patrick.net

Paradise says

Iran’s Secret Self-Inspections

A report says the IAEA won’t have access to the Parchin nuclear site.

Again--how is this worse than the ZERO inspections we have now?

Paradise says

ZERO + self reporting still = ZERO

Except that it's not self reporting still. Absent this site that Iran claims has military significance, there will be inspections from the IAEA. And even Parchin will be inspected and pictures given to the IAEA for their review. Obviously not perfect, but as the thread says, no downside.

It cannot be worse than what we have today--which is ZERO inspections, ZERO review. Nothing.

The ultimate downside to the deal:

The State Department on Wednesday downplayed concerns over a reported deal that would allow Iranian inspectors to investigate their own military site.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/19/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-inspections-parchin/index.html

Now I gotta ask...who's
scared of the mullahs....
scared of their wives...
scared of hetrosex
scared for what jives...

Strategist says

What blows my mind is the liberal support of the nuclear agreement.

Here you have extreme left wing liberals like Dan, demanding religion be banned. Yet, they are perfectly wiling to trust the most radical religious extremist regime with developing the technology that can be used to make nuclear bombs. I can't figure out who is more crazy. The mullahs who promise to eradicate others, or the liberals who are willing to give them the means to do so.

SoftShell says

No missiles. We just turn them into another NK, with nukes but totally isolated.

Surrounding friendly countries would be put under the US nuclear umbrella.

SWIFT ban for Iran, and any countries that break the sanctions list with iran.

Their people are not as isolated/backwards as NK, and would revolt against the mullahs under this scenario

Or we might radicalize another generation of Iranis that blame America for all of their problems. Create some terrorists that can take a dirty bomb from Iran and bring it to the US.

Strategist says

Who said anything about boots on the ground? If Iran does not cave in with sanctions, a few missiles on their nuclear sites will wake them up.

and a few cruise missiles sinking oil tankers will result in 40% of the worlds oil supply being cut off. Even the threat of a few cruise missiles will stop tanker traffic dead in the water. No one is taking a billion dollar supertanker into danger.

That should work out pretty well I think. Really give the old economy a big boast with 1000 a barrel oil. Stategist? I think not.

SoftShell says

No missiles. We just turn them into another NK, with nukes but totally isolated.

Surrounding friendly countries would be put under the US nuclear umbrella.

SWIFT ban for Iran, and any countries that break the sanctions list with iran.

Their people are not as isolated/backwards as NK, and would revolt against the mullahs under this scenario..

Another severely geographically challenged one. What friendly countries would that be? Saudi Arabia? That's too funny for words. Iran already has a swift ban. Kicking china, russia, india, and japan (iran's largest trading partners, if you really think they aren't working around the sanctions then I've got some swamp land for you) out of swift would work out even better than having iran closing the straight of hormuz. Brilliant thinking.

Is it trolls ski free day or are you people really that stupid?

bob2356 says

Strategist says

Who said anything about boots on the ground? If Iran does not cave in with sanctions, a few missiles on their nuclear sites will wake them up.

and a few cruise missiles sinking oil tankers will result in 40% of the worlds oil supply being cut off. Even the threat of a few cruise missiles will stop tanker traffic dead in the water. No one is taking a billion dollar supertanker into danger.

That should work out pretty well I think. Really give the old economy a big boast with 1000 a barrel oil. Stategist? I think not.

That's all Bullshit. They were saying the same thing during the gulf war. Iraq got cleaned out like it was a video game.
Allowing them to have nuclear technology is no different then simply giving them nukes.

bob2356 says

Another severely geographically challenged one. What friendly countries would that be? Saudi Arabia? That's too funny for words. Iran already has a swift ban. Kicking china, russia, india, and japan (iran's largest trading partners, if you really think they aren't working around the sanctions then I've got some swamp land for you) out of swift would work out even better than having iran closing the straight of hormuz. Brilliant thinking.

Is it trolls ski free day or are you people really that stupid?

Working around the ban only gets them a trickle. Now it's trickle at $40.00. Allah has not been very merciful.
All these crazy Mid East regimes are nothing but trouble. You either control them, or overthrow them. There is no other solution.

Strategist says

That's all Bullshit. They were saying the same thing during the gulf war. Iraq got cleaned out like it was a video game.

Perfect, you don't know the geography, religion, or politics of the region. Why would iran have objected to the US invading iraq? They just had an 8 year war with iraq in which iraq invaded iran. Iraq had a sunni controlled government that would always be a threat to shia iran. How would Iraq close the straights of hormuz? They are a long way from the straights and they don't have a navy.

Sue the cake bakers for starters...

bob2356 says

How would Iraq close the straights of hormuz ?

Precisely why you don't go halfass with this one....attack all their military sites at once...all or nothing..

bob2356 says

and a few cruise missiles sinking oil tankers will result in 40% of the worlds oil supply being cut off. Even the threat of a few cruise missiles will stop tanker traffic dead in the water.

SoftShell says

Precisely why you don't go halfass with this one....attack all their military sites at once...all or nothing..

bob2356 says

and a few cruise missiles sinking oil tankers will result in 40% of the worlds oil supply being cut off. Even the threat of a few cruise missiles will stop tanker traffic dead in the water.

Amazing, someone even more clueless than strategist, a very, very high bar. Iran is the size of the US eastern third. Pray tell how does one strikes all their military sites at once?

In general, I think they should be brought into the international fold. But I just don't trust Obama-especially the way he is handling the TPP. The devil is in the details, what is in the plan?

Strategist says

It does not help anyone except for the wackos who think they will get their 72 virgins

In fairness, despite the bluster, while not benign, is much more bluster than real. I don't see Persians raising future suicide bombers or having families of 10 kids like many Palestinians I grew up around and went to school with in New Mexico and beyond.

Unlike arabs, Persians generally value education and western ideals more, despite what their idiot mullahs are spewing.

anonymous says

The nuclear agreement “removes the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program based on dates certain, rather than on changes in Iran’s aggressive behavior, including its support for terrorism around the world,” the senior official said. “The deal doesn’t solve the Iranian nuclear problem, but rather delays and intensifies it.”

According to the secret document, obtained Monday by The Associated Press, key restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program imposed under the accord will ease in slightly more than a decade, cutting the time Tehran would need to build a bomb to six months or less from present estimates of a year.

Iran's support for terrorism around the world? You need a senior official that knows what he is talking about.

So the problem is that in 10 years Iran could build a bomb in 6 months instead of a year? WTF? Is the onion or something?

Sure, let's hear what a clown has to say on this matter...

indigenous says

apparently forgetting about the expiration of his old deadline.

this is expected of jews. full of lies.