Leaked Draft of Iran Nuke Deal

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: crazyewok

You are making this more complex than it is.

It is very simple.... you prefer that a regime that directly sponsors terrorists, hangs people in the street for the crime of being gay, that imprisons women for driving a car or fighting back against a male rapist, or dancing to Pharrell Williams' 'Happy',

acquire nuclear weapons.

N Korea, i agree, should never have nukes in the first place. I am sure you agree. So why make the same mistake again with Iran?

It's hard to take you seriously when you get your allies Saudi arabia muddled up with .
Iran.

Women can infact drive IN Iran .

Ok they hang gays. Not sure on the others.

But the women driving ban is Saudi arabia.
Americas wonderful allie.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok

Produce 'solid evidence' to whom?? YOU? If you'd allow action against NK but not Iran? There's an interesting logic...

Hey, crazywok says 'no' on Iran but gives his go ahead on NK. Ass backwards of course...

North Korea is threatening the USA and half of Asia with nuclear annilation.

They full admit to haveing nukes and wanting to use them.

Seems to be we should go after them first as they are a bigger threat than Iran right now.

Unless you provide evidence (from a non republican source) that Iran has nukes and will use them on the west North korea is the biggest threat.


Let's put it more simys shall we?

North korea HAS nukes, admits to haveing nukes, and is threatening to use nukes.

Iran: denys haveing nukes, even Mossad seems to think they are not getting nukes, only testimony that they have nukes being from the Israeli pm and a few republicans..... Ie the same liers that brought the world Iraq.


So North Korea has nukes and wants to use them
Iran no nukes


Cause I want North Korea sorted first!!!

Any sane person can see they are the most dangerous?

Or are North koreans not Muslim enough for the GOP? Lol

a reply to: crazyewok

Oh yes.... I stand corrected...

Its hard to keep track of the astonishing women rights violations taking place in every muslim mideast country. So sorry for that.

But my point still stands.

originally posted by: Britguy
Only a day since Nutty-yahoo "won" the election and already the chosenites are once again ramping up the anti-Iran booga booga! They really just can't help themselves, such is their sense of self superiority and victimhood.

And this supposedly leaked draft hasn't appeared, but just seems to have been talked about on a couple of rather biased blogs. Of course, I am sure it's all above board and reliable, just like MEMRI's "wipe Israel off the map" translation and SITE intelligence getting the scoop all the time of ISIS beheading videos. Anyone see a theme emerging?

YES THERE IS A THEME EMERGING! I see it! SIX MILLION Jews were killed during the holocaust, which everyone loves to forget about. I don't blame Israel at all for having a "once bitten twice shy" attitude about the whole thing.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: combatmaster

He isn't making it complex. He's doing anything he can to deflect from the Iranian issue....

No Im not,


My point is extremly valid.


Why go after Iran who DONT have nukes and which many intel agency are divided on Irans desire to have nukes.

When you actually have a rogue nuclear power that not only freely admits to haveing nukes but consistantly states its desire to use them on the USA.

Surely it makes logical sense to go after the country that DOES have nukes and DOES want to use them on you.

Rather than a country which does NOT have nukes and there is limited evidence that they will.

Honestly how stupid will itlook if the USA goes marching into Iran finds nothing there and North Korea lands a nuke on Guam or maybe in a few years Hawai.


Plus going after North Korea sends a stronger message. A message that says haveing nukes does not make you immune from military action if you go to far. Infact that message takes away one of Irans reason to want to develop nukes or any country wanting to in future.




Attacking just sends out the message the USA are israeli bitches and will attack another weak ME country on limitef inteligance.

originally posted by: AreUKiddingMe

originally posted by: Britguy
Only a day since Nutty-yahoo "won" the election and already the chosenites are once again ramping up the anti-Iran booga booga! They really just can't help themselves, such is their sense of self superiority and victimhood.

And this supposedly leaked draft hasn't appeared, but just seems to have been talked about on a couple of rather biased blogs. Of course, I am sure it's all above board and reliable, just like MEMRI's "wipe Israel off the map" translation and SITE intelligence getting the scoop all the time of ISIS beheading videos. Anyone see a theme emerging?

YES THERE IS A THEME EMERGING! I see it! SIX MILLION Jews were killed during the holocaust, which everyone loves to forget about. I don't blame Israel at all for having a "once bitten twice shy" attitude about the whole thing.

Well seeing as Britain had nothing to do with the holocaust and infact actvily fought hitler I dont see why us brits should feel guilt tripped into supporting Israel today,

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: crazyewok

Oh yes.... I stand corrected...

Its hard to keep track of the astonishing women rights violations taking place in every muslim mideast country. So sorry for that.

But my point still stands.

Well as long as the USA and my own wrecthed country keep supplying state of the art weapons to the evil saudisI dont see how we can condem Iran with the same brush.


Far as I am concerned we should cut ties with both until they join the 21st century.

originally posted by: xuenchen
I don't even understand the "need" for nuclear power to begin with.

Iran is oil and gas rich and currently gets 94% of their power from oil and gas.

Their nuclear power generators only give way less than 1% right now.

Solar would be the objective I would think?

And I think Iran's claims of "power shortages" is complete BS.

So what? The United States has an even greater oil and gas reserve, in fact we have the largest reserve period, greater even than Saudi Arabia (American Oil Reserves Now Top Saudi Arabia) - no one is calling for the USA to abandon all nuclear power.

Telling another country they don't need (or can't have) nuclear power because they have oil is another example of American arrogance.

a reply to: crazyewok

Unbelievable! You'd attack a nuclear powered nation. One where the DMZ is 30 miles from Seoul?

One that would almost surely would use their nuclear weapons if attacked?

OK. (Shrug). I guess your willing to go fight against NK as well?

Do you have investment in Iran?.....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok

Unbelievable! You'd attack a nuclear powered nation. One where the DMZ is 30 miles from Seoul?

One that would almost surely would use their nuclear weapons if attacked?

OK. (Shrug). I guess your willing to go fight against NK as well?

Do you have investment in Iran?.....

Yes I would fight north korea if needed. As I said I wont call for a war I would not fight myself if my country called.
Its wrong to ask other men to die for you.



Plus you still have dodged my point.


Why should I view Iran as more of a threat than north korea?

Why should I want war when no actually proof has been presented except what a few politician that have lied in the past have said?


Why should I listen to the GOP and Bibis war talk on Iran then they lied out Iraq?


Why should I want to want to risk my life or others based soley on the testamony of lieing politicians?


War is not a game, war is not fun.

Unless evidence of imminient threat exists then a first strike.should not be taken lightly

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok

Unbelievable! You'd attack a nuclear powered nation. One where the DMZ is 30 miles from Seoul?

One that would almost surely would use their nuclear weapons if attacked?

OK. (Shrug). I guess your willing to go fight against NK as well?

Do you have investment in Iran?.....

So you would send the message that nukes give you a free ticket to do what you want?


Whst happens in 10 years time when north korea has ICBM that can hit the US mainland and little kin starts demanding money?

Will you just give in to his demands? O wait yeah the world does now!


What happens when North Korea implodes as a country which many predict and as a F you they launch there ICBMs as a last revenge?


Right now they only have a handfull of small nukes which limited delivery range.

In 10 years time they could have dozens pointing at US cities.


Yes war would be bloody now, but survivable. Infact I doubt more than one or two nukes would go on civilian targets. North korea would use them likely on the battlefield on US milirary bases. Remember he only has a limited numbet and a civilian strike would be a waste.

2nd point is they dont have MRV or decoys yet so they will be vunrable to patriot missles.

10 years time the cost of a North Korea unfathomble,

a reply to: crazyewok

There is no reason "why" you should anything.

I could care less whether you support Iran from being blocked from developing nukes or not. It will happen.

It should happen, NK not withstanding. NK is all the threat you say. I agree fully. Iran shouldn't be allowed to become another NK.

We will save NK for another thread-I believe there's a chance to run around that regime and end that one without external force.

As you keep referring to the political liars. I will assist you in removing your denial on the liars running Tehran.

They have matched the NK rhetoric, the only difference is the target...Israel. A U.S. ally. They run a proxy war with Israel via Hamas and Hezbollah. They've killed more Americans with IEDs than this NK regime and at least NK is surrounded and has no expansion goals other than uniting with the south.

The Persians? Sorry. More gained at less cost with Iran. it even may be an example that NK might sit up and take notice of...unlikely, but not impossible.

a reply to: crazyewok

Two points I will make. First, you seem to have a definite moral code regarding who, when and under what circumstance. Apparently, a willingness to have for yourself what you would have others do.

I admire both.

The only difference I can see is where that line is drawn. I cannot argue your point on NK down the road. I do not believe NK will survive as a nation that long...or at least hope not.

I also believe that if unification is offered to both the north and south to the peoples of both nations via any and all means of communication, with neutral, independent over-site, an election could be promoted and perhaps held. If refused by the regime, it would take away their basic argument that 'reunification' is their goal.

Then, and only then, I'd be ok with a surgical strike. I see Vietnam as a similar situation. One that ended the fracas once unified.

There two groups in the ME I admire, one is the Israeli people. The other is the Kurdish people. (Honorable mention to the Egyptian of late, as well.)

I believe that the Israeli-Palestinian situation is unsolvable by negotiation. Israel will not be forced by anyone into an agreement that they perceive to be unfair/unworkable.

I will use your NK analogy. Ten years from now, a nuclear armed Iran, then who else in the ME just to keep up, improved technology, as you say.... far, far worse then, than now.

I see a slim chance of an out in trying unification with the Koreas. I see no out in the ME. I'm betting if Israel is left alone, not invaded, missiled, suicide bombed, they will not go all in. They seem to get along with this Egyptian regime well, also Jordan. To me that's a pretty good indicator that if one leaves them alone, it won't blow up.

Defang Iran and my bet is this thing cools out....at least with Israel. If the Shias and Sunnis want to continue their 'debate'? Have at it...but without access to nukes.

Bottom line? Both issues suck.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: AreUKiddingMe

originally posted by: Britguy
Only a day since Nutty-yahoo "won" the election and already the chosenites are once again ramping up the anti-Iran booga booga! They really just can't help themselves, such is their sense of self superiority and victimhood.

And this supposedly leaked draft hasn't appeared, but just seems to have been talked about on a couple of rather biased blogs. Of course, I am sure it's all above board and reliable, just like MEMRI's "wipe Israel off the map" translation and SITE intelligence getting the scoop all the time of ISIS beheading videos. Anyone see a theme emerging?

YES THERE IS A THEME EMERGING! I see it! SIX MILLION Jews were killed during the holocaust, which everyone loves to forget about. I don't blame Israel at all for having a "once bitten twice shy" attitude about the whole thing.

Well seeing as Britain had nothing to do with the holocaust and infact actvily fought hitler I dont see why us brits should feel guilt tripped into supporting Israel today,

England limited Jewish immigration into British Mandate Palestine prior and during WW2. The United States limited Jewish immigration into the USA. Both actions contributed to the Holocaust.

a reply to: PGTWEED

England limited Jewish immigration into British Mandate Palestine prior and during WW2. The United States limited Jewish immigration into the USA. Both actions contributed to the Holocaust.

Smoke in mirrors and classic deflection.

No matter which way one looks at it its pretty obvious where the blame and responsibility for The Holocaust lies - with those who chose to commit those horrific acts.
If the Nazi's weren't intent on exterminating the Jews, and others, then there would never have been a holocaust regardless of the actions of the UK and the USA.

gee, if the OP only had the actual associated press article, instead of some blog site

originally posted by: jimmyx
gee, if the OP only had the actual associated press article, instead of some blog site

Well it's linked in one of the stories.

you have to read it to find it

But U.S. officials insist the focus on centrifuge numbers alone misses the point. Combined with other restrictions on enrichment levels and the types of centrifuges Iran can use, Washington believes it can extend the time Tehran would need to produce a nuclear weapon to at least a year.

Right now, Iran would require only two to three months to amass enough material to make a bomb.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Apparently there's a "draft" of an agreement between Iran and the P5+1 negotiating team that seems to have some strange language.

Looks like Iran can keep 6000 centrifuges and might get some big relief from those sanctions.

It appears fairly accurate on the number of centrifuges, but there are other things:

"If these are the parameters by which the [final agreement] will be signed, then this is an excellent deal," Stein concluded.
...

• Iran will give up about 14,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges
  
• Iran will give up all but its most rudimentary, outdated centrifuges: its first-generation IR-1s, knock-offs of 1970s European models, are all it gets to keep. It will not be allowed to build or develop newer models.
  
• Iran will give up 97 percent of its enriched uranium: it will hold on to only 300 kilograms of its 10,000 kilogram stockpile in its current form.
  
• Iran will destroy or export the core of its plutonium plant at Arak, and replace it with a new core than cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium. It will ship out all spent nuclear fuel.

Iran would simply not have much of its nuclear program left after all this.
...
For the next 20 years, inspectors would have "continuous surveillance at Iran's centrifuge rotors and bellows production and storage facilities."
...
First, Iran has finally agreed to comply by a rule known as Modified Code 3.1 ... Iran has to notify inspectors immediately on its decision to build any new facility where it plans to do nuclear work — long before construction starts.
...
Second, Stein reads the framework as including Iran's ballistic missile program ... supporters of the negotiations have said that it would be unlikely ... it would simply be asking for too much in one agreement.
...
Iran demands that all sanctions be lifted right away ... But the US and others worry, ... if they lift all sanctions immediately then Iran will have far less incentive to follow through on its commitments ... difficult to re-impose those sanctions. And Iran has cheated on such agreements before.

This is but a framework; things can change. Still, it looks like a pretty dang good for the West.