Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mugtang

Poland willing to pay US $2 billion a year for permanent military presence

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, pokebball said:

Iran won't agree to a stronger, better agreement.  The sanctions were the best we were going to get.  You're belief that we got anything more outta the agreement is naive.

That's actually kind of my point. Obama got the strongest agreement possible. 

He obtained a nuclear free Iran out until 2030. They were certified to be in compliance by every country in the deal, including our own, and Trump dumped it anyway. So now Iran can start making nuclear weapons right away.
 

That...does not feel like winning to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

That's actually kind of my point. Obama got the strongest agreement possible. 

He obtained a nuclear free Iran out until 2030. They were certified to be in compliance by every country in the deal, including our own, and Trump dumped it anyway. So now Iran can start making nuclear weapons right away.
 

That...does not feel like winning to me.

Obama's agreement was worse than what we had before.  We gave shyt up and didn't really get anything in return.  Believing we got a "nuclear free" Iran outta the deal is naive.

Which is exactly why it didn't go thru congress.

edit > you asked what was wrong with the agreement, Blues posted what has already been posted here numerous time.  You believe what you want and I'll believe what I want.  Neither of us are going to change any minds.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pokebball said:

Obama's agreement was worse than what we had before.  We gave shyt up and didn't really get anything in return.  Believing we got a "nuclear free" Iran outta the deal is naive.

Which is exactly why it didn't go thru congress.

No, it isn't naive. How do we know it wasn't naive?

Because every country in the deal certified that Iran was in compliance. Certain things are required to build a nuclear weapon. For example, weapons grade uranium. Of which the agreement forbids. (3.7% allowed. 90% needed.) That part of the agreement was in place until 2030.

I repeat, every country in the deal - including our own intelligence services - said that Iran was in compliance with terms and conditions that would keep Iran from beginning - beginning, not finishing - beginning work on a nuclear weapon until at least 2030. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

No, it isn't naive. How do we know it wasn't naive?

Because every country in the deal certified that Iran was in compliance. Certain things are required to build a nuclear weapon. For example, weapons grade uranium. Of which the agreement forbids. (3.7% allowed. 90% needed.) That part of the agreement was in place until 2030.

I repeat, every country in the deal - including our own intelligence services - said that Iran was in compliance with terms and conditions that would keep Iran from beginning - beginning, not finishing - beginning work on a nuclear weapon until at least 2030. 

Did you not read any of the links Blues posted?  Your answer is there

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, pokebball said:

Did you not read any of the links Blues posted?  Your answer is there

Yes, I read them. And responded to them. Your answers are there.

Except for one I suppose. I didn't address the ballistic missile thing. So I'll do that now.

Taking away Iran's ballistic missiles was not on the table because it was incredibly unrealistic to get. What could we possible offer them to get them to give up their basic ability to defend themselves? Getting Iran to give up missiles is not the goal of an Iran NUCLEAR deal. Conventional weapons are materially different and moving of the goal posts.

Sunset provisions? I addressed that. 2030>right now

Inspections? I answered that. "IAEA inspectors full and unrestricted access to its nuclear sites and other facilities"

Giving them back $150B of their own money? That's in exchange for the reduction in uranium stockpiles, limitations on enrichment, reductions in centrifuges, etc. 

In any deal, if you want to GET something you have to GIVE something. We obtained a nuclear free Iran until 2030. It cost us unfreezing some of their money. Worth emphasizing. It's their money, not ours. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

Yes, I read them. And responded to them. Your answers are there.

Except for one I suppose. I didn't address the ballistic missile thing. So I'll do that now.

Taking away Iran's ballistic missiles was not on the table because it was incredibly unrealistic to get. What could we possible offer them to get them to give up their basic ability to defend themselves? Getting Iran to give up missiles is not the goal of an Iran NUCLEAR deal. Conventional weapons are materially different and moving of the goal posts.

Sunset provisions? I addressed that. 2030>right now

Inspections? I answered that. "IAEA inspectors full and unrestricted access to its nuclear sites and other facilities"

Giving them back $150B of their own money? That's in exchange for the reduction in uranium stockpiles, limitations on enrichment, reductions in centrifuges, etc. 

In any deal, if you want to GET something you have to GIVE something. We obtained a nuclear free Iran until 2030. It cost us unfreezing some of their money. Worth emphasizing. It's their money, not ours. 

You've said nuclear free Iran one to many times for me not to laugh at you.  Sorry man, but you're either ignoring or not understanding the severe deficiencies in the deal.

Did you answer the question regarding why Obama didn't properly take this through congress?  There was a very good reason he didn't.  I hope you give that some thought and reflection.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, pokebball said:

You've said nuclear free Iran one to many times for me not to laugh at you.  Sorry man, but you're either ignoring or not understanding the severe deficiencies in the deal.

WE went over this about 2 months ago and I remember correcting several members on perceived deficiencies. Are we gonna do that again?

5 minutes ago, pokebball said:

Did you answer the question regarding why Obama didn't properly take this through congress?  There was a very good reason he didn't.  I hope you give that some thought and reflection.

He could have brought Trump's tax bill to congress and gotten 0 takers by that point in his presidency

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, pokebball said:

You've said nuclear free Iran one to many times for me not to laugh at you.  Sorry man, but you're either ignoring or not understanding the severe deficiencies in the deal.

Did you answer the question regarding why Obama didn't properly take this through congress?  There was a very good reason he didn't.  I hope you give that some thought and reflection.

Because Republicans weren't about to give Obama a win.

In terms of those who have not responded, you have not responded in any material way to any of my points about the deal.

1. Iran in compliance as certified by every country in the deal including our own

2. The deal prevents Iran from starting work on a nuke until at least 2030 if they're in compliance. (See #1 above.)

3. It was unreasonable to obtain anything better than what we had.

4. We exchanged letting Iran start building nukes in 2030 to letting them start doing it right now.

In your last couple of posts, you've failed to acknowledge any of these points. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, happycamper said:

WE went over this about 2 months ago and I remember correcting several members on perceived deficiencies. Are we gonna do that again?

He could have brought Trump's tax bill to congress and gotten 0 takers by that point in his presidency

You think you corrected several members on perceived deficiencies?  Houston...

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pokebball said:

You think you corrected several members on perceived deficiencies?  Houston...

Uh, yes. Members were worried about the amount of 3% enriched uranium that Iran was allowed to keep, and I used math to point out that that perceived large amount of uranium could make approximately .502 (or whatever) fission bombs total. There was another issue as to how quickly that uranium could be enriched, which in this case, would take a while. 

Don't get butthurt when you're wrong.

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, nocoolnamejim said:

I do. The Clinton years were back when Republicans cared, or at least pretended to care, about both free trade and being non-partisan about national defense.

When he was campaigning in 1992, according to the story he told me when we were working on NAFTA in 1993, President Carter flew up to see him in North Carolina during the campaign and talked to him passionately about the importance of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the importance of him being able to take on the unions on that issue. To his credit, that was [one of the] most of courageous acts of his presidency, and we worked with him very hard [on it]. The Republicans in the House provided a much bigger percentage of the votes than the Democrats did, and I found myself being the whip for Bill Clinton for that particular issue. We worked, we delivered, and it was very good sense of the future to think that we could reach out to Mexico and Canada and create a much bigger free trade area than we'd ever had before. It was, by the way, a proposal first articulated by Ronald Reagan when he launched his campaign in 1979. So as a Reagan Republican I felt a real pleasure at working with a Democratic president to make it come true.

Newt Gingrich talking about NAFTA

Back during Clinton's days, the GOP hadn't gotten so unhinged that they wouldn't have rushed to approve the TPP just because it was a Democratic president pushing it and wouldn't have rejoiced at the tough inspections and verifications of the Iran Nuclear Deal.

Obama getting neither ratified was not his fault. It was the GOP not wanting to hand him a policy "win". Both treaties would have been well within the GOP mainstream in the 1990s.

The Iran deal was a crock of shit and everyone knew it. Obama fired Gen Mattis over his objections to it. TTP would have given our so called trade partners even more leverage over us, not to mention several sovereignty issues buried in the Treaty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sean327 said:

The Iran deal was a crock of shit and everyone knew it. Obama fired Gen Mattis over his objections to it. TTP would have given our so called trade partners even more leverage over us, not to mention several sovereignty issues buried in the Treaty. 

Feel free to read the rest of the thread to catch up and get details on both the Iran deal as well as TTP's place in history next to NAFTA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, nocoolnamejim said:

Feel free to read the rest of the thread to catch up and get details on both the Iran deal as well as TTP's place in history next to NAFTA. 

TTP was garbage period. I could care less about it's place in history next to NAFTA. There were serious sovereignty issues with it. And no one will convince me that the Iran Deal was good for anyone other than Iran. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sean327 said:

TTP was garbage period. I could care less about it's place in history next to NAFTA. There were serious sovereignty issues with it. And no one will convince me that the Iran Deal was good for anyone other than Iran. 

Well... I guess we're done here then

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, nocoolnamejim said:

Well... I guess we're done here then

It's all good brother. I have no problem agreeing to disagree. Football season can't get here fast enough!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nocoolnamejim said:

Where's the stronger, better agreement now?

We exchanged Iran being able to start making nukes in 2025 for being able to do so right now.

No we didn't, we exchanged Iran having to make nukes at different facilities until 2025 when it could use any facility it wanted.  We payed them so they could fund more terrorism or buy more weapons.  We did nothing at all about missile research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

No we didn't, we exchanged Iran having to make nukes at different facilities until 2025 when it could use any facility it wanted.  We payed them so they could fund more terrorism or buy more weapons.  We did nothing at all about missile research.

Eliminating missile research was never a realistic goal...which is why it was never a goal of the treaty. There's absolutely nothing that can be done about countries making conventional weaponry.

Conventional weaponry and nuclear weaponry are not the same thing and the goal of the treaty was never to get Iran to give up their conventional weapons programs because, realistically, what in the world could we ever possibly offer them that would incent them to agree to that?

The treaty takes took away their ability to enrich weapons grade uranium until 2030, reduced their uranium stockpile to basically nothing, reduced their centrifuges from 20K to 5K (and limits them to older, less efficient centrifuges) and allowed us to inspect any known nuclear site at any time for any reason. It also allowed us to investigate other sites within 25 days, which is thousands of years to soon for Iran to be able to eliminate radiation traces.

The goal of the treaty was not to fix ALL of Iran's bad actions. It wasn't to eliminate their conventional weapons program or to make them suddenly turn into Canada with regards to their broader actions. It was to keep them from being able to start working on nuclear weapons until 2030...which it accomplished. Blaming it for not accomplishing something that was never in the scope of being accomplished seems pretty unreasonable to me.

It's particularly unreasonable because now they can start making nukes right away, we've shown the world that America can't be trusted to honor their treaties when the other side is honoring their part, and we have no replacement in site.

I've been consistent on this. If the Iran Nuclear Treaty had been replaced with something just as good or better, I'd be thrilled. But that's not what happened. We replaced the ability for Iran to start making nukes in 2030 with them being able to start making nukes about six months ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, happycamper said:

Uh, yes. Members were worried about the amount of 3% enriched uranium that Iran was allowed to keep, and I used math to point out that that perceived large amount of uranium could make approximately .502 (or whatever) fission bombs total. There was another issue as to how quickly that uranium could be enriched, which in this case, would take a while. 

Don't get butthurt when you're wrong.

Ahhh, Engineers.  Everybody needs one!  :) 

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

Eliminating missile research was never a realistic goal...which is why it was never a goal of the treaty. There's absolutely nothing that can be done about countries making conventional weaponry.

Conventional weaponry and nuclear weaponry are not the same thing and the goal of the treaty was never to get Iran to give up their conventional weapons programs because, realistically, what in the world could we ever possibly offer them that would incent them to agree to that?

The treaty takes took away their ability to enrich weapons grade uranium until 2030, reduced their uranium stockpile to basically nothing, reduced their centrifuges from 20K to 5K (and limits them to older, less efficient centrifuges) and allowed us to inspect any known nuclear site at any time for any reason. It also allowed us to investigate other sites within 25 days, which is thousands of years to soon for Iran to be able to eliminate radiation traces.

The goal of the treaty was not to fix ALL of Iran's bad actions. It wasn't to eliminate their conventional weapons program or to make them suddenly turn into Canada with regards to their broader actions. It was to keep them from being able to start working on nuclear weapons until 2030...which it accomplished. Blaming it for not accomplishing something that was never in the scope of being accomplished seems pretty unreasonable to me.

It's particularly unreasonable because now they can start making nukes right away, we've shown the world that America can't be trusted to honor their treaties when the other side is honoring their part, and we have no replacement in site.

I've been consistent on this. If the Iran Nuclear Treaty had been replaced with something just as good or better, I'd be thrilled. But that's not what happened. We replaced the ability for Iran to start making nukes in 2030 with them being able to start making nukes about six months ago.

Very well said. I was going to try and post something similar, but you nailed it.  

Not only do we look bad for being the only country to back out of the agreement, but we didn't replace it with anything but  "They better not start up nuclear development again".  Sigh...

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...