Can someone please tell me a real problem with the Iran nuke deal.

For those who want a little info on what it accomplishes, here you go



So basically Iran has cut it's centrifuge's down below expected levels. It has agreed to enrich to levels far below weapons grade. For inspections it agrees not only to have it's facilities inspected regularly, but also to have the people who make the equipment for nuclear facilities inspected. It has agreed to not research any further for at least 20 years, and have discussions at that point.

All we have to do is lift the sanctions and we can even keep sanctions based on other reasons.

Now please to you Iran haters explain to me how Iran is going to continue it's nuclear program after this? Please do tell us how we need to invade them now despite completely rolling over and giving us access to their supply chains and facilities, along with downgrading productions to low levels and less of it?

Fuckwits around here told us we had to go to war to get something that would not have been anywhere near this good. You right wing warmongers were fucking wrong. Now fuck you lap dogs of Isreal, we do not need to attack Iran, and I think we might even be able to have some peace with them.

Something, something Sadaam, something, something Israel.

Should pretty much boil down the vast majority of concerns to that.

Don't Forget Bla Blah Blah Obama Blah Bla Benghazi Bla Bla ISIS Bla. because that is a very important part of their argument.

You forgot #Obama #benghazi #hillarygate. It is objectively a very good deal, and I would have been pleased with quite a bit less. To argue against it requires a combination of stupidity, hate, bloodthirst, or some form of dementia.

It is actually a very good thing Obama has done. I may not have liked other things, but this is a legacy type of change. He might not have done health care right, and he might not have brought about the huge change in the way we regulate our banking industry and the stock market like we need, but this is a hell of a good deal and he did it while the republicans and Isreal were trying to throw gasoline on the fire. This right here makes him a good president who is above the rest of them for the past 30 years. He is better than regan, clinton, and the two Bush's. And he did it without war.

It seems that Obama has foreign affairs down pat and he even got lkhadaffi and Osama which neither of the Bush boys could do.

I am not being sarcastic here at all. Thank you President Obama. That was a great deal.

Yeah, I tend to agree. And the interesting thing is that he said way back in 2008 that this is what he was going to do with Iran. He didn't just get lucky, but worked hard for several years to realize the vision articulated during the election campaign. People can disagree with this and PPACA, but how many President's can point to two signature accomplishments that directly represent what they said they planned to do once in office?

From what I've heard.

1) No on site inspections of ALL possible nuclear facilities by the U.S.
2) No clear set of consequences beyond perhaps sanctions if Iran fails to comply.
3) No limits on basic research and development.

We need a grasping at straws rating. Pretty weak dude, pretty weak.

1. yes, but we do have out satelites up there looking over them.
2. Yeah, sanctions and an I told you so war. What more do you want?
3. Except that there are and this is a lie.

Yeah, now you are just making shit up. Way to be a Gturner.

There's really only one problem with this. The Iranians won't abide by it. Hell, they're probably already cheating it.

But how will they do that when allowing such an invasive inspections regime, and when they dispose of most centrifuges (including the newest), and when they dispose of all but the most minimally enriched uranium? The deal leaves them with an extremely limited program and verifiably so.

You have read incorrectly, and I'm sure the lies are based on the fact that UN inspectors are involved. However, that has been the long standing non-proliferation regime, and one that works.

Let us assume the worst and that Iran intends to cheat. Ok, our ability to detect that cheating is vastly, vastly improved by the inspections in this deal and they will certainly have a harder time with 90% of their uranium gone, 90% of their centrifuges gone, their heavy water reactor gone, and their 10% remaining uranium watered down to 5% enrichment.

Even if we assume the worst, which is not likely to happen as sanctions would automatically snap back into place, this deal still makes the situation vastly better from the western standpoint. That is just an objective fact.

Neville Chamberlon would be proud of you.

I do not trust UN inspectors.

IIRC under the START agreements that President Reagan originally signed with the Soviet Union, the U.S. (and the Soviets) had extensive on site inspection rights with virtually no warning.

I remember when the U.S. had to suddenly pull a bunch of B-52s out of a conventional bombing exercises because the Russians gave sudden notice of their intent to inspect them.

I also remember in the 1990s when the U.S. paid for the Russian inspectors to come to the U.S. becauser Yeltins govt. couldn't afford to fly them over.

I'm no expert, but IIRC 5% enriched uranium is actually much closer to the 99% enrichment necessary for uranium nuclear fission weapons than it is for the 1% used for power plants.

It's Chamberlain, by the way. Anyway, it always makes me laugh the way conservatives see Munich in every negotiation. The claim is almost always wrong. Diplomacy does work, despite a spectacular failure here or there. It's funny, too, how they say it with no sense of irony about circumstances such as this, when disregard for diplomacy means certain war. Munich failed, but the conclusion that war is therefore always preferable is insane.

You are wrong. 5% is what is used in power plants. 1% is the raw material which is dug out of the ground. 90%+ is what is needed for a bomb.

Currently Iran has a very sizable store of 20% enriched uranium. That will all be shipped to Russia. Everything above 5% gets shipped to Russia.

Diplomacy only works in the shadow of possible war.

Because diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a rock.

And I'll be in your face with this.

Why is war with Iran considered such a horribly bad thing? The U.S. takes out Iran and the problem with Iranian nuclear weapons (or Saudi, or Egyptian) is gone pretty much for good. No jacking around with sanctions, no threats and bothering with diplomacy. Quick and decisive.

Yes, Iran is roughly three times larger than Iraq but that doesn't magically translate to massively higher fatalites.

In the actual invasion of Iraq in 2003, the U.S. lost what 133 people. Assuming Iran was 20 times that number it translates into something like 2,000 fatalities. Sad numbers but hardly debilitating to the U.S.

And why would you even trust the Russians?

They have a good history of honoring nuclear agreements and we also have extensive treaties allowing us to inspect their facilities just like they get to inspect ours.

How quickly you forget your man-god Reagan's trust but verify.

Larry the cable guy would be ashamed of you. Who do you think wins that comparison?

Yeah, and we see how well Iraq went. It's a blossom of enlightenment.

You just want to blow up muslims. Let us get right down to the matter. You are genocidal and that is not cool.

Dayton, invading Iran wouldn't be quick or decisive. It is a highly mountainous country about four times the size of Iraq with a much larger population. It also has a much more capable and more modern military.

So after a longer, bloodier war you will have a much longer bloodier occupation which would make Iraq and Afghanistan look easy in comparison. No, thank you, that is something to avoid unless absolutely necissary even if you want to masterbate to pictures of it on Fox.

That was more than 2

You don't think the Iranians (as well as most others) would be better off without their current government in charge?

I have no special dislike of Muslims in particular.

I do have a special dislike of a nations people that has made a habit of screaming "death to America" for 35 years.

Didn't say invade.

1) Massive airstrikes against their nuclear facilities.
2) Naval blockade including restrictions on their oil exports and refined petroleum product imports.
3) Send in special forces groups as necessary for targets of opportunity.

1) Wrecks nuclear facilities.
2) Destroys their economy.
3) Provides rescue for downed airmen and assassination of nuclear scientists and other officials.

Not seeing where such a conflict is going to cause large numbers of America casualities.

and that is 1) Not true B) Extremely offensive C) Wondering why you and those of your ilk keep claiming it.

No other lie you wish to tell about me?

And what will be the outcome of this in 10 years? Kinda like Iraq only worse.

Dayton, you poor ignorant fool. They already have UN sanctions against their oil exports which most states seem to be following. If the US was seen as preventing a diplomatic deal international cooperation with the sanctions would have fallen apart.

Next all of their nuclear facilities are located deep underground in reinforced hard rock mines, think NORAD, and they did that intentionally just so air strikes wouldn't be possible. Further more they made redundant facilities spread out all over the country just so a surprise air strike wouldn't be effective.

The diplomatic deal makes them consolidate everything down to just one facility in one location.