• 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!

Iran's powerful Guard rejects inspection of military sites

This is clearly just chest-pumping for the locals.

What the generals say means nothing...now if the negotiators (who say what they are told from the leaders) say this, then it's something.

Maybe they will, I dunno.

But what some testosterone-filled Iranian general says means as much as what a testosterone-filled American General says on these matters...next to nothing.

And what about a testosterone-filled mullah?
 
Until we make all Nations in that neighborhood play by the same rules, and that would be Israel, then I support the Guard position. Iran has attacked noone and has not tested a nuclear weapon, whereas Israel actually helped South Africa develop their Nuclear weapons. South Africa shed its' nukes and perhaps Israel should also. Your "ifs" and Mights' on the issue are just the stenographer viewpoints from the internal propaganda machine.
It has been conclusively proven that the USA created the sham nuke threat by Iran for political reasons,
not for regional security or for USA National Security interests.
At least we haven't used our smooth talking Libya intervention that spreads chaos,
death and destruction in Iran yet, but hey, there's still time to bomb and kill Iranians. Demon's seed, don't ya' know. Probably related to Putin.

Oh good grief.
But at least you're right about the Libyan adventure ... at least if I understand you correctly.
 
Can we see that "conclusive proof" by any chance?

Good morning, F & L. :2wave:

On the other hand, we have proof that N Korea is helping Iran with their nuclear dreams of grandeur, probably with China's okay. Does that count in the nuclear arena?
 
Until we make all Nations in that neighborhood play by the same rules, and that would be Israel, then I support the Guard position. Iran has attacked noone and has not tested a nuclear weapon, whereas Israel actually helped South Africa develop their Nuclear weapons. South Africa shed its' nukes and perhaps Israel should also. Your "ifs" and Mights' on the issue are just the stenographer viewpoints from the internal propaganda machine. It has been conclusively proven that the USA created the sham nuke threat by Iran for political reasons, not for regional security or for USA National Security interests. At least we haven't used our smooth talking Libya intervention that spreads chaos, death and destruction in Iran yet, but hey, there's still time to bomb and kill Iranians. Demon's seed, don't ya' know. Probably related to Putin.

Heya DF. :2wave: What do you mean by until we make all Nations in that Neighborhood play by the same rules. None of them play by the rules. Plus how do we make them play by the rules. Are we suppose to make them play by the rules?

Also what if they can't follow rules? Do all that No comprendi talk nstuff?
 
Good morning, F & L. :2wave:

On the other hand, we have proof that N Korea is helping Iran with their nuclear dreams of grandeur, probably with China's okay. Does that count in the nuclear arena?



Of course not!

Everyone should have nukes in Obama's world.

But, damn!, if NK allegedly hacks a movie company it's "WAR Mother****er! only we can hack computers"
 
Did you know ValJar was born in Iran?
Yes Yes Yes, it was long ago, but curious nonetheless.
And completely in keeping with the coterie Obama has always seemed to prefer associating with.

Yes, she spent her formative years there, if psychologists are correct in their belief that up to age six is the learning time for children, and she does speak Farsi. I never heard how they met, though, since BHO grew up in Hawaii, raised by his grandparents.
 
Of course not!

Everyone should have nukes in Obama's world.

But, damn!, if NK allegedly hacks a movie company it's "WAR Mother****er! only we can hack computers"

I've considered getting one myself, but I understand I might have to wait since they're backlogged big time, with everyone in the world ordering at the same time! :mrgreen:
 
I've considered getting one myself, but I understand I might have to wait since they're backlogged big time, with everyone in the world ordering at the same time! :mrgreen:


And gee, the city of Vancouver has passed a resolution banning nukes!


Really, they did. Socialists with a cause, the leader of which we call mayor moonbeam cited Obama's America as a goal in an election past and last year denied saying. I can just see Iranians now, "we cannot send the fire god weapon to Vancouver, it is against the law!"
 
Yes, she spent her formative years there, if psychologists are correct in their belief that up to age six is the learning time for children, and she does speak Farsi. I never heard how they met, though, since BHO grew up in Hawaii, raised by his grandparents.
So ValJar and BHO were both influenced by Islam during their formative years. That's an interesting coincidence.
Blog: In his own words: Barack Obama on Christianity and Islam
 
Sen. Graham lists conditions for 'yes' vote on Iran nuclear deal

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has outlined eight conditions to obtain his vote when Congress debates any Iran final agreement.

— Reject any nuclear deal with Iran that doesn't allow for inspections of the country's military facilities.

— Allow Iran to enrich only enough uranium to supply one commercial nuclear power reactor.

— Close all nuclear sites in Iran not related to its nuclear power program.

— Require that inspectors certify Iran's compliance over time before any sanctions are lifted and any money held in escrow is released to Iran.

— Provide a clear process for sanctions to be reinstated if Iran violates the deal.

— Ban Iran from conducting research and development on advanced centrifuges.

— Remove all enriched uranium from Iran.

— Require President Obama to certify that Iran is no longer a state sponsor of terrorism before restrictions on Iran's nuclear program are lifted.

I can't disagree with any of the above. I would further add:

— All active centrifuge units shall be of the IR-1 model.

— Iran must satisfy all 20 pre-negotiation IAEA demands.

— The IAEA shall have the power to inspect any declared or suspect nuclear facility immediately and without constraints. This shall also apply to related housed-documents and data-networks.
 
Simpleχity;1064556431 said:
Sen. Graham lists conditions for 'yes' vote on Iran nuclear deal

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has outlined eight conditions to obtain his vote when Congress debates any Iran final agreement.

— Reject any nuclear deal with Iran that doesn't allow for inspections of the country's military facilities.

— Allow Iran to enrich only enough uranium to supply one commercial nuclear power reactor.

— Close all nuclear sites in Iran not related to its nuclear power program.

— Require that inspectors certify Iran's compliance over time before any sanctions are lifted and any money held in escrow is released to Iran.

— Provide a clear process for sanctions to be reinstated if Iran violates the deal.

— Ban Iran from conducting research and development on advanced centrifuges.

— Remove all enriched uranium from Iran.

— Require President Obama to certify that Iran is no longer a state sponsor of terrorism before restrictions on Iran's nuclear program are lifted.

I can't disagree with any of the above. I would further add:

— All active centrifuge units shall be of the IR-1 model.

— Iran must satisfy all 20 pre-negotiation IAEA demands.

— The IAEA shall have the power to inspect any declared or suspect nuclear facility immediately and without constraints. This shall also apply to related housed-documents and data-networks.

this would kill any agreement

then when iran completes the business of building a nuke, it will be the neocons in congress we can look to for causing the proliferation

meanwhile, the other major nations that participated in the agreement will resume trade with iran in recognition it acted in good faith

net result, iran has THE bomb and we lost a potential long term partner in extinguishing isis

that sissy, graham, will have accomplished a lot
 
this would kill any agreement

Ah. And why is that?

then when iran completes the business of building a nuke, it will be the neocons in congress we can look to for causing the proliferation

On the contrary, we can look to those who chose to delay delay delay degrading or destroying their program, both in the Bush and the Obama administrations, under the theory that the Iranians were serious negotiators.
 
Simpleχity;1064545890 said:
Iran's powerful Guard rejects inspection of military sites


As far as I am concerned, if this is Tehran's official position, then it is a deal breaker.

Nuclear weapons are under the custody and supervision of the military in every nation that has declared itself to be a nuclear-weapon nation. Iran has long been suspected of running two parallel nuclear programs ... one program for the purpose of generating energy and another separate military program to fabricate nuclear warheads and ballistic delivery systems.

The P5+1 nations are negotiating with Iran for the express purpose of guaranteeing that an Iranian military program to acquire nuclear weapons is impossible under strict parameters and an intrusive inspections regimen for the duration of any mutually accepted deal. This lofty goal however, cannot be achieved without the capability of the IAEA to inspect military facilities suspected of nuclear weapons research or uranium enrichment.

Contrary to what is imagined or purported by some, such inspections are not requested on a whim. The IAEA has many highly sophisticated tools to detect possible activity without entering a facility. They would only request access to a military facility if unequivocal technical/documentary evidence exists which demands an in-depth examination to either verify or dismiss suspicions.

Without this critical capability, any P5+1 deal with Iran is illusion and a sham.

Well thankfully you're not the deal maker! No nation is going to submit to inspections of all their military installations. It's counter to national security. The inspections should be to nuclear energy program installations.
 
this would kill any agreement

then when iran completes the business of building a nuke, it will be the neocons in congress we can look to for causing the proliferation

meanwhile, the other major nations that participated in the agreement will resume trade with iran in recognition it acted in good faith

net result, iran has THE bomb and we lost a potential long term partner in extinguishing isis

that sissy, graham, will have accomplished a lot

Spot on Bubba!!
 
this would kill any agreement

then when iran completes the business of building a nuke, it will be the neocons in congress we can look to for causing the proliferation

meanwhile, the other major nations that participated in the agreement will resume trade with iran in recognition it acted in good faith

net result, iran has THE bomb and we lost a potential long term partner in extinguishing isis

that sissy, graham, will have accomplished a lot

Only the completely delusional would assert that not allowing inspections of military sites is "acting in good faith", the plan is dead the sanctions will continue and Iran remains an assbackwards pariah nation living in the 5th century.
 
Well thankfully you're not the deal maker! No nation is going to submit to inspections of all their military installations. It's counter to national security. The inspections should be to nuclear energy program installations.

The assertion that inspections will have any effect whatsoever if we are not allowed to inspect their military bases is the most delusional bull**** I have ever heard.

"Uh ya sure officer you can search my house but those trailers in my back yard with all the fumes are off limits". :roll:
 
Only the completely delusional would assert that not allowing inspections of military sites is "acting in good faith", the plan is dead the sanctions will continue and Iran remains an assbackwards pariah nation living in the 5th century.
The free world may have to rely on Israel again, despite the rebukes it received at the time, and the French are the same as ever. Operation Opera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Simpleχity;1064562899 said:
No one said all military bases. "Suspect" military bases.

Suspect by whom. Suspicions have placed us in unnecessary wars before.
 
Suspect by whom. Suspicions have placed us in unnecessary wars before.
Suspected by the IAEA ... the UN authority tasked with investigating NPT compliance issues.

If the IAEA cannot investigate a suspicious facility ... then NPT compliance is unobtainable.

Failure to be nuclear-transparent is one of the many reasons Iran is currently under international sanctions.
 
this would kill any agreement
Iran >placed itself< in this awkward position by hiding Fordow from the IAEA for three years.

Explain to us how compliance can now be guaranteed if the IAEA is denied access to suspected non-compliance facilities.
 
Simpleχity;1064565054 said:
Suspected by the IAEA ... the UN authority tasked with investigating NPT compliance issues.

If the IAEA cannot investigate a suspicious facility ... then NPT compliance is unobtainable.

Failure to be nuclear-transparent is one of the many reasons Iran is currently under international sanctions.

Seems to me the last time the IAEA was doing its job, they were forced to leave because war was preferred to peace.
 
Seems to me the last time the IAEA was doing its job, they were forced to leave because war was preferred to peace.

Mornin Cresto. :2wave: Is there a link to that that states the IAEA was forced to leave because War is preferred to peace?
 
Mornin Cresto. :2wave: Is there a link to that that states the IAEA was forced to leave because War is preferred to peace?

Morning MMC. Bush kicked the IAEA out of Iraq because he wasn't interested in peace that would be the result of the agency not finding the fabled WMD. In favor of his prearranged war. Common knowledge.
 
Morning MMC. Bush kicked the IAEA out of Iraq because he wasn't interested in peace that would be the result of the agency not finding the fabled WMD. In favor of his prearranged war. Common knowledge.

I thought we were talking Iran not Iraq. Sorry bout that. Btw ya box is full I can't return. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom