Thread: Iran nuclear talks: 'Framework' deal agreed

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

We are always prepared for everything

That's encouraging.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

After a careful study of the history of coercive bombing campaigns our conclusions illustrated that those like Senators Tom Cotton, and presidential candidates Mike Huckabee and Rick Perry whom have made repeated claims that force can be used against Iran without risking escalation, are perhaps grossly underappreciating the scale and scope of what bombing Iran may entail.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The scenario above does not involve the West striking first

Fair nuff. A different story if Iran strikes first or blockades the straits. Doubt Russia or the Chinese would offer any great objection if the west retaliated.

As the above quote, I'm speaking about those who advocate a military solution rather than the agreement on the table.

Not as simple as the war advocates professed it would be in recent US/allied wars.

Patriot has been improved but has weaknesses. Can be overwhelmed by shear numbers of relatively low tech surface to suface missiles. Designed primarily as a ballistic missile defense, does well with high altitude entry vehicals but not so well against low flying cruise missile.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I don't advocate bombing Iran for nothing. I do advocate responding effectively if Iran starts fucking with our allies.

On this we are in agreement.

Originally Posted by Norton

Patriot has been improved but has weaknesses. Can be overwhelmed by shear numbers of relatively low tech surface to suface missiles. Designed primarily as a ballistic missile defense, does well with high altitude entry vehicals but not so well against low flying cruise missile.

Not true. It can be used against drones, cruise missiles etc, nowadays.

It's had 24 years to be improved.

Realistically, Iran is not a significant military threat. Hell, they haven't even had a decent war since '88.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Not true. It can be used against drones, cruise missiles etc, nowadays.

You appear an expert on the subject so now all can rest confident Patriot will keep us safe from all the bad guys. In Raytheon we trust.

Back on topic. The nuke deal will go into effect. It is then up to Iran to comply. Time will tell if they do.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Not true. It can be used against drones, cruise missiles etc, nowadays.

You appear an expert on the subject so now all can rest confident Patriot will keep us safe from all the bad guys. In Raytheon we trust.

Back on topic. The nuke deal will go into effect. It is then up to Iran to comply. Time will tell if they do.

The Iron Dome anti-missile system worked well against the Pali's last go-round but remains to be seen how well Israel can contend with a barrage of nukes headed into Tel Aviv.

Another cretinous response.

Iran will not be allowed to go that far, either by Israel or the US.

195 Retired Generals, Admirals Tell Congress to Reject Iran Deal

"Nearly 200 retired generals and admirals have written a letter to Congress urging its members to reject the proposed nuclear deal with Iran. The retired military officials say the consequences of the deal will national security.

A group of nearly 200 retired generals and admirals sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday urging lawmakers to reject the Iran nuclear agreement, which they say threatens national security.

The letter is the latest in a blizzard of missives petitioning Congress either to support or oppose the agreement with Iran, which would lift sanctions if Iran pared back its nuclear program. Letters have come from ad hoc groupings of rabbis, nuclear scientists, arms-control and nonproliferation experts — and now, retired senior military officers, many of whom have worked in the White House during various administrations dating to the 1980s.

The letter, addressed to Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate and the House, is a response to one sent last week by three dozen retired senior military officers who support the nuclear deal.

“The agreement will enable Iran to become far more dangerous, render the Mideast still more unstable and introduce new threats to American interests as well as our allies,” the letter states."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...64b_story.html

Those boys are not too keen on the whole Appeasment in our Time thing either...

Maloney becomes sixth NY Dem to oppose Iran deal

As we are all aware, there's something real fishy about this agreement. That's why there's growing sentiment in Congress to kill it before Israel ceases to exist...:chitown

"Rep. Carolyn Maloney announced Thursday she will oppose the Iran nuclear agreement.

She is the sixth New York House Democrat to publicly oppose the deal.

"There are strong arguments for and against the agreement but, as a matter of conscience, I have decided to oppose it," Maloney said in a lengthy statement.

Maloney cited concerns that even if Iran abides by the agreement, it would not stop Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons after the agreement ends.
She said the deal could also make the Middle East even more dangerous by giving Iran access to financial resources, weapons and power.

The deal would unfreeze more than $100 billion in Iranian assets.

"It will also gain access to billions more dollars as oil revenues increase," Maloney said of Tehran. "It is difficult to imagine that at least a portion of that massive windfall would not find its way into the hands of terrorists.

"Iran will continue bankrolling terrorist militias throughout the Middle East — Hezbollah in Lebanon, [President Bashar] Assad in Syria, Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and the Houthis in Yemen. And Iran continues to hold four American prisoners," she added.

Maloney is the 14th House Democrat to publicly oppose the agreement. Much of the opposition has come from New York, particularly from Jewish Democrats such as Maloney. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) is one of two Senate Democrats to oppose the deal.

A measure disapproving the deal is expected to pass in the House, though it is not clear whether it will have the 60 votes necessary to break a filibuster in the Senate.

President Obama is expected to veto a disapproval measure if Congress approves it. Two-thirds majorities in both chambers would be required to override the veto, a very high hurdle for opponents of the deal.

Maloney also cited concerns that the agreement would allow 24 days before international nuclear inspectors could access suspected Iranian nuclear sites.

"If Iran were genuinely committed to nuclear non-proliferation, it wouldn’t need even 24 hours," she said.

She also cited provisions that would lift arms embargoes on Iran.

"In year five, Iran can once again begin importing conventional weapons, and after year eight it will be allowed to acquire intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)," she said. "There is no peaceful use for ICBMs."

"This is an agreement with a nation that has not honored its non-proliferation commitments in the past," she said."

Maloney becomes sixth NY Dem to oppose Iran deal | TheHill

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

195 Retired Generals, Admirals Tell Congress to Reject Iran Deal

"Nearly 200 retired generals and admirals have written a letter to Congress urging its members to reject the proposed nuclear deal with Iran. The retired military officials say the consequences of the deal will national security.

A group of nearly 200 retired generals and admirals sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday urging lawmakers to reject the Iran nuclear agreement, which they say threatens national security.

The letter is the latest in a blizzard of missives petitioning Congress either to support or oppose the agreement with Iran, which would lift sanctions if Iran pared back its nuclear program. Letters have come from ad hoc groupings of rabbis, nuclear scientists, arms-control and nonproliferation experts — and now, retired senior military officers, many of whom have worked in the White House during various administrations dating to the 1980s.

The letter, addressed to Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate and the House, is a response to one sent last week by three dozen retired senior military officers who support the nuclear deal.

“The agreement will enable Iran to become far more dangerous, render the Mideast still more unstable and introduce new threats to American interests as well as our allies,” the letter states."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...64b_story.html

Those boys are not too keen on the whole Appeasment in our Time thing either...

I WAS a member of a Democrat forum on Facebook but had never posted in it. Today I posted this link as an "Oh by the way" update and was immediately banned ...

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Maloney is the 14th House Democrat to publicly oppose the agreement

Assuming all GOP vote in opposition, only 7 or 8 Dems more to overide a veto.
Then the pesky Senate bunch need to find 67 votes to override a veto. GOP need to pick up 13 votes.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

195 Retired Generals, Admirals Tell Congress to Reject Iran Deal
A group of nearly 200 retired generals and admirals sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday urging lawmakers to reject the Iran nuclear agreement, which they say threatens national security.
snip
The letter is the latest in a blizzard of missives petitioning Congress either to support or oppose the agreement with Iran, which would lift sanctions if Iran pared back its nuclear program. Letters have come from ad hoc groupings of rabbis, nuclear scientists, arms-control and nonproliferation experts — and now, retired senior military officers, many of whom have worked in the White House during various administrations dating to the 1980s.

I wonder who they work (lobby) for now.

Wonder why all the fuss by the GOP over Iran having a nuke. Afterall,

"Nukes don't kill people, people do."

Originally Posted by Norton

Wonder why all the fuss by the GOP over Iran having a nuke. Afterall,

"Nukes don't kill people, people do."

That's why there's background checks on who is buying a firearm these days and the Mad Mullahs really cannot be said to pass muster now can they?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Norton

Wonder why all the fuss by the GOP over Iran having a nuke. Afterall,

"Nukes don't kill people, people do."

That's why there's background checks on who is buying a firearm these days and the Mad Mullahs really cannot be said to pass muster now can they?

Don't be silly Booners, you give guns to any old nutter in America, so why change now?

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

195 Retired Generals, Admirals Tell Congress to Reject Iran Deal
A group of nearly 200 retired generals and admirals sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday urging lawmakers to reject the Iran nuclear agreement, which they say threatens national security.
snip
The letter is the latest in a blizzard of missives petitioning Congress either to support or oppose the agreement with Iran, which would lift sanctions if Iran pared back its nuclear program. Letters have come from ad hoc groupings of rabbis, nuclear scientists, arms-control and nonproliferation experts — and now, retired senior military officers, many of whom have worked in the White House during various administrations dating to the 1980s.

I wonder who they work (lobby) for now.

Maybe none, but AIPAC is in full swing as usual.

Why u make uself look like so much fool amerka? the deal has passed, and will become law. meanwhile, good old 'merka makes itself look like the petulant child it is.

President Obama is one vote away from the Senate support needed to uphold a veto of the Iranian nuclear deal.

President Barack Obama is nearly at the magic number he needs to uphold the nuclear agreement with Iran.

On Tuesday, Sens. Chris Coons of Delaware and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania became the latest Democrats to come out in support of the deal, which lifts sanctions on Iran in exchange for restrictions on its nuclear program. Obama needs 34 senators to sustain a veto of Republican legislation aimed at blocking the deal. He’s now at 33.

A vote is expected later this month. Republicans all oppose the deal, but a steady stream of Senate Democrats has expressed support.

Coons told the Washington Post in an interview: “We are better off trying diplomacy first” with Iran.

The deal has faced harsh criticism from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as Republican presidential contenders including Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Obama said last week he expects relations with Israel to improve after the deal is in place, and insisted the agreement cuts off Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon.

Supporters of the deal are now aiming to get 41 votes, the Associated Press writes, which would block a resolution disapproving of the deal from passing in the first place. That would spare Obama from having to use his veto pen.

Obama close to clinching votes for Iran nuclear deal - MarketWatch

Madeleine Albright: Iran deal is a win-win - CNN.com

"One of the main criticisms that has been leveled against the JCPOA is that it does not address other abhorrent aspects of Iran's behavior -- its support of terrorism, its jailing of several Iranian-Americans, its rhetoric against the United States and Israel or its other destabilizing activities in the broader Middle East. In theory, the United States could have pursued a comprehensive agreement with Iran covering issues beyond the nuclear file, but experience suggests that such an approach would not have yielded results.

First, we must subject the implementation of the JCPOA to the strongest oversight possible. Iran has agreed to intrusive, 24/7 measures to monitor and verify its compliance. We should press relentlessly to ensure every one of them is enforced, make clear that we will be closely scrutinizing Iran's actions and signal our commitment to following through on implementation. For that reason, I welcome reports that the Obama administration will name a respected senior diplomat to coordinate implementation of the agreement. Congress can also play a positive role and needs to be a partner in monitoring the agreement.

Second, we must maintain a robust deterrent in the region, increase our efforts to counter Iranian proxies and further enhance the conventional military capabilities of our allies and partners relative to Iran.

Before the agreement was finalized, the President jump-started this process by convening an historic meeting with Arab leaders at Camp David and since then dispatched Secretary of Defense Ash Carter to Israel and Saudi Arabia to follow up.

Next month, King Salman of Saudi Arabia will come to Washington to continue these discussions. With both Israel and our Gulf partners, we should establish a revamped regional system of security backed by an enduring commitment to their capabilities and strong U.S. guarantees.

Despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's public opposition to the agreement, it is all but certain that Israel and the United States will move toward completing a new long-term security assistance agreement that will further enhance Israel's already substantial qualitative military edge. And next year, the United States will significantly augment Israel's capabilities by delivering to it the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, making it the only military in the region to possess this advanced stealth fighter aircraft.

These steps will increase pressure on Iran and can outweigh any gains its military and intelligence institutions receive as a result of the easing of some international sanctions. But our policy must go beyond isolation and containment. We must use all the foreign policy tools at our disposal.

To that end, the third leg of our approach should involve carefully calibrated engagement with Iran.

It is not insignificant that senior American and Iranian officials have now had regular opportunities to interact and establish relationships. We should build on that, because Iran is not monolithic. It is a country where theocrats and reformers are present at the same time, where there are ideologues exporting hate and a sizable commercial class that wants to engage productively with the world.

It is in America's interest to cultivate good will with those Iranians who are dissatisfied with the international isolation Iran's external policies and unelected leaders have brought it. By showing Iran that international cooperation can bring tangible benefits, the agreement provides them with reason to push for further change".

Rest of article in the link.

Originally Posted by Black Heart

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Second, we must maintain a robust deterrent in the region, increase our efforts to counter Iranian proxies and further enhance the conventional military capabilities of our allies and partners relative to Iran.

Why meddle in the Middle East, like the US has for 90 years?

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama locked in enough support in Congress Wednesday to ensure he can overcome bipartisan opposition and implement a landmark nuclear accord with Iran.

More than a month after global diplomats struck an agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for international sanctions relief, the White House secured the backing of 34 Senate Democrats—the minimum needed to guarantee the deal can advance despite deep and divisive reservations in Congress, especially among Republicans.

Even if Congress passes a resolution disapproving the deal when it votes later this month, Mr. Obama is expected to veto the resolution. Support from Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.), who is retiring next year, means there will not be enough votes to override that veto. The president is also expected to secure the votes needed in the House, though he needs to sustain his veto in just one chamber to proceed with the deal.

Obama Secures 34 Senate Democrats? Support for Iran Nuclear Deal - WSJ

Oh dear that will really piss Booners off.

Originally Posted by Black Heart

Maybe the US should focus on its domestic problems instead.

No oil slaves, = no petro dollar/MIC, = no money, QED no honey. Take out the MIC and Government and what does America produce that can't be bought cheaper elsewhere?

The hawks never send their own children off to war, do they?

Moving images, Ant.