• 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!

U.N. atomic agency chief says Iran sticking to nuclear deal

TheDemSocialist said:
Do you have anything else to add other than talking points?


Yup. Negotiations involving missile programs are not handled by the JCPOA. That was a total different negotiations being handled by the UN.


The General Assembly elections members to the human rights council...


:roll: Such an easy cop-out.
Click to expand...

What did they want that they did not get?

Iran NEGOTIATED the change in the verbiage that they are now exploiting. ANOTHER loss for our side in NEGOTIATIONS.

Is the General Assembly NOT a part of the UN?

The reason it's easy is because it is right there to pick. The UN is against the few, rich countries and in favor of the many poor countries.
 
code1211 said:
What did they want that they did not get?
Click to expand...
What?

Iran NEGOTIATED the change in the verbiage that they are now exploiting. ANOTHER loss for our side in NEGOTIATIONS.
Click to expand...
Care to point out exactly what you are talking about?

Is the General Assembly NOT a part of the UN?
Click to expand...
Yes they are. But the world as a whole (the general assembly) nominates people and votes on the members to the human rights commission....

The reason it's easy is because it is right there to pick. The UN is against the few, rich countries and in favor of the many poor countries.
Click to expand...

:roll: Yea thats why the UNSC is rich countries and dominates actual policy making in the UN
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Because they are the inspectors.........


1.)All countries dont allow unsupervised access to military bases.
2.)The IAEA can request access to inspect military bases under the terms of the deal.
"If complementary access is requested to a sensitive location, such as a military base or a high-tech factory with intellectual property to protect, Iran will be able to request that the complementary access be carried out in such a way as to allow the inspectors to gather only the information they need to satisfy their specific request — but not to look around and learn other things that they don’t need to know. All additional protocols include this provision, but it is ultimately up to the IAEA to determine if the access meets its requirements. Depending on the circumstance, Iran might want to move military equipment, transport the inspectors to the exact location they’ve requested in a vehicle with no possibility for the inspectors to see what’s around them, and cover sensitive items with tarps, for example. The inspectors must be able to establish that they are at the specific location they have requested by various means, including GPS navigation."
https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/Ar...cation-of-the-Iran-Nuclear-Deal-10-Hot-Issues



False. If there are disputes a special adjudication commission will ensure disputes are settled within 24 days. https://www.armscontrol.org/files/ACA_Iran Brief_July28_D.pdf
Click to expand...

So, there are plenty of areas which are off limits. Thanks for confirming exactly how worthless this "deal" is.
 
countryboy said:
Are there areas which are inaccessible to inspectors, yes or no?
Click to expand...

This attitude you are holding is irrational and just flat out moronic. There is no way and there is no deal in history where a country willingly gives up sovereignty to any other country or any other international organization to inspect whatever and wherever they want at any given time. Thats just flat out irrational and unprecedented.

However if we suspect an Iranian military base is housing or is attempting to develop nuclear material/activities the IAEA can obtain access to inspect said site: "If complementary access is requested to a sensitive location, such as a military base or a high-tech factory with intellectual property to protect, Iran will be able to request that the complementary access be carried out in such a way as to allow the inspectors to gather only the information they need to satisfy their specific request — but not to look around and learn other things that they don’t need to know. All additional protocols include this provision, but it is ultimately up to the IAEA to determine if the access meets its requirements. Depending on the circumstance, Iran might want to move military equipment, transport the inspectors to the exact location they’ve requested in a vehicle with no possibility for the inspectors to see what’s around them, and cover sensitive items with tarps, for example. The inspectors must be able to establish that they are at the specific location they have requested by various means, including GPS navigation."
 
TheDemSocialist said:
This attitude you are holding is irrational and just flat out moronic. There is no way and there is no deal in history where a country willingly gives up sovereignty to any other country or any other international organization to inspect whatever and wherever they want at any given time. Thats just flat out irrational and unprecedented.

However if we suspect an Iranian military base is housing or is attempting to develop nuclear material/activities the IAEA can obtain access to inspect said site: "If complementary access is requested to a sensitive location, such as a military base or a high-tech factory with intellectual property to protect, Iran will be able to request that the complementary access be carried out in such a way as to allow the inspectors to gather only the information they need to satisfy their specific request — but not to look around and learn other things that they don’t need to know. All additional protocols include this provision, but it is ultimately up to the IAEA to determine if the access meets its requirements. Depending on the circumstance, Iran might want to move military equipment, transport the inspectors to the exact location they’ve requested in a vehicle with no possibility for the inspectors to see what’s around them, and cover sensitive items with tarps, for example. The inspectors must be able to establish that they are at the specific location they have requested by various means, including GPS navigation."
Click to expand...

It was a yes or no question. ;)
 
TheDemSocialist said:
If only the world was black and white and no shades of grey, right?
Click to expand...

Iran's record is clear. It is utterly moronic to believe they would not use these exclusionary areas to their advantage.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
However if we suspect an Iranian military base is housing or is attempting to develop nuclear material/activities the IAEA can obtain access to inspect said site
Click to expand...
No. First the IAEA must request an inspection, and the request must be quite specific. The request then proceeds through channels.

This is a loophole that provides Iran enough time to "sanitize" any suspect/problem area.
 
code1211 said:
Obviously you never speak anything but the non-partisan truth.

If you said, it must be gospel.:roll:

Why should there ever be a need for you to support anything you say?
Click to expand...

code, I'm not posting some obscure Reagan era law that says pension benefits get priority in bankruptcy. I posted something that is common knowledge and a current event. Your post tells us two things. 1 you are still unaware of republicans trying to stop boeing from selling planes to Iran and 2 you didn't bother to google something yourself. Your time would have been better spent simply googling the subject instead of trying to come up with a witty putdown. And as a bonus, you would have looked less foolish.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
What?


Care to point out exactly what you are talking about?


Yes they are. But the world as a whole (the general assembly) nominates people and votes on the members to the human rights commission....



:roll: Yea thats why the UNSC is rich countries and dominates actual policy making in the UN
Click to expand...

The Security Council is the result of the good foresight of the winners of WW2.

The voting outcomes of the General Assembly is the result of the have-nots voting in harmony against the haves.

Iran got everything they wanted in the negotiation with Team Obama. They got their oil, their cash, their trade deals and their standing in the world. We got empty promises and the privilege of paying ransom for hostages.
 
Vern said:
code, I'm not posting some obscure Reagan era law that says pension benefits get priority in bankruptcy. I posted something that is common knowledge and a current event. Your post tells us two things. 1 you are still unaware of republicans trying to stop boeing from selling planes to Iran and 2 you didn't bother to google something yourself. Your time would have been better spent simply googling the subject instead of trying to come up with a witty putdown. And as a bonus, you would have looked less foolish.
Click to expand...

When you make an assertion, it is incumbent on you to support it. I see that you still neglected to do so.
 
code1211 said:
When you make an assertion, it is incumbent on you to support it. I see that you still neglected to do so.
Click to expand...

wow, you're really locked in on me backing up something as recent and as common knowledge that republicans are trying to block the sale of boeing planes to Iran. I just cant believe you haven't googled it yourself. I'm going to give you credit and assume you did but then that means you're trying to pretend not to know the truth and are hoping I don't back it up. Not smart either way. anyhoo

Let me google that for you
 
code1211 said:
Iran got everything they wanted in the negotiation with Team Obama.
Click to expand...
False. Are you seriously implying that Iran didnt give any concessions in their nuclear program?

They got their oil,
Click to expand...
Their oil was there no matter what

their cash, their trade deals and their standing in the world.
Click to expand...
Yup. Its called an agreement. Both parties give up concessions and expect something in return. Welcome to a thing called international diplomacy.

We got empty promises and the privilege of paying ransom for hostages.
Click to expand...
:roll:
 
Vern said:
wow, you're really locked in on me backing up something as recent and as common knowledge that republicans are trying to block the sale of boeing planes to Iran. I just cant believe you haven't googled it yourself. I'm going to give you credit and assume you did but then that means you're trying to pretend not to know the truth and are hoping I don't back it up. Not smart either way. anyhoo

Let me google that for you
Click to expand...

Still dodging. Good for you!

I'm so proud of you!
 
code1211 said:
Still dodging. Good for you!

I'm so proud of you!
Click to expand...

code, your post makes zero sense. You whined and whined that I should back up something that was a current event and common knowledge. It was as if you knew I was right and the only "tactic" you could think of was to demand I prove my point. I provided a link for you so your "dodging" point makes zero sense. It seems to be another of those "I have to post words to make it look like I'm responding" posts I get a lot from conservatives.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
False. Are you seriously implying that Iran didnt give any concessions in their nuclear program?


Their oil was there no matter what


Yup. Its called an agreement. Both parties give up concessions and expect something in return. Welcome to a thing called international diplomacy.


:roll:
Click to expand...

Yup!

We gave up the ability to interfere in the Middle East and Iran gave up the right to be controlled by our diplomacy.

Sounds fair to anyone, I guess.

Fact-checking a deal with Iran | PolitiFact
<snip>
Actually, we haven’t caught Iran cheating on the interim deal. The International Atomic Energy Agency has reported no violations with the Joint Plan of Action. That said, Iran has worked with a new kind of centrifuge that, while not a formal violation, contradicts the U.S. understanding of the deal. When confronted about it, Iran stopped its work. Also, there is some question about whether Iran is violating the agreement by exporting too much oil. That’s another murky issue; the exact terms that govern Iran's oil exports aren’t public.

Overall, we rated Hayes’ claim Mostly False.

More recently, conservative pundit Liz Cheney questioned Iran’s abilities to hold to an agreement. "The IAEA last month said the Iranians are not currently living up to their obligations," she said.

That rates Mostly True.
<snip>
 
Vern said:
code, your post makes zero sense. You whined and whined that I should back up something that was a current event and common knowledge. It was as if you knew I was right and the only "tactic" you could think of was to demand I prove my point. I provided a link for you so your "dodging" point makes zero sense. It seems to be another of those "I have to post words to make it look like I'm responding" posts I get a lot from conservatives.
Click to expand...

Still no facts. Just your opinion.

If that's all you have, that's good!

I was just hoping you had more. No problem. Cluttering a discussion with changing facts only distracts from unchanging opinions.
 
code1211 said:
Yup!

We gave up the ability to interfere in the Middle East
Click to expand...

:lamo We gave up the ability to interfere in the Middle East? Are you ****ing kidding me? :doh
Here is some American interference in just the past couple months:
Air Raids Destroy Scores Of IS Oil Tankers
Russia criticizes U.S. over bombing of Syrian army near Deir al-Zor | Reuters
Air strike kills top commander of former Nusra group in ...
Statement by Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook on Strike against Al-Qaeda Leader > U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE > News Release View
IS conflict: US to send 560 more troops to Iraq - BBC News
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/0...n-past-2-years-us-military-official-says.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/pentagon-us-strikes-hit-radar-sites-in-yemen/

and Iran gave up the right to be controlled by our diplomacy.
Click to expand...
:doh Another silly comment.

Fact-checking a deal with Iran | PolitiFact
<snip>
Actually, we haven’t caught Iran cheating on the interim deal. The International Atomic Energy Agency has reported no violations with the Joint Plan of Action. That said, Iran has worked with a new kind of centrifuge that, while not a formal violation, contradicts the U.S. understanding of the deal. When confronted about it, Iran stopped its work. Also, there is some question about whether Iran is violating the agreement by exporting too much oil. That’s another murky issue; the exact terms that govern Iran's oil exports aren’t public.

Overall, we rated Hayes’ claim Mostly False.
Click to expand...
So you are not agreeing with Stephen Haye's when he says Iran is cheating on the nuclear deal. Good deal! :thumbs::thumbs:


More recently, conservative pundit Liz Cheney questioned Iran’s abilities to hold to an agreement. "The IAEA last month said the Iranians are not currently living up to their obligations," she said.

That rates Mostly True.
<snip>
Click to expand...
And in updated terms on the JCPOA
"May 27: The IAEA issues its quarterly report on Iran's implementation of the nuclear deal. The report shows Iran is abiding by restrictions under the agreement and inspectors have been able to access certain Iranian sites using complimentary access visits. " https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheet/Timeline-of-Nuclear-Diplomacy-With-Iran
 
Vern said:
really, you're unaware that Iran is trying to buy Boeing planes and republicans are spewing the narrative that it would help them transports terrorists? It just another thing republicans are against that would help the economy. google is your friend. don't be afraid of it.
Click to expand...
code1211 said:
Obviously you never speak anything but the non-partisan truth.
If you said, it must be gospel.:roll:
Why should there ever be a need for you to support anything you say?
Click to expand...
code1211 said:
When you make an assertion, it is incumbent on you to support it. I see that you still neglected to do so.
Click to expand...
So I posted this link for you
Let me google that for you
And this is your response.
code1211 said:
Still dodging. Good for you!
I'm so proud of you!
Click to expand...
code1211 said:
Still no facts. Just your opinion.
If that's all you have, that's good!
I was just hoping you had more. No problem. Cluttering a discussion with changing facts only distracts from unchanging opinions.
Click to expand...
Code, if you are unable to have an honest and intelligent conversation, you shouldn’t be a debate forum.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
:lamo We gave up the ability to interfere in the Middle East? Are you ****ing kidding me? :doh
Here is some American interference in just the past couple months:
Air Raids Destroy Scores Of IS Oil Tankers
Russia criticizes U.S. over bombing of Syrian army near Deir al-Zor | Reuters
Air strike kills top commander of former Nusra group in ...
Statement by Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook on Strike against Al-Qaeda Leader > U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE > News Release View
IS conflict: US to send 560 more troops to Iraq - BBC News
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/0...n-past-2-years-us-military-official-says.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/pentagon-us-strikes-hit-radar-sites-in-yemen/


:doh Another silly comment.


So you are not agreeing with Stephen Haye's when he says Iran is cheating on the nuclear deal. Good deal! :thumbs::thumbs:



And in updated terms on the JCPOA
"May 27: The IAEA issues its quarterly report on Iran's implementation of the nuclear deal. The report shows Iran is abiding by restrictions under the agreement and inspectors have been able to access certain Iranian sites using complimentary access visits. " https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheet/Timeline-of-Nuclear-Diplomacy-With-Iran
Click to expand...

You may be as uninformed as you seem to be, but that is not my problem.

From about 1945 to about 1978, NOTHING happened in the Middle East without the tacit approval of the USA.

Between 1978 and about 2008, that control ebbed and flowed, but the dominant guiding power was the USA.

Now the dominant power is Russia.

What have the bombing raids you are so proud of accomplished?

If Iran is complying with the agreement, they are. If they are not, then they are doing what they have been doing. What are they doing? What they have done or what you are imagining they have done?

I don't know why you are arguing this. The current administration as a matter of policy has pulled out of the Middle East. The prior administration was hell-bent on establishing 20th Century democracy in stone age societies. The area from Afghanistan to Libya has been entirely destabilized by these policies. We and the world have been severely hurt by the two worst presidents in the history of the Republic having been elected back to back.

For us in the USA, this results in the the job prospects being less bright. For the poor bastards born into the world that swath of land, about three generations will be lost to war, poverty, gang fighting and ignorance. This is a tragedy of international proportion and completely attributable to the lack of experience and insight of our last two presidents and the weakness and cowardice of our Congress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom