Finally Some One with a Pair of Balls

[Doodoo]

"If the US left NATO tomorrow, NATO would still exist without the US. Or NATO could choose to fold."

When someone or something leaves it is like throwing a stone into the lake. One big slash and eventually riplles out into a smooth lake again

[Lone Star]

"If the US left NATO tomorrow, NATO would still exist without the US. Or NATO could choose to fold."

When someone or something leaves it is like throwing a stone into the lake. One big slash and eventually riplles out into a smooth lake again

I used to think that NO ONE could be so deficient in reading comprehension. Someone has repeatedly proven my thinking to be wrong in that regard. And then they QUOTE ME on top of it, but focusing only on what he wants to see.

If the US left NATO tomorrow, NATO would still exist . . .

But since it's the same guy who always feels a need to say something. Anything. Just to say something, then it makes perfect sense. And of course, it's what trolls do.

[Lone Star]

.

Remember how deals work between multiple countries, folks.

Just because one country withdraws doesn't mean the deal is torn up.

Trump also withdrew from the TPP trade agreement. Trump also withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord. Neither of those withdrawals prevented those two agreements from continuing. The other countries are still in them. The US still trades bilaterally in the Pacific, and the US still meets their climate and emissions goals.

If the US left NATO tomorrow, NATO would still exist without the US. Or NATO could choose to fold. Up to them.

The same is true for the Iran Deal.

Trump didn't tear up anything. Trump withdrew the US from a nonbinding agreement made between Obama and Iran. The agreement is not a US treaty and was not approved by Congress. There were "side deals" made by Obama and Kerry that were never made public or even known by all of Congress (no transparency). It was learned AFTER the deal that the Obama Administration actually lied about portions of the deal. All facts.

Here's another fact from an Obama guy: According to Jarrett Blanc of the Obama administration, since the JCPOA is not a treaty but an agreement between several countries, it has no formal provisions for withdrawal, but a member of the deal could stop complying with its obligations. In summary, if Congress thought it was a good deal, Obama could have brought it before them and had it ratified. Bayrack did it unilaterally because he knew there was no stomach for it (there were also portions that Obama didn't want revealed). Like so many other unilateral things that Obama did during his his 8 years in office, almost all have gone away in the last 2+ years.

The Iran Deal still exists, but does not include the US. The other countries are still in the deal. It's up to the other countries to make it good -- or not -- or withdraw. It's also up to Iran to make it good -- or not -- or withdraw. Iran could solve the entire thing immediately by being a good neighbor and stopping to enrich uranium completely. Why doesn't Iran be a good neighbor and be nice with those remaining in the deal and change their bad neighbor terrorizing ways? Nothing stops them from making that good choice -- but Iran.

Anyone who blames the US for Iran acting like the lying terrorizing a55es that they've always been, doesn't have a f*cking brain cell. If Iran wanted peace -- and could be trusted -- there would be peace. If they weren't the lying terrorizing a55es that they were BEFORE the deal, there would have never been any reason for the deal.

There is no great motivation for the world community to worry about nice countries. Iran is not a nice country.

[Lone Star]

My view is that Iran is skating on thin ice at present! what with, ceasing oil tankers in the gulf and in all likelihood, being involved to some degree in the attacks on Saudi Aramco, (if not being fully responsible for them). Patience is wearing thin with several neighboring countries.

There are several neighboring countries, watching with interest, that will give the US sanctions time. to see if they bite and so pull Iran into line, that's the political approach.

However, when their patience runs out or the moment it can be shown that Iran is getting too close to their nuclear objective or when Iran can be proven to be responsible for the attacks on Saudi Aramco or when they try the same again,these countries will act decisively against Iran, provided the US gives them the all clear to do so. The EU and the UN, will have no say in what they do.

Just my 2 cents worth

pipoz444

I agree, but with one small additional observation.

The E3 found their cajones at the UNGA and accused Iran of the attacks on Saudi Arabia and called for a new deal to include additional restrictions. That was a huge step for the E3.

Add Iran's threats against the EU during the UNGA, and I think the EU is just about ready to tell Iran "GFY." Macron stuck his scrawny little neck out for Iran, and they've acted like the lying a55es we've always known them to be.

Iran is losing what little leverage they enjoyed with the EU.

[jackspratt]

18 months ago the middle east, vis-à-vis Iran, was relatively peaceful and stable, and Iran had significantly wound back or slowed down its efforts to create nuclear weapons. So the world community (with the exception of Israel and Saudi Arabia) was generally happy and relieved.

Then the Bloated Orange Bullshiitter decided he couldn't live with anything of significance created by Obama, so he unilaterally tore up the Agreement, and progressively applied sanctions which severely hampered Iran's access to international banking and commerce.

Iran naturally retaliated.

And here we are today.

No amount of parsing, dissembling, obfuscating or spinning will change that. Even if you repeat it.

[Lone Star]

. . .
Iran naturally retaliated.
. . .

Retaliated against everyone within range and at every opportunity. Still the lying a55 terrorists they've always been.

You're making more excuses for Iran than the EU. Even the EU realizes that the bad guy is Iran, and the E3 joint statement from the UNGA proves it.

If the mr. spratt "standard response" to anything with which he disagrees is going to be "parse, dissemble, obfuscate, spin . . .", it reveals an apparent lack of knowledge and/or ability to refute the content. It's the lazy one's way.

You haven't refuted anything. Only provided your false version again.

[Domat]

How many wars did the Iran start in the last 100+ Years and how many the US. Read Read Read and you find out who is the aggressor.

[Lone Star]

.

The Organization of Iranian American Communities organized a bipartisan protest across the street from the UN. The rally was titled “No to Rouhani.”

It was attended by members of the Iranian-American community and supporters of the Iranian opposition group People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran.

Thousands of people attended on Tuesday and Wednesday calling for regime change in Iran.

The gathering in New York was intended to reject any policy of appeasement toward Iran, which preserves its power through warmongering, terrorism and suppression.

[Domat]

.

The Organization of Iranian American Communities organized a bipartisan protest across the street from the UN. The rally was titled “No to Rouhani.”

It was attended by members of the Iranian-American community and supporters of the Iranian opposition group People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran.

Thousands of people attended on Tuesday and Wednesday calling for regime change in Iran.

The gathering in New York was intended to reject any policy of appeasement toward Iran, which preserves its power through warmongering, terrorism and suppression.

This is not a answer to my question.

[Lone Star]

.

There were more violations than this one.

Reported by Reuters from the IAEA report:

“On 2 November 2016, the director general expressed concerns related to Iran’s stock of heavy water to the vice president of Iran and president of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran.”

The IAEA reported that Iran had violated the nuclear deal AGAIN regarding exceeding their limit of 130 metric tons of heavy water. It occurred once before in February 2016.

So this propaganda that everything was going along smoothly and Iran was following the agreement nicely is nonsense.

2016. Before Trump.

And then the enabling UN makes excuses for Iran by referring to these violations as being a "soft limit."

Tom Cotton, US Senator:

“It’s no surprise that Iran is once again testing the limits of the nuclear deal to see what it can get away with. In January, a President Trump and a Republican Congress will begin a new policy of resolve toward Iran’s ayatollahs.”

“On top of Iran’s illicit development of ballistic missiles, its hostage-taking, and its regional aggression, this latest violation is another sign that Iran has been emboldened by President Obama’s concessions and weakness."

Yes, everything was going along so nicely -- for Iran.

[Lone Star]

.

And then in May 2016 and updated in December 2017 by an Iranian National, Dr. Majid Rafizadeh.

Iranian leaders have breached both the resolutions and the nuclear agreement for the third time since the nuclear deal went into effect in January 2016. Iran has repeatedly test-fired, long-range ballistic missiles and laser-guided surface-to-surface missiles.

The bad neighbor -- right out the gate.

Two ballistic missile tests. The missiles capable of carrying multiple warheads. Those happened in October and November. In March, Iran did it again. The test-firings revealed accuracy within 25 feet, which is categorized as "zero error."

The report stated that Iran's ballistic missile range has more than doubled -- from 500 miles to 1,250 miles. That puts Eastern Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Yemen within range.

UN Security Council Resolution 2231 prohibits Iran from any activity related to ballistic missiles that would be nuclear capable or any ballistic missile technology related to the delivery of nuclear weapons.

Yes, another violation.

UN Security Council Resolution 1929 also prohibits ballistic missile activity related to nuclear capability.

The "Iran Deal" also addresed ballistic missiles. That "deal" states that Iran is not to undertake any ballistic missile activity until 8 years have passed. This ballistic missile activity on the part of Iran not only reveals a clear violation of the agreement, but also shows that the "deal" didn't prevent a damn thing. Iran would be allowed to participate in ballistic missile activity that today, is only 4 years away. Wow. That sure makes me sleep easier at night. [sarc]

China and Russia don't care about it because they enjoy the harassment of the allies of the US. At this time of the Iran violations, the E3 didn't take these violations seriously. Bad behavior ignored is bad behavior rewarded.

The Associated Press describes the launches as “destabilizing and provocative.” The AP says that the missiles used by Iran in these tests are “inherently capable of delivering nuclear weapons.”

The Obama Administration trivialized the violations and have not made an effort to hold Iran accountable.

The US has stopped short of calling Iran’s actions as violations of UN Security Council resolutions. President Obama will continue to overlook Iran’s belligerent actions, including ballistic missile launches and the detention of US sailors by the Iranian forces, until he leaves office. He desires what he sees as his crowning foreign policy “achievement”, the nuclear agreement, to remain intact.

President Obama is concerned that holding Iran accountable for these violations might force the Iranian leaders to abandon the nuclear deal, thus causing its failure.

The E3 and the rest of Europe were never concerned much about these violations because of their trading partnership with Iran. They are making money on the deal. Where are all those cheerleaders who talk about "greed" all the time? No outrage or pearl-clutching over this? Hypocrites.

So we've now got several violations regarding ballistic missiles and more than one violation regarding heavy water -- that we KNOW about.

Yes, everything was just going so well -- for Iran.

[Lone Star]

.

And then Professor Alan Dershowitz addresses the violations of the "Iran Deal" that was published in The Hill.

=====

Iran is not only violating the spirit of the no-nukes deal, it is violating its letter. The prologue to the deal explicitly states: “Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.” This reaffirmation has no sunset provision: it is supposed to be forever.

Yet the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently stated that it could not verify that Iran was “fully implementing the agreement” by not engaging in activities that would allow it to make a nuclear explosive device. Yukiya Amano of the IAEA told Reuters that when it comes to inspections, which are stipulated in Section T of the agreement, “our tools are limited.” Amano continued to say: “In other sections, for example, Iran has committed to submit declarations, place their activities under safeguards or ensure access by us. But in Section T, I don’t see any (such commitment).”

It is well established that Tehran has consistently denied IAEA inspectors access to military sites and other research locations. This is in direct contravention to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and bipartisan legislation set out by Congress, which compels the president to verify that “Iran is transparently, verifiably, and fully implementing the agreement.” Yet, according to the Institute for Science and International Security, as of the last quarterly report released in August, the IAEA had not visited any military site in Iran since implementation day.

For its part, the IAEA has been complicit in allowing Tehran to circumvent the agreement and act as a law unto itself. Consider that after the deal was negotiated with the five permanent U.N. Security Council members, it was revealed that Tehran and the IAEA had entered into a secret agreement which allowed the Iranian regime to carry out its own nuclear trace testing at the Parchin complex, a site long suspected of being a nuclear testing ground, and would report back to the IAEA with “selective” videos and photos. This arrangement, which went behind the back of Congress, is especially suspect when considered in light of the Iranian regime’s history of duplicity.

(One of the secret side deals. Yes, true.)

To be sure, revelations about Iran testing the boundaries of the JCPOA and crossing the line into violation are not new. While many of these violations have not been disclosed by the previous U.S. administration, or by the IAEA, there is a myriad of information and analysis suggesting that Iran has previously failed to comply with several provisions of the JCPOA. It has twice been revealed that Iran exceeded the cap on heavy water mandated by the agreement, and has also refused to allow testing of its carbon fiber acquired before the deal was implemented. Moreover, it has also been reported that Tehran has found new ways to conduct additional mechanical testing of centrifuges, in clear violation of the JCPOA.

These violations are not surprising when considering Iran’s belligerent posture in the Middle East. Iran continues to exploit the instability in the region to prop up and fund terror groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, whose chants of “death to Israel” are now also accompanied by vows of “death to America.” For its part, the Iranian-funded Hezbollah has an estimated 100,000 missiles aimed directly at Israel. As such, it is clear that rather than combating Iran’s threatening posture, the influx of money thrust into the Iranian economy, coupled with ambiguities in the text of the agreement, have had the reverse effect of emboldening the Iranian regime and fortifying its hegemonic ambitions. Iran also continues to test its vast ballistic missile program and deny its own people fundamental human rights.

Yet, even if Iran were to comply with the letter of the nuclear agreement, it would still be able to build up a vast nuclear arsenal within a relatively short timeframe. The approach adopted by the Trump administration, articulated in a statement delivered by the president several days ago, is justified by the realities on the ground. By announcing that he is decertifying Iran’s compliance with the nuclear agreement, President Trump is giving Congress 60 days to act. Not only is President Trump giving the United States back some of its leverage, but he is also sending a powerful message to the rogue leaders in Iran and North Korea, who are believed to have cooperated on missile technology, that the era of containment and deterrence policies is over. The United States is returning to its original mission of prevention.

Interestingly, in the aftermath of President Trump’s address, the Saudi Press Agency reported that individual Salman called the U.S. president to offer his support for America’s more “firm strategy” and commitment to fighting “Iran’s aggressive activities.” Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, offered similar praise for the new U.S. posture, saying in a statement that President Trump “has created an opportunity to fix this bad deal, to roll back Iran’s aggression and to confront its criminal support of terrorism.” It is no secret that these two previously discordant states are now cooperating in unprecedented ways as they try to counter the threat posed by a nuclear Iran. When Israel and the Gulf States are on the same page, the world should listen.

There are those that argue that by decertifying, President Trump has undercut American credibility and sent a message to the world that it can’t count on one American president following through on deals made by his predecessor. But the fault for that lies squarely with President Obama who refused not only to make his deal a binding treaty, but also to seek any congressional approval, both of which would have assured greater continuity. He knew when he signed the deal that it could be undone by any future president. The goal, of course, is not to undo the deal but rather to undo its sunset provision and to make Iran keep the commitment it made in the prologue: Never obtain “any nuclear weapons.”

(Dershowitz is a life-long, die-hard Democrat, so don't get your panties in a bunch, cheerleaders.)

=====

My, my ... so many violations that escaped scrutiny because no one cared enough about the violations. On the part of the US, it was all about preserving Bayrack's legacy of unilateral commitments. On the part of the EU, it was about trade. On the part of China and Russia, it was about enjoying the "pest" nature of Iran in the region.

And then, BECAUSE TRUMP, the jig was up.

No one has to follow the lead of the US on this. Keep trading with Iran. Keep enjoying the show. Ignore US sanctions. The "deal" is still in place, but now the bad neighbor has jeopardized their position even further.

[Lone Star]

.

October 2015 ... the violations continue.

David Perdue, US Senate:

"The ink isn’t even dry on President Obama’s nuclear agreement and Iran is already breaking rules. This should not come as a surprise to anyone since Iran has cheated on every deal."

This statement made over the same violations mentioned previously regarding Iran's test-firing of ballistic missiles. Members of Congress also angered by the Obama Administration's failure to condemn the violations.

Members of Congress called for sanctions to be reimposed on Iran. Those calls were ignored by the Obama Administration.

[Doodoo]

Well, the US is an unreliable international partner—and it has long been one, even before the current administration pulled out from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Paris agreement on climate change, and threatened to end NAFTA. History is dotted with treaties that the US has signed but not ratified, signed and then unsigned, and even refused to sign after pushing everyone else to sign.
The US is one of the countries to have ratified the fewest number of international human rights treaties—of the 18 agreements passed by the UN, America has only ratified five.

The US continues to walk away from International agreements and pretend everything is peachy keen, when it is not. As has been said before "Make America Great" at the expense of the rest of you.

https://qz.com/1273510/all-the-internat ... iran-deal/

[Lone Star]

.

Fred Fleitz is a former employee of the CIA and DIA, the US State Department and a staffer in the House Intelligence Committee

At the end of 2016, he wrote an article that outlined some of the "side deals" made in the "Iran Deal" that were never revealed until they happened.

One of those side deals was to lift UN sanctions regarding banks that financed Iran's ballistic missile program. That deal was made on the same day that four US prisoners were released -- January 17, 2016. However, the Obama Administration claimed that it was only a prisoner swap -- 4 US citizens for 7 Iranians. In addition, almost two dozen wanted by INTERPOL, for violating transfers of WMD technology and weapons to Iran, were removed from the INTERPOL wanted list.

It was not until August -- 8 months later -- that the US prisoners were not allowed to leave until the pallets of cash sent by Obama arrived in Iran. Two more plane loads were sent in September, which completed the ransom payments to the largest state sponsor of terror in the world.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Obama officials justified the lifting of sanctions to "harmonize the U.N. sanctions list with the U.S.’s” and because “Washington believed Iran had earned more sanctions relief because Tehran had been implementing the terms of the nuclear agreement.”

Those banking sanctions were lifted in July 2015. The sanctions were lifted by the UN until January 2016.

Yes, this was a very broad ransom agreement.

The "side deal" to lift sanctions against the Iranian banks is also a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2231. Worse, this "side deal" broke the promise Obama made to Congress that the "Iran Deal" would only lift sanction that were nuclear related.

The Obama Administration unethically -- if not illegally -- withheld "Iran Deal" side deals from the US Congress and the American People. When questioned on it, members of the administration even lied about these "side deals." The side deals, besides the one dealing with banks and missiles, include:

- Allowing Iran to inspect itself regarding nuclear weapons work
- IAEA reports on Iran that dumb down the information
- Exemptions granted to Iran in order to receive over $100 billion in sanctions relief
- The plane loads of cash
- A secret agreement allowing Iran to construct advanced centrifuges in 2027.

Those are only the "side deals" that we know about.

There is no reason for any country seeking peaceful nuclear power to construct advanced centrifuges that are capable of creating nuclear weapons.

[Doodoo]

Since no one has probably explained to you and I can understand you are probably not a Nuclear Scientist (nor am I the reason for cut and paste) here is a description
The process of concentrating the U-235 is called enrichment, and centrifuges are a central part of the process.

Uran­ium is an element that is similar to iron. Like iron, you dig uranium ore out of the ground and then process it to extract the pure uranium from the ore. When you finish processing uranium ore, what you have is uranium oxide. Uranium oxide contains two types (or isotopes) of uranium: U-235 and U-238. U-235 is what you need if you want to make a bomb or fuel a nuclear power plant.

Please note U235 for a BOMB OR OR OR FUEL FOR A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

[papafarang]

Since no one has probably explained to you and I can understand you are probably not a Nuclear Scientist (nor am I the reason for cut and paste) here is a description
The process of concentrating the U-235 is called enrichment, and centrifuges are a central part of the process.

Uran­ium is an element that is similar to iron. Like iron, you dig uranium ore out of the ground and then process it to extract the pure uranium from the ore. When you finish processing uranium ore, what you have is uranium oxide. Uranium oxide contains two types (or isotopes) of uranium: U-235 and U-238. U-235 is what you need if you want to make a bomb or fuel a nuclear power plant.

Please note U235 for a BOMB OR OR OR FUEL FOR A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

North Korea has nukes, seems to be ok, they have not dropped a bomb on anyone..they also have not been invaded..I wonder why countries would want them I guess the logic of arming every American to make America safe again also applies to nukes

[Doodoo]

Papa
I agree give everyone a Nuke. There we go everyone just gets ONE NUKE, Kenya, Finland, Peru, Cuba, USA, Russia, Iran etc. You all get one chance at it then it is over and done with
OR Get rid of the things but that is too radical according with some. BUT, we havent had someone with The Balls yet to say STOP

[papafarang]

Papa
I agree give everyone a Nuke. There we go everyone just gets ONE NUKE, Kenya, Finland, Peru, Cuba, USA, Russia, Iran etc. You all get one chance at it then it is over and done with
OR Get rid of the things but that is too radical according with some. BUT, we havent had someone with The Balls yet to say STOP

More weapons make the world safer. Foolish,idiotic but believed by the disciples

[Doodoo]

Yes, just getting tired of OH, you can have one but You cant so lets give everyone , one nuke each , Ghana, UK, USA, Iceland,Thailand, Laos, India and Pak (now there is a bundle) etc OH and Iran give them ONE
Then everyone will be HAPPY