threatening to assemble and test those plutonium bombs. With excruciating effort, the Clinton Administration negotiated the Agreed Framework, which put NK's plutonium program on ice, with NK shuttering its plutonium reactors and putting all of its plutonium fuel under international supervision. This resolved an imminent nuclear threat.

Then NK promptly began a secret uranium enrichment program, because NK is a very bad actor. This program came to light during the Bush administration, which had already decided to reject the supposed weakness of the Clinton approach. The response from Team Bush to NK's uranium enrichment program was to repudiate the Clinton-era plutonium agreements.

NK responded by kicking out the inspectors, cranking its plutonium reactor back up, removing its plutonium fuel from the previously sealed containers, and assembling plutonium bombs, which it promptly tested. And all of this while its offending uranium enrichment program remained many many years away from prime time. But now NK has plutonium bombs.

I think our Clinton-Bush experience with NK makes my point and not yours: Yes any deal with NK would be deeply problematic because NK is a very bad actor. But a "bad" deal absolutely was better than no deal when compared to the real world alternatives.

Just as it was in respect to NK, "Iran = Bad" is not an argument against a deal with Iran. It's just loud noises.

Sources on the above: See here, here, here, and here -- among lots of others if you Google "North Korea uranium plutonium Clinton Bush".
I would suggest people do what you have done and read the different views on the North Korea deal, if they are interested. I posted a CNN article that had a easy timeline that matched my memory of the events. It is an outline of events. Each milestone deserves individual research. I am not writing a research a paper. I am pointing out an agreement that led to a nuclear weapon in nearly the same duration as this deal.

The post wasn't a slam on Clinton or Bush. It is a warning that when you are dealing with North Korea or Iran, or to an increasing degree, Russia and China, following agreements will only be done as long as it serves their purpose. Once they get what they want, they have no incentive to follow the agreement. China and Russia will be hard to convince to allow sanctions be placed back on if Iran decides they don't want to grant access to some facilities or turn over all their nuclear material. Look for Russia to side with Iran on objections. This would leave the IAEA ineffective.

I was wrong on one thing. The weapons embargo isn't lifted immediately, but after 5 years. I question how effective that has been, but at least on the surface that is better than open access. I hope in 10 years, we see that Iran lived up to the agreement and have given up the quest for nuclear weapons. It then depends on factors such as we know exactly how much nuclear material they actually have and that we have located all the sites that are capable of producing nuclear material.

Iran is working on rockets to put small satellites in orbit and are close to launching them. Iran denies they are working on larger payload rockets despite claims that they are. It doesn't appear this agreement does anything about ICBM development.

Bringing our 4 people home is unrelated, but the best time to negotiate their release. They are on their own now.

This post is already too long. If you trust Iran, then you should be happy. If you don't trust Iran, then this deal just relieves Iran of their sanctions and doesn't change their eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons. I don't see any reason to trust a country that supports and trains terrorists.
 
I would suggest people do what you have done and read the different views on the North Korea deal, if they are interested. I posted a CNN article that had a easy timeline that matched my memory of the events. It is an outline of events. Each milestone deserves individual research. I am not writing a research a paper. I am pointing out an agreement that led to a nuclear weapon in nearly the same duration as this deal.

The post wasn't a slam on Clinton or Bush. It is a warning that when you are dealing with North Korea or Iran, or to an increasing degree, Russia and China, following agreements will only be done as long as it serves their purpose. Once they get what they want, they have no incentive to follow the agreement. China and Russia will be hard to convince to allow sanctions be placed back on if Iran decides they don't want to grant access to some facilities or turn over all their nuclear material. Look for Russia to side with Iran on objections. This would leave the IAEA ineffective.

I was wrong on one thing. The weapons embargo isn't lifted immediately, but after 5 years. I question how effective that has been, but at least on the surface that is better than open access. I hope in 10 years, we see that Iran lived up to the agreement and have given up the quest for nuclear weapons. It then depends on factors such as we know exactly how much nuclear material they actually have and that we have located all the sites that are capable of producing nuclear material.

Iran is working on rockets to put small satellites in orbit and are close to launching them. Iran denies they are working on larger payload rockets despite claims that they are. It doesn't appear this agreement does anything about ICBM development.

Bringing our 4 people home is unrelated, but the best time to negotiate their release. They are on their own now.

This post is already too long. If you trust Iran, then you should be happy. If you don't trust Iran, then this deal just relieves Iran of their sanctions and doesn't change their eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons. I don't see any reason to trust a country that supports and trains terrorists.

I don't think anyone trusts Iran, do they? Certainly not the President or anyone in Congress. You don't have to negotiate with your friends, you have to with your enemies. This is a start, and nothing more. And obviously will still be closely observed.
 
I don't think anyone trusts Iran, do they? Certainly not the President or anyone in Congress. You don't have to negotiate with your friends, you have to with your enemies. This is a start, and nothing more. And obviously will still be closely observed.
Iran seems to be happy with the deal.
 
Obama is the dumbest President I've seen. And dangerous. There was no reason to capitulate to Iran. He had the upper hand economically and militarily, yet felt the need to allow them to proceed with nuclear technology on a wink/wink deal they won't try and build nuclear weapons. There was no reason to even go to the table with them.

It's simply amazing what a bad idea this deal is and a reminder of how brilliant the framers were in setting up a congressional check on Presidential power. Obama would have done anything to strike a deal with Iran so he can say "look I struck a deal with Iran." You don't negotiate with countries like this, you organize the world community and you squeeze and press until they capitulate, not the other way around.

This only turns out well if full diplomatic relations are restored quickly. Otherwise a total waste. Fwiw, I think shariff is quite a moderate guy. He is US educated. Just the ayatollah is... bleh.

Also thread fyi... Khamenei is not even Persian, but Azeri.
 
So what? The nature of a successful deal is that both sides can find something to be happy about.
We will enjoy $2 gas and postpone Iranian nuclear weapons. Iran gets their assets back and access to income to fund their ongoing humanitarian efforts across the region. We all should all be happy!
 
We will enjoy $2 gas and postpone Iranian nuclear weapons. Iran gets their assets back and access to income to fund their ongoing humanitarian efforts across the region. We all should all be happy!
What I'm saying is if your idea of a good deal is that the other guy is unhappy, I hope you stay the hell out of diplomacy.
 
This only turns out well if full diplomatic relations are restored quickly. Otherwise a total waste. Fwiw, I think shariff is quite a moderate guy. He is US educated. Just the ayatollah is... bleh.

Also thread fyi... Khamenei is not even Persian, but Azeri.
It's a great deal! $2 gas! I am not sure we are ready to restaff our embassy.
 
I don't think anyone trusts Iran, do they? Certainly not the President or anyone in Congress. You don't have to negotiate with your friends, you have to with your enemies. This is a start, and nothing more. And obviously will still be closely observed.
We didn't have to negotiate with Iran, we are superior economically and militarily. We brought ourself to their level. We could have kept squeezing them until they capitulated. Instead we blew up the bridge with our only ally in the region, Israel. We enabled a country who sponsors terrorism. We put them in a better financial position and we got nothing out of this, not even better security.
 
We didn't have to negotiate with Iran, we are superior economically and militarily. We brought ourself to their level. We could have kept squeezing them until they capitulated. Instead we blew up the bridge with our only ally in the region, Israel. We enabled a country who sponsors terrorism. We put them in a better financial position and we got nothing out of this, not even better security.
Except, according to almost every single expert, that's complete rubbish. Iran was too close to the bomb to wait them out. Sanctions weren't going to work. Something had to be done. Either a deal or an invasion.
 
What I'm saying is if your idea of a good deal is that the other guy is unhappy, I hope you stay the hell out of diplomacy.
With respect to diplomacy, I negotiate with firms in China, Italy, France, Germany, and Switzerland. One of those listed will lie to your face, sign a contract and simply ignore written language in specifications, delivery dates, or anything they never planned to do in the first place, and then threaten to tie your equipment up in arbitration at a court other than the one specified in your contract. This forces companies to often agree with them to avoid a long delay in the project.

The only way to avoid that is to withhold enough money until shipped and qualified on-site that forces them to live up to the contract. There are a lot of things we do to give them an incentive to follow the rules. Without them, we get screwed and are not happy. I would rather not deal with those entities, but often we don't have a choice.

Giving up the sanctions upfront was my biggest issue. Whether they follow through or not without the sanctions being released, we were in no worse position down the road.

Just remember, $2 gas! Forget anything else. Cheap gas will make the masses happy. Everyone wins.
 
With respect to diplomacy, I negotiate with firms in China, Italy, France, Germany, and Switzerland. One of those listed will lie to your face, sign a contract and simply ignore written language in specifications, delivery dates, or anything they never planned to do in the first place, and then threaten to tie your equipment up in arbitration at a court other than the one specified in your contract. This forces companies to often agree with them to avoid a long delay in the project.

The only way to avoid that is to withhold enough money until shipped and qualified on-site that forces them to live up to the contract. There are a lot of things we do to give them an incentive to follow the rules. Without them, we get screwed and are not happy. I would rather not deal with those entities, but often we don't have a choice.

Giving up the sanctions upfront was my biggest issue. Whether they follow through or not without the sanctions being released, we were in no worse position down the road.

Just remember, $2 gas! Forget anything else. Cheap gas will make the masses happy. Everyone wins.

Gee, bud, your description sounds just like my experience in dealing with U.S. companies. It's heartening to know that it's not just American executives who will play every bit of leverage they have to serve their short-term financial interests.

Though I have not seen firm details of the deal, my understanding is that sanctions can be reimposed if compliance wanes. That puts us in essentially the same position down the road.
 
Obama is the dumbest President I've seen. And dangerous. There was no reason to capitulate to Iran. He had the upper hand economically and militarily, yet felt the need to allow them to proceed with nuclear technology on a wink/wink deal they won't try and build nuclear weapons. There was no reason to even go to the table with them.

It's simply amazing what a bad idea this deal is and a reminder of how brilliant the framers were in setting up a congressional check on Presidential power. Obama would have done anything to strike a deal with Iran so he can say "look I struck a deal with Iran." You don't negotiate with countries like this, you organize the world community and you squeeze and press until they capitulate, not the other way around.
OK, smarty man, whether he did this deal or not, Obama is a dumbest person you've seen. You've been saying that since he was elected, even perhaps since you have first heard of his name; after all, his name sounds like a Muslim. He has all the credentials to hate. He is a Democrat, perhaps liberal, went to Ivy league colleges, and quite possibly an "intellectual." Furthermore, his name sounds like a Muslim, and you think he is a Muslim born in Kenya. Assuming that you are an adult, you should learn to to use superlative properly. You sound like an 8 year old, when told he should not play with a toy his father does not approve of, shouting "I hate you. I hate you. You are the worst dad in the whole world!"

On the specific topic on hand, what do you think should've been done? There are a few options:
1) Don't interfere with them. Consequences: they will produce nuclear bombs.
2) Monitor closely: Consequences: they will produce nuclear bombs.
3) Nuke them: Really? I am sure this is what you would advocate.
4) Go to church everyday and pray to God that Iran will not produce nuclear arsenal. It "worked" in the Biblical times but today is not the Biblical time. You have a warped sense of times, amigo.

So, tell us, smartest man in the world! How do you stop Iran going nuclear w/o negotiating.
 
Last edited:
Gee, bud, your description sounds just like my experience in dealing with U.S. companies. It's heartening to know that it's not just American executives who will play every bit of leverage they have to serve their short-term financial interests.

Though I have not seen firm details of the deal, my understanding is that sanctions can be reimposed if compliance wanes. That puts us in essentially the same position down the road.
Like I posted, only one country I work with is prone to that action. Most (including domestic vendors) want to give the customer what is agreed upon and speak up if there is a concern with the requirements.
 
It would be helpful if those who are fulminating against the just-announced deal would articulate what they propose to do instead.

My hunch is that they would advocate to "bomb Iran back to the stone age." That seems to be the only solution they seem to know. What a Christian thought!
 
My hunch is that they would advocate to "bomb Iran back to the stone age." That seems to be the only solution they seem to know. What a Christian thought!

Well M,

You seem to be the smartest guy in the room here about this deal. Maybe you can tell me the 4 or 5 vital points that the Shia Iran agreed to. I've done considerable reading and all I can find is some vague references to giving up some centrifuges, giving up some enriched uranium, and 24 day notice inspections. There is nothing about stopping research and production of delivery systems, stopping research into better bombs, or even stopping research into ways to enrich without using old-fashioned centrifuges. I carefully read POTUS and others comments about this and all I see are his usual platitudes suggesting that it was this deal or war, this is the best we can do, we are safer, and we don't trust 'em. He specifically acknowledged that Iran will not stop funding terrorism (even though we released $150b+ to them) or that Iran will not talk about release of the hostages and that he never asked about those two items.

On the face, it doesn't look like we accomplished very much, but I am willing to listen to your comments.
 
Like I posted, only one country I work with is prone to that action. Most (including domestic vendors) want to give the customer what is agreed upon and speak up if there is a concern with the requirements.
Your problem is one of culture rather than a party not living up to the specific terms of a contract. Things can work just fine when dealing with Chinese vendors--they just don't work quite the same way as they do when dealing with vendors in other countries.
 
Last edited:
Well M,

You seem to be the smartest guy in the room here about this deal. Maybe you can tell me the 4 or 5 vital points that the Shia Iran agreed to. I've done considerable reading and all I can find is some vague references to giving up some centrifuges, giving up some enriched uranium, and 24 day notice inspections. There is nothing about stopping research and production of delivery systems, stopping research into better bombs, or even stopping research into ways to enrich without using old-fashioned centrifuges. I carefully read POTUS and others comments about this and all I see are his usual platitudes suggesting that it was this deal or war, this is the best we can do, we are safer, and we don't trust 'em. He specifically acknowledged that Iran will not stop funding terrorism (even though we released $150b+ to them) or that Iran will not talk about release of the hostages and that he never asked about those two items.

On the face, it doesn't look like we accomplished very much, but I am willing to listen to your comments.
Here's what was accomplished:
Iran will radically reduce it's uranium stockpile.
Iran will limit enrichment to 3.67%, suitable for fuel, useless for bombs.
Iran will redesign it's heavy-water plant to make it unsuitable to produce weapons-grade plutonium, and spent fuel rods will be shipped out of the country, anyway, just to be safe.
IAEA will have continuous monitoring of declared nuclear sites. Iran will agree to the additional protocols for requests to visit suspicious other sites. These requests are generally ruled on within 24 hours. The hullaballoo over Iran delaying access refers specifically to military sites. The key here is the continuous monitoring of declared sites. IAEA will know if fissile material goes missing.
Sanctions are NOT lifted until IAEA has certified that Iran has met its half of the bargain.

Some of that information was confirmed by the President's speech; it wasn't just platitudes, regardless of whether or not you were actually listening. The main points in more detail here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33521655

I would humbly suggest it is incumbent upon all those who think this is the end of the world, or proves that Obama is - how was the OP phrased? - the "dumbest President ever" to explain why they have a problem with these provisions and what realistic alternative they think would have been an improvement.
 
ADVERTISEMENT