Iran nuclear program. It is a lie

#876
#876
tennvols77 said:
What if the deal was only done because of pay offs and bribery to government officials who were duplicitous in passing the deal when knowing full well Iran would continue on with it's goal of nuclear weapons which were being researched and trying to be developed at the military bases which just happened to be off limits to inspection? Do you still feel it was "right" to give them the money?
Click to expand...

What if what if? Iran didn't violate the deal. Period.
 
#877
#877
OuterBanksVol said:
Pure ignorant garbage dude. Show me proof that Iran violated the deal by producing nuclear material beyond what tyhey were allowed. You can't because they didn't.
Click to expand...

or because the deal didn't actually allow us to inspect. you know, how we would actually determine IF they were. you are just making as big of an assumption as he is. the truth is the public has no idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#878
#878
OuterBanksVol said:
What if what if? Iran didn't violate the deal. Period.
Click to expand...

This what if, however, is more than a possibility and more than the probable answer to why the whole deal was allowed to be put in place to begin with. The deal should never have happened, the money is secondary.

Violate the deal....they can't even inspect the military bases......which is exactly where the research and development would be conducted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#879
#879
LouderVol said:
or because the deal didn't actually allow us to inspect. you know, how we would actually determine IF they were. you are just making as big of an assumption as he is. the truth is the public has no idea.
Click to expand...

Just making stuff up as you go along huh?

"...The IAEA’s main focus in Iran is monitoring uranium enrichment. This process can produce fuel to run nuclear reactors or make a nuclear weapon.

Under the Iran nuclear deal, Iran has promised not to enrich uranium above 3.67 percent. Nuclear weapons are typically made of uranium enriched at 90 percent or more.

The IAEA has not wavered from its conclusion that Iran is compliant. “Iran has not enriched uranium above 3.67%,” the agency said in one of its assessments in 2017.

The IAEA continually measures Iran’s stockpiles of enriched uranium and counts the number of centrifuges.

“Inspectors can also use images, including from satellites, to verify activities and investigate concerns about undeclared activities or sites,” Davenport said.

In 2017, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley expressed concerns that Iran hasn’t declared all of its nuclear activities to the IAEA.

But suspicions aren’t enough to trigger an inspection. “If the IAEA has concerns that Iran is conducting illicit nuclear activities at sites outside of the declared facilities, inspectors must first present Iran with their concerns and ask for clarifications,” Davenport said.

“If Tehran is unable to provide explanations that address the IAEA’s concerns, inspectors can request access to any location, including military sites. Within a 24-day period, Iran must provide the necessary access.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#880
#880
tennvols77 said:
This what if, however, is more than a possibility and more than the probable answer to why the whole deal was allowed to be put in place to begin with. The deal should never have happened, the money is secondary.

Violate the deal....they can't even inspect the military bases......which is exactly where the research and development would be conducted.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#883
#883
OuterBanksVol said:
Just making stuff up as you go along huh?

"...The IAEA’s main focus in Iran is monitoring uranium enrichment. This process can produce fuel to run nuclear reactors or make a nuclear weapon.

Under the Iran nuclear deal, Iran has promised not to enrich uranium above 3.67 percent. Nuclear weapons are typically made of uranium enriched at 90 percent or more.

The IAEA has not wavered from its conclusion that Iran is compliant. “Iran has not enriched uranium above 3.67%,” the agency said in one of its assessments in 2017.

The IAEA continually measures Iran’s stockpiles of enriched uranium and counts the number of centrifuges.

“Inspectors can also use images, including from satellites, to verify activities and investigate concerns about undeclared activities or sites,” Davenport said.

In 2017, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley expressed concerns that Iran hasn’t declared all of its nuclear activities to the IAEA.

But suspicions aren’t enough to trigger an inspection. “If the IAEA has concerns that Iran is conducting illicit nuclear activities at sites outside of the declared facilities, inspectors must first present Iran with their concerns and ask for clarifications,” Davenport said.

“If Tehran is unable to provide explanations that address the IAEA’s concerns, inspectors can request access to any location, including military sites. Within a 24-day period, Iran must provide the necessary access.”
Click to expand...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

You gullible fools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#885
#885
tennvols77 said:
U.S., Despite Dropping Nuclear Deal, Still Wants UN Inspections In Iran

From four days ago. Read and learn.


"that top Iranian officials have insisted that UN inspectors will never be allowed access to their most sensitive military sites."

You are wrong.
Click to expand...

Duly noted. But, this is pure bluster on Iran's part. As a Trump fan, you should be loving it. ;-)

As a practical matter, Iran has not denied access anywhere to the IAEA to date. While I share your concerns that iran *could* be using military sites for nuclear research, I'm confident our spies would have caught wind of this and demanded IAEA do an inspection.

Think of the flip side here... Iran *desparately* wanted the prior economic sanctions to end, hence its willingness to bend to world demands on its nuclear program. If they were subsequently caught violating this deal, they would face crippling new sanctions and no one would trust their word moving forward...

... You know, kind if like us breaking a pact we signed. That would make us look untrustworthy wouldn't it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#886
#886
Rasputin_Vol said:
As big of a cynic or conspiracy theorist as most of you think I am, even I couldn't wrap my mind around the idea of them really transferring "straight cash homie" on pallets. I had heard about the cash transfers before, but I had just assumed they were speaking in allegories or using colorful language when they were talking about some of these transfers. Word is that it could have been well over $2 billion in cash...
Click to expand...

In Euros...
 
#887
#887
OuterBanksVol said:
Just making stuff up as you go along huh?

"...The IAEA’s main focus in Iran is monitoring uranium enrichment. This process can produce fuel to run nuclear reactors or make a nuclear weapon.

Under the Iran nuclear deal, Iran has promised not to enrich uranium above 3.67 percent. Nuclear weapons are typically made of uranium enriched at 90 percent or more.

The IAEA has not wavered from its conclusion that Iran is compliant. “Iran has not enriched uranium above 3.67%,” the agency said in one of its assessments in 2017.

The IAEA continually measures Iran’s stockpiles of enriched uranium and counts the number of centrifuges.

“Inspectors can also use images, including from satellites, to verify activities and investigate concerns about undeclared activities or sites,” Davenport said.

In 2017, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley expressed concerns that Iran hasn’t declared all of its nuclear activities to the IAEA.

But suspicions aren’t enough to trigger an inspection. “If the IAEA has concerns that Iran is conducting illicit nuclear activities at sites outside of the declared facilities, inspectors must first present Iran with their concerns and ask for clarifications,” Davenport said.

“If Tehran is unable to provide explanations that address the IAEA’s concerns, inspectors can request access to any location, including military sites. Within a 24-day period, Iran must provide the necessary access.”
Click to expand...

24 days? really?

IAEA Safeguards Overview | IAEA

its 24 HOURS for the rest of the world.

State provision of information on, and IAEA short-notice access to, all buildings on a nuclear site. (The Protocol provides for IAEA inspectors to have "complementary" access to assure the absence of undeclared nuclear material or to resolve questions or inconsistencies in the information a State has provided about its nuclear activities. Advance notice in most cases is at least 24 hours.
Click to expand...

24 days is laughable. laughable.

you might try educating yourself on why this is such a bad deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#888
#888
OuterBanksVol said:
Duly noted. But, this is pure bluster on Iran's part. As a Trump fan, you should be loving it. ;-)

As a practical matter, Iran has not denied access anywhere to the IAEA to date. While I share your concerns that iran *could* be using military sites for nuclear research, I'm confident our spies would have caught wind of this and demanded IAEA do an inspection.

Think of the flip side here... Iran *desparately* wanted the prior economic sanctions to end, hence its willingness to bend to world demands on its nuclear program. If they were subsequently caught violating this deal, they would face crippling new sanctions and no one would trust their word moving forward...

... You know, kind if like us breaking a pact we signed. That would make us look untrustworthy wouldn't it.
Click to expand...

Here' the problem.......I say nothing that should elicit this response. Nothing, yet, you ASSUME because you have been brainwashed into thinking that if I'm not with "you", then I am with "them". That so many on this site ascribe to this infantile belief is laughable.

It's comical, it is the first thing you say in your response, "Trumper"......pull your head out of your preconditioned blind arse man. Better, the duly noted instead of just saying "I'm wrong", after being so smart and knowledgeable and insulting in the previous posts before which amounted to just talking out of your butt from regurgitated crap you hear from wherever you get it.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I am an independent individual who follows neither party, I actually believe in truth and honor and integrity and values and doing what is right.

I'm an actual idealist, someone who actually is willing to die for what I believe in, not what I'm told to believe in or what some political party or anyone for that matter tells me. I make my own decisions, and live my life just as I preach.

I find it sad that people on both sides follow either party, and worse, pathetic that people who swallow the crap being shoved down their throat and disavow the possibility, and more infuriating, the probability, that you the citizen is being sh** on, by both sides, and doesn't care enough to figure out why.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#893
#893
ClearwaterVol said:
No, we had some access before. Now we have none.
Click to expand...

We technically had access. That access was pretty worthless as far as actually being able to inspect and see what Iran is/was doing as far as enrichment. Its like an employer giving employees a 24 days heads up that a drug test is coming......there's a reason that they don't and that they are random.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#894
#894
ClearwaterVol said:
What kind of access do we have now?
Click to expand...

we have no deal now. that's not the immediate concern. I don't think its worth fighting, actually fighting, Iran over.

what we are discussing is the deal in place. what we had was worthless while giving Iran an out of all the sanctions. it was a deal for Iran, not anyone else. why are we giving something for nothing?
 
#895
#895
OuterBanksVol said:
Just making stuff up as you go along huh?

"...The IAEA’s main focus in Iran is monitoring uranium enrichment. This process can produce fuel to run nuclear reactors or make a nuclear weapon.

Under the Iran nuclear deal, Iran has promised not to enrich uranium above 3.67 percent. Nuclear weapons are typically made of uranium enriched at 90 percent or more.

The IAEA has not wavered from its conclusion that Iran is compliant. “Iran has not enriched uranium above 3.67%,” the agency said in one of its assessments in 2017.

The IAEA continually measures Iran’s stockpiles of enriched uranium and counts the number of centrifuges.

“Inspectors can also use images, including from satellites, to verify activities and investigate concerns about undeclared activities or sites,” Davenport said.

In 2017, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley expressed concerns that Iran hasn’t declared all of its nuclear activities to the IAEA.

But suspicions aren’t enough to trigger an inspection. “If the IAEA has concerns that Iran is conducting illicit nuclear activities at sites outside of the declared facilities, inspectors must first present Iran with their concerns and ask for clarifications,” Davenport said.

“If Tehran is unable to provide explanations that address the IAEA’s concerns, inspectors can request access to any location, including military sites. Within a 24-day period, Iran must provide the necessary access.”
Click to expand...

So you see that the “inspections” are useless and the deal does nothing to prevent Iran from developing a weapon. Oh and point out in the deal where Iran had to hand over any uranium already enriched to weapons grade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#896
#896
OuterBanksVol said:
We fulfilled our legal obligation to give Iran its money back with the transfer. All other "what ifs" are immaterial.
Click to expand...

The "what ifs" seems to indicate money laundering. Again, had this been you or me dealing in just $10000 dollars, it would have created an financial event.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#897
#897
OuterBanksVol said:
Duly noted. But, this is pure bluster on Iran's part. As a Trump fan, you should be loving it. ;-)

As a practical matter, Iran has not denied access anywhere to the IAEA to date. While I share your concerns that iran *could* be using military sites for nuclear research, I'm confident our spies would have caught wind of this and demanded IAEA do an inspection.

Think of the flip side here... Iran *desparately* wanted the prior economic sanctions to end, hence its willingness to bend to world demands on its nuclear program. If they were subsequently caught violating this deal, they would face crippling new sanctions and no one would trust their word moving forward...

... You know, kind if like us breaking a pact we signed. That would make us look untrustworthy wouldn't it.
Click to expand...

You assume that IAEA has any interest in finding violations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#899
#899
LouderVol said:
24 days? really?

IAEA Safeguards Overview | IAEA

its 24 HOURS for the rest of the world.



24 days is laughable. laughable.

you might try educating yourself on why this is such a bad deal.
Click to expand...

Education huh? Agreed... you need it. Here ya go:

Radioactive materials ain't like a crate of apples. Even when you remove them, they are detectable post-fact. Do you really think this 24-day deadline wasn't thoroughly thought out? (Hint: It was under the Obama administration when smart people were in charge).

Don't take my word for it...

"...So far, the inspections controversy has focused on whether the international inspectors will have timely access to suspect sites in Iran. Touring the Sunday morning talk shows, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz argued that the 24-day delay the deal provides is immaterial.

“We are very confident in our ability to detect the vestiges of any nuclear work beyond 24 days,” he said, and later explained, "When environmental samples are taken and nuclear activity has taken place, it is virtually impossible to clean up that place. You can paint the floors. You can do what you want. We feel very confident that we would find evidence of nuclear activity.”

 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#900
#900
tennvols77 said:
Here' the problem.......I say nothing that should elicit this response. Nothing, yet, you ASSUME because you have been brainwashed into thinking that if I'm not with "you", then I am with "them". That so many on this site ascribe to this infantile belief is laughable.

It's comical, it is the first thing you say in your response, "Trumper"......pull your head out of your preconditioned blind arse man. Better, the duly noted instead of just saying "I'm wrong", after being so smart and knowledgeable and insulting in the previous posts before which amounted to just talking out of your butt from regurgitated crap you hear from wherever you get it.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I am an independent individual who follows neither party, I actually believe in truth and honor and integrity and values and doing what is right.

I'm an actual idealist, someone who actually is willing to die for what I believe in, not what I'm told to believe in or what some political party or anyone for that matter tells me. I make my own decisions, and live my life just as I preach.

I find it sad that people on both sides follow either party, and worse, pathetic that people who swallow the crap being shoved down their throat and disavow the possibility, and more infuriating, the probability, that you the citizen is being sh** on, by both sides, and doesn't care enough to figure out why.
Click to expand...

W taught me this.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top