Framework for a Nuclear Deal with Iran: apparently agreement

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
36,284
30,895
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
The Iran deal should accomplish its primary objective - put a halt to their nuclear bomb program (for at least 10 years). Everybody here would have liked to have gotten more. We got the important part.
That sounds like more can kicking down the road (which we've become increasingly ok with doing) for some one else to deal with. The only potential good thing about this, that I can see, is that their current leadership is replaced with one more reflective of their citizens. Then this will have been a success. So long as they don't break these restrictions and come up with a bomb anyway before hand, which I'm still not convinced they won't be able to do.
 

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
What is your alternative?
Good question.

In this case, due to the past IAEA failures, I would want additional experts of each signatory's choosing. The administration could have taken a lot of the bite out of the opposition if they let them chose a representative on the verification team.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
Iranian politicians threatens head of the IAEA that if he discusses with the US details of the side deals, he will be "harmed."
Iranian AEOI spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi said:
“In a letter to Yukiya Amano, we underlined that if the secrets of the agreement (roadmap between Iran and the IAEA) are revealed, we will lose our trust in the Agency; and despite the US Congress’s pressures, he didn’t give any information to them." ... Had he done so, he himself would have been harmed.”
Oh, yeah, this is going to work great. And we only gave the Iranians $150 Billion to sign this.
 

seebell

Hall of Fame
Mar 12, 2012
11,919
5,105
187
Gurley, Al
Iranian politicians threatens head of the IAEA that if he discusses with the US details of the side deals, he will be "harmed."

Oh, yeah, this is going to work great. And we only gave the Iranians $150 Billion to sign this.
Gave? We released their own money back to them.

Treasury: No, Iran Is Not Getting $150 Billion From The Nuclear Deal

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/treasury-iran-150-billion-nuclear-deal_55b8dc41e4b0224d88348e1c

WASHINGTON -- Iran will receive approximately $55 billion in sanctions relief once the nuclear deal is implemented, said Treasury Secretary Jack Lew -- a fraction of the $150 billion that critics of the agreement have claimed will go to the country.
“There is a lot of discussion out there that Iran is going to somehow get $150 billion as soon as sanctions are lifted. That is incorrect,” said Lew, speaking at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor on Wednesday. He explained that Iran will not be able to access much of its money that has been locked up overseas due to sanctions because the money has already been committed elsewhere.
Last week, Lew told a group of senators that over $20 billion of Iran’s frozen assets has already been committed to infrastructure projects with China, and that Iran owes an additional "tens of billions" of dollars on nonperforming loans to its energy and banking sectors.
On Wednesday, Lew estimated that Iran’s demand for domestic investment surpasses $500 billion, and that it will cost between $100 billion and $200 billion to restore production levels in its oil and gas sector.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
Gave? We released their own money back to them.

Treasury: No, Iran Is Not Getting $150 Billion From The Nuclear Deal

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/treasury-iran-150-billion-nuclear-deal_55b8dc41e4b0224d88348e1c

WASHINGTON -- Iran will receive approximately $55 billion in sanctions relief once the nuclear deal is implemented, said Treasury Secretary Jack Lew -- a fraction of the $150 billion that critics of the agreement have claimed will go to the country.
“There is a lot of discussion out there that Iran is going to somehow get $150 billion as soon as sanctions are lifted. That is incorrect,” said Lew, speaking at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor on Wednesday. He explained that Iran will not be able to access much of its money that has been locked up overseas due to sanctions because the money has already been committed elsewhere.
Last week, Lew told a group of senators that over $20 billion of Iran’s frozen assets has already been committed to infrastructure projects with China, and that Iran owes an additional "tens of billions" of dollars on nonperforming loans to its energy and banking sectors.
On Wednesday, Lew estimated that Iran’s demand for domestic investment surpasses $500 billion, and that it will cost between $100 billion and $200 billion to restore production levels in its oil and gas sector.
True, but they did not have access to it and even Secretary Kerry acknowledges that they will use it to kill Americans.
I know you appreciate John Randolph like I do. Randolph addressed situations like this:
Randolph said:
This was a great cardinal principle that should govern all wise statesmen — never without the strongest necessity to disturb that which was at rest.
 

Al A Bama

Hall of Fame
Jun 24, 2011
6,658
934
132
Is the framework for the Nuclear Deal with the Persian Empire, AKA Iran, the foreign policy equivalent of the Affordable Care law in the domestic policy realm?

Don't read them, just vote for them! Just don't ask any questions! Both are based on lies and deception.!?! In the Affordable Care law, every family saved $2,500 and kept their policies and their same doctors. So, what's the equivalent in the Nuclear Deal? Persia gets to redistribute $150 Billion to Hamas, et al, they get to say whether they are in compliance or not, etc. I guess it's okay that our left hand doesn't know what their right hand is doing.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
FWIW, Cheney is against it and Powell is in favor of it.
That doesn't surprise me a bit. I wouldn't be surprised if Powell was in favor of it BECAUSE Cheney is against it.
Personally I think it is a compromise that completely favors Iran and Russia, but with 2 back to back presidents that are horrible in terms of foreign affairs nothing suprises me. One believed that a full scale invasion in that countries that haven't successfully been conquered since Alexander was possible, and one believes that he can cure societal problems that haven't been fixed since the dawn of time and that the Middle East can have peace. The Iran deal is going to happen even if I have my reservations about it , so I accept it.

As for Powell and Cheney... I have never been more afraid for this country than when W choked on a nut and went under when he got a colonoscopy because Cheney would be that guy that pushes the Nuke button in a nano second. I had great respect for Powell during the GUlf war because he knew that Sadam was the Middle East's version of Tito, but I lost some serious respect for some of his work in the cabinet. So really, both are not the best people to comment on the deal, but if you told me I had to pick one of their ideas it would be Powell.
 

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
Personally I think it is a compromise that completely favors Iran and Russia, but with 2 back to back presidents that are horrible in terms of foreign affairs nothing suprises me. One believed that a full scale invasion in that countries that haven't successfully been conquered since Alexander was possible, and one believes that he can cure societal problems that haven't been fixed since the dawn of time and that the Middle East can have peace. The Iran deal is going to happen even if I have my reservations about it , so I accept it.

As for Powell and Cheney... I have never been more afraid for this country than when W choked on a nut and went under when he got a colonoscopy because Cheney would be that guy that pushes the Nuke button in a nano second. I had great respect for Powell during the GUlf war because he knew that Sadam was the Middle East's version of Tito, but I lost some serious respect for some of his work in the cabinet. So really, both are not the best people to comment on the deal, but if you told me I had to pick one of their ideas it would be Powell.
Me too.
 

TRUTIDE

All-SEC
Oct 14, 1999
1,502
0
0
Spanish Fort, AL
As for Powell and Cheney... I have never been more afraid for this country than when W choked on a nut and went under when he got a colonoscopy because Cheney would be that guy that pushes the Nuke button in a nano second. I had great respect for Powell during the GUlf war because he knew that Sadam was the Middle East's version of Tito, but I lost some serious respect for some of his work in the cabinet. So really, both are not the best people to comment on the deal, but if you told me I had to pick one of their ideas it would be Powell.
I don't buy much Powell has to say. He thinks Obama is foreign policy genius. There was nothing good about this deal from the start. We started giving concessions right from the start and continued from there. We gained nothing at all through the negotiations. Compare Obama'S initial goals to where we ended up.

We had Iran on the ropes with the sanctions. We should have demanded a much stronger starting point and back out and doubled down on the sanctions when the negotiations started going sour. Fool us once, shame on you.
 

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
I don't buy much Powell has to say. He thinks Obama is foreign policy genius. There was nothing good about this deal from the start. We started giving concessions right from the start and continued from there. We gained nothing at all through the negotiations. Compare Obama'S initial goals to where we ended up.

We had Iran on the ropes with the sanctions. We should have demanded a much stronger starting point and back out and doubled down on the sanctions when the negotiations started going sour. Fool us once, shame on you.
I can't disagree with this either. I just have a little more respect for Powell than Cheney based on his military service. As 81usaf92 said, neither of them really are the ones I would go to in an attempt to negotiate a deal. I don't think Cheney would have gone all nuclear on anyone (except maybe Powell :) ) the feud (if you want to call it that) appears to be pretty legendary.

I also think that Colin Powell and probably Obama too, despite what they say now, would have gone into Iraq if they had been in Dubya's shoes. We were a decade down the road from kicking them out of Kuwait. The sanctions were breaking down more in Iraq than the current ones with Iran were. The post Kuwait negotiations that had happened under H-W, and the no fly zones under Clinton were no longer effective. I expect a similar problem down the road with Iran, Obama won't have to deal with it, but like Tidewater keeps saying, he will have to own up to it.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
I expect a similar problem down the road with Iran, Obama won't have to deal with it, but like Tidewater keeps saying, he will have to own up to it.
When the Iranian bomb does go off, God forbid it's in the US, Obama will not get any of the blame.
The Iranians could put their bomb in an inflatable dingy and drive it into NY harbor flying the Revolutionary Guards flag and set it off, and still the media in this country will blame President Hillary Clinton (or President Bernie Sanders or whoever gets left holding this bag) and the editorial slant will be, "Gosh, Obama earned a Nobel Peace Prize and while he was President, no cities got nuked. Now look what's happened. President Obama (afterwards deified) was so much more competent than the current schmuck." And there won't be a hint of irony in their voices as they say it.
 

Al A Bama

Hall of Fame
Jun 24, 2011
6,658
934
132
When the Iranian bomb does go off, God forbid it's in the US, Obama will not get any of the blame.
The Iranians could put their bomb in an inflatable dingy and drive it into NY harbor flying the Revolutionary Guards flag and set it off, and still the media in this country will blame President Hillary Clinton (or President Bernie Sanders or whoever gets left holding this bag) and the editorial slant will be, "Gosh, Obama earned a Nobel Peace Prize and while he was President, no cities got nuked. Now look what's happened. President Obama (afterwards deified) was so much more competent than the current schmuck." And there won't be a hint of irony in their voices as they say it.
Competent and Obama or Kerry do NOT belong in the same sentence. Now liar, lack of integrity and Hillary do belong in the same sentence IMHUO.
 

TRUTIDE

All-SEC
Oct 14, 1999
1,502
0
0
Spanish Fort, AL
I also think that Colin Powell and probably Obama too, despite what they say now, would have gone into Iraq if they had been in Dubya's shoes. We were a decade down the road from kicking them out of Kuwait. The sanctions were breaking down more in Iraq than the current ones with Iran were. The post Kuwait negotiations that had happened under H-W, and the no fly zones under Clinton were no longer effective. I expect a similar problem down the road with Iran, Obama won't have to deal with it, but like Tidewater keeps saying, he will have to own up to it.
Knowing what we know now.....I do not know if the treasure lost was worth it. I feel for the families of the lost soldiers and for the soldiers that returned home maimed. There were all kinds of reasons for us to go into Iraq. Not just WMD's like most want to think. We needed to go in and take out Saddam. We just should not have stayed and did the whole nation building thing. Our hands were tied and we could never effectively fight and protect our soldiers. We never really knew who the enemy was or who we were protecting. There was mixed responses from the Iraqi people. The initial attack was a success. The rest turned into a mess. We should have left some troops behind but not tried to make them like us. That just is not happening. I do not blame Bush for going in but he was not decisive enough after the initial attack and tried to please too many people.
 

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
When the Iranian bomb does go off, God forbid it's in the US, Obama will not get any of the blame.
The Iranians could put their bomb in an inflatable dingy and drive it into NY harbor flying the Revolutionary Guards flag and set it off, and still the media in this country will blame President Hillary Clinton (or President Bernie Sanders or whoever gets left holding this bag) and the editorial slant will be, "Gosh, Obama earned a Nobel Peace Prize and while he was President, no cities got nuked. Now look what's happened. President Obama (afterwards deified) was so much more competent than the current schmuck." And there won't be a hint of irony in their voices as they say it.
I don't like how much this rings true.

However, as much as those in the Obama administration blamed Bush for everything that was wrong, I can see subsequent administrations finding a way to blame one, the other, or even both.
 

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
36,284
30,895
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
Until we are willing to actually allow the military to do what it does best, I hope we never engage in warfare again. It's utterly ridiculous to attempt to fight a war with both hands tied behind your back for political reasons. I hate it with a burning passion, and find it to be a horrendous way to treat the men and women that are willing to sacrifice it all for this country.
 

crimson fan man

Hall of Fame
Aug 12, 2002
5,441
344
202
Athens Al
Politics and war don't mix to well. By the day standard we would be consider monsters for what we did during World War 2. If you go to war go in to win. If not stay your butt home. To many body bags come home when you play good Country.
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.