• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US-led nuke negotiators allowed inspections loopholes for Iran

American

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,114
Reaction score
33,456
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
US-led nuke negotiators allowed inspections loopholes for Iran | Fox News

The U.S. and world powers had a secret deal with Iran to allow the Islamic Republic to dodge restrictions in last year's landmark nuclear deal, Fox News has confirmed.
Reuters reported Thursday that the findings are based on information from several officials involved in the negotiations. The full details are set to be published by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security as early as Thursday.
Iran is not being held to the publicly announced conditions of the deal, which was supposed to allow a decade of inspections and transparency aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The institute's president, David Albright, told Reuters that the “exemptions or loopholes are happening in secret, and it appears that they favor Iran.”
Click to expand...
Who should we thank for this, that incompetent boob John Kerry or Obama himself? You decide. I think something akin to these sorts of loopholes were predicted by critics. I'm stunned by the level of transparency. :doh
 
So...

Sanctions get lifted.

US gives money back to Iran.

Iran gives up four hostages (and immediately takes another)

Iran keeps its nuclear material.


Yep...Obama is a master negotiator, all right.

:roll:
 
Mycroft said:
So...

Sanctions get lifted.

US gives money back to Iran.

Iran gives up four hostages (and immediately takes another)

Iran keeps its nuclear material.


Yep...Obama is a master negotiator, all right.

:roll:
Click to expand...

Except Iran did not keep its nuclear material.

Of course, the right wing sites like the link in the OP, which also shows a triumphant Trump leading the way, will continue to claim that the Iran nuclear deal was flawed. If a Republican president had made the exact same deal, then it would have been the best thing ever to happen in the history of international agreements.

One thing that the right wing did do that helped the agreement along: The US took out Iraq, one of Iran's major enemies. Without the threat of Iraq, Iran was more willing to ditch its nuclear program in order to get back the money that had been frozen by the US and its allies.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Except Iran did not keep its nuclear material.

Of course, the right wing sites like the link in the OP, which also shows a triumphant Trump leading the way, will continue to claim that the Iran nuclear deal was flawed. If a Republican president had made the exact same deal, then it would have been the best thing ever to happen in the history of international agreements.

One thing that the right wing did do that helped the agreement along: The US took out Iraq, one of Iran's major enemies. Without the threat of Iraq, Iran was more willing to ditch its nuclear program in order to get back the money that had been frozen by the US and its allies.
Click to expand...

The Iran deal is flawed. I don't know that a republican would have pursued such a deal, and you don't either. Obama was certain the deal wouldn't survive congressional scrutiny.

Whether or not Iran has ditched it's nuclear program remains to be seen. They don't necessarily have to produce fissile material. They can buy it from sources like North Korea. Their ballistic missile program continues unabated. What do you think they intend to put on top of those things?
 
humbolt said:
The Iran deal is flawed. I don't know that a republican would have pursued such a deal, and you don't either. Obama was certain the deal wouldn't survive congressional scrutiny.

Whether or not Iran has ditched it's nuclear program remains to be seen. They don't necessarily have to produce fissile material. They can buy it from sources like North Korea. Their ballistic missile program continues unabated. What do you think they intend to put on top of those things?
Click to expand...

They don't have to, because I think the Russians said they would sell it to them.

What do you think they'd put on top of them?

San_Diego_Fireworks.jpg
 
Last edited:
American said:
They don't have to, because I think the Russians said they would sell it to them.
Click to expand...

I'd believe that. There's a market for fissile material. Hell, Pakistan is selling the whole nine yards to Saudi Arabia - missiles and warheads to match. A nation doesn't have to produce this stuff anymore. It's far simpler to just buy it from a willing seller who does produce it. The NPT is useless in curbing such sales.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Except Iran did not keep its nuclear material.
Click to expand...

That article disagrees with you.

~snipped the off-topic, deflecting Trump stuff~
Click to expand...

One thing that the right wing did do that helped the agreement along: The US took out Iraq, one of Iran's major enemies. Without the threat of Iraq, Iran was more willing to ditch its nuclear program in order to get back the money that had been frozen by the US and its allies.
Click to expand...

What makes you think Iran gave up their nuclear program? Did Obama tell you? LOL!! :doh
 
humbolt said:
The Iran deal is flawed. I don't know that a republican would have pursued such a deal, and you don't either. Obama was certain the deal wouldn't survive congressional scrutiny.

Whether or not Iran has ditched it's nuclear program remains to be seen. They don't necessarily have to produce fissile material. They can buy it from sources like North Korea. Their ballistic missile program continues unabated. What do you think they intend to put on top of those things?
Click to expand...
They're a long way from having a nuke that can be put on a missile.
A lot further than they would be without the agreement and without Iraq being a player.
IMO, of course. No way to know for sure.
 
Mycroft said:
That article disagrees with you.





What makes you think Iran gave up their nuclear program? Did Obama tell you? LOL!! :doh
Click to expand...
Of course the right wing noise machine disagrees with me. They disagree with me about a lot of things. The fact is, the fissile material that Iran had is verifiably no longer in the country. You do realize, don't you, that this was not just a deal between Obama and Iran?
 
Dittohead not! said:
They're a long way from having a nuke that can be put on a missile.
A lot further than they would be without the agreement and without Iraq being a player.
IMO, of course. No way to know for sure.
Click to expand...

No, we don't know. I would note that Iran was also supposed to refrain from testing ballistic missiles. Guess that went out the window in short order.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Of course the right wing noise machine disagrees with me. They disagree with me about a lot of things. The fact is, the fissile material that Iran had is verifiably no longer in the country. You do realize, don't you, that this was not just a deal between Obama and Iran?
Click to expand...

In the immortal words from your previous post:

No way to know for sure.
Click to expand...
 
humbolt said:
The Iran deal is flawed. I don't know that a republican would have pursued such a deal, and you don't either. Obama was certain the deal wouldn't survive congressional scrutiny.

Whether or not Iran has ditched it's nuclear program remains to be seen. They don't necessarily have to produce fissile material. They can buy it from sources like North Korea. Their ballistic missile program continues unabated. What do you think they intend to put on top of those things?
Click to expand...

Maybe it is flawed-but decades of sanctions, assassinations, and sabotage accomplished exactly nothing.
 
Napoleon said:
Maybe it is flawed-but decades of sanctions, assassinations, and sabotage accomplished exactly nothing.
Click to expand...

True, but that doesn't make this seriously flawed agreement any better.
 
This thread would make a lot more sense if it had been posted after the Thursday (today) release of the full details.

Until then, there can be only speculation (which doesn't mean anything)
 
humbolt said:
No, we don't know. I would note that Iran was also supposed to refrain from testing ballistic missiles. Guess that went out the window in short order.
Click to expand...

Was it?
According to the U.N. , the testing is not consistent with the constructive spirit of the agreement.
But, if you don't think the agreement had a constructive spirit, I suppose it doesn't matter.


Iran's ballistic missile launches "are not consistent with the constructive spirit" of a nuclear deal between Tehran and world powers, but it is up to the United Nations Security Council to decide if they violated a resolution, U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon said in a confidential report seen by Reuters on Thursday.
Click to expand...

source
 
Dittohead not! said:
Was it?
According to the U.N. , the testing is not consistent with the constructive spirit of the agreement.
But, if you don't think the agreement had a constructive spirit, I suppose it doesn't matter.




source
Click to expand...

Yeah...we obviously have nothing to worry about. I mean, heck...the UN is "investigating" things. They are SURE to come out with something about Iran's testing...sometime...maybe after Iran fires off their first nuke.
 
Mycroft said:
Yeah...we obviously have nothing to worry about. I mean, heck...the UN is "investigating" things. They are SURE to come out with something about Iran's testing...sometime...maybe after Iran fires off their first nuke.
Click to expand...

The UN was inspecting Iraq before the decision was made to invade that nation based at least in part on the notion that they were developing nukes.

Maybe it would be better to trust the UN inspectors than to go start a war. Maybe diplomacy, such as the Iran nuclear agreement is actually a better idea than simply raw military force.

Or, heck, why not just make a glass parking lot out of the whole Middle East. That should solve the problem.
 
American said:
US-led nuke negotiators allowed inspections loopholes for Iran | Fox News


Who should we thank for this, that incompetent boob John Kerry or Obama himself? You decide. I think something akin to these sorts of loopholes were predicted by critics. I'm stunned by the level of transparency. :doh
Click to expand...

LOL The source is a joke and so are the claims of "secret deals". You should be ashamed . It is certainly not the Obama administration that are the "boobs", look in a mirror.

ISIS, which was founded by Albright in 1993, describes itself as a “non-profit, non-partisan institution” whose “primary focus is on stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and related technology to additional nations and to terrorists, bringing about greater transparency of nuclear activities worldwide, strengthening the international non-proliferation regime, and achieving deep cuts in nuclear arsenals.”[7]

Despite his reputation for producing independent, apolitical analyses of proliferation issues, Albright has in recent years appeared to develop close working relations with rightist ideological groups committed to promoting U.S. military intervention in the Middle East, including collaborating with think tanks like the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD).[8] A number of observers have also accused him of providing erroneous assessments of Iran’s nuclear program[9] and expressed surprise at his willingness to become involved in political advocacy.[10]
Click to expand...

David Albright - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies
 
Dittohead not! said:
The UN was inspecting Iraq before the decision was made to invade that nation based at least in part on the notion that they were developing nukes.

Maybe it would be better to trust the UN inspectors than to go start a war. Maybe diplomacy, such as the Iran nuclear agreement is actually a better idea than simply raw military force.

Or, heck, why not just make a glass parking lot out of the whole Middle East. That should solve the problem.
Click to expand...

Trust the UN??? You cannot be serious.

Heck, Saddam regularly ran his rope-a-dope on the UN inspectors for years...while under numerous UN sanctions...and he laughed at them. Pretty much the same way Iran is laughing at them...and Obama...now.
 
Mycroft said:
Trust the UN??? You cannot be serious.

Heck, Saddam regularly ran his rope-a-dope on the UN inspectors for years...while under numerous UN sanctions...and he laughed at them. Pretty much the same way Iran is laughing at them...and Obama...now.
Click to expand...

So, that's why Saddam had nukes. Good to know.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Was it?
According to the U.N. , the testing is not consistent with the constructive spirit of the agreement.
But, if you don't think the agreement had a constructive spirit, I suppose it doesn't matter.




source
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what I think. It does matter what Iran thinks, and they think that testing such missiles is great regardless the west's opinion. They don't give a damn what our constructive aspirations might be. If that isn't clear yet for some, it will become clear in time.
 
Dittohead not! said:
So, that's why Saddam had nukes. Good to know.
Click to expand...

Oh? In your pathetic, sarcastic way, is it your contention that the UN prevented Saddam from acquiring nukes?

Perhaps that's why you think the UN can prevent Iran from acquiring nukes as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom