Netanyahu: Iran Nuke Deal ‘Will Bring War’

a reply to: Aazadan


I see...so residual radiation resulting from plutonium is "different" from that of material used in nuclear power plants?

Nope.... it is not. Unless you are directly measuring the actual material, the signature is exactly the same with regards to the "residual" which remains.

My premise is that they could move equipment we are not aware they have, move and isolate the additional material and "show" us the expected amount of material and hardware.

I get that they might have to shut down their processes for inspection...but 24 days to prepare? Preposterous. IF you (they) want to limit lost production time then they would negotiate for a minumum number is disruptions...NOT 24 days notice prior to inspections.

Do you know why the EPA will not tell you 24 days ahead of time they are coming for an inspection? Do you know why OSHA will not notify you 24 days in advance they are coming to conduct an inspection?

Obviously the 24 days notice requirement is to satisfy a need. That need is as obvious as the nose on your face.

a reply to: crazyewok

Diego Garcia.

2 or heck, why not 4 carrier groups.

Diego Garcia


With Diego Garcia we have an open shot at Iran without having to cross anyones air space. Bombers galore!

lol sorry...this is almost like a strategy game: How to effectively bomb Iran out of the Nuke biz.

a reply to: bbracken677

You should read 'Making History' by Stephen Fry.... Hitler is killed by sending a message into the past........ An Britain turns into a 10 times worse Nazi state that goes on to invade America, successfully, whilst double-crossing the Soviets too........ What ifs are just that... GERMANY WAS A KNOWN GLOBAL AGGRESSOR - IRAN HAS NOT BEEN SO FAR..... Israel is too.... Yes, we've hit Iran with stupidly harsh sanctions, but this limits Iran's nuclear arms capability well enough. Netenyahu is a warmongering global threat who only justifies his neighbours having nukes, if anything.

a reply to: neoholographic

"a Country run by a Religious Zealot"

Netanyahu anyone ?

Israel is desperate now... wont be long until they are at war with Iran..
but they will try to get their lapdog the US to do it for them first...

Watch for a false flag!

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: crazyewok

Diego Garcia.

2 or heck, why not 4 carrier groups.

Diego Garcia


With Diego Garcia we have an open shot at Iran without having to cross anyones air space. Bombers galore!

lol sorry...this is almost like a strategy game: How to effectively bomb Iran out of the Nuke biz.

And the UK owns Diego Garcia

If we don't want war we can ban the USAF from using it as a base against Iran. So no Diago Garcia unless the Brits are on board.

As for 4 carrier groups , you could have all 10 and it does not change the fact you still only have F-18s and a crap load of s-300 and s-400 to punch through, sure you will win but lose a number of fighters in the process, makeing a "quick clean strike" impossible.

The USA has a potent military I'm not deny that but they are not superhuman and invincible and logistics is still a big issue for a strike like you suggest, especially if there is no international support.

BTW I like talking strategy......

a reply to: bbracken677

I don't understand this incessant need to bomb Iran. So what if they want to go Nuclear. They are surrounded by countries armed to the teeth with Nukes. Especially Israel that has a nasty hatred of them.

Sure they are a Muslim country and have weird and sometimes disgusting rules especially against women but they have shown no aggression towards their neighbours in the last few hundred years. Can the same be said about Soddom Arabia? Or the US and it's allies including Israel the most racist country on the planet?

So why this desire to incinerate Iranian Men, Women and Children?

originally posted by: bbracken677
lol sorry...this is almost like a strategy game: How to effectively bomb Iran out of the Nuke biz.

Just curious. How much would that cost? I mean per day? And the US will lose aircraft(Iran isn't Iraq). Those puppies are expensive.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: bbracken677
lol sorry...this is almost like a strategy game: How to effectively bomb Iran out of the Nuke biz.

Just curious. How much would that cost? I mean per day? And the US will lose aircraft(Iran isn't Iraq). Those puppies are expensive.

If the UK and France let the USA do it and allow use of our bases and airspace I'm guessing the USAF would make short work and it would be pretty quick and clean and "cheap".

If the UK and france blocks it's bases and airspace the difficulty and cost would sky rocket.


Plus it all depends on how many S400 russia give Iran. They are nasty beasts and could potentially cut through the legacy aircraft.

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: Cygnis

What did the US get out of such a deal? I haven't been able to understand this from the getgo

That's the secret part, always is. We don't give money away without good reason that supports our goals. Well, mainly corporations' goals, with US interests secondary.

originally posted by: intrepid
Just curious. How much would that cost? I mean per day? And the US will lose aircraft(Iran isn't Iraq). Those puppies are expensive.

Wouldn't matter. The fiscal costs of a military campaign, versus Iran, would be paltry in comparison to the diplomatic and futures losses that would occur.

originally posted by: dogstar23
That's the secret part, always is. We don't give money away without good reason that supports our goals. Well, mainly corporations' goals, with US interests secondary.

It's not called giving money away when you are returning stolen property.
2nd.

originally posted by: bbracken677
I see...so residual radiation resulting from plutonium is "different" from that of material used in nuclear power plants?

The concentration is different is it not? 1kg of plutonium will have a smaller signature over an area than 100kg will. From there you can say there was 100kg of 90% purity material or 90kg of 100% purity material for example.

My premise is that they could move equipment we are not aware they have, move and isolate the additional material and "show" us the expected amount of material and hardware.

By this same logic we don't know if the sanctions have been effective because they could have gone around them or built their own. It seems ludicrous to me to stick to a policy that we know is going to be ineffective in the future and may have already been ineffective.

Do you know why the EPA will not tell you 24 days ahead of time they are coming for an inspection? Do you know why OSHA will not notify you 24 days in advance they are coming to conduct an inspection?

I do. I'm fully aware Iran will try to hide stuff using the 24 day window, but they won't be able to hide everything and the nations on board believe it's enough time to find what they're looking for. I think the US was initially pushing for a 10 day notice while Iran wanted 30. 24 is a good enough compromise.

a reply to: Aazadan

Like I said, if measurements are taken at the source, there is a difference in strength. After it is gone, there is nothing more than background radiation. I am pretty sure they are not working the stuff out in the open air (plutonium is very poisonous regardless of radiation) and precautions are taken to limit exposure etc...

Therefore, there would be nothing detectable other than a slight rise above normal background radiation whether the previous day there were 10 lbs of material in the facility, or 20 lbs. of fissionable material.. So just measuring background radiation will tell you nothing more than they are doing what they claim they are doing. Once the material is removed from the facility, only leaving what is "supposed" to be there, there is no evidence via background radiation.

Regarding sanctions: they werent horribly effective when used on Iraq. Saddam was still receiving brand new Mercedes and other goods from the west. Not to mention that there is a hella difference between manufacturing your own centrifuges and manufacturing the latest in medicinal goods. Hella difference between manufacturing a centrifuge and manufacturing your own computer systems when you have no access to the electronic components in quantity. I am sure they have received computers and other such banned items. I am also pretty sure they have not received them in bulk.

This would not have been the first nuclear inspection process that included surprise visits....if we had negotiated for successfuly surprise visits. As I have stated repeatedly, there is a reason they want 24 day notice prior to inspections. It's not so they can cook those cookies to give to the inspectors.

Besides...unless the number of inspections are limited, I (for instance) could provide 24 day notice every day for the next month, assuring daily inspections over the following month. Not saying that they aren't limited...but for someone on the up and up, the number of inspections is much more important than how many days notice you get. If I were running a plant and I was doing all I was supposed to be doing, I would not mind a single surprise visit by OSHA. I would, however, be ticked off if they came every day for a month.....

a reply to: bbracken677

I'm not saying 24 days is perfect but if the US walks from this, it becomes no inspections or Europe renegotiates and gets an even longer notice.

a reply to: neoholographic

Even if Aiatolá Khomeini is calling for the destruction of Isreal, let us see if he has a point.

A Muslim leader of a country that has lived peacefully with the Jews within it's borders for the last 200 years is calling for the destruction of a nation of Jews that have persecuted a group of Muslims living in their own legally occupied land for the last 50 years.

Sounds rather justified to me. I think Khomeini's rhetoric goes to far at times.

But as long as Benjamin Netanyahu refuses to even acknowledge the Palestinian right to have a state of their own, I don't see Aiatolá Khomeini backing down, and I can't blame him.

Benjamin Netanyahu is no better than Aiatolá Khomeini, but only the latter has a valid argument in my opinion.

The Palestinians have a right to exist without Isreals continued confiscation of Land that was never legally obtained by them.

If we are really going back in time to claim land rights, we have a lot of Native Americans and Aborigines around the world that have some pretty significant land claims.

Why is Isreal so special? Personally I don't give a crap about fulfilling some damm biblical prophecy that no one understands anyway.

The age of enlightenment/Christ will come when it comes. And it will be God that enacts his prophecy not man.

Fact is the USA was backed into a corner,

Military action was off the table.
Europe and the UK would never have supported and with Russia likely to supply state of the art anti air weapons a desired quick clean strike would have been difficult.

USA would of ruined it's image further by looking like even more of a warmonger ( thank bush for that) and it would likely have damaged relations with key allies vital to it's own economy and defence.

BUT

Fact is this deal works for the USA why?

The USA now looks generous giving Iran such a fair deal.

If Iran renages on this is anyway they look the bad guys and not the USA which makes militarily action more paletble and justifble. The USA would likely get as least passive support from its allies and international community and as such use of EU airspace and UK bases (who will also be pissed at Iran) which makes the "quick clean bombing" much more feasible and less damaging for the USA reputation.

a reply to: crazyewok

The only thing I worry about is if the EU once they're getting money from trading with Iran becomes resistant to putting sanctions back in place or authorizing military action should Iran violate the agreement. There was ample evidence of Europe violating sanctions against Saddam.

Especially if the oil supply becomes an issue. Russia already has immense leverage over Europe due to their pipelines, what if Iran can also use that leverage?

But, I don't see how that concern is a reason to not try the deal out, it's better than the alternative.

a reply to: Aazadan

How about China ?
Iran to Get Chinese J-10 Fighter Jets in Return for Oil Rights

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: Aazadan

How about China ?
Iran to Get Chinese J-10 Fighter Jets in Return for Oil Rights

You beat me to that argument, not to mention the supposed purchase of 100 fuel tankers...

sputniknews.com...

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: Aazadan

How about China ?
Iran to Get Chinese J-10 Fighter Jets in Return for Oil Rights

China getting them means they'll oppose future UN security council actions but in the end that doesn't really change anything because the votes typically line up China-Russia vs US-UK with France being a mostly western leaning wildcard. China getting oil doesn't change that dynamic at all. When it's the UK and France that are needing gas piped in during winter though? That's when Russia can flex some leverage as they did recently.

The US does have the domestic production at this point that we could replace Russia and supply Europe if necessary, but it wouldn't be easy and we would pay for it domestically too (if we sell to Europe, there's less on the market, prices go up, we pay more for our own fuel).

That's not all bad though, because the more economically tied two countries are, the greater ways each country has to flex power over the other. When you're isolated from each other there is very little you can do other than maintain isolation, which is part of why the sanctions policy lead to the US having such a weak negotiating position with Iran.

On Iran getting jets specifically. What's the issue with a nation having a conventional military? That's actually an incentive for them to not pursue nuclear arms as they will have other methods of self defense.