Iran nuclear deal

[IU1]

Never thought I'd see the day when our President alienates Israel to hand the Iranian hardliners whatever they wanted. Obama was giddy at the mic. He spouted off 3 false choices and tried to sell how this is a great deal for the U.S., the only problem was he never said what the US gets, he was just giddy to come to an agreement.

If anyone can explain why this is a great deal for the U.S., please chime in.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

We aline ourselfs with an anti-House of Saud power.


Beginning to build trust with a old friend that is currently in the fight against ISIS. Being firm with Israel that a two state deal is a must. Demonstrating to the house of Saud that "Champaign and oysters on the Potomac are over". We can always go to war if the deal fails. It's a no brainer.
This post was edited on 4/2 11:25 PM by Rockport Zebra

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

But, Obama!

You know damn well a large number of people on the right will never give this a chance, and you know why.

If President Romney announced this, the right would be creaming their pants over it right now.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

Calm down Hero

Let the right do themselves in. Sit back and watch the show. PS no more Kentucky is a backward state jokes are allowed after watching the Indiana Legislature lay waste to rational behavior.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Cal's a cheater!

That's all I got left after that.

And I don't even really believe it.

goat

 

[Rockfish1]

LOL

"PS no more Kentucky is a backward state jokes are allowed after watching the Indiana Legislature lay waste to rational behavior."

I hate it when you're right.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

He dosn't have to cheat anymore.

Have you ever watched a Kentucky game with Kentucky fans? Ugly.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I can imagine.

I actually have some UK fan friends.

But watching a UK game with IU fans has to be much worse.

There is nothing more painful than watching a discussion about Cal on the free board. Worldwide Wes! Cheating! Derrick Rose! Satan! Refs! GRGHAGHABLE!

 

[Rockport Zebra]

I was shocked last year.

8 miles from my house is a country club/golf course in Rockport, just across the bridge. I live with the Kentucky fans so I went over to eat and watch IU among friends. They all wanted the coach fired. The transformation in 8 miles was astounding.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Connecting your dots

Obama is a Shia.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

I call bull crap.

Making peace with Iran and building a trusting relationship will calm the waters. We must take the first step after the Shaw. Have a little perspective man.

 

[zeke4ahs]

don't worry

Cal still cheats. Can give you the name of two high school coaches that know it. And Dakich obviously knows...
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Cripes sake

Lighten up man. You are the one who highlighted the 3 Shia policy wins, not me.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

Lighten up.


I am the one agreeing with reconciliation, a fundamental change in American policy. I take the risky position. What is the downside?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

"a fundamental change in American policy"

We made the Jews and the Sunni allies and there is an active Sunni/Shia war on two fronts as I write this. And you ask about downside?

 

[meridian]

You gotta be kidding! You probably meant

1) Your president dared not to obey the nation, which you think is our boss.
2) Obama did not give Iran whatever they wanted. You just think or wish that he did so that you can bitch about him.

Sorry he did not announce that he would bomb Iran tomorrow. However, because of that, you or your son will not die in the far-away land.

Since you don't seem to know what they agreed upon, but then I doubt you would understand such difficult dealings, I searched for an article that explains the deal in plain English such that even you can understand what they agreed upon.

One section deals with:
Centrifuges
Term: Iran will be allowed about 6,000 centrifuges: 5,000 at its Natanz facility and 1,000 at Fordow. It can only use first-generation IR-1 centrifuges, and has to give up other models.


Plain English: Centrifuges are pieces of equipment you use to enrich uranium, a natural ore, into nuclear fuel. If you enrich uranium long enough in centrifuges, it can be used to make a nuclear bomb. Iran currently has about 20,000 centrifuges, so it will have to give most of them up. It will also be allowed to use only its very old, first-generation centrifuges.


Why it matters: This means Iran will have a much smaller nuclear program, in terms of its ability to create nuclear fuel or, potentially, nuclear material for a bomb. It will also be restricted to its oldest, slowest, least capable centrifuges. The US had earlier hinted it might allow 6,500 centrifuges, so this is a favorable outcome for the US.
For the rest of the argument, you can click the following link:
Iran Deal in Plain English

This post was edited on 4/3 3:08 AM by meridian

 

[Rockfish1]

THANKS OBAMA!

I'm very happy that the board's reverse weather vane opposes the new framework. (Inflation and interest rates remain exceptionally low, by the way.) Here is a good piece on the futility of the military option. Here is a Venn diagram that illustrates the intersection between your perceptions and reality:

 

[Rockfish1]

Oh, I forgot

Here is the symbol for the null set, which is what the opponents of negotiation offer as an alternative:

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Do you get Wes

It used to be some older guy hanging out befriending 16 year old boys was creepy. He isn't a coach, he isn't an agent, he isn't a scout. Just what is he? I have never heard of someone similar in baseball or football.

Wes may be on the up and up, he may be Sam Gelbart. I don't know, but I am not sure anyone does. It is interesting that the only coach to publicly question Wes is Pitino and it seems to have hurt Pitino's recruiting.

The other question about Cal was when the Memphis mansion was robbed and his players reported several expensive fur coats stolen. After the media found the report and published it, the report was amended to say the coats were fake.

Those were the reasons when people on the free board suggested Cal before Sampson and Crean I opposed the idea. Now, who knew we would find a way to screw up both hires.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

There are no alternatives

By other means, we can slow Iran and make it painful but we cannot stop them without a ground invasion.

The key to any deal is verification/monitoring. If that is good, then a deal is great. The question comes up on compliance. Are we willing to play bad cop if we believe they are not compliant. Or more accurately, does Iran believe that. If not, I fear the temptation to push the envelope (see Saddam) will be strong.

 

[Rockfish1]

Yep

Your point about verification is key. The smart takes I'm reading all say that we have to be able to detect the new secret stuff that Iran might try to pull off. They won't cheat on the stuff we already know about.

 

[IU1]

Ridiculous

We are helping Iran take over Iraq as they fight ISIS. Is this Obama's grand plan or the result of pulling out of Iraq too early and too completely? You seem to give him credit for some Middle East master plan whereas I don't think there's a plan at all. He's a spectator with a limited policy of providing air support to whomever needs it today with no long term planning or allying with Middle Eastern groups that could stabilize the region and advance our interests.

This is a policy of "hope" and not one of design with little chance of improving American interests in the Middle East let alone improve quality of life for the civilians who live there.

This post was edited on 4/3 8:26 AM by IU1

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Not exactly marv

The key to any deal is the restrictions and standards that Iran must live up to; then the verification procedures come subsequent. As near as I can tell, there is ambiguity about the restrictions and standards and much left to be done.

I don't understand your "no alternatives" comment. Any negotiation is 100% about alternatives.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

How do you stop Iran

I see two alternatives, we reach a deal with them, we land invade. Are there alternatives other than those two that will stop Iran?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

We make a deal with them

You act as though there is only one deal to be made.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Good grief

you're become so deranged in your dire need for this administration to fail that you're now literally looking for any foothold that you can to pick this apart. How about celebrating the fact that, at least for now, we're not headed for a war with a bad actor?

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Shorter CoH

listen here Iran, this is what's gonna happen:
1. First of all, you're all going on the terror watch list, because we know you're all terrorists
2. You're going to say "God Bless 'merica" everyday
3. You're going to say "sorry we screwed up please don't attack us"
4. You're going to be nice to Israel, because they're infallible

If at any point we decide you're not compliant, our country stars are going to write bullshit songs to fire us up and then we're gonna invade your asses and work up a number 6 on ya! Yee-haw!

 

[Sope Creek]

Shorter CO Hoosier . . .

Obama = BAD, even if the deal he strikes with Iran is a helluva lot better than anything the GOP has even thought about . . . . which I interpret as the fact that Obama has done something better than anything the GOP has even thought about is bad . . . for the GOP.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Really?

I guess I missed the "going to war with a bad actor" alternative. Who proposed that?

Looks to me like you've accepted "this deal or war" talking point as true. That position is only a Shia/Iranian tactic that nobody knows how we met.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I don't know how many deals there are

It is a negotiation. There are points they have to give on, points we have to give on. I doubt we can just walk to the table and tell them they must accept everything we ask. My guess is the Venn Diagram of everything we want and everything they want would show a very small area of intersection.

Now, maybe this deal isn't the best we can do. I don't know.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I missed that too

Where did I say this deal was bad?

But this much is true about this deal and the process:

1. Obama is a demonstrably bad negotiator.
2. Obama gave up significant leverage last year for no apparent return
3. Obama lifted terrorism embargoes and civil sanctions against Iran for unknown returns
4. Obama has kept a number of negotiating points confidential.
5. Obama leaked secret details about the Israeli nuclear program
6. Obama does not want to subject his deal to any oversight.
7. The Shia will have the bomb.
8. The Sunnis won't but likely will have the bomb


But hey, this might be a great deal.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I agree with your last point

Because Obama won't allow any oversight or any participation from outside of his circle is telling. But hey, this might be a great deal.

 

[hoot1]

COH, Could you give us more details...

...on what you are suggesting when you write, "Obama gave up significant leverage last year for no apparent return"?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

He relaxed sanctions last year.

We don't know what Iran did in return. But we do know Obama would not share with congress any of the details.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Questions For Those Who Know

Does this deal require Iran's commitment to a 2-state solution?

Does this deal require Iran to put a leash on that Hamas puppy they like to play with?

Does this deal require Iranian anti-terror commitments/assistance in the region?

Does this deal require Iran to commit to religious freedom or equal treatment of women and homosexuals?

Or is this deal just about when Iran gets nuclear weapons fuel?

I WANT to trust Iran, but I don't.

 

[hoot1]

Details on sanctions lifted

This essay gives a detailed descriptions of the sanctions lifted during negotiations with Iran and concludes with the following,

Suspension of sanctions could result in useful relief for some non-U.S. companies. As indicated, however, sanctions suspension is subject to critical limitations. Furthermore, suspensions could be terminated at any time. For example, initiatives in the U.S. Congress to enact additional Iran sanctions measures could result in Iran's withdrawal from the Agreement which would, in turn, lead to reimposition of suspended sanctions. Companies are well advised to monitor developments closely.

Whether this relief can be described as "significant" is subject to debate in my view with the possibility of the sanctions being reimposed being of the utmost importance.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

This deal will strengthen

the Shia Mullahs control of the country. The sanctions jeopardized their control which is why the Mullahs came to the table. Maybe strengthening the Shia hand is good.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Don't be so sure about that essay

There is judicial authority that a future POTUS cannot change Obama's deal once it takes effect. It almost becomes a force of law without congressional approval. The Cotton letter might change this but I don't know. I'm on my phone and don't have a way to do the research on this point.

 

[mjvcaj]

You cannot stop them, but you can bankrupt them

Force Iran into North Korean like conditions. We are already on that path. This deal eliminates the economic restraint and puts the power back into the World's largest terrorism backers.

 

[mjvcaj]

The deal really wasn't that great

The beauty of it was the ability of the U.S. to get off the hook as the primary World police. That part is nice, but at the same time, you assuming the incompetence of Europe doesn't come into play, which it undoubtedly will.

To me, the bigger issue is, we are freeing up the Iranian economy to rebound. This means more money will be flowing to terrorism.