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.

 

Netanyahu: Iran Nuke Deal ‘Will Bring War’

page: 7
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Aazadan

The US is weaker than Iran? What are you smoking? lol



Diplomatically they were in this case.

France, UK, Russia, China and Germany all wanted a deal of some sorts.

Diplomacy wise USA is certainly stronger one on one with Iran and any of the above country's, but against them I a group? No.




posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I would agree with that...diplomatically the US typically negotiates with weakness. Look at the peace talks during the Vietnam war. Look at virtually any diplomacy by the US since the early part of the 20th century.

If you are a weak negotiator...you will always lose. We lost. Kerry and Obama were more concerned about just getting a treaty...any treaty... than actually working out a functioning one.

I am pretty sure the congress is going to shot this # down.

No doubt the group dynamics played a part... but achieving a workable inspection schedule involving surprise inspections should have been the deal breaker. No surprise inspections, no deal.



edit on 5-8-2015 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: crazyewok

I would agree with that...diplomatically the US typically negotiates with weakness. Look at the peace talks during the Vietnam war. Look at virtually any diplomacy by the US since the early part of the 20th century.

If you are a weak negotiator...you will always lose. We lost. Kerry and Obama were more concerned about just getting a treaty...any treaty... than actually working out a functioning one.

I am pretty sure the congress is going to shot this # down.


Not sure if the USA could have done anything else.

They got backed into a corner, if the USA had walked and the other nations stayed then the USA would of lost huge points in diplomatic credibility and reinforced the world war monger reputation. Plus the EU country's and China could kick up a stink as we all have strong economic links. Russia is the only one here that has little leverage thanks to Ukraine.

End of the day Israel should have been at the table alongside the USA as it would have given you more clout and a higher position to negotiate from. Netty shot himself and his country in the foot.
edit on 5-8-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Even military wise the USA was backed into a corner,

France and the UK would never have joined you guys in a war.

The US military may be vast and powerful but invading and occuping a country requires huge resources that have stretched the US military in the past even with our help.

Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan the UK and French did a lot of heavy work and after nearly 15 years we have only just been able to withdraw. Iraq was just as bad and you only had us.

For Iran? Not only is it bigger but it has sharper teeth.

I'm not saying the USA can't do it on its own, but if you did you would need a draft, a big one. You think that would go down with the US public well in this day and age?

Hell look at vietnam, you did that without a major allie and not only did you have trouble but the draft litrally destroyed public support from the beginning. At one point the US were practical begging for the UK to help (thankfully we didnt, though it cost as support in the seuz crisis) .

Then there is logistics. The USAF rely heavily on UK and French oversea bases, particularly deago garcia and Cyprus. If we cut them off from use USAF takes a big hit, hell look at the trouble France caused when it (rightfully) blocked use of its airspace for USA and UK military planes in Iraq. Again usaf could overcome that but at great cost, costs which the USA can't really afford right now.
edit on 5-8-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-8-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
The US is weaker than Iran? What are you smoking? lol


Militarily no, but diplomatically on this issue the US had very little negotiating position. Frankly we got a fantastic deal given the circumstances. The UK, Germany, France, Russia, and China all wanted a deal and were willing to work with Iran. The sanctions wouldn't last, or be effective in the face of a deal so the US was either forced to participate and get something or walk away and get nothing. Like it or not we can't simply threaten to blow everything up, the rest of the world won't stand for it and international relations are important.


originally posted by: bbracken677
How is a surprise inspection disruptive if you are doing nothing wrong? Hmm?


Because preparations need to be made for inspectors.


It's rather obvious to anyone with half a brain that requiring a 24 day notice PRIOR to inspection is for the express reason of assuring you have enough time to hide crap. There is no other reason for that much advance notice.


24 days is not enough time to hide evidence. Radioactive material leaves behind residual radiation that can be detected.


Afterall, if you are doing nothing wrong, then a single surprise inspection a month would satisfy (should) both sides....if you are doing nothing wrong. IF.....


How well would your business function if once a month you had the CEO and shareholders come in for a surprise inspection wanting to see presentations of everyones work? The uncertain scheduling alone would create chaos. It's the same for a nation.



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
I am pretty sure the congress is going to shot this # down.


Congress will not shoot this down, if for no other reason than there is no choice other than to accept it. If we don't ratify the treaty, any conditions we demanded from Iran will be dropped. This will seriously piss off the UK, France, and Germany who expended political capital elsewhere on the idea that the US would ask for certain things. It also means the US will be the lone country sanctioning Iran and that we will lose any diplomatic backing to attack Iran, potentially even bringing Europe to their defense.

The US has no choice but to accept the treaty.



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Doublepost
edit on 5-8-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Israel is a lot smaller and a much newer kid on the block, in terms of the last millennium, even if it was technically, arguably once a nation state of some kind - rather than a mere citadel..... Iran has Persian roots that have added much to culture, art and science, globally over the years. Israel has many nukes, so we are lead to believe, Iran does not....... Too much power in so few hands is not good on either side - but it is clear Israel started this sprint within the arms decathlon - that never ends (well).... The US gets a massive investment opportunity, access to natural resource (extraction & processing) markets and a guarantee of OIL FOR $$ HEGEMONY.....



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Backed into a corner..in a sense, yes.

Full military invasion would not be necessary. All we would have to do is to take out their air force and defensive positions and then run daily bombing runs on anything that smells like a nuclear site of any kind. We rain down bunker busters on them and even though we may not take out the whole of the facilities we could certainly prevent access.

Little muss, little fuss. All achievable from a couple of carriers. No need for overseas bases.

And that assumes there HAS to be the exercise of military might.... I dont believe we are at that stage.

The problem is with our leadership. No will... Same situation with Vietnam, as you pointed out, but different reasons. Our leaders had little will and were looking for a way out. Meanwhile the Vietnamese stalled the "peace talks" to a degree that, along with our agreement not to bomb military targets in NV, they had time to rebuild and mount more attacks. Poor leadership, weak negotiations... we dropped our pants and the Vietnamese took advantage of it.

Same thing with the allies in the negotiations. I ask this question: were they there because they demanded to be included or were they there because it looks better to have a front of allies involved in negotiations? Politically speaking, they were there because we thought it would look better...........



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Yep - 'cos that worked so well in Afghanistan, Iraq, vs ISIS, Nth Vietnam.....

Jeez have you folk learned NOTHING????



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Well it did not help the fact you should never have been in Vietnam in the first place which drastically weakend d power internationally and at home.

As for the militarily I think you underestimate Iran. It has a pretty nasty anti air system with some modern anti air missiles that would be dangerous for the carrier legacy fleet. You could punch through it I'm sure but at heavy cost.
F-35 and f-22 would be needed for a quick easy strike and if the UK and France block off there airspace and use of military bases the USAF will be in logistical trouble. If the EU blocked off its airspace the USAF most direct and safe route into the area would be blocked.

As for the other powers at the table? It was more than show. Germany basically leads the Euro zone along with France and the UK is the banking capital. Iran assets are frozen here as well. Seeing as most the world's banking passes through London at some point and the EU has a bigger combined economy than the USA lifting sanctions s fro us is just as important.


edit on 5-8-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan




Because preparations need to be made for inspections.


Bovine excrement. If I have my house in order and I am not doing anything wrong, I can take an inspection any time with no loss of production.




24 days is not enough time to hide the evidence.....


Ok...I will say it this time: Bull crap

Because radioactive material leaves behind residual radiation that can be detected... alrighty!! I guess what they are really doing there is baking cookies for Mrs. Fields!!!

I am going to take a shot in the dark here...just a wild guess... a supposition at most:
What are they doing there? Hmm.. they are refining radioactive material... creating military grade plutonium.

Taking a long reach outthere I am going to guess that this process (the same one we are going to be inspecting) will leave residual radiation that will be indistinguishable from any additional refining they are doing. One would be inspecting a nuclear facility with at least background radiation a tad above normal background. Would additional centrifuges and additional production alter that? Umm NOPE! There will still be radiation that is slightly above normal background.

It's not like they are going to be refining plutonium in an open air sweatshop operated by little old ladies and sewing machines.

Not enough time to move equipement? Do you really have a clue wtf you just said? I can move industrial equipment that will be broken down into individual sections...each section that weighs tons. I can do that and I can move all the equipment from the facility in less than 24 days with proper preparation.

If someone engaged me to set up a process to move 10,000 centrifuges quickly and efficiently I could manage that and get them moved to a different facility in less than 24 days.

Do you think that any modern factory that is replacing a piece of obsolete machinery takes months of downtime to pack it up, get it out and then moving in the new machinery? Umm NOPE!! Not just NOPE! but HELL NO

Downtime means a loss of cashflow. With proper planning those centrifuges would be no sweat.... 24 days is a ridiculous amount of time.



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

You obviously underestimate the capability of the US air force. They can make mince meat out of any air defense system in the world, including their own.

Saddam's air force and air defenses....what happened there?

Nevertheless...this is beginning to sound like "my dad can kick your dad's butt"......

RE Vietnam: I totally agree. We should not have been there to begin with. However, I have always maintained that we should not get involved in another country's business such as that... but if for some reason we do wind up in the thick of it, then the kids gloves should come off and we should fight to win, fight to win decisively and completely. Leave no enemy behind.

In short: Stay out of the crap. If we do get into it...kick ass quickly and completely and then leave.

All too stupidly we wind up in crap wars, not fighting seriously, putting handcuffs on our military and then crying because, in a war, people die. Really? That makes no freakin sense whatsoever. Of course people die in a war. That is precisely why we should stay out of war unless we have no choice, no option.

Negotiating weakly and without conviction, dropping our pants, is not the option I am speaking of.



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

...Or we make DEALS NOT WAR....... The most obvious one for EUROPE is for Iranian oil & gas to be refined in Greece and piped to European nations....... Badly needed - ONE IN THE EYE OF RUSSIA..... etc... Of course, all oil will now be guaranteed to be paid for in dollars, by Europe, still...
edit on 5-8-2015 by PrivateSi because: oil $$s



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: PrivateSi

I agree!! Wholeheartedly!!

Thats not what we did though. We totally wimped out. 24 days notice indeed.....



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: bbracken677

Yep - 'cos that worked so well in Afghanistan, Iraq, vs ISIS, Nth Vietnam.....

Jeez have you folk learned NOTHING????



You didnt read what I wrote did you? Or, perhaps you didnt understand.....

Whatever.....
edit on 5-8-2015 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

It's the 'hard ass kicking' bit that worries me............. PROPORTIONATE is my system of justice...... And I see all military war as total wastage........ Your attitude is a bit schiz - cautious, yet, if it all goes tats up, BLOW IT ALL TO GOD DAMN PIECES!....... Iran is less aggressive than that by a long way, historically, esp. in the last few centuries... Israel believes in 1000 eyes for en eye, in general, and half the world hates their government rabidly, as a pariah, with good reason.....
edit on 5-8-2015 by PrivateSi because: Israel's uber-excuberent attacks... kills 10000s



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
Bovine excrement. If I have my house in order and I am not doing anything wrong, I can take an inspection any time with no loss of production.


That's not quite how the inspections work. The facility gets shut down while the inspections are happening, a lot of security footage needs to be reviewed, machinery inspected, and so on.



I am going to take a shot in the dark here...just a wild guess... a supposition at most:
What are they doing there? Hmm.. they are refining radioactive material... creating military grade plutonium.


For the most part they aren't. There is an expected amount of output they need to show, they are limited to a very small amount of weapons grade material, and the rest is only for energy production. The two are not the same thing, weapons grade material is refined to about 90% (slightly more for plutonium) while material for reactors is enriched to a lower percentage, I'm not a nuclear scientist so I couldn't tell you the exact values. What I can tell you is that it's very easy (just a small amount of algebra needed) to look at existing stores compared to maximum or expected output and see if what they should be producing is what is produced.


Taking a long reach outthere I am going to guess that this process (the same one we are going to be inspecting) will leave residual radiation that will be indistinguishable from any additional refining they are doing. One would be inspecting a nuclear facility with at least background radiation a tad above normal background. Would additional centrifuges and additional production alter that? Umm NOPE! There will still be radiation that is slightly above normal background.


Different grades of nuclear fuel have different half lives. Radioactive decay can be measured quite accurately so it's possible to detect what material is there or has been there recently.


Not enough time to move equipement? Do you really have a clue wtf you just said? I can move industrial equipment that will be broken down into individual sections...each section that weighs tons. I can do that and I can move all the equipment from the facility in less than 24 days with proper preparation.

If someone engaged me to set up a process to move 10,000 centrifuges quickly and efficiently I could manage that and get them moved to a different facility in less than 24 days.


I'm sure you could, and I'm sure they can. If you lay out your inspections right though, lets say it takes 12 days to covertly move and set up. It's impossible to run a program because as soon as you move the equipment another inspection will be upcoming. 24 days is a short enough period of time to prevent Iran from running a program that will stockpile nuclear material.

Edit: I should add that as time goes on the more important this deal becomes, and the greater the incentive Iran has to stick to it. Once everyone is making money because of a lack of sanctions, they will want to continue to make money. If Iran violates the deal the sanctions snap back into place. On the other hand, one of the strongest ways to get leverage with a nation is economically, sanctions completely cut off that leverage. In followup deals (which we know will happen because this one is only good for 15 years or whatever it is) our negotiating position becomes stronger while the pressure for Iran to accept a deal also increases.
edit on 5-8-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: PrivateSi

Actually, what this deal reminds me of, in a vague sort of way, the "negotiations" that took place after Germany took Austria.....

Germany was emboldened by the weakness of the rest of Europe and the lack of resolve (which was way too late anyway) and just kept rolling.

Someone with some cojones could have prevented WWII.. According to the Treaty of Versailles the Germans were prevented from a military buildup. When Germany started building subs and battleships and their air force...did anyone say "Whoa!" .... NOPE!

Now when Iran violates the treaty (as they have very other treaty they have agreed to) is anyone actually going to hold their feet to the fire? Sadly, no...



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677
Yes the USAF can make mince meat I have no doubt. As I said the F22 a d f35 would make short work.

But the have to actually GET to the Persian gulf first.

And the USAF would be extremely restricted.

It rely heavily to get around on EU airspace and British bases. Deago garcia and Cyprus are key USAF assets for access to the ME. If the UK refused USAF permission to use it as a Base of operations for Iran it would make life extremely difficult. If the EU closed it airspace the USAF would have to take long and dangerous routes to get to were it needs to be with slow response times.

That leaves the USN carrier flee. It's potent but not a "I will " button. F18 will only get you so far. They are ageing fast. On top of that the carriers can't get close to Iran due to the mine fields and anti ship missles which means striking at the heart of Iran will be tight on fuel.

As for Iranian defence I would not underestimate it. It's not Iraq. They have a good number of S-300 and possibly S-400 with Russia likely willing to donate more. They are not to be sneered at. Legacy f15-18 craft are at risk. From them. The USAF can deal with them but they have to be near by and quick to respond . The USN however is not yet equipped to deal with them effectively which means they will take losses.

This is not a my "dad is bigger than yours" argument, I fully concede the USA has the ability to crush Iran. But it's a case of can they bring those assets to a fight if the International community cuts support. It's more a case of "your dad can beat mine but your mum took his car keys so he can't turn up for the fight" argument. We are talking g logistics here rather than toe to toe strength.

What I'm saying g is bombing g Iran would t be quick or clean with out support of the International community.



edit on 5-8-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-8-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join