[leglace1]

My point is that with this deal, we freed up the frozen assets of Iran, unblocked the weapons trade embargo, and unblocked the other trade sanctions. All it costed Iran was some batches of enriched uranium which was likely really a small portion of what they really have. They will be compensated financially as well. I see nothing that stops them from going forward. We all agree that 24 day advanced inspections is laughable, so we will not be able to verify compliance. They are better off now than they were with the sanctions alone because at least before, they were limited on financial opportunities and they were not able to openly purchase and sell weapons.

The point is that if they defied the missile sanctions, what makes us think they will not skirt around the agreement and defy the Nuclear Deal. They have been defiant from the beginning.

Posted via CB10

[ksennette]

Trump.

[Captain_Hilts]

All it costed Iran was some batches of enriched uranium which was likely really a small portion of what they really have.

And you know this for a fact? Can I assume that you were part of the inspection team?

We all agree that 24 day advanced inspections is laughable, so we will not be able to verify compliance.

Um, no, YOU agree with YOU on this point. The world's foremost nuclear experts, on the other hand, are in agreement that 24 days is nowhere near enough time to hide evidence of illegal nuclear activity. What, do you think Iran can just stuff its nuclear material in a closet somewhere and we won't find it? That it doesn't leave some sort of trace? So, yes, we WILL be able to verify compliance - something we were not able to do before. Now, thanks to this agreement and the reopening of diplomatic channels, we can.

They are better off now than they were with the sanctions alone...

Of course they're better off now than they were with sanctions in place! That's why they actually participated in the talks in the first place!

The point is that if they defied the missile sanctions, what makes us think they will not skirt around the agreement and defy the Nuclear Deal. They have been defiant from the beginning.

I really don't get why people like you keep parroting this point. If they skirt around the deal, WE WILL KNOW. How will we know? Because we have verification processes in place - which we did not have before. How is this so hard to understand? Yes, Iran has a long history of defiance. But, what's the better alternative: working in collaboration with 5 other nations to make sure that Iran's nuclear development is severely limited and heavily monitored with a system in place that punishes Iran should they violate the agreement OR abandoning the deal and going back to the status quo in which their nuclear development thrived completely unchecked purely on the basis that they MIGHT skirt around said deal? Pragmatists and long-term realists choose the former because they know that Iran would never agree to an all-or-nothing solution; war mongers (whether in denial of that fact or not) choose the latter either because they simply want to wipe Iran off the face of the Earth and/or have absolutely no other alternative to offer in place of the current agreement. Which are you?

Posted via CB10

[Thud Hardsmack]

[warn] It's getting a little thick in here. Even though it's in Off Topic all rules apply and if they can't be followed this train will come to an abrupt halt.

Thanks. [/warn]

[leglace1]

And you know this for a fact? Can I assume that you were part of the inspection team?



Um, no, YOU agree with YOU on this point. The world's foremost nuclear experts, on the other hand, are in agreement that 24 days is nowhere near enough time to hide evidence of illegal nuclear activity. What, do you think Iran can just stuff its nuclear material in a closet somewhere and we won't find it? That it doesn't leave some sort of trace? So, yes, we WILL be able to verify compliance - something we were not able to do before. Now, thanks to this agreement and the reopening of diplomatic channels, we can.



Of course they're better off now than they were with sanctions in place! That's why they actually participated in the talks in the first place!



I really don't get why people like you keep parroting this point. If they skirt around the deal, WE WILL KNOW. How will we know? Because we have verification processes in place - which we did not have before. How is this so hard to understand? Yes, Iran has a long history of defiance. But, what's the better alternative: working in collaboration with 5 other nations to make sure that Iran's nuclear development is severely limited and heavily monitored with a system in place that punishes Iran should they violate the agreement OR abandoning the deal and going back to the status quo in which their nuclear development thrived completely unchecked purely on the basis that they MIGHT skirt around said deal? Pragmatists and long-term realists choose the former because they know that Iran would never agree to an all-or-nothing solution; war mongers (whether in denial of that fact or not) choose the latter either because they simply want to wipe Iran off the face of the Earth and/or have absolutely no other alternative to offer in place of the current agreement. Which are you?

Posted via CB10

How are we "monitoring"?


Posted via CB10

[Dave Bourque]

How are we "monitoring"?

Posted via CB10

Go find out? Do you not have Google ?

Z30STA100-5/10.3.2.2876

[grover5]

How are we "monitoring"?


Posted via CB10

I thought you were certain we couldn't and weren't. Most of what you have been saying seems to be just assuming the worst and ignoring any known facts about the deal. Case in point is your bracketing the word monitoring with quotes. If you don't know the oversight we have in place then how could you even begin to suggest the deal is bad?

I said this before but I'll repeat it. If your premise is Iran cannot be trusted and will never stick to any deal but will instead lead the hapless West in circles...then no deal is your only answer.

[Mr4aces]

[warn] It's getting a little thick in here. Even though it's in Off Topic all rules apply and if they can't be followed this train will come to an abrupt halt.

Thanks. [/warn]

Yes way off topic and to much politics

[middbrew]

Yes way off topic and to much politics

How can a political thread have too much politics.

[grover5]

How can a political thread have too much politics.

Good question.

[leglace1]

Go find out? Do you not have Google ?

Z30STA100-5/10.3.2.2876

Question wasn't for you. I know the answer. Captain Hilts stated that we were monitoring to make sure they comply. I asked the question to him.

Posted via CB10

[leglace1]

I thought you were certain we couldn't and weren't. Most of what you have been saying seems to be just assuming the worst and ignoring any known facts about the deal. Case in point is your bracketing the word monitoring with quotes. If you don't know the oversight we have in place then how could you even begin to suggest the deal is bad?

I said this before but I'll repeat it. If your premise is Iran cannot be trusted and will never stick to any deal but will instead lead the hapless West in circles...then no deal is your only answer.

No, my problem is that the deal is soft on assuring compliance. We can go on for years pretending that they are not building up their nuke program while in fact we have given them greater capabilities, minus additional sanctions and embargos.

Posted via CB10

[Thud Hardsmack]

Yes way off topic and to much politics

Yes way off topic. This thread's title appears to ask which candidate would be ones choice for president. However it appears to be discussing other countries and international regulations. Being that political threads are normally not allowed in the first place yet we've been letting this one live, I highly suggest it go back to discussing the current race for POTUS.

Because if it hasn't done so by the time I check back in, it's done.

[Captain_Hilts]

Who we elect as our next president could determine the long-term future of the Iran agreement. If we elect one of the republican nominees, chances are higher that the US will turn the clock back to the status quo through the reinstatement of the sanctions that were lifted - an extremely dangerous option. If we elect one of the Democratic nominees, chances are higher that the US will continue working with our allies around the world in making sure that this agreement is kept in place.

How is this not on topic in a thread about the future POTUS?

Posted via CB10

[Thud Hardsmack]

Who we elect as our next president could determine the long-term future of the Iran agreement. If we elect one of the republican nominees, chances are higher that the US will turn the clock back to the status quo through the reinstatement of the sanctions that were lifted - an extremely dangerous option. If we elect one of the Democratic nominees, chances are higher that the US will continue working with our allies around the world in making sure that this agreement is kept in place.

How is this not on topic in a thread about the future POTUS?

Posted via CB10

As I said, normally political threads of any kind are not allowed, they get out of control way too fast and people are too opinionated. Keeping that in mind, I don't think it's too much to suggest it stay on a particularly narrow path. I can always close it if that's too much trouble.

[anon(9088244)]

What about threads about religion and race?

I'm just here to establish an alibi.

[Thud Hardsmack]

What about threads about religion and race?

I'm just here to establish an alibi.

They'll get closed. Just like this one.