1.- So? they still gave it all according to both Russia and the IAEA, they would have to start from near zero.
2.- 4 to 20 times more efficient isnt enough, it took several years to reach the current stockpile with thousands of centrifugues.
3.- There is no evidence of Iran secret military enrichment facilities.
4.- At not point was it argued that the deal was about denuclearization of Iran, Iran wont give up its nuclear program without a fight, it was about delaying the breakout window. The most important part of it being that Iran give up all its enriched uranium and stop enriching uranium.
5.- Ray Takeyh has which insider information again? Does he gets the same briefings as the SecDEF and the CJCS? Does he has the same technical knowledge as the top American nuclear scientists?
Dont come and drop names while you ignore the experts on the matter and those that have the insider knowledge. Specially if said people go and parrot the classical "Iran supports the murderous Assad" slogan.
No they didn't Rod, that was never the agreement. And we aren't allowed to verify they don't have any on thier military bases or undeclared nuclear sites.
Ray Takeyh is one of the dudes giving those briefs. He's an expert on Iran
Why, exactly, is it a worse deal than doing nothing? Why do you think his own Secretary of Defense wants to keep the deal and what do you and Trump know that he doesn't? Why do you think pulling out now could possibly be a good thing if it destroys American credibility on the world stage with everyone watching?This. Everyone is saying Iran didn't violate the deal. From what I can see, they did. It was a bad deal in the first place, and Trump is getting us out of it. I agree with him on this.
Why, exactly, is it a worse deal than doing nothing? Why do you think his own Secretary of Defense wants to keep the deal and what do you and Trump know that he doesn't? Why do you think pulling out now could possibly be a good thing if it destroys American credibility on the world stage with everyone watching?
It was a bad deal becauseWhy, exactly, is it a worse deal than doing nothing? Why do you think his own Secretary of Defense wants to keep the deal and what do you and Trump know that he doesn't? Why do you think pulling out now could possibly be a good thing if it destroys American credibility on the world stage with everyone watching?
Lol, where are you coming from with this? Can you point to anything I said in this thread that even begins to justify your little outburst here?Because she is an Israeli shill, and if Israel feels threatened by a non-nuclear prosperous Iran then the deal is bad.
Lol, where are you coming from with this? Can you point to anything I said in this thread that even begins to justify your little outburst here?
That's depressingly intellectually dishonest and typical of someone who has fallen victim to truthiness.It was a bad deal because
a) I do not believe the Iranians are sincerely putting aside their attempts to develop nuclear weapons.
b) We are giving something substantial in return for something insubstantial.
How is it intellectually dishonest? I sincerely believe the Iranians made the deal insincerely.That's depressingly intellectually dishonest and typical of someone who has fallen victim to truthiness.
A quick search of my post history shows I have two comments ever about Netanyahu. Both show that I like him, but it is absurd to think that a prolific poster like myself saying something about him twice constitutes fanboyism.Your Netanyahu fanboyism.
Its not an outburst, im merely pointing out that the thing Israelis and Arabs fear is not nuclear Iran, but a non-nuclear Iran that wont be contained by the US government.
A quick search of my post history shows I have two comments ever about Netanyahu. Both show that I like him, but it is absurd to think that a prolific poster like myself saying something about him twice constitutes fanboyism.
You aren't advancing an argument here, just making personal attacks.
What in particular makes you think Iran isnt complying with the deal? whose evidence are you basing this on?
So now you want to talk about the actual issue at hand rather than spuriously insulting me? Fine. I said plainly I do not trust Iran's intentions to cease their attempts to develop nuclear weapons, mainly based on years of strong rhetoric from them.
Further I do not trust this deal to impact their quest for nuclear weapons substantially, largely because a similar deal failed badly at keeping North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. We've been down this road before and it didn't work well. It's wishful thinking.
I apologize for calling you an Israeli shill.
Because there is no factual basis for such a belief considering the Defense Secretary is publicly supporting Iran over the POTUS, and your point # 2 was inaccurate. They are substantially hobbling their capabilities. That's only insubstantial to you because of your beliefs. It's the very definition of truthiness.How is it intellectually dishonest? I sincerely believe the Iranians made the deal insincerely.
I clearly stated it in such a way as to demonstrate that it was my belief. It is intellectually dishonest of you to call that dishonest without showing cause.