ADVERTISEMENT

Shocking! Iran threatening to resume its peaceful nuclear weapon program

Medic007

Medic007

MegaPoke is insane
Sep 25, 2006
33,271
52,154
113
  • Like
Reactions: windriverrange, SoonerRedYukon101, GunsOfFrankEaton and 3 others
Medic007 said:
Grabankles Hussein Obama and Ketchup Boy were naive ideologues desperate to have a "legacy." I thought Iran was our friend now. What gives?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=webhp&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjjrpeul5rjAhWLq54KHYyfASYQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-says-it-will-enrich-uranium-beyond-nuclear-deal-limits-11562159114&psig=AOvVaw3GxzquWFW7olyqY3xS8zCC&ust=1562292535518042

Paste the link into an incognito browser window to read.
Click to expand...
What?

Those trustworthy, swarthy fellows are reneging?

Surely not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: windriverrange, SoonerRedYukon101, GunsOfFrankEaton and 3 others
Iran is our friend. Awwww how sweet.
5af2bf466598e027008b4690-750-375.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton, Medic007, iasooner1 and 1 other person
I have some questions. I mean them in all sincerity, I’m not trying to provoke an angry ad hominem outburst from anyone. I’m trying to understand the logic behind your thinking. OK? So if my questions only serve to piss you off so you want to resort to furious insult I ask that you keep it to yourself. These are honest questions looking for reasoned answers. Here goes.

Obama got the US involved in the agreement with Iran in 2015, right? The US would ease sanctions and in return Iran would dismantle it nuclear arms development. By all accounts Iran was following the agreement. The European signatories said Iran was in compliance, as did those whose job it was to keep an eye on things and inspect as needed. Along came DJT who was persuaded to independently back out of the agreement, causing a firestorm of international controversy. We can all agree on that, can we not? So the US formally backed out of the agreement and imposed crippling sanctions on Iran that has led to widespread suffering and death to innocent civilians, people not part of the Iranian government, but living under its control. The idea is if the US can cause enough suffering on the Iranian people they will rise up and overthrow their government and put in a US-friendly person, much like the old Shah. That hasn’t happened, but that’s the reason the sanctions are there. Am I right so far?

Now Iran has announced they are also breaking the terms of the agreement to the howls of fury by the US government, not to mention the ones who have commented on this post.

So here’s my question: what right does the US government have to be angry that Iran is violating the terms of an agreement with which the US no longer has a part? How would it be different if one of the signatories in it an agreement between Norway and New Zealand broke the agreement, why would the US have any say?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AC_Exotic and SoonerRedYukon101
Looks like Biff really handled this well, too. It was resolved. Now we have nuke problems with Iran again.
 
Ponca Dan said:
I have some questions. I mean them in all sincerity, I’m not trying to provoke an angry ad hominem outburst from anyone. I’m trying to understand the logic behind your thinking. OK? So if my questions only serve to piss you off so you want to resort to furious insult I ask that you keep it to yourself. These are honest questions looking for reasoned answers. Here goes.

Obama got the US involved in the agreement with Iran in 2015, right? The US would ease sanctions and in return Iran would dismantle it nuclear arms development. By all accounts Iran was following the agreement. The European signatories said Iran was in compliance, as did those whose job it was to keep an eye on things and inspect as needed. Along came DJT who was persuaded to independently back out of the agreement, causing a firestorm of international controversy. We can all agree on that, can we not? So the US formally backed out of the agreement and imposed crippling sanctions on Iran that has led to widespread suffering and death to innocent civilians, people not part of the Iranian government, but living under its control. The idea is if the US can cause enough suffering on the Iranian people they will rise up and overthrow their government and put in a US-friendly person, much like the old Shah. That hasn’t happened, but that’s the reason the sanctions are there. Am I right so far?

Now Iran has announced they are also breaking the terms of the agreement to the howls of fury by the US government, not to mention the ones who have commented on this post.

So here’s my question: what right does the US government have to be angry that Iran is violating the terms of an agreement with which the US no longer has a part? How would it be different if one of the signatories in it an agreement between Norway and New Zealand broke the agreement, why would the US have any say?
Click to expand...
Dan, do you really believe the Iran deal was anything more than a poor attempt to get a "major achievement" talking point? There's a reason that the Obama administration was intentionally dishonest with the American people, and it wasn't because the Iran deal was an awesome accomplishment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imprimis, GunsOfFrankEaton and iasooner1
Syskatine said:
Looks like Biff really handled this well, too. It was resolved. Now we have nuke problems with Iran again.
Click to expand...

Resolved you say? How is it that you think the Iranian situation was resolved when Iran is the leading terrorist supporter in the world, has continued it's ballistic missile development is supporting chaos all over the Middle East and all to the detriment of it's population.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner1, GunsOfFrankEaton and Headhunter
Ponca Dan said:
I have some questions. I mean them in all sincerity, I’m not trying to provoke an angry ad hominem outburst from anyone. I’m trying to understand the logic behind your thinking. OK? So if my questions only serve to piss you off so you want to resort to furious insult I ask that you keep it to yourself. These are honest questions looking for reasoned answers. Here goes.

Obama got the US involved in the agreement with Iran in 2015, right? The US would ease sanctions and in return Iran would dismantle it nuclear arms development. By all accounts Iran was following the agreement. The European signatories said Iran was in compliance, as did those whose job it was to keep an eye on things and inspect as needed. Along came DJT who was persuaded to independently back out of the agreement, causing a firestorm of international controversy. We can all agree on that, can we not? So the US formally backed out of the agreement and imposed crippling sanctions on Iran that has led to widespread suffering and death to innocent civilians, people not part of the Iranian government, but living under its control. The idea is if the US can cause enough suffering on the Iranian people they will rise up and overthrow their government and put in a US-friendly person, much like the old Shah. That hasn’t happened, but that’s the reason the sanctions are there. Am I right so far?

Now Iran has announced they are also breaking the terms of the agreement to the howls of fury by the US government, not to mention the ones who have commented on this post.

So here’s my question: what right does the US government have to be angry that Iran is violating the terms of an agreement with which the US no longer has a part? How would it be different if one of the signatories in it an agreement between Norway and New Zealand broke the agreement, why would the US have any say?
Click to expand...

Here is where your post breaks down. You said that Obama got the US involved in the agreement. But he didn't. He got Obama involved since he never got it ratified by the Senate. If that had happened, then the US would have been involved.

Then you say that Trump independently withdrew. Well that's actually correct. But you don't give the same characterization to Obama's efforts. It's disingenuous and shows your bias.

There is NO agreement between the US and Iran. The agreement was with the Obama administration and Iran. Once you get that straight then let's talk.

And none of us are 'howling in fury' that Iran is breaking their end of the deal now. Hell, despite your posting that by all accounts they were complying, I don't believe for a moment they were actually ever intending to comply to any degree that actually hampered their ability to seek nuclear weapons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TPOKE, imprimis, JimmyBob and 4 others
Point 1 in time: agreement reached, Iran stops developing nukes.

Point 2 in time: agreement rescinded, Iran developing nukes.

Hello?
 
Syskatine said:
Point 1 in time: agreement reached, Iran stops developing nukes.

Point 2 in time: agreement rescinded, Iran developing nukes.

Hello?
Click to expand...

Obama's agreement was temporary. Only a temporary delay with Iran being free to do what they please at the end of that ten year period. That is and always has been 100% unacceptable to anyone that wasn't drinking the kool aid and had at least two functioning brain cells. Iran can never have the ability to develop a nuclear weapon nor should they be allowed to have the ability to deliver those weapons. While my hope is the sanctions and international pressure will convince Iran their current direction is not in their best interest I am not against unleashing the military as a last resort to insure they never have access to nuclear weapons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner1 and windriverrange
NZ Poke said:
Important reminder:
Boomer Conservatives still haven’t delivered the bill for the Iraq War (2003) to their Gen X and millennial children.
Click to expand...

It is amazing how the same people keep making the same mistakes.

I just can't understand the rationale for constantly swatting asian hornet nests.

I'll give some credit to a republican: Ike was right. The defense industry has this country by the balls.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ponca Dan
2012Bearcat said:
Obama's agreement was temporary. Only a temporary delay with Iran being free to do what they please at the end of that ten year period. That is and always has been 100% unacceptable to anyone that wasn't drinking the kool aid and had at least two functioning brain cells. Iran can never have the ability to develop a nuclear weapon nor should they be allowed to have the ability to deliver those weapons. While my hope is the sanctions and international pressure will convince Iran their current direction is not in their best interest I am not against unleashing the military as a last resort to insure they never have access to nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...


Mm hmmm. Always a reason to spend a shitload of money to get sucked into more war and asian conflicts.
 
Medic007 said:
L-O-L!

Iran wouldn't be producing IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges if it had stopped developing nukes. Did you miss where Ben Rhodes publicly stated that the Obama administration fed you #bornswallowers complete bullshit about the Iran deal?
Click to expand...

You know... For once I think I know what you are talking about. As you know, I did not have your deep well spring of knowledge of topics roaming feom carbon capture, Libyan tribal politics, gender studies, booger savoring, compuger programming, constitutional philosopohy, zoning, and health care, but I read a good article about some iranian centrifuge talking points. This is the centrifuge that could technically be modified for purposes of weapons development.... but in the same way a Volkswagen Beetle could be technically converted into a battle tank?

If this is the deal you are talking about it is the 2019 version of "SWEET JESUS YELLOWCAKE URANIUM!" and people are spinning half-truths to set the stage for war, just like in 02-03.

This iran deal was done and us a way to extract from the ME and normalize iran. Nope.
 
There is another thread as we speak about how stupid and punitive the Versailles treaty was. Well, why do we continually screw down the iranian economy to create desperate conditions? Let em make some money and let capitalism do its thing. Lot cheaper on us.
 
Syskatine said:
This iran deal was done and us a way to extract from the ME and normalize iran. Nope.
Click to expand...
Normalize Iran? You really thought Iran was going to normalize? Goddamn hilarious! That's high level unaware and compliant.

Syskatine said:
This is the centrifuge that could technically be modified for purposes of weapons development.... but in the same way a Volkswagen Beetle could be technically converted into a battle tank?
Click to expand...
The advanced centrifuges are much more efficient at enriching uranium. They don't need to "be technically modified for purposes of weapons development."
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner1 and GunsOfFrankEaton
I appreciate that for the most part the replies have been polite. But to this point not a single person has addressed the question. Let me rephrase it. The US broke the terms of the agreement, pulled out and instituted wide ranging sanctions. The US no longer has any agreement with Iran. Now Iran has broken the terms of an agreement which had ceased to exist when the US abandoned it. So what is the moral principle by which the US government can complain that Iran is “violating” the terms of an agreement which has ceased to exist? I’m not trying to quibble over who’s right and who’s wrong. I’m just asking for an explanation of the justification for condemning Iran for violating an agreement which the US had already violated and abandoned. Can anyone finish this soliloquy:
1) The US had an agreement with Iran.
2) The US violated the terms of the agreement and withdrew from it.
3) Iran responded to the actions of the US by violating the terms of the agreement.
4) Therefore the US is justified in condemning Iran for violating the terms of the agreement because ______________.
 
Another huge irony at work here........some of the same people/countries that believe NK has NOT stopped trying to get bigger and better nukes, believe that Iran was abiding by the ex-rodent in chief deal. I would have to have more proof than "European" inspectors verified they were in compliance anyway. Those same Europeans are slowly allowing unelected socialist bureaucrats and their own politicians to import under educated, government dependent and primarily malcontent immigrants to overrun their countries.

Any country who's leaders and the leaders private army constantly scream Death to Israel & Death to America need to be treated as the existential threat they are. If they wieners in Europe want to believe their intentions are peaceful well won't be the first time they have been thus hoodwinked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imprimis, okcpokefan12, iasooner1 and 1 other person
There is no agreement between the USA and Iran.

The Iranians entered the agreement insisting they had no nuclear weapons ambitions. So crossing the enrichment line proves that was false.

If you want to blame Trump for forcing them to cross the line, fine. Me and like minded people never believed they ever intended to honor their sweetheart deal with Obama and Kerry.

So let's deal with current reality. Trump is putting the screws to Iran very severely and they are headed down a path that will most certainly lead to a military response from the USA and Israel, possibly the Saudi's as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: okcpokefan12, Rdcldad, Ostatedchi and 1 other person
Ponca Dan said:
I appreciate that for the most part the replies have been polite. But to this point not a single person has addressed the question. Let me rephrase it. The US broke the terms of the agreement, pulled out and instituted wide ranging sanctions. The US no longer has any agreement with Iran. Now Iran has broken the terms of an agreement which had ceased to exist when the US abandoned it. So what is the moral principle by which the US government can complain that Iran is “violating” the terms of an agreement which has ceased to exist? I’m not trying to quibble over who’s right and who’s wrong. I’m just asking for an explanation of the justification for condemning Iran for violating an agreement which the US had already violated and abandoned. Can anyone finish this soliloquy:
1) The US had an agreement with Iran.
2) The US violated the terms of the agreement and withdrew from it.
3) Iran responded to the actions of the US by violating the terms of the agreement.
4) Therefore the US is justified in condemning Iran for violating the terms of the agreement because ______________.
Click to expand...
1. I already showed you where this is incorrect. The Obama administration did, not the US.
2. We didn't violate anything. The newly elected administration said they wouldn't be bound by what the prior administration committed to since it was never ratified by the Senate.
3. There is nothing to violate once Trump negates the Obama admin's actions. However you are foolishly naive to think the Iranians would comply with any aspect of the agreement that would materially hamper their nuclear weapons aspirations.
4. We aren't justifying or condemning them for shit. The current administration recognizes that the Obama agreement was shit and is re-instituting the sanctions that have been in place for decades.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TPOKE, Medic007, okcpokefan12 and 2 others
Ostatedchi said:
1. I already showed you where this is incorrect. The Obama administration did, not the US.
2. We didn't violate anything. The newly elected administration said they wouldn't be bound by what the prior administration committed to since it was never ratified by the Senate.
3. There is nothing to violate once Trump negates the Obama admin's actions. However you are foolishly naive to think the Iranians would comply with any aspect of the agreement that would materially hamper their nuclear weapons aspirations.
4. We aren't justifying or condemning them for shit. The current administration recognizes that the Obama agreement was shit and is re-instituting the sanctions that have been in place for decades.
Click to expand...
I appreciate that you are the only one that attempts to answer my question. However the link I am providing suggests the Senate did take action regarding the deal and Obama prevailed. Therefore your answer is invalid as an appropriate argument.

The very first response to the OP (by soonersincefifty) used the word “reneging,” to which Medic replied “I know,” suggests those two, at least, thought Iran was violating the terms of the deal.

Those people who are thinking my question is evidence that I am a “leftist” who hates America and wants to see a nuclear Iran are not only completely wrong, but are also missing the point. My question is seeking the moral justification the US has in condemning Iran for violating the terms of an agreement that America had already violated and rescinded its sanction. Once America bowed out of the agreement the terms no longer applied to America, but only to Iran and the remaining countries who had stayed the course. I could understand why the remaining countries would raise hell, but I don’t understand the logic America has used since America is no longer a party to the agreement I don’t know if I can make it any clearer than that. Anyway, here’s the link to which I alluded at the top of this post;

https://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2015/sep/11/congress-votes-deal
 
Ponca Dan said:
I appreciate that you are the only one that attempts to answer my question. However the link I am providing suggests the Senate did take action regarding the deal and Obama prevailed. Therefore your answer is invalid as an appropriate argument.

The very first response to the OP (by soonersincefifty) used the word “reneging,” to which Medic replied “I know,” suggests those two, at least, thought Iran was violating the terms of the deal.

Those people who are thinking my question is evidence that I am a “leftist” who hates America and wants to see a nuclear Iran are not only completely wrong, but are also missing the point. My question is seeking the moral justification the US has in condemning Iran for violating the terms of an agreement that America had already violated and rescinded its sanction. Once America bowed out of the agreement the terms no longer applied to America, but only to Iran and the remaining countries who had stayed the course. I could understand why the remaining countries would raise hell, but I don’t understand the logic America has used since America is no longer a party to the agreement I don’t know if I can make it any clearer than that. Anyway, here’s the link to which I alluded at the top of this post;

https://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2015/sep/11/congress-votes-deal
Click to expand...
Show me where the Senate ratified anything and you'll have a point. Otherwise, I'm still right. Not-disapproving it via a procedural vote to end debate isn't anything like actually ratifying it. Any attempt to characterize it otherwise is total spin. It either gets ratified or it doesn't. Anything less is like spiking the ball on the 40 yard line and declaring you just scored a touchdown.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imprimis, iasooner1 and okcpokefan12
There are people from all over the ideological spectrum saying gtfo. Dan. Me. NZ. There's some binary loyalty at play here and its not me.
 
Ponca Dan said:
I appreciate that you are the only one that attempts to answer my question. However the link I am providing suggests the Senate did take action regarding the deal and Obama prevailed. Therefore your answer is invalid as an appropriate argument.

The very first response to the OP (by soonersincefifty) used the word “reneging,” to which Medic replied “I know,” suggests those two, at least, thought Iran was violating the terms of the deal.

Those people who are thinking my question is evidence that I am a “leftist” who hates America and wants to see a nuclear Iran are not only completely wrong, but are also missing the point. My question is seeking the moral justification the US has in condemning Iran for violating the terms of an agreement that America had already violated and rescinded its sanction. Once America bowed out of the agreement the terms no longer applied to America, but only to Iran and the remaining countries who had stayed the course. I could understand why the remaining countries would raise hell, but I don’t understand the logic America has used since America is no longer a party to the agreement I don’t know if I can make it any clearer than that. Anyway, here’s the link to which I alluded at the top of this post;

https://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2015/sep/11/congress-votes-deal
Click to expand...
Dan, geez man, unwad your undies. I was simply pointing out that I'm not shocked that Iran is threatening to violate the terms of the deal it still has with the other countries involved.

I'm sorry if you were duped into thinking the Iran deal was going to be anything more than kicking the can down the road and paying handsomely to do it just so Obama could pat himself on the back. There's no shortage of information out there on why the "deal" was terrible and why Obama chose to do it as a political agreement rather than taking the steps to make it a legal agreement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: okcpokefan12, Ostatedchi and iasooner1
Medic007 said:
Dan, geez man, unwad your undies. I was simply pointing out that I'm not shocked that Iran is threatening to violate the terms of the deal it still has with the other countries involved.

I'm sorry if you were duped into thinking the Iran deal was going to be anything more than kicking the can down the road and paying handsomely to do it just so Obama could pat himself on the back. There's no shortage of information out there on why the "deal" was terrible and why Obama chose to do it as a political agreement rather than taking the steps to make it a legal agreement.
Click to expand...


Again, you are missing the point, seeing what you want to see. I’m not arguing one way or the other about the agreement itself. I’m not really even talking about the agreement.

I’m asking for someone to provide the philosophical justification for the American reaction to Iran’s violation. So far only Ostatedchi has even attempted an answer, and he’s being a little Bill Clintonesque about it (what the definition of is is). I ask the question because I can’t follow the logic of the reaction, and I thought one of you who have expressed the reaction could explain.

I no more want Iran to have a nuclear weapon than you. That’s irrelevant to the question I am asking. Mostly I thought it would be an interesting topic of discussion as I recover from the intense session of yard work my beautiful wife put me through this morning.
 
Ponca Dan said:
Again, you are missing the point, seeing what you want to see. I’m not arguing one way or the other about the agreement itself. I’m not really even talking about the agreement.

I’m asking for someone to provide the philosophical justification for the American reaction to Iran’s violation. So far only Ostatedchi has even attempted an answer, and he’s being a little Bill Clintonesque about it (what the definition of is is). I ask the question because I can’t follow the logic of the reaction, and I thought one of you who have expressed the reaction could explain.

I no more want Iran to have a nuclear weapon than you. That’s irrelevant to the question I am asking. Mostly I thought it would be an interesting topic of discussion as I recover from the intense session of yard work my beautiful wife put me through this morning.
Click to expand...
I already answered your main question despite all your other errors and incorrect characterizations of the 'agreement'.

3. There is nothing (for Iran) to violate once Trump negates the Obama admin's actions. However you are foolishly naive to think the Iranians would comply with any aspect of the agreement that would materially hamper their nuclear weapons aspirations.

I'm not up in arms about it in the least. I'm not shocked or surprised.
 
Ostatedchi said:
Show me where the Senate ratified anything and you'll have a point. Otherwise, I'm still right. Not-disapproving it via a procedural vote to end debate isn't anything like actually ratifying it. Any attempt to characterize it otherwise is total spin. It either gets ratified or it doesn't. Anything less is like spiking the ball on the 40 yard line and declaring you just scored a touchdown.
Click to expand...
I’m sure you know more about the machinations of Senate procedure than I. I don’t know how any of it works. But as the link shows the Senate, under Republican control, did what it could to stop the agreement and failed. In a sense your argument rests on the same foundation as those Democrats that want to abolish the Electoral College. Obama did his thing, the Republicans failed to stop him, it became “the law of the land.” Now Trump has done his thing, which is apparently also the law of the land. Whether either Obama or Trump we’re correct in their actions is not germane to the question. Now that Trump has pulled us out of the agreement Iran has reacted by violating terms to which it is not beholden to America. As such Americans who invoke the agreement as the foundation of their condemnation of Iran should explain the rationale. What is the unvarnished, unbiased philosophical rationale?
 
Ponca Dan said:
I’m sure you know more about the machinations of Senate procedure than I. I don’t know how any of it works. But as the link shows the Senate, under Republican control, did what it could to stop the agreement and failed. In a sense your argument rests on the same foundation as those Democrats that want to abolish the Electoral College. Obama did his thing, the Republicans failed to stop him, it became “the law of the land.” Now Trump has done his thing, which is apparently also the law of the land. Whether either Obama or Trump we’re correct in their actions is not germane to the question. Now that Trump has pulled us out of the agreement Iran has reacted by violating terms to which it is not beholden to America. As such Americans who invoke the agreement as the foundation of their condemnation of Iran should explain the rationale. What is the unvarnished, unbiased philosophical rationale?
Click to expand...
It didn't become a 'law of the land'. Quit making yourself look even worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: okcpokefan12 and iasooner1
Ponca Dan said:
Again, you are missing the point, seeing what you want to see. I’m not arguing one way or the other about the agreement itself. I’m not really even talking about the agreement.

I’m asking for someone to provide the philosophical justification for the American reaction to Iran’s violation. So far only Ostatedchi has even attempted an answer, and he’s being a little Bill Clintonesque about it (what the definition of is is). I ask the question because I can’t follow the logic of the reaction, and I thought one of you who have expressed the reaction could explain.

I no more want Iran to have a nuclear weapon than you. That’s irrelevant to the question I am asking. Mostly I thought it would be an interesting topic of discussion as I recover from the intense session of yard work my beautiful wife put me through this morning.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I didn't miss any point, Dan. Sorry that you don't like the answer I gave you. I posted an article that quoted Iran announcing it would violate the agreement that it still has with the other signatories. I then stated (sarcastically) that I was shocked that they made that announcement. I can't speak for anyone but me, Dan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: okcpokefan12, iasooner1 and Ostatedchi
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back