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.

 

Obama seals Iran deal win as Senate Democrats find 34 votes

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   
By the way, these nice muslims in Iran and their government already told the world they weren't going to build nukes...they promised that they were only enriching uranium for power. So...why any deal? There was no reason to give them 150 million dollars since they weren't doing anything with nukes...just power...you know...for their people.

Unless, of course...you are suggesting they were lying. In which case, we just signed an agreement with liars.

Doesn't sound like such a great idea, does it?




posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE
Because it was also about removing sanctions and allowing inspections of their facilities.

That is the point of the deal. So we are not just taking their word but going in a peeking around.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Diplomacy is better than war 99% of the time.
.


Unless of course that diplomacy encourages war.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBulk

Which this doesn't...

Gonna come back with this encourages Iran to attack Israel?



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE
Because it was also about removing sanctions and allowing inspections of their facilities.

That is the point of the deal. So we are not just taking their word but going in a peeking around.

Not taking their word for it? They are going to inspect at least one location themselves. How isn't that taking their word for it???



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Which site are they inspecting on their own?

Think you could source the language?



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Or...simply answer this. What did the USA get out of this deal? I say nothing. The only purpose of this deal was Obama wanting to claim ownership of it. But since it got us nothing...not even the release of our people from their jail...it is at best nothing but a waste of time and money. At worst...hundreds of million of dollars which at least part of will be spent on more terrorism and likely, a nuclear Iran in ten or so years.

Please feel free to enlighten me.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Which site are they inspecting on their own?

Think you could source the language?


www.nbcnews.com...

PS: I can't source the text since the text isn't allowed to be read as it is a secret side deal www.usnews.com...
edit on 9/4/2015 by WeAreAWAKE because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Remember when getting 34/100 was looked upon as a MASSIVE failure?

Now, it seems that the Obama Administration is calling this benchmark a "huge success for the Iran deal".

66% of Senators reject it. Including MANY democrats.

It's a sad day for America when the Administration considers it a win just by getting enough votes to make sure the President's Veto on any opposition will stick.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

This deal emboldens terrorist states to have a try at America as well. If they did this for Iran, what might they help us to do.

Iran has never had a nuke, nor the ability to finish one that will even detonate. If they had them, they would show up on the NSA's multi-million dollar spy sats that are designed to see them and many other things as well.

Diplomacy is usually a good thing. But what Obama is doing has nothing in common with diplomacy, it has more to do with bending over for your enemy, and allowing them to do whatever makes them giggle. In this case it's giving our enemy a nuclear weapon or a free pass to get one soon.
example: Diplomacy school for idiots: Rule 1. Don't give your enemy a weapon, or better ones than he has already, because he will use it to hurt you, he won't go home and bring you cake and ice cream for your generosity.

He also won't tell his friends how nice you are. Instead he will tell them what a coward you are, and how weak you are, ripe for destruction.

Did you ever try to bribe your way out of a fight?

The reason America and it's allies decided never to negotiate with terrorist minded nations like Iran, and especially like Iran is right now, is because of rule number one. They don't respect you or think you are nice. You can't buy love (well,, er, you can't make someone love you by giving them things).

These are all things that kids learn at a very young age, sort of at the level Obama stopped maturing at. Watching the little man boy play in the White House is sure exciting though isn't it? Lets watch him later and see what he F-ks up tomorrow, shall we?

I think he should have a marvel comics inspired name, don't you? "The Shadow Twister" or maybe "The Shadow Twister's Evil Twin", or "Cobra-O" ("Who gives his enemies his best weapons and tells them America is so sorry, please don't detonate that on us okay?"

edit on 4-9-2015 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Ya so no one knows exactly what is being said.

We can speculate sure, but nothing is fact.

Also seems like this is a deal with IAEA. Not something that 5+1, you know the other countries involved in this negotiated.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

You asked me to tell you where it said they could inspect their own site. I did that. There are known secret side deals that no one is allowed to see. You're not a dumb person by any means. These deals can't be seen by the public because the public would throw a fit. This is our government hiding important parts of deals from us. Your thoughts?



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Please, enlighten us on how this deal would give Iran the nuke as opposed to no deal?



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Except you didn't... you linked something that we don't know the details of.
Not saying the deal isn't there, just the details are not really known since they are confidential.
Countries have secrets, we wouldn't give up ours but we think others should give up theirs?

My thoughts are that this deal was better was a great step in diplomacy in a region that has seen nothing but war in the past 3 decades.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Really? Then please answer my previous question. Exactly what in this deal is good for America?



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Also...on the NBC link...a Senator who saw the secret deal stated "The senator, who would not permit his name to be used because of the classified nature of the briefing, says the IAEA will be outside the facility where the soil samples are being taken - a concession to save face for Iran."



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Actually, your #1 rule of diplomacy is completely incorrect. If you give someone a weapon, so long as you sign a treaty for them to threaten others rather than you, you get to weaken that nations neighbors while building ties with another. That's not what's happening here though because Iran isn't getting a weapon.

Now let me add a rule #2 for you. There are essentially two types of power that can be leveraged by a nation. Military power and economic power. Sanctions remove all economic ties, which completely cuts off any economic leverage. That results in a situation where the military is ultimately the only option. There are immense diplomatic costs involved in invading another nation, largely due to how expensive and manpower intensive it is to project military force, it works best as a threat that doesn't need to be followed through. However, military power can only act as a threat when another alternative exists which means economic ties are required. This deal with Iran begins economic ties which leads to us having more say over their nuclear program.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Xcathdra

This deal would slow down any production to make a nuke significantly. Without a deal, Iran has nothing to hold them back except fear for getting caught. So either we accept this deal or we don't but despite what all the war hawks preach I think everyone will be better off with this deal than without it.


Eh....

When inspections are left to Iran I cannot buy into the notion that it will slow their program down. As I stated before allowing Iran to do their own inspections would be like having the SS investigate Auschwitz.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

You see, that's the problem right there, the inspections aren't being left to Iran. All nuclear sites will be inspect by the IAEA constantly. The only site being inspected by Iran is their military base Parchin which isn't a nuclear site. Even AP news corrected their story about this.

Correction: Iran-Nuclear story


VIENNA (AP) — In a story Aug. 19 about an arrangement over alleged past nuclear weapons work between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency, The Associated Press erroneously referred to Parchin as a "nuclear site. In fact, it's a military site where some believe nuclear work occurred.


Back when AP posted their original false story I did a quick google search and learned this wasn't a nuclear site but a military site; www.abovetopsecret.com... so it's good to see AP correct their mistake but the damage was already done, as seen your reply.

Back when Iran had an nuclear weapons program this military base was used only in the testing of high detonator explosives, not nuclear material. In fact, the IAEA was given permission by Iran back in 2005 to visit any part of this base and when they visited they test for nuclear anything, and their tests came back negative. This military base is home to testing of missiles and the like. Does it surprise you Iran doesn't want foreign entities inspecting their military sites?

So with this deal, Iran will allow inspections of its actual nuclear sites and much more. Without the deal, we can't inspect anything. What would you prefer, inspection or speculation? Speculation gave us the war in Iraq of March, 2003...
edit on 4-9-2015 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Swills

Yet we come back to the outstanding issues the IAEA still has not gotten answers on. Building enrichment facilities on military bases and then declaring those bases off limits to inspections is in fact a violation of the agreement, including the NPT which Iran is a signatory of. Denying access to scientists involved in the nuclear program is in fact a violation of the IAEA agreement.

The IAEA has been concerned about Irans nuclear program since way before 2003. It was only in 2003 did the IAEA head actually notify the security council that Iran officially has violated components of the agreement. It does not matter where Iran locates its nuclear facilities - cities, universities or military facilities - under the agreement they are required to allow inspections of all facilities that are a part of their nuclear program. Something Iran is saying they are not going to allow.


edit on 5-9-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join