Talk of The Villages Florida - Rentals, Entertainment & More
Talk of The Villages Florida - Rentals, Entertainment & More
#31
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
This thread was about discovery of the ingredients of one of the secret deals allowed to happen in the Iran pact. NONE of the secret deals were given to the american public, and were discovered by the media. We ALL KNEW who who would be involved in the inspections....always knew...always has been the IAEA. Never been anybody else. Not a subject brought up except by you. OK....Since the contents of the secret deals involved in our agreement with Iran were not even disclosed as to their existence, hearing the contents of one of those deals which allows Iran to self inspect WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD The IAEA has always been the inspector in this situation. ALWAYS....a known factor. WHAT WAS NOT INITIALLY WAS THAT THERE WERE SECRET DEALS ! One of the most discussed issues with this deal has been inspections, NOT WHO WOULD DO THEM, but the supposed lead time of 24 days. We always knew WHO ! Our President said that we could inspect anytime, anywhere we wanted. Now, the contents of one of the secret deals reveals that Iran will self inspect. THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD. We all know and have known WHO would do inspecting until we were told that Iran could self inspect. I hope you understand now that the IAEA is a known factor, not in the news except as the inspector. Our country, along with others allowed secret deals.....and one of them to allow self inspection after being told what we were told. I hope this is clear. IAEA is not the story or the thread. The story and the thread is about discovering that ONE of the secret deals was self inspection OF A SITE THAT HAS NOT BEEN INSPECTED SINCE 2005. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
This might but probably not based on your previous posts, but lets try and see if this makes you understand why the OP began this discussion which you seem intent on changing...
"“This establishes the exact precedent that Iran always sought and repeatedly claimed: IAEA weapons inspectors will never get physical access into any military sites,” says sanctions expert Mark Dubowitz in an email. “That the Obama administration agreed to Iranian self-inspections tells you everything you need to know about how far it caved on the essential elements of a verifiable and enforceable nuclear agreement.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...y-humiliating/ |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
And this from the same link...maybe you understand that the OP had concerns
"With self-inspection comes the open door for Iran to cheat with impunity. The AP report continues: The Parchin deal is a separate, side agreement worked out between the IAEA and Iran. The United States and the five other world powers that signed the Iran nuclear deal were not party to this agreement but were briefed on it by the IAEA and endorsed it as part of the larger package. Without divulging its contents, the Obama administration has described the document as nothing more than a routine technical arrangement between Iran and the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency on the particulars of inspecting the site." This information flies in the face of what our President told us "When President Obama hailed the Iran nuclear agreement on television Tuesday morning, he said the said it would usher in an era of unprecedented access to Iran's nuclear facilities. "Inspectors will also be able to access any suspicious location. Put simply, the organization responsible for the inspections, the IAEA, will have access where necessary, when necessary," the president said." Obama says inspectors get access to "any" site in Iran. Is it true? - CBS News Now the President as he always does uses language to allow him some "wiggle room". This deal was to be open and unfettered for congress and the american people. This is why... "Most Americans say Congress should reject the international deal brokered by the Obama administration over Iran's nuclear program, according to a CNN/ORC International poll released Thursday. A majority, 56 percent, want lawmakers to reject the deal, up slightly from the 52 percent who voiced that position in the same poll last month. Forty-one percent say Congress should accept the deal. Poll: Majority want Congress to reject Iran nuclear deal | TheHill |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I also remember when the general public was against the ACA and the so called representives of we the people did it anyway!
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
This will probably get voted down and then vetoed and then the veto overiddn. ACA Harry Reid had to change and manipulate the senate rules in order to get close to passing it and it just made it. No problem....two very important issues handled the same way. BOTH americans did not want but they got them anyway. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
That's how tyranny works. Have to say though, that if there was no threat of being charged with being racist, a lot of what happens out of the White House would not be tolerated. I'd say that Obama gets somewhat of a pass on accountability.
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
IAEA says report Iran to inspect own military site is 'misrepresentation' | Reuters
Are you that naïve to think the press got this on its own? That this wasn't a selective leak to a news organization that people trust. Look at the timing of the leak. You don't think for a second that the Republicans didn't have their hands in this. Every tactic above or below the belt is being used by both parties. Every Republican congressman was against the deal before they even saw it. They are trying to justify their actions by spreading fear real or imaged. If you can't see that, you aren't looking. The IAEA has access to all Iran's nuclear sites. They will be preparing a report by year end. If you trust them, what is the problem? |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
U.S. Nuclear Scientists Praise 'unprecedented' Iran Deal :: Southern Maryland Community Forums
Nuclear scientists don't have a problem with the 24 days, but what do they know! We have a habit of not listening to scientists anyway. What do they know! This letter is a Democratic ploy to offset the Republican ploy. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
According to news reports, well from AP themselves, they were the first to see and report, thus if you are calling AP liars, then so be it, but if you are doing so, then I think you need to be able to substantiate that since it has been reported that everyone, including Republicans got this from the AP report. DO YOU HAVE SUBSTANTIATION FOR YOUR ACCUSATION ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BEING A PARTY TO THIS ? Ok while we wait for your link or whatever you back up is, lets discuss the realities of your link. It does not say that the IAEA will have access to PARCIN as they have been seeking for years...it says this.. "The IAEA, which says it takes no information at face value, has repeatedly asked for fresh, direct access to Parchin." At no time does it say they have been given access to Parchin. Lets stop for a minute. The American people and the congress were told all along, from the beginning that inspection would be ..well, in the Presidents words.... ""Inspectors will also be able to access any suspicious location. Put simply, the organization responsible for the inspections, the IAEA, will have access where necessary, when necessary," THAT IS NOT TRUE. I WOULD be open to reading where you find that the IAEA has access to Parchin, and actually would welcome that news. Been 10 years since anyone was allowed there. You said..."The IAEA has access to all Iran's nuclear sites. " CAN YOU SUPPLY JUST ONE, SIMPLE ONE LINK THAT SAYS THEY WILL EVER HAVE ACCESS TO PARCHIN ? I know you cannot do that , thus your entire premise here is flawed. Bottom line is that the administration made claims that are not true, kept secret deals secret (if that is a good sentence) and it appears that we still will not get to see Parchin despite the President saying that nothing would be done that would give Iran any advantage. Listen, this is a big deal and it is exactly like the ACA. For the ACA, Harry Reid had to manipulate the Senate rules to narrowly pass it. A bill that the majority of Americans opposed. And, in getting it passed, our President mocked everyone who spoke out in anyway against it. For this, well over 50% of all Americans oppose it. He will have it defeated by congress, veto it and then have the veto overridden in a close vote. Once again, after mocking anyone opposed. And your own mocking attitude is noted. I am "looking" although you say I am not. I have posted on all the bad points about it....and here is what is quite interesting to me... You folks never ever discuss those kind of things...you simply find a link, and then MISREPRESENT IT ON HERE with no specifics. You call out Republicans yet never mention the democrats who oppose it. SO DO NOT TELL ME I AM NOT LOOKING. It is you who have your eyes closed. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
American people are concerned about things that you folks who come on here and spout political verbage, up to now, have not chosen to discuss. Discuss the money going back into the coffers of the worlds leading sponsor of terrorism especially those who seek to destroy Israel, as they do. Discuss the ongoing deals already in place for Russia to sell now to Iran since no sanctions ICBM's. Discuss how the world, especially someone like Russia, handles any breakdowns in the deal. Discuss how this deal is to the distinct advantage of all countries involved except ours. Discuss how we keep all other countries in the ME from beginning their own programs now to keep up, BECAUSE YOU UNDERSTAND THIS INSURES THAT IRAN WILL FOR SURE GET NUKES...JUST DELAYS THE TIMING. I pray it works because I am afraid it will not be stopped but you folks are being very dishonest with these links and posts. You are like the President...ignore what the majority of Americans want, mock those REPUBLICANS who oppose it...seems Democrats get a break for some reason....ignore what this deal says to our ally Israel..... well, you folks have your instructions and will not talk about it....so be it. God bless YOUR children and grandchildren should there be any problems with this deal, including all the secret parts. And please, do not give the only alternative is war...That is so ridiculous it is hard to comment on. READ a bit although you think I am not reading...READ what the current sanctions were doing and how that got them to the table and those sanctions were put there to STOP Iran from getting a nuke, NOT SIMPLY DELAY. |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
It was reported on MSNBC that the chairman of the IAEA, and the chief nuclear inspector will be going to Parchin before year end. The IAEA will report on their findings again before year end. If you trust the IAEA, you got to know that they do not trust Iran. Why would they lie about the inspection?
The timing of the leak is just to convenient. Someone, who can identify himself, gives an unsigned agreement to the press. It just so happens to cause a fire storm during the lead up time to the vote on the Iran deal. If that doesn't smell of politics to you, you are holding your nose. Concerning the support of over 50% of Americans, since when the majority opinion have any say in today's politics. Between 85-90% approved of enhanced background checks for guns, that legislation went nowhere. Concerning the ACA, it had over 50% approval in both houses. Reid had to get around McConnell's filibuster, which he did. My eyes are wide open. Given the state of current politics, nothing will be done in the next year and half. Everything right now has a political twist. How anyone can be happy about this is beyond me. Who the hell wants to sit and argue about everything? |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Concerning the ACA, yes it had 50% and should have taken 60% to get it approved. It did not have America's approval and it had ONLY Democrat votes. How often do you see something passed with ONLY one party represented? Please don't mention Reid in a decent forum. He is the scum of the earth and will not be missed by anyone (probably even senate Dems). He is the reason that nothing got done in congress. He sat on so many House passed bills that his desk collapsed from the weight. Kidding on that part. You mention "argue" as if it is a bad thing. Without arguing you don't reach compromise. There is no arguing with this administration. If Obama wants something and it's not legal or not supported, he does it anyway. He disregards what the Supremes order, unless it supports his agenda. This country has gone through two terms of stress and disaster due to this administration's divisive rhetoric and uncompromising tyranny. The Republican minority can hardly be blamed for attempting to stem this administration's running amok. Regarding the "side agreement" I think we should take it seriously. We have seen the consequences of "we'll have to pass it before we find out what's in it." Let's ALL be concerned about this agreement BEFORE we trust. This administration and Iran have given us no reason to have faith/trust in either of them. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
CNN says.... "The Obama administration has acknowledged that Iranians would likely be involved in inspections of the Parchin military site -- which the West has widely suspected of being the site of past illicit nuclear activity -- under a draft agreement between the Iranians and the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, which handles the inspections. A senior administration official told CNN that while Iranians may be collecting the samples at Parchin, individuals from other countries would be involved in analyzing them. It also seems likely that IAEA staff would either be present or watching via video camera and directing the Iranians when they take samples from the site. The agreement governing the inspection of Parchin is separate from the wide-ranging inspections regime the IAEA will impose on other Iranian sites under the deal. Those inspections focus on ongoing nuclear work, whereas the investigation of Parchin is into past activities." Iranian role in inspections fuels critics of deal - CNNPolitics.com "David Albright, an analyst who participated in nuclear inspections in Iraq, said "it is not customary at all" for the IAEA to not collect its own samples, and said if the IAEA can't visit Parchin personally to look for nooks and crannies it may want to sample, it would need robust video connections to adequately monitor the process. "It's really not normal, and you have to worry that this would set a bad precedent in the Iran context and in the context of other countries," said Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security. "I don't know why they accepted it. I think the IAEA is probably getting a little desperate to settle this." Bottom line, you think it is a good deal, and I do not. I might add that you should get other sources of news. Your "spin" on the ACA is totally incorrect. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
NO PROBLEM, RIGHT.....
"DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran on Saturday unveiled a new surface-to-surface missile it said could strike targets with pin-point accuracy within a range of 500 km (310 miles) and it said military might was a precondition for peace and effective diplomacy. The defense ministry's unveiling of the solid-fuel missile, named Fateh 313, came little more than a month after Iran and world powers reached a deal that requires Tehran to abide by new limits on its nuclear program in return for Western governments easing economic sanctions. According to that deal, any transfer to Iran of ballistic missile technology during the next eight years will be subject to the approval of the United Nations Security Council, and the United States has promised to veto any such requests. An arms embargo on conventional weapons also stays, preventing their import and export for five years. But Iran has said it will not follow parts of the nuclear deal that restricts its military capabilities, a stance reaffirmed by President Hassan Rouhani on Saturday. "We will buy, sell and develop any weapons we need and we will not ask for permission or abide by any resolution for that," he said in a speech at the unveiling ceremony broadcast live on state television. Read more: Iran unveils new missile, says seeks peace through strength - Business Insider AGAIN...PLEASE NOTE.... "According to that deal, any transfer to Iran of ballistic missile technology during the next eight years will be subject to the approval of the United Nations Security Council, and the United States has promised to veto any such requests. An arms embargo on conventional weapons also stays, preventing their import and export for five years. But Iran has said it will not follow parts of the nuclear deal that restricts its military capabilities, a stance reaffirmed by President Hassan Rouhani on Saturday. "We will buy, sell and develop any weapons we need and we will not ask for permission or abide by any resolution for that," he said in a speech at the unveiling ceremony broadcast live on state television. "THAT DEAL" as referenced above it the deal being discussed in Congress. GOOD DEAL because if they dont want to, then they will not !!! Did not take them long ! |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ok, so now we know that Iran will do what they want relative to ballistic missles, here is a point OFTEN MENTIONED ON HERE AND IGNORED....
"WASHINGTON — As President Obama begins his three-week push to win approval of the Iran nuclear deal, he is confronting this political reality: His strongest argument in favor of passage has also become his greatest vulnerability. Mr. Obama has been pressing the case that the sharp limits on how much nuclear fuel Iran can hold, how many centrifuges it can spin and what kind of technology it can acquire would make it extraordinarily difficult for Iran to race for the bomb over the next 15 years. His problem is that most of the significant constraints on Tehran’s program lapse after 15 years — and, after that, Iran is free to produce uranium on an industrial scale. “The chief reservation I have about the agreement is the fact that in 15 years they have a highly modern and internationally legitimized enrichment capability,” said Representative Adam B. Schiff, a California Democrat who supports the accord. “And that is a bitter pill to swallow.” http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/24/wo...laws.html?_r=0 |
|
|