It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran Nuclear Deal Concludes In Historic Announcement

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace



Problem is, I also read that the deal didn't require Iran to allow inspectors in.

Maybe you should do a little research.

Blocking the Four Pathways to a Nuclear Weapon

International inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will not only be continuously monitoring every element of Iran’s declared nuclear program, but they will also be verifying that no fissile material is covertly carted off to a secret location to build a bomb. And if IAEA inspectors become aware of a suspicious location, Iran has agreed to implement the Additional Protocol to their IAEA Safeguards Agreement, which will allow inspectors to access and inspect any site they deem suspicious.




So while you're insinuating that Israel will use them because they don't allow inspections, just know neither did Iran.

No I am insinuating that Israel would use them because during the Yom Kippur war the military leaders in Israel wanted to use them.
Declassified: Israel nearly used nukes in Yom Kippur War


Newly declassified documents reveal that Israel nearly made use of its nuclear weapons during the fateful opening days of the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Israel’s Yediot Ahronot reported on Thursday. On the second day of the war, as Syrian and Egyptian forces were overcoming the sparse and surprised Israeli defenders, Defense Minister Moshe Dayan suggested the use of nuclear weapons in a secretive meeting with Prime Minister Golda Meir.

What Egypt and Syria did to Israel is nothing compared to what Iran can do to Israel so if a full scale war broke out between them you don't think Israel would not use nukes?




posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel



What was all the evil stuff Iran has done to recently to be labeled such a 'bad country'.

They provide weapons to people defending their nations against a hostile invader. The invader is Israel so that automatically makes Iran the bad guy. When America does it we are helping to spread democracy when Iran does it they are state sponsors of terrorism.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   
President Obama Lies About 24/7 Iranian Nuclear Inspections In National Broadcast….

Obama says:


That means this deal is not built on trust. It is built on verification. Inspectors will have 24/7 access to Iran’s nuclear facilities. (transcript)




BUT..


TRUTH: … Negotiators failed to meet the standard of achieving “anytime, anywhere” access that several members of the United States Congress had demanded as a part of any nuclear deal. Instead, in the event Iran objects to an IAEA request for access to a specific site, a “clock” will begin that grants the two sides 14 days to negotiate.


President Obama Lies About 24/7 Iranian Nuclear Inspections In National Broadcast….




posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Britguy
a reply to: paxnatus

Where did Iran buy it's nuclear weapons from last month?
Amazon? ebay? Nuclear Weapons "R" Us?




Russia,China, and North Korea.

Is where Iran has been getting their nuclear 'technology' from.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS

originally posted by: PGTWEED
As I have observed about this Nuclear deal. Future Generations will speak of the USA the way we speak of the lost continent of Atlantis. We chose Dishonor. We will get War.


You expected something different from a country that elected Obama to the White Hut.....not once, but twice?
And BTW, "we" didn't choose Dishonor......the "America" that put Obama in the White Hut chose Dishonor.
We means the United States. What did we do to prevent this farce of a deal from happening? Answer: is forthcoming from Congress. If they approve. We have chosen Dishonor!



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: PGTWEED
As I have observed about this Nuclear deal. Future Generations will speak of the USA the way we speak of the lost continent of Atlantis. We chose Dishonor. We will get War.

There is nothing more dishonorable than starting a war based on lies. This agreement is to stop another useless war from starting.
Too bad It won't. This entire deal is based on lies.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: PGTWEED

originally posted by: TonyS

originally posted by: PGTWEED
As I have observed about this Nuclear deal. Future Generations will speak of the USA the way we speak of the lost continent of Atlantis. We chose Dishonor. We will get War.


You expected something different from a country that elected Obama to the White Hut.....not once, but twice?
And BTW, "we" didn't choose Dishonor......the "America" that put Obama in the White Hut chose Dishonor.
We means the United States. What did we do to prevent this farce of a deal from happening? Answer: is forthcoming from Congress. If they approve. We have chosen Dishonor!


My United States didn't chose Dishonor; the United States Congress will chose dishonor; that's because they're bought and paid for and without any honor to begin with.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Actually i found out something interesting. SINCE this is NOT a TREATY the president CANT VETO their decision LEGALLY. According to the constitution.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

What? Of course the president can veto this. It's not a treaty, it's a resolution. If congress passes a resolution of disapproval to attempt to block the lifting of sanctions then the president can veto that resolution so the sanctions are lifted.

Congress has 60 days from the moment the president gives them the details of the agreement to issue a resolution of approval or disapproval.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: yuppa

What? Of course the president can veto this. It's not a treaty, it's a resolution. If congress passes a resolution of disapproval to attempt to block the lifting of sanctions then the president can veto that resolution so the sanctions are lifted.

Congress has 60 days from the moment the president gives them the details of the agreement to issue a resolution of approval or disapproval.



COnstitition might say not so fast Obama on Iran deal



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: DeusImperator

Are we saying death to Iran?
They chant death to America and death to Israel constantly.

Yup we could, but do we?



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Can Congress stop the Iran deal?


The basic thing we want you to take away from this is the difference between a treaty (which has to be approved by the Senate) and an executive agreement (a treaty-except-not-officially-called-that which doesn't have to be approved by the Senate but that sometimes Congress gets to vote on.)


If the president doesn't call it a treaty, then congress can't deny him the agreement (unless they get 2/3 veto override).

I mean, do you remember when 47 senators wrote an open letter to Iran and the Iranians replied telling them that the US constitution doesn't override international law??


Zarif emphasized that if the current negotiation with P5+1 result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.

Zarif expressed the hope that his comments “may enrich the knowledge of the authors to recognize that according to international law, Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement at any time as they claim, and if Congress adopts any measure to impede its implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US obligations.

...

The Foreign Minister also informed the authors that majority of US international agreements in recent decades are in fact what the signatories describe as “mere executive agreements” and not treaties ratified by the Senate.

He reminded them that “their letter in fact undermines the credibility of thousands of such mere executive agreements that have been or will be entered into by the US with various other governments.


It's an agreement between at least six nations, the US congress can't just swoop in and say 'no deal!' It would not only be unconventional but it could very well be illegal according to international law.


edit on 15-7-2015 by links234 because: bad coding



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

If the US does not ratify it in congress international law can go stuff it as well. All treatys need approval by congress and the senate according to our laws/constitution. SO the Iranian was wrong. And My link explained the way they can stop a presidential agreement as well so its obvious ya didnt read it.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

It's not a treaty, thus, it doesn't require senate approval. Moreover, it's a UN Security Council agreement, an action that squarely falls to the task of the executive branch through the Secretary of State and the ambassador to the United Nations.

So, let's take this to your logical conclusion; it's determined that this can only happen after the senate approves it by a 2/3 vote. The senate blocks it or simply fails to reach such a majority. The UNSC lifts the sanctions anyway because the United Nations doesn't answer to the United States. Now...do we, as a nation, risk a war with our allies in trying to enforce our own unilateral sanctions against Iran? Of course not. Alternatively, we go the route that Israel wants, air strikes; we bomb Iranian nuclear refining facilities. Do you think the Iranians would respond well to foreign militaries dropping bombs on them? I mean, the government already doesn't like us very much and we're not dropping bombs on them. The government [I]barely[/I] has the support of its citizens, if we outright attacked them then it would be war. Do we want another Iraq? Ten more years of war + further destabilization with the added risk of drawing Russia into this against us?

The reason the GOP, and conservatives in particular, are so upset with this is because they have no viable alternative. They don't seem to care about the removal of nearly all of the already produced nuclear material. They don't care about the dismantling of one of the main nuclear refineries, they don't care about the sanctions immediately returning if the UN doesn't believe the Iranians are complying. They want war.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeusImperator
Japan would have fallen eventualy,


Would have been a really nasty ground war with 10 of millions killed on both sides as every man women and child would have fought for their god emperor. We had to utterly destroy the emperor's spirit to end it quickly no matter what Russia had available.



Now about this Iran agreement; I dont really see the problem, its a beautifull country and considering what its neighbours are doing the world should focus on them and not the Iranians.


Iran is a beautiful country and the young are not extremest like the old guard that is in charge...we will see though...



edit on 16-7-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 05:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: SubTruth

I am afraid we will see Israel pull another OSIRAK type mission, THE MOMENT Iran denies one inspection.
AND THEY WILL.

Oh they should spare us from their wrath . Osirak type of mission and they'll get an H3 type of mission on their end .

the time when someone could bully Iran has ended . US foreign minister was outside his country for a month begging for a deal . it was the longest mission of a US FM ever in history .

hold on to your horses hon , we want peace , but hey , #NeverThreatenAnIranian .



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   
What makes anyone think Iran will let the IAEA in to inspect suspicious activities? They haven't done so in the past! And here is the thing. Iran gets 24 days of a heads up if inspections will be taking place...As they have done before, all they have to do is pour asphalt over the facility and you can NOT detect any sign of atomic energy!

I mean come on, are you saying if you were doing something bad and you knew the boss was going to look into your activity AND you are given a 3 week notice, are you not going to clean up your act??!!

This is no deal! Iran gets 150 Billion to do what?? How about buy weapons Nuclear and otherwise, build their army to major power, Make deals left and right on the black market incite and strengthen the taliban which poses a direct threat the coalition forces battling IS RIGHT NOW!! AND KEEP ON OPPRESSING the beautiful people in the country!!

Very bad deal!! At the very least Obama could have constructed a clause separate from the main event FREEING THE AMERICANS that are being held hostage!! What a narcissistic Bumpkin! God Help Us All!

I don't care what side you are on in the ME, if any country uses a nuclear weapon or an emp, IT IS ON FOR ALL OF US!!

pAX



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Here's the documents...

all 159 pages....

Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action




posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: haman10

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: SubTruth

I am afraid we will see Israel pull another OSIRAK type mission, THE MOMENT Iran denies one inspection.
AND THEY WILL.

Oh they should spare us from their wrath . Osirak type of mission and they'll get an H3 type of mission on their end .

the time when someone could bully Iran has ended . US foreign minister was outside his country for a month begging for a deal . it was the longest mission of a US FM ever in history .

hold on to your horses hon , we want peace , but hey , #NeverThreatenAnIranian .



IF Iran breaks the agreement it should be seen as a PROMISE not a threat. Iran would have peace if The relgious leadership and supreme leader were dead or let the younger generation run things. Supreme leader himself murdered people with his own hands as well from reports ive seen in the past.

The comments made by supreme leader the next day IF i was president would had made em scrap the idea post haste,and since the king obama has not done so its obvious who is pulling his strings now. Clintons un secure e mails coming back to bite obama in the butt because hes being black mailed most likely.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: haman10

HOWEVER if NO inspections ARE DENIED then we MIGHT be able to finally trust Iran.
I will see.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join