- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 94,375
- Reaction score
- 82,756
- Location
- Barsoom
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I've never said or thought differently. Intrusive inspections vis-a-vis Iran are a must and I consider this facet non-negotiable.That's fine, but let's be honest here, given the country's aggressive support for terrorism, and expanionsist pan-islamic goals, oppressive nature, and history of hostility towards UN inspectors.. That along with even negotiating anything other than opene and unmolested access for inspectors. That there goal is a nuclear weapon.
Personally, I would rather that no one have them. But that is not about to happen anytime soon so I insist that all 189 NPT nations honor their signed commitments.If you think we should let aggressive, violent, fascists regimes get nuclear weapons, then, you are on the right side of history my friend.
Where did he suggest Iran should be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, can you read? The P5+1 and all the rest of us want a non nuclear weapons powered Iran! Period. Toward that end, Diplomacy first and military action last! We're still in the diplomacy stage.
Simpleχity;1064500431 said:I've never said or thought differently. Intrusive inspections vis-a-vis Iran are a must and I consider this facet non-negotiable.
Personally, I would rather that no one have them. But that is not about to happen anytime soon so I insist that all 189 NPT nations honor their signed commitments.
Your naivety and trust of a theocratic fascist regime, is intriguing. Do go on.
Why do you guys keep talking about trust. Nobody is going to trust anybody.
Where did he suggest Iran should be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, can you read? The P5+1 and all the rest of us want a non nuclear weapons powered Iran! Period. Toward that end, Diplomacy first and military action last! We're still in the diplomacy stage.
So far it has worked out well for 45 years. Only 1 signatory nation of 190 (NK withdrew in 2003) has acquired nuclear weapons.We all know, by looking at history, ho well that works/.
You have no point other than - no to anything - which isn't feasible.this is non responsive to my point, other than seemingly making excuses for iran.
Right, you trust Iran will let the inspectors have open access, you trust Iran is not looking to build a bomb, for starters.
Why do you guys keep talking about trust. Nobody is going to trust anybody.
You seem to be operating under the idea that Iran is not capable of acting in good faith. If that's the case, then isn't any negotiation doomed to fail? And if THAT'S the case, doesn't that pretty much reduce the options for a nuke-free Iran down to:
A. Crushing sanctions that would only accelerate Iran's belligerence; and/or
B. A pre-emptive military action?
You mean the inspectors are going to have free and immediate access anytime, anywhere they want to show up. Anytime anywhere...........
Simpleχity;1064500457 said:So far it has worked out well for 45 years. Only 1 signatory nation of 190 (NK withdrew in 2003) has acquired nuclear weapons.
You have no point other than - no to anything - which isn't feasible.
That means nothing. Iran is still insisting on immediate sanctions relief and continued use of centrifuges. Unless the US completely caves and goes back on everything they have said there will be no final agreement.
The appearance of progress is illusory. The hope for progress is naive beyond stupidity.
You seem to be operating under the idea that Iran is not capable of acting in good faith. If that's the case, then isn't any negotiation doomed to fail? And if THAT'S the case, doesn't that pretty much reduce the options for a nuke-free Iran down to:
A. Crushing sanctions that would only accelerate Iran's belligerence; and/or
B. A pre-emptive military action?
Of course, are you willing to take Iran at their word, give it up.
That is why you have inspectors to insure they are living up to their word according to the agreement. However unless inspectors are going to have free and immediate access anytime, anywhere they want to show up, there really is no deal.
You seem to be operating under the idea that Iran is not capable of acting in good faith. If that's the case, then isn't any negotiation doomed to fail? And if THAT'S the case, doesn't that pretty much reduce the options for a nuke-free Iran down to:
A. Crushing sanctions that would only accelerate Iran's belligerence; and/or
B. A pre-emptive military action?
Oh. Except not. Iran's already announced that, too. :roll:
As recently as 2012, they were plotting to assasinate American officials.
As recently as 2011 we've seen IED's marked "made in Iran" killing people, and a few years before that, specifically Americans.
so, yeah, I don't want to give this oppressive religious fascist regime access to technology, that at minimum will give them dirty bomb materials.
Well, if they renege on allowing inspectors access, then obviously the agreement is void.
Ordinary Iranians are hoping this means an end to sanctions. The White House has repeatedly said that sanctions don't come off until the Iranians prove themselves trustworthy and capable of adhering to the agreement, which is never going to happen.
In that case the deal is not verifiable, then there really is no deal.
...“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action will not be effectively verifiable,” said Paula DeSutter, assistant secretary of state for verification, compliance, and implementation from 2002 to 2009....
You did not answer my question. If any negotiations are doomed to fail, what is your suggestion?
You did not answer my question. If any negotiations are doomed to fail, what is your suggestion?
You did not answer my question. If any negotiations are doomed to fail, what is your suggestion?
Get the national community to shut Iran off from everything. The sanctions is what got Iran to the table in the first place.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?