• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Partial deal reached with Iran

Oh I missed that.

That's definitely...something. Hadn't seen the full transcript yet, gonna read it tonight.
 
This has to be the best 30 days a president has had in a while right? I mean these weren't all at the top of Obama's list but in the past three to four weeks gay marriage was legalized by the SCOTUS, Obamacare was upheld, and now these negotiations look to be nearing a pretty big success. Pretty big FU with the middle finger up for Obama.
 
I think it was a fair question and a great response.
 
Well definitely a gotchya question but that's probably good journalism. I thought it was relatively clear why America didn't try to get the release of a few prisoners during an international meeting regarding Iran's sanctions and nuclear proliferation capabilities but maybe that was just me.
 
Liquid Karma said:
President Obama apparently got a bit pissed when someone asked why we didn't get 4 American prisoners out of Iran as part of this deal.

I thought it was a fair question.
Click to expand...

Obama did too. Thus...
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Yeah that Obama response seems pretty level-headed in what was a clear "GOTCHYA" moment from whoever asked that question. Probably someone working for the blaze or fox news, but I do wonder how they got press credentials.
Click to expand...

Who let a dissenter into Obama's Press Room, anyway?
 
Deacon923 said:
Major Garrett is the chief White House correspondent for CBS news. I hope they're embarrassed.
Click to expand...

Why? Because they asked this President a tough question? Candy Crowley wasn't there to obfuscate for him this time?
 
vadimivich said:
If they want a bomb, they will build one. There is no way for us to actually deny a nuclear weapon (which is ancient technology at this point) to a country that truly wants to build one (see: Republic of Korea, Democratic People's edition). It's impossible. If Japan, Germany, Brazil or any of a number of other countries rocked up tomorrow and said "Fuck you guys, we're building a warhead" there'd be no way to stop it.

Once you accept that reality, then the idea becomes how to best convince the non-nuclear armed countries that making a bomb isn't in their best interests. That has to be done with a carrot and a stick and the support of the entire global community, and it becomes an extremely complicated and difficult process.
Click to expand...

And since that's too hard, we'll just all indulge in the collective lie that a country sitting on Iran's petroleum reserves, forbidden from trading with the developed world and having a domestic economy that uses goat as a regular currency somehow has such an energy shortage that they need a nuclear program for peaceful purposes only. Hey, you guys think that van over there really has free candy?

I like my nuclear-free Iran, but I'm getting the feeling I'm not going to get to keep my nuclear-free Iran. On the bright side, maybe the "Death to America" loses something in translation.
 
Last edited:
No CBS is legit. Fox and The Blaze are just running your everyday Pravda propaganda mill.

I've basically stopped watching television news though it's obsolete. By the time something reaches the news and they get anyone to give any actual analysis that point has already been discussed, refuted, and repackaged multiple times online.
 
here is The Economist's take on the deal. http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21657654-nuclear-deal-marks-milestone-irans-relations-world-details-matter-wary-hope

Seems to me that the biggest concern is the possible two-week delay in inspecting military facilities the IAEA deems suspicious. The other items appear to be pretty solidly favorable to the P5 side, not the Iranians. Apparently the snap-back provision is quite favorable for us - if the IAEA says the Iranians are in violation, the UN Security Council has to vote to continue sanctions relief, meaning that if any Security Council member exercises its veto, the sanctions snap back. So essentially the US can unilaterally control snap-back of the multinational sanctions. If that's correct, that's pretty strong.

ETA: another Economist analysis, with additional details.http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/07/economist-explains-11
 
Last edited:
jhmd2000 said:
And since that's too hard, we'll just all indulge in the collective lie that a country sitting on Iran's petroleum reserves, forbidden from trading with the developed world and having a domestic economy that uses goat as a regular currency somehow has such an energy shortage that they need a nuclear program for peaceful purposes only. Hey, you guys think that van over there really has free candy?

I like my nuclear-free Iran, but I'm getting the feeling I'm not going to get to keep my nuclear-free Iran. On the bright side, maybe the "Death to America" loses something in translation.
Click to expand...

Iran's nuclear program was started in the early to mid 1950s with the help of the United States under President Eisenhower (R) -- you know, after we threw over their democratically elected leader and installed our own guy to run the country for those yummy petroleum reserves you just helpfully alluded to.

So anywayyyy.... Iran hasn't been "nuclear-free" for well over half a century now. But again, I'm sure you already knew that.
 
Glen Beck is an interesting case. About 85% of the time he sounds like a complete loon, but every once in a while he will actually make an intelligent point.

Then he will talk about how he supports Ted Cruz for President.
 
Liquid Karma said:
I think it was a fair question and a great response.
Click to expand...

This. It was a fair question, but not a good one. I am sure obamas team had him prepared for that meatball of a pitch. When he threw it Obama sent it out of the park.
 
Something I haven't heard discussed in the WE'RE GIVING THEM THE BOMB rabble nonsense is the implications this will have for scientific collaboration. Programs like SESAME (synchrotron light source) that Iran has committed to financially will see a potentially big influx of cash, and some of the space previously used for enriching uranium is now earmarked for physics and natural labs. Iran's former science minister wants the space to be used for a particle accelerator.

The science community also seems quite content with the protections the deal offers.

Granted, he's no jhmd2000, but Frank von Hippel, a nuclear-weapons and non-proliferation physicist at Princeton University in New Jersey, calls the deal “good news. We should now move towards establishing a norm that enrichment programmes should be managed by multinational entities rather than by individual countries,” which is crucial to enable peaceful uses of nuclear power while preventing nuclear proliferation, he says.

Writeup in Nature here - http://www.nature.com/news/iranian-researchers-welcome-nuclear-deal-1.17984?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top