Iran Nuke Deal · Page 2 · CigarBid Forums

Free Fall
Auctions

Specials
Auctions

QuickBuy
Auctions

Newly Added
Auctions

Ending Soon
Auctions

Welcome Guest

Forum Terms & Conditions | My Topics

DrafterX
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#21

Did we ever fine them or anything for keeping our embassy and peoples hostage for all those years.. I wouldn't give them a dime.. 🤐

Phil222
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#22

Did we ever fine them or anything for keeping our embassy and peoples hostage for all those years.

DrafterX wrote:

Yes, I think we did.

Edited by user 8 years ago | Reason: Not specified

delta1
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#23

Here are the key elements of the Iran Nuclear deal. Trump and the cons will not give them any publicity, because, according to all our allies and the experts, they have been effective, and undercuts Trump's claim that "it is a disaster".

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33521655

Signatories: Iran, US, UK, China, France, Germany, Russia

1) international economic sanctions imposed on Iran would be lifted, allowing Iran to regain frozen assets of about $100 Billion and to resume selling petroleum on the world market

2) Iran will limit use of its centrifuges, with about 20,000 removed, allowed to use only oldest and least efficient 5,060, which are incapable of producing weapons-grade uranium...for 15 years

3) Iran will reduce its uranium stockpile by 98% (it transferred about 90% to Russia). Iran will not have any weapon-grade uranium, enriched to 90%. It may keep only 3.67% enriched uranium, for 15 years

4) Iran will re-design its newest nuclear reactor at Arak, so that it will not produce heavy water containing weapons-grade plutonium, for 15 years

5) Verification. International Atomic Energy Agency inspections are allowed access anywhere in Iran for 15 years, and Iran will have 24 days to comply with any request.

The removal of Iran's stockpile of weapons-grade enriched uranium and the centifuges necessary to produce it pushes the amount of time to produce enough plutonium to create a bomb to more than one year, well beyond the 24 day compliance standard.

teedubbya
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#24

We are simply violating our end of the deal. It’s not like we are withdrawing or coming up with something new. We will still be a signatory we just won’t honor our signature or commitment. We had a deal.

But this could be a good move. If the other signatories can convince Iran to not be like the US and to be good to their word we can benefit from that. We can get the benefit without giving anything. This is a trump business pattern and it could work.

Or the whole thing could fall apart and we’d be back to where we were before the deal. I think some folks forget where that was.

We’ll see. I don’t like trump but hope this works out like him and Bolton think. We sure don’t need another war.

delta1
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#25

I'm not seeing how the US benefits. We'll be imposing new sanctions but can pressure only US companies to comply, so we aren't able to stop all trade with Iran, only ours. Not sure if that is a net loss or net benefit. How, and at what cost, will we impose sanctions? How effective will lone US sanctions be if Iran is free to trade with the rest of the world?

Will the pro-west Iranians become anti-US because of this, slowing or stopping the move towards westernization, or at least friendly relations, in that country? There are terrorists in Iran, no doubt, but how does removing our presence there help us identify and neutralize them?

Hopefully the remaining countries can also be able to gather intel on Iranian terrorists, as I am sure we've been doing while we were still in. We sure can't trust the Russians, who seem to be cooperating with Iran, so this is also a potentially big loss to us.

Hopefully the other five can maintain and bankroll the deal on their own, with the IAEA inspections (spy ops?) being the key to keeping the deal alive.

I guess our main benefit is that we pocket our share of the inspections expenses...what a deal!

Edited by user 8 years ago | Reason: Not specified

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#26

so the part I liked, 10 years to foster change in Tran, is really 15 years...even less short term.

This move just may be a Trump/Bibi ploy...again I am torn as I do believe Iran's gov't as currently exists, is dedicated to removing Israel from the face of the earth.

Speyside
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#27

The Iran deal was a non binding political agreement. Obama did this because he did not have to have congressional approval for such an agreement. Trump violated nothing and did not go back on anything. He simply exercised our right to discontinue this agreement.

Al, you are blowing smoke. In 24 days any site could be sanitized. Nuclear material is transportable. As would be all of the equipment. If you cannot present a reasonable argument of why any site cannot be sanitized in 24 days then I am calling BS.

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#28

google earth cameras and Israeli intelligence.

Buckwheat
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#29

....

But mankind is a wretched beast, so eventually...

gummy jones wrote:

"No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity."
"But I know none, and therefore am no beast." 🌫

Phil222
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#30

In 24 days any site could be sanitized. Nuclear material is transportable. As would be all of the equipment. If you cannot present a reasonable argument of why any site cannot be sanitized in 24 days then I am calling BS.

Speyside wrote:

Why it’s impossible to hide nuclear work in 24 days – or 24 years

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/08/13/why-its-impossible-to-hide-nuclear-work-in-24-days-or-24-years/

"The bottom line is that it is almost impossible to get away with messing around with nuclear materials. Nuclear fingerprints are not removable."

“You cannot get rid of them by cleaning,” Stephan Vogt, head of the atomic agency’s Environmental Sample Laboratory told Reuters in 2013. “You cannot dilute them to the extent that we will not be able to pick them up. It is just a matter of time,” he stated, before the atomic energy agency detects any incriminating residue."

"Twenty-nine top U.S. scientists — including Nobel Prize winners, senior experts in arms control and former White House science advisers – wrote to President Barack Obama this past weekend to praise the Iran deal. They called it “technically sound, stringent and innovative.” Instead of listening to the complaints about the 24-day meme, Congress should pay heed to these experts."

Edited by user 8 years ago | Reason: Not specified

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

8 years ago

#31

Phil222 wrote:

They don't have to hide nuclear work.
They just have to hide weaponry.

Iran sits on top of an oil reserve that allows them to burn 24/7 and sell to the world practically forever.
Why would they even need nukes if not for bombs?

If we could turn snow into energy, wouldn't we be curious if Antarctica wanted nuclear capabilities?

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#32

electricity?

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

8 years ago

#33

TG, did we really give them $250 billion?

I thought that the money Iran recieved was technically theirs anyways, (frozen money, and money from an unfulfilled weapons deal from before the Iranian people overthrew our puppet over there). I think Obama actually paid them way less than what we could have ended up owing them. I'm not an expert on this deal, but it seemed like one of Obama's better accomplishments to me. (Might not have happened without U.S. involvement)

I have not been following the news; has Trump mentioned what he disliked about the deal or what he plans to do to improve upon it?

Phil222 wrote:

It appears that we did NOT give that much.
I'm confusing some recent figures on a separate Iran issue.

It's more likely to be much less.
But in addition to the lifted sanctions that freed Iranian money, it's understood that we gave Iran almost $2B in US Cash.

This is why I like Phil's posts.
They always make me confirm my "memory" on things.

I must have been told a million times not to exaggerate.

delta1
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#34

Can't have nuclear weaponry without plutonium...

I'm not a nuclear scientist (far from it, got a D in college Chemistry), but enriching uranium to produce weapon-grade plutonium leaves detectable and identifiable radioactive "fingerprints." That's one of the signs the inspectors look for with their advanced test equipment. Tiny amounts of radio-active substances can trip a PPD/alarm that techs who work with RA materials wear to detect unsafe levels in a university lab, and the inspectors have far more advanced tools.

And the process requires massive infrastructure...it's not like the movies where the megalomaniac's ace mad scientist (Tony Stark?) can make a nuclear bomb in a small underground lab. Enrichment facilities are much like nuclear power plants....massive facilities. We need an engineer here to do a better job of 'splaining why the experts all signed off on a 24 day notice.

here's a somewhat helpful article that kinda spells out the process:

https://thebulletin.org/converting-civilian-enrichment-plant-nuclear-weapons-material-facility

Edited by user 8 years ago | Reason: Not specified

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#35

electricity?

frankj1 wrote:

why yes, Frank, you are correct.

delta1
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#36

electricity?

frankj1 wrote:

exactricity...

delta1
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#37

tailgater wrote:

by whom...

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#38

by whom...

delta1 wrote:

Michael Cohen?

Phil222
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#39

it's understood that we gave Iran almost $2B in US Cash.

tailgater wrote:

I’m pretty sure that $2B was money that was legally owed from a weapons deal that fell through over there.

I forget where I read this, but we were about to be on the hook for way more than $2B...like $7B because of interest or something crazy like that??...now I’m exaggerating... and we negotiated it down to that figure.

I’m not 100 on that, but basically that is what I’m remembering...my point being that we didn't just hand over unwarranted bags full of tax dollars. It was really their money and whether or not we should have given it to them, I guess that's still up for debate.

I just don't see the harm of staying in this agreement, nor the benefits of soft power moves that have garnered little results in the past, like sanctions. From my perspective, this agreement has been serving its purpose, but I could be wrong.

I have underestimated Trump in the past and he has surprised me. I hope this is another one of those instances.

Edited by user 8 years ago | Reason: Not specified

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

8 years ago

#40

by whom...

delta1 wrote:

There is no question we gave the money.
Revisionist reporting, however, questions whether it was legal, owed to them, a hostage trade, related to military weapons, or tainted with disease ala exploding cigars to Castro.

Users browsing this topic

Important Information: