CDZ Iran Advancing its Nuke program, Again.

[baileyn45]

They never really stopped.....They're just above-board about it now.

I was going to add, again? How about still.

 

[The Banker]

Yet at the end of the day Iran turned over all their enriched uranium and had their sites inspected. Every country in the deal said Iran was complying and there was zero evidence that iran was enriching uranium again.

Anyway you slice it Iran is more of a nuclear threat today than in 2016.

This is identical to N Korea. We had a working deal in place with NK, Bush canceled it. NK said "we are going to actively increase our nuke program". Bush did nothing. NK then made a nuke and tested it all while Bush did nothing??? Somehow that's Clinton's fault though...

If Bush didn't cancel that NK deal NK would not have made a nuke. They certainly would not have been testing their nukes, and they certainly would not be as great of a nuclear threat today.

It is a fact that Iran was trading with North Korea. What do you believe N.K. had to trade with Iran? The garbage they did not eat?

Clinton traded to nuclear reactors for the deal with North Korea. N.K. actually admitted that they were cheating on the Clinton deal.

1) Clinton gave N Korea 2 light water reactors, they already had Heavy water reactors. You need to look up the difference between a light water and heavy water reactor (in summary, light water reactors nuclear waste is much harder to enrich for making weapons grade material, N Korea already had the heavy reactors and that is what they were using to get their nuclear material from. What Clinton did reduced N Korea nuclear capabilities, and Bush reversed that...)

2) Bush canceled the NK deal and sat back and watched NK make a nuke AND test a nuke. So that is what you think Trump should do? He already canceled the deal and if Iran now makes a nuke he should just sit back and watch them test it like NK???

I know what a light water reactor is not everyone is uninformed.
So we should have just continued with the N.K. deal even when they admitted that they were not following it. Talk about not having a clue.

Bush should have taken a stand with N.K. just as 44 should have.

I think Trump should renegotiate with Iran and not make a silly deal that means nothing just so he can claim a victory. The last deal was pretty much a joke and p.r. stunt.

But if you can claim victory for even half a day some see it as a win.

If you know what a light water reactor is then why would you criticize Clinton for it?????
Trading a heavy water reactor for a light water reactor is a win.

Any violations of the Clinton deal were minor and certainly if the deal was in place NK would not being testing nukes, so anyway you slice it what Bush did was absolutely stupid and the worst possible outcome. Keeping the Clinton deal in place would have been a substantially better option.

How is the iran deal that got Iran to turn over 95% of their nuclear material and have real inspection silly??

Again, right now we have the worst possible outcome as Iran is actively enriching uranium and advancing their nuclear program, and Trump has done nothing to stop this. Iran is much more of a threat today than 2016.

You seem to think Trump is going to somehow obtain some magic deal, the same way you thought Bush would somehow obtain a magic deal with NK. That magic deal never happened and resulted in NK making nukes? Meanwhile Iran is on their way to making a nuke (just like NK in 2003) and Trump hasn't done anything to stop them, just like Bush.

So your whole proposition is no matter how much they were cheating, no matter that they did not have nuclear capability yet we should have turned a blind eye and kept up our end of the deal. Almost as good as deciding that you should pay someone $100.00 for some weed then finding out they plan to shoot you in the heart and steal the $500.00 you have on you. But better to go through with the deal, right.

You really can't think that North Korea was not trading nuclear secrets to Iran.
The deal was only for a limited time. After which they had free reign to do whatever they wanted. By that time they may very well have gotten everything from N.K. To have the bomb or a number of them in a few weeks.

I gather you missed the fact I thought that both Bush and 44 should have negotiated with N.K. but they failed to even try. Do I expect Trump to succeed better then 44 did? No way to tell. I will not decide on an outcome before something happens. I do know that the so called deal wthat was with Iran was no better then a photo op.

The problem is that in the end we have the worst possible outcome with NK, and it is an outcome that could have been prevented, and it is an outcome that is causing serious problems right now. So if you have an NK deal with some NK cheating, it is still 1,000x better than what we have now.

Then you fail to see that this situation is identical to the Iran situation (accept there was no Iran cheating). The Iran deal wasn't perfect, but it was working and made the world safer whether you want to admit that or not. Iran has already escalated their nuke program Since Trump canceled the deal, this is bad. This also would not be happening if the deal were in place. There is nothing in place to prevent Iran from making a nuke.

If Iran makes a nuke it will be predominantly Trumps fault, just like it is predominantly Bush's fault that N Korea made a nuke. You better be able to accept that, because I find that the right has a hard time taking responsibility for their bad decisions.

 

[The Banker]

Yet at the end of the day Iran turned over all their enriched uranium and had their sites inspected. Every country in the deal said Iran was complying and there was zero evidence that iran was enriching uranium again.

Anyway you slice it Iran is more of a nuclear threat today than in 2016.

This is identical to N Korea. We had a working deal in place with NK, Bush canceled it. NK said "we are going to actively increase our nuke program". Bush did nothing. NK then made a nuke and tested it all while Bush did nothing??? Somehow that's Clinton's fault though...

If Bush didn't cancel that NK deal NK would not have made a nuke. They certainly would not have been testing their nukes, and they certainly would not be as great of a nuclear threat today.

It is a fact that Iran was trading with North Korea. What do you believe N.K. had to trade with Iran? The garbage they did not eat?

Clinton traded to nuclear reactors for the deal with North Korea. N.K. actually admitted that they were cheating on the Clinton deal.

1) Clinton gave N Korea 2 light water reactors, they already had Heavy water reactors. You need to look up the difference between a light water and heavy water reactor (in summary, light water reactors nuclear waste is much harder to enrich for making weapons grade material, N Korea already had the heavy reactors and that is what they were using to get their nuclear material from. What Clinton did reduced N Korea nuclear capabilities, and Bush reversed that...)

2) Bush canceled the NK deal and sat back and watched NK make a nuke AND test a nuke. So that is what you think Trump should do? He already canceled the deal and if Iran now makes a nuke he should just sit back and watch them test it like NK???

I know what a light water reactor is not everyone is uninformed.
So we should have just continued with the N.K. deal even when they admitted that they were not following it. Talk about not having a clue.

Bush should have taken a stand with N.K. just as 44 should have.

I think Trump should renegotiate with Iran and not make a silly deal that means nothing just so he can claim a victory. The last deal was pretty much a joke and p.r. stunt.

But if you can claim victory for even half a day some see it as a win.

If you know what a light water reactor is then why would you criticize Clinton for it?????
Trading a heavy water reactor for a light water reactor is a win.

Any violations of the Clinton deal were minor and certainly if the deal was in place NK would not being testing nukes, so anyway you slice it what Bush did was absolutely stupid and the worst possible outcome. Keeping the Clinton deal in place would have been a substantially better option.

How is the iran deal that got Iran to turn over 95% of their nuclear material and have real inspection silly??

Again, right now we have the worst possible outcome as Iran is actively enriching uranium and advancing their nuclear program, and Trump has done nothing to stop this. Iran is much more of a threat today than 2016.

You seem to think Trump is going to somehow obtain some magic deal, the same way you thought Bush would somehow obtain a magic deal with NK. That magic deal never happened and resulted in NK making nukes? Meanwhile Iran is on their way to making a nuke (just like NK in 2003) and Trump hasn't done anything to stop them, just like Bush.

What do you propose we do to stop them from producing a nuke?

Right now their economy is crippled. They can't sell oil. Do you propose attacking their nuclear facilities?

HMMMM maybe have a deal in place that was working to prevent them from making a nuke.

If Bush would have made the right moves NK wouldn't have made and tested nukes under his administration. The Bush NK results were the worst possible outcome.

Right now the same thing is happening with Iran. We had a deal in place to prevent them, you claimed with no proof that it wouldn't work- Even though it was working... Now we have nothing to prevent them...
AND GUESS WHAT!!!!! What do you think they are doing???? making a nuke !!! so in the end, again we have the worst possible outcome... I wonder if history will repeat itself???????????? I guess time will tell.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Iran warns EU over nuclear commitments as deadline for further steps looms - Reuters

Iran was close to making a nuke in 2015, the hated Obama Iran deal stopped that and Iran turned over ~95% of its enriched uranium.

What do we have in place to stop Iran from making a nuke today???


Iran openly admits that they are escalating their nuke program because the US cancelled the nuke deal:

“The third step has been designed and will be stronger than the first and second steps to create balance between Iran’s rights and commitments to the JCPOA,” state news agency IRNA

This is identical to N Korea. We had a working deal in place with NK, Bush canceled it. NK said "we are going to actively increase our nuke program". Bush did nothing. NK then made a nuke and tested it all while Bush did nothing??? Somehow that's Clinton's fault though...

If Bush didn't cancel that NK deal NK would not have made a nuke. They certainly would not have been testing their nukes, and they certainly would not be as great of a nuclear threat today.


Ok time for you all to blame the democrats for this GOP failure. When you're a republican everything is always somebody else's (insert generic democrat here) fault.

Iran continues to insist that it has never had a nuclear weapons program and doesn't want one today, and there was never any evidence Iran was less than a year away from being able to build a bomb; furthermore, the Obama nuclear deal only got Iran to pause one aspect of its nuclear program for a few years in return for hundreds of billions of dollars, so it was at best worthless.

As for NK, Clinton's deal only gave the inspectors the ability to make sure NK wasn't using plutonium from its reactor to make nuclear weapons but they did not have the right to inspect other facilities and Bush presented evidence that NK had been trying to build nuclear weapons using highly enriched uranium instead of plutonium when he canceled the deal.

What is identical about these two situations is that both Clinton and Obama are skilled politicians and neither of them was a competent negotiator.

 

[Maxdeath]

It is a fact that Iran was trading with North Korea. What do you believe N.K. had to trade with Iran? The garbage they did not eat?

Clinton traded to nuclear reactors for the deal with North Korea. N.K. actually admitted that they were cheating on the Clinton deal.

1) Clinton gave N Korea 2 light water reactors, they already had Heavy water reactors. You need to look up the difference between a light water and heavy water reactor (in summary, light water reactors nuclear waste is much harder to enrich for making weapons grade material, N Korea already had the heavy reactors and that is what they were using to get their nuclear material from. What Clinton did reduced N Korea nuclear capabilities, and Bush reversed that...)

2) Bush canceled the NK deal and sat back and watched NK make a nuke AND test a nuke. So that is what you think Trump should do? He already canceled the deal and if Iran now makes a nuke he should just sit back and watch them test it like NK???

I know what a light water reactor is not everyone is uninformed.
So we should have just continued with the N.K. deal even when they admitted that they were not following it. Talk about not having a clue.

Bush should have taken a stand with N.K. just as 44 should have.

I think Trump should renegotiate with Iran and not make a silly deal that means nothing just so he can claim a victory. The last deal was pretty much a joke and p.r. stunt.

But if you can claim victory for even half a day some see it as a win.

If you know what a light water reactor is then why would you criticize Clinton for it?????
Trading a heavy water reactor for a light water reactor is a win.

Any violations of the Clinton deal were minor and certainly if the deal was in place NK would not being testing nukes, so anyway you slice it what Bush did was absolutely stupid and the worst possible outcome. Keeping the Clinton deal in place would have been a substantially better option.

How is the iran deal that got Iran to turn over 95% of their nuclear material and have real inspection silly??

Again, right now we have the worst possible outcome as Iran is actively enriching uranium and advancing their nuclear program, and Trump has done nothing to stop this. Iran is much more of a threat today than 2016.

You seem to think Trump is going to somehow obtain some magic deal, the same way you thought Bush would somehow obtain a magic deal with NK. That magic deal never happened and resulted in NK making nukes? Meanwhile Iran is on their way to making a nuke (just like NK in 2003) and Trump hasn't done anything to stop them, just like Bush.

So your whole proposition is no matter how much they were cheating, no matter that they did not have nuclear capability yet we should have turned a blind eye and kept up our end of the deal. Almost as good as deciding that you should pay someone $100.00 for some weed then finding out they plan to shoot you in the heart and steal the $500.00 you have on you. But better to go through with the deal, right.

You really can't think that North Korea was not trading nuclear secrets to Iran.
The deal was only for a limited time. After which they had free reign to do whatever they wanted. By that time they may very well have gotten everything from N.K. To have the bomb or a number of them in a few weeks.

I gather you missed the fact I thought that both Bush and 44 should have negotiated with N.K. but they failed to even try. Do I expect Trump to succeed better then 44 did? No way to tell. I will not decide on an outcome before something happens. I do know that the so called deal wthat was with Iran was no better then a photo op.

The problem is that in the end we have the worst possible outcome with NK, and it is an outcome that could have been prevented, and it is an outcome that is causing serious problems right now. So if you have an NK deal with some NK cheating, it is still 1,000x better than what we have now.

Then you fail to see that this situation is identical to the Iran situation (accept there was no Iran cheating). The Iran deal wasn't perfect, but it was working and made the world safer whether you want to admit that or not. Iran has already escalated their nuke program Since Trump canceled the deal, this is bad. This also would not be happening if the deal were in place. There is nothing in place to prevent Iran from making a nuke.

If Iran makes a nuke it will be predominantly Trumps fault, just like it is predominantly Bush's fault that N Korea made a nuke. You better be able to accept that, because I find that the right has a hard time taking responsibility for their bad decisions.

To put it simply they felt as if there was no deal. They received two reactors for shutting down one. They were still doing research. They were still producing plutonium, yes in smaller amounts, but still doing it. They were receiving loads of heavy fuel oil. Nothing like rewarding bad behavior.

If Iran makes a nuke it will be primarily due to North Koreas help.
Of course all the money they recieved and lifted sanctions will also play a large part.

Got to love how crazy people always have to make everything about my side is better then the other.
But I tend to look at individuals not parties.
I can see that you have no intrest in the how or why you are only interested in Republicans are bad Democrats are good.

 

[The Banker]

1) Clinton gave N Korea 2 light water reactors, they already had Heavy water reactors. You need to look up the difference between a light water and heavy water reactor (in summary, light water reactors nuclear waste is much harder to enrich for making weapons grade material, N Korea already had the heavy reactors and that is what they were using to get their nuclear material from. What Clinton did reduced N Korea nuclear capabilities, and Bush reversed that...)

2) Bush canceled the NK deal and sat back and watched NK make a nuke AND test a nuke. So that is what you think Trump should do? He already canceled the deal and if Iran now makes a nuke he should just sit back and watch them test it like NK???

I know what a light water reactor is not everyone is uninformed.
So we should have just continued with the N.K. deal even when they admitted that they were not following it. Talk about not having a clue.

Bush should have taken a stand with N.K. just as 44 should have.

I think Trump should renegotiate with Iran and not make a silly deal that means nothing just so he can claim a victory. The last deal was pretty much a joke and p.r. stunt.

But if you can claim victory for even half a day some see it as a win.

If you know what a light water reactor is then why would you criticize Clinton for it?????
Trading a heavy water reactor for a light water reactor is a win.

Any violations of the Clinton deal were minor and certainly if the deal was in place NK would not being testing nukes, so anyway you slice it what Bush did was absolutely stupid and the worst possible outcome. Keeping the Clinton deal in place would have been a substantially better option.

How is the iran deal that got Iran to turn over 95% of their nuclear material and have real inspection silly??

Again, right now we have the worst possible outcome as Iran is actively enriching uranium and advancing their nuclear program, and Trump has done nothing to stop this. Iran is much more of a threat today than 2016.

You seem to think Trump is going to somehow obtain some magic deal, the same way you thought Bush would somehow obtain a magic deal with NK. That magic deal never happened and resulted in NK making nukes? Meanwhile Iran is on their way to making a nuke (just like NK in 2003) and Trump hasn't done anything to stop them, just like Bush.

So your whole proposition is no matter how much they were cheating, no matter that they did not have nuclear capability yet we should have turned a blind eye and kept up our end of the deal. Almost as good as deciding that you should pay someone $100.00 for some weed then finding out they plan to shoot you in the heart and steal the $500.00 you have on you. But better to go through with the deal, right.

You really can't think that North Korea was not trading nuclear secrets to Iran.
The deal was only for a limited time. After which they had free reign to do whatever they wanted. By that time they may very well have gotten everything from N.K. To have the bomb or a number of them in a few weeks.

I gather you missed the fact I thought that both Bush and 44 should have negotiated with N.K. but they failed to even try. Do I expect Trump to succeed better then 44 did? No way to tell. I will not decide on an outcome before something happens. I do know that the so called deal wthat was with Iran was no better then a photo op.

The problem is that in the end we have the worst possible outcome with NK, and it is an outcome that could have been prevented, and it is an outcome that is causing serious problems right now. So if you have an NK deal with some NK cheating, it is still 1,000x better than what we have now.

Then you fail to see that this situation is identical to the Iran situation (accept there was no Iran cheating). The Iran deal wasn't perfect, but it was working and made the world safer whether you want to admit that or not. Iran has already escalated their nuke program Since Trump canceled the deal, this is bad. This also would not be happening if the deal were in place. There is nothing in place to prevent Iran from making a nuke.

If Iran makes a nuke it will be predominantly Trumps fault, just like it is predominantly Bush's fault that N Korea made a nuke. You better be able to accept that, because I find that the right has a hard time taking responsibility for their bad decisions.

To put it simply they felt as if there was no deal. They received two reactors for shutting down one. They were still doing research. They were still producing plutonium, yes in smaller amounts, but still doing it. They were receiving loads of heavy fuel oil. Nothing like rewarding bad behavior.

If Iran makes a nuke it will be primarily due to North Koreas help.
Of course all the money they recieved and lifted sanctions will also play a large part.

Got to love how crazy people always have to make everything about my side is better then the other.
But I tend to look at individuals not parties.
I can see that you have no intrest in the how or why you are only interested in Republicans are bad Democrats are good.

Nope I am just pointing out that republicans can never take responsibilities for their bad results and decisions, as if they are all somebody else's fault?

You keep throwing out way too many hypotheticals. You still haven't been able to address the fact that the absolute worst outcome possible happened, and Bush canceling the deal made that possible.

Do you think NK would have tested a nuke if the deal were still in tact? Probably not. You keep repeating bad deal, bad deal, cheating, but sometimes in life you take what you can get because it is the best possible outcome you can get? You don't seem to understand that.

The decision that you defend was the worst possible outcome and therefore the worst possible decision, I don't see how you can defend that?

I ask you again what do we have in place to prevent Iran from making a nuke. We had something in place and now we don't... Just like with NK we had something in place and then Bush canceled it. Were you surprised NK made a nuke? Will you be surprised if Iran makes one?

 

[The Banker]

Iran warns EU over nuclear commitments as deadline for further steps looms - Reuters

Iran was close to making a nuke in 2015, the hated Obama Iran deal stopped that and Iran turned over ~95% of its enriched uranium.

What do we have in place to stop Iran from making a nuke today???


Iran openly admits that they are escalating their nuke program because the US cancelled the nuke deal:

“The third step has been designed and will be stronger than the first and second steps to create balance between Iran’s rights and commitments to the JCPOA,” state news agency IRNA

This is identical to N Korea. We had a working deal in place with NK, Bush canceled it. NK said "we are going to actively increase our nuke program". Bush did nothing. NK then made a nuke and tested it all while Bush did nothing??? Somehow that's Clinton's fault though...

If Bush didn't cancel that NK deal NK would not have made a nuke. They certainly would not have been testing their nukes, and they certainly would not be as great of a nuclear threat today.


Ok time for you all to blame the democrats for this GOP failure. When you're a republican everything is always somebody else's (insert generic democrat here) fault.

Iran continues to insist that it has never had a nuclear weapons program and doesn't want one today, and there was never any evidence Iran was less than a year away from being able to build a bomb; furthermore, the Obama nuclear deal only got Iran to pause one aspect of its nuclear program for a few years in return for hundreds of billions of dollars, so it was at best worthless.

As for NK, Clinton's deal only gave the inspectors the ability to make sure NK wasn't using plutonium from its reactor to make nuclear weapons but they did not have the right to inspect other facilities and Bush presented evidence that NK had been trying to build nuclear weapons using highly enriched uranium instead of plutonium when he canceled the deal.

What is identical about these two situations is that both Clinton and Obama are skilled politicians and neither of them was a competent negotiator.

You keep throwing out way too many hypotheticals. You still haven't been able to address the fact that the absolute worst outcome possible happened (NK making a nuke and testing it), and Bush canceling the deal made that possible.

Do you think NK would have tested a nuke if the deal were still in tact? Probably not. You keep repeating bad deal, bad deal, cheating, but sometimes in life you take what you can get because it is the best possible outcome you can get? You don't seem to understand that.

The decision that you defend was the worst possible outcome and therefore the worst possible decision, I don't see how you can defend that?

I ask you again what do we have in place to prevent Iran from making a nuke. We had something in place and now we don't (you can claim it was useless, but lo and behold... it was working!!!!!!!!) Just like with NK we had something in place and then Bush canceled it. Were you surprised NK made a nuke? Will you be surprised if Iran makes one? Iran is actively increasing their nuke program as we speak, and there is nothing to stop them.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Iran warns EU over nuclear commitments as deadline for further steps looms - Reuters

Iran was close to making a nuke in 2015, the hated Obama Iran deal stopped that and Iran turned over ~95% of its enriched uranium.

What do we have in place to stop Iran from making a nuke today???


Iran openly admits that they are escalating their nuke program because the US cancelled the nuke deal:

“The third step has been designed and will be stronger than the first and second steps to create balance between Iran’s rights and commitments to the JCPOA,” state news agency IRNA

This is identical to N Korea. We had a working deal in place with NK, Bush canceled it. NK said "we are going to actively increase our nuke program". Bush did nothing. NK then made a nuke and tested it all while Bush did nothing??? Somehow that's Clinton's fault though...

If Bush didn't cancel that NK deal NK would not have made a nuke. They certainly would not have been testing their nukes, and they certainly would not be as great of a nuclear threat today.


Ok time for you all to blame the democrats for this GOP failure. When you're a republican everything is always somebody else's (insert generic democrat here) fault.

Iran continues to insist that it has never had a nuclear weapons program and doesn't want one today, and there was never any evidence Iran was less than a year away from being able to build a bomb; furthermore, the Obama nuclear deal only got Iran to pause one aspect of its nuclear program for a few years in return for hundreds of billions of dollars, so it was at best worthless.

As for NK, Clinton's deal only gave the inspectors the ability to make sure NK wasn't using plutonium from its reactor to make nuclear weapons but they did not have the right to inspect other facilities and Bush presented evidence that NK had been trying to build nuclear weapons using highly enriched uranium instead of plutonium when he canceled the deal.

What is identical about these two situations is that both Clinton and Obama are skilled politicians and neither of them was a competent negotiator.

You keep throwing out way too many hypotheticals. You still haven't been able to address the fact that the absolute worst outcome possible happened (NK making a nuke and testing it), and Bush canceling the deal made that possible.

Do you think NK would have tested a nuke if the deal were still in tact? Probably not. You keep repeating bad deal, bad deal, cheating, but sometimes in life you take what you can get because it is the best possible outcome you can get? You don't seem to understand that.

Seeing how the decision that you defend was the worst possible outcome and therefore the worst possible decision, I don't see how you can defend that?

I ask you again what do we have in place to prevent Iran from making a nuke. We had something in place and now we don't (you can claim it was useless, but lo and behold... it was working!!!!!!!!) Just like with NK we had something in place and then Bush canceled it. Were you surprised NK made a nuke? Will you be surprised if Iran makes one? Iran is actively increasing their nuke program as we speak, and there is nothing to stop them.

Nk was already building nuclear weapons while the US was financing the effort under Clinton's deal, so clearly they put no great importance on the deal and would have tested their bomb whenever they thought it would be beneficial. If you recall, Clinton asked the Pentagon to draw up plans to bomb NK but was dissuaded from taking action by SK. Clinton, like Obama, was only a politician and never a political leader, and everywhere in the world he went, he left a mess behind him, again, just like Obama. There simply was no deal to be made that would have prevented NK from developing nuclear weapons.

We had nothing in place to stop Iran from building nukes under Obama. The deal merely caused Iran to pause it enrichment of uranium for a few years and then removed all impediments to Iran rolling out a nuke a month for as long as it wanted to. Not only did Obama's deal do nothing to prevent Iran from building nukes, but it made the whole world a much more dangerous place because it trashed the international non proliferation protocols that had been in place since the 1950's by allowing Iran to enrich its own fuel and process its own spent rods.

There has always been only one way to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes and that is economy destroying sanctions backed by a credible threat of force. Obama simply didn't have the backbone to handle the situation.

 

[The Banker]

Iran warns EU over nuclear commitments as deadline for further steps looms - Reuters

Iran was close to making a nuke in 2015, the hated Obama Iran deal stopped that and Iran turned over ~95% of its enriched uranium.

What do we have in place to stop Iran from making a nuke today???


Iran openly admits that they are escalating their nuke program because the US cancelled the nuke deal:

“The third step has been designed and will be stronger than the first and second steps to create balance between Iran’s rights and commitments to the JCPOA,” state news agency IRNA

This is identical to N Korea. We had a working deal in place with NK, Bush canceled it. NK said "we are going to actively increase our nuke program". Bush did nothing. NK then made a nuke and tested it all while Bush did nothing??? Somehow that's Clinton's fault though...

If Bush didn't cancel that NK deal NK would not have made a nuke. They certainly would not have been testing their nukes, and they certainly would not be as great of a nuclear threat today.


Ok time for you all to blame the democrats for this GOP failure. When you're a republican everything is always somebody else's (insert generic democrat here) fault.

Iran continues to insist that it has never had a nuclear weapons program and doesn't want one today, and there was never any evidence Iran was less than a year away from being able to build a bomb; furthermore, the Obama nuclear deal only got Iran to pause one aspect of its nuclear program for a few years in return for hundreds of billions of dollars, so it was at best worthless.

As for NK, Clinton's deal only gave the inspectors the ability to make sure NK wasn't using plutonium from its reactor to make nuclear weapons but they did not have the right to inspect other facilities and Bush presented evidence that NK had been trying to build nuclear weapons using highly enriched uranium instead of plutonium when he canceled the deal.

What is identical about these two situations is that both Clinton and Obama are skilled politicians and neither of them was a competent negotiator.

You keep throwing out way too many hypotheticals. You still haven't been able to address the fact that the absolute worst outcome possible happened (NK making a nuke and testing it), and Bush canceling the deal made that possible.

Do you think NK would have tested a nuke if the deal were still in tact? Probably not. You keep repeating bad deal, bad deal, cheating, but sometimes in life you take what you can get because it is the best possible outcome you can get? You don't seem to understand that.

Seeing how the decision that you defend was the worst possible outcome and therefore the worst possible decision, I don't see how you can defend that?

I ask you again what do we have in place to prevent Iran from making a nuke. We had something in place and now we don't (you can claim it was useless, but lo and behold... it was working!!!!!!!!) Just like with NK we had something in place and then Bush canceled it. Were you surprised NK made a nuke? Will you be surprised if Iran makes one? Iran is actively increasing their nuke program as we speak, and there is nothing to stop them.

Nk was already building nuclear weapons while the US was financing the effort under Clinton's deal, so clearly they put no great importance on the deal and would have tested their bomb whenever they thought it would be beneficial. If you recall, Clinton asked the Pentagon to draw up plans to bomb NK but was dissuaded from taking action by SK. Clinton, like Obama, was only a politician and never a political leader, and everywhere in the world he went, he left a mess behind him, again, just like Obama. There simply was no deal to be made that would have prevented NK from developing nuclear weapons.

We had nothing in place to stop Iran from building nukes under Obama. The deal merely caused Iran to pause it enrichment of uranium for a few years and then removed all impediments to Iran rolling out a nuke a month for as long as it wanted to. Not only did Obama's deal do nothing to prevent Iran from building nukes, but it made the whole world a much more dangerous place because it trashed the international non proliferation protocols that had been in place since the 1950's by allowing Iran to enrich its own fuel and process its own spent rods.

There has always been only one way to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes and that is economy destroying sanctions backed by a credible threat of force. Obama simply didn't have the backbone to handle the situation.

Too bad everything you just said is partisan fantasy talk, right from Foxnews.

You can't even truthfully acknowledge the Obama Iran deal so how can anyone have a real debate with you?

Here's reality: Iran turned over 95% of their enriched uranium. Iran had enough to make a bomb and probably had the capabilities, so iran would have just made a bomb had Obama not made the deal. Additionally the deal ensured that iran would not continue to enrich Uranium or make nukes, and there was not a shred of evidence to suggest it was violating the deal. You seem to forget these facts...

Now Iran has restarted their nuke program so your sanctions and military threat is doing jack shit... Per Usual... You seem to ignore this reality... This pretty much destroys your entire argument..

Sanctions and military threat did nothing to stop NK, once the deal was canceled. Sanctions and military threat is doing nothing to stop Iran as they are accelerating their nuke program as we speak.

There simply was no deal to be made that would have prevented NK from developing nuclear weapons.

The absolute worst possible outcome happened with NK. Your only argument is that it still would've happened the same way under the Clinton deal is just unlikely. And that's the problem, your partisan bias has completely clouded your judgement. You can't admit that Bush misplayed this situation even though the results were the worst possible, your partisan bias has nullified your already weak argument.

The GOP NKorea plan failed, and the GOP Iran plan looks to be failing as well.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Iran warns EU over nuclear commitments as deadline for further steps looms - Reuters

Iran was close to making a nuke in 2015, the hated Obama Iran deal stopped that and Iran turned over ~95% of its enriched uranium.

What do we have in place to stop Iran from making a nuke today???


Iran openly admits that they are escalating their nuke program because the US cancelled the nuke deal:

“The third step has been designed and will be stronger than the first and second steps to create balance between Iran’s rights and commitments to the JCPOA,” state news agency IRNA

This is identical to N Korea. We had a working deal in place with NK, Bush canceled it. NK said "we are going to actively increase our nuke program". Bush did nothing. NK then made a nuke and tested it all while Bush did nothing??? Somehow that's Clinton's fault though...

If Bush didn't cancel that NK deal NK would not have made a nuke. They certainly would not have been testing their nukes, and they certainly would not be as great of a nuclear threat today.


Ok time for you all to blame the democrats for this GOP failure. When you're a republican everything is always somebody else's (insert generic democrat here) fault.

Iran continues to insist that it has never had a nuclear weapons program and doesn't want one today, and there was never any evidence Iran was less than a year away from being able to build a bomb; furthermore, the Obama nuclear deal only got Iran to pause one aspect of its nuclear program for a few years in return for hundreds of billions of dollars, so it was at best worthless.

As for NK, Clinton's deal only gave the inspectors the ability to make sure NK wasn't using plutonium from its reactor to make nuclear weapons but they did not have the right to inspect other facilities and Bush presented evidence that NK had been trying to build nuclear weapons using highly enriched uranium instead of plutonium when he canceled the deal.

What is identical about these two situations is that both Clinton and Obama are skilled politicians and neither of them was a competent negotiator.

You keep throwing out way too many hypotheticals. You still haven't been able to address the fact that the absolute worst outcome possible happened (NK making a nuke and testing it), and Bush canceling the deal made that possible.

Do you think NK would have tested a nuke if the deal were still in tact? Probably not. You keep repeating bad deal, bad deal, cheating, but sometimes in life you take what you can get because it is the best possible outcome you can get? You don't seem to understand that.

Seeing how the decision that you defend was the worst possible outcome and therefore the worst possible decision, I don't see how you can defend that?

I ask you again what do we have in place to prevent Iran from making a nuke. We had something in place and now we don't (you can claim it was useless, but lo and behold... it was working!!!!!!!!) Just like with NK we had something in place and then Bush canceled it. Were you surprised NK made a nuke? Will you be surprised if Iran makes one? Iran is actively increasing their nuke program as we speak, and there is nothing to stop them.

Nk was already building nuclear weapons while the US was financing the effort under Clinton's deal, so clearly they put no great importance on the deal and would have tested their bomb whenever they thought it would be beneficial. If you recall, Clinton asked the Pentagon to draw up plans to bomb NK but was dissuaded from taking action by SK. Clinton, like Obama, was only a politician and never a political leader, and everywhere in the world he went, he left a mess behind him, again, just like Obama. There simply was no deal to be made that would have prevented NK from developing nuclear weapons.

We had nothing in place to stop Iran from building nukes under Obama. The deal merely caused Iran to pause it enrichment of uranium for a few years and then removed all impediments to Iran rolling out a nuke a month for as long as it wanted to. Not only did Obama's deal do nothing to prevent Iran from building nukes, but it made the whole world a much more dangerous place because it trashed the international non proliferation protocols that had been in place since the 1950's by allowing Iran to enrich its own fuel and process its own spent rods.

There has always been only one way to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes and that is economy destroying sanctions backed by a credible threat of force. Obama simply didn't have the backbone to handle the situation.

Too bad everything you just said is partisan fantasy talk, right from Foxnews.

You can't even truthfully acknowledge the Obama Iran deal so how can anyone have a real debate with you?

Here's reality: Iran turned over 95% of their enriched uranium. Iran had enough to make a bomb and probably had the capabilities, so iran would have just made a bomb had Obama not made the deal. Additionally the deal ensured that iran would not continue to enrich Uranium or make nukes, and there was not a shred of evidence to suggest it was violating the deal. You seem to forget these facts...

Now Iran has restarted their nuke program so your sanctions and military threat is doing jack shit... Per Usual... You seem to ignore this reality... This pretty much destroys your entire argument..

Sanctions and military threat did nothing to stop NK, once the deal was canceled. Sanctions and military threat is doing nothing to stop Iran as they are accelerating their nuke program as we speak.

There simply was no deal to be made that would have prevented NK from developing nuclear weapons.

The absolute worst possible outcome happened with NK. Your only argument is that it still would've happened the same way under the Clinton deal is just unlikely. And that's the problem, your partisan bias has completely clouded your judgement. You can't admit that Bush misplayed this situation even though the results were the worst possible, this you partisan bias has nullified your already weak argument.

The GOP NKorea plan failed, and the GOP Iran plan looks to be failing as well.

The reality of Obama's deal with Iran is that Iran agreed to pause its enrichment activities for a few years in return for hundreds of billions of dollars and all aspects of the deal had sunset clauses which means that after a few years there would be no restrictions on what Iran could do. Even worse, Obama trashed the international non proliferation protocols in order to get this worthless deal. Nearly all of the enriched uranium Iran turned over was low enriched uranium, a long, long way from being able to use it in a bomb. Iran had not exceeded 200 kg of 20% enriched uranium since 2012 when Netanyahu announced at the UN he would attack Iran if it did. The deal was completely worthless and cost the world the non proliferation protocols that the world had relied on since the 1950's and it financed Iran's aggressions and support of terrorism around the world.

There is no evidence Iran has restarted its nuclear weapons program - which it still claims it never had. It has merely made some piddling gestures of defiance in an attempt to extort money from the Europeans to compensate for the extensive damage to its economy being done by US sanctions. Your whole post is built on the lie that Iran has restarted its nuclear weapons program.

As for NK, Nk had begun building its nuclear weapons under Clinton's deal, with the US financing it, and that is why Bush cancelled the deal. There is no rational way to deny that Clinton was suckered by NK, just as he was suckered by China and just as he was suckered by Arafat.

 

[The Banker]

Iran warns EU over nuclear commitments as deadline for further steps looms - Reuters

Iran was close to making a nuke in 2015, the hated Obama Iran deal stopped that and Iran turned over ~95% of its enriched uranium.

What do we have in place to stop Iran from making a nuke today???


Iran openly admits that they are escalating their nuke program because the US cancelled the nuke deal:

“The third step has been designed and will be stronger than the first and second steps to create balance between Iran’s rights and commitments to the JCPOA,” state news agency IRNA

This is identical to N Korea. We had a working deal in place with NK, Bush canceled it. NK said "we are going to actively increase our nuke program". Bush did nothing. NK then made a nuke and tested it all while Bush did nothing??? Somehow that's Clinton's fault though...

If Bush didn't cancel that NK deal NK would not have made a nuke. They certainly would not have been testing their nukes, and they certainly would not be as great of a nuclear threat today.


Ok time for you all to blame the democrats for this GOP failure. When you're a republican everything is always somebody else's (insert generic democrat here) fault.

Iran continues to insist that it has never had a nuclear weapons program and doesn't want one today, and there was never any evidence Iran was less than a year away from being able to build a bomb; furthermore, the Obama nuclear deal only got Iran to pause one aspect of its nuclear program for a few years in return for hundreds of billions of dollars, so it was at best worthless.

As for NK, Clinton's deal only gave the inspectors the ability to make sure NK wasn't using plutonium from its reactor to make nuclear weapons but they did not have the right to inspect other facilities and Bush presented evidence that NK had been trying to build nuclear weapons using highly enriched uranium instead of plutonium when he canceled the deal.

What is identical about these two situations is that both Clinton and Obama are skilled politicians and neither of them was a competent negotiator.

You keep throwing out way too many hypotheticals. You still haven't been able to address the fact that the absolute worst outcome possible happened (NK making a nuke and testing it), and Bush canceling the deal made that possible.

Do you think NK would have tested a nuke if the deal were still in tact? Probably not. You keep repeating bad deal, bad deal, cheating, but sometimes in life you take what you can get because it is the best possible outcome you can get? You don't seem to understand that.

Seeing how the decision that you defend was the worst possible outcome and therefore the worst possible decision, I don't see how you can defend that?

I ask you again what do we have in place to prevent Iran from making a nuke. We had something in place and now we don't (you can claim it was useless, but lo and behold... it was working!!!!!!!!) Just like with NK we had something in place and then Bush canceled it. Were you surprised NK made a nuke? Will you be surprised if Iran makes one? Iran is actively increasing their nuke program as we speak, and there is nothing to stop them.

Nk was already building nuclear weapons while the US was financing the effort under Clinton's deal, so clearly they put no great importance on the deal and would have tested their bomb whenever they thought it would be beneficial. If you recall, Clinton asked the Pentagon to draw up plans to bomb NK but was dissuaded from taking action by SK. Clinton, like Obama, was only a politician and never a political leader, and everywhere in the world he went, he left a mess behind him, again, just like Obama. There simply was no deal to be made that would have prevented NK from developing nuclear weapons.

We had nothing in place to stop Iran from building nukes under Obama. The deal merely caused Iran to pause it enrichment of uranium for a few years and then removed all impediments to Iran rolling out a nuke a month for as long as it wanted to. Not only did Obama's deal do nothing to prevent Iran from building nukes, but it made the whole world a much more dangerous place because it trashed the international non proliferation protocols that had been in place since the 1950's by allowing Iran to enrich its own fuel and process its own spent rods.

There has always been only one way to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes and that is economy destroying sanctions backed by a credible threat of force. Obama simply didn't have the backbone to handle the situation.

Too bad everything you just said is partisan fantasy talk, right from Foxnews.

You can't even truthfully acknowledge the Obama Iran deal so how can anyone have a real debate with you?

Here's reality: Iran turned over 95% of their enriched uranium. Iran had enough to make a bomb and probably had the capabilities, so iran would have just made a bomb had Obama not made the deal. Additionally the deal ensured that iran would not continue to enrich Uranium or make nukes, and there was not a shred of evidence to suggest it was violating the deal. You seem to forget these facts...

Now Iran has restarted their nuke program so your sanctions and military threat is doing jack shit... Per Usual... You seem to ignore this reality... This pretty much destroys your entire argument..

Sanctions and military threat did nothing to stop NK, once the deal was canceled. Sanctions and military threat is doing nothing to stop Iran as they are accelerating their nuke program as we speak.

There simply was no deal to be made that would have prevented NK from developing nuclear weapons.

The absolute worst possible outcome happened with NK. Your only argument is that it still would've happened the same way under the Clinton deal is just unlikely. And that's the problem, your partisan bias has completely clouded your judgement. You can't admit that Bush misplayed this situation even though the results were the worst possible, this you partisan bias has nullified your already weak argument.

The GOP NKorea plan failed, and the GOP Iran plan looks to be failing as well.

The reality of Obama's deal with Iran is that Iran agreed to pause its enrichment activities for a few years in return for hundreds of billions of dollars and all aspects of the deal had sunset clauses which means that after a few years there would be no restrictions on what Iran could do. Even worse, Obama trashed the international non proliferation protocols in order to get this worthless deal. Nearly all of the enriched uranium Iran turned over was low enriched uranium, a long, long way from being able to use it in a bomb. Iran had not exceeded 200 kg of 20% enriched uranium since 2012 when Netanyahu announced at the UN he would attack Iran if it did. The deal was completely worthless and cost the world the non proliferation protocols that the world had relied on since the 1950's and it financed Iran's aggressions and support of terrorism around the world.

There is no evidence Iran has restarted its nuclear weapons program - which it still claims it never had. It has merely made some piddling gestures of defiance in an attempt to extort money from the Europeans to compensate for the extensive damage to its economy being done by US sanctions. Your whole post is built on the lie that Iran has restarted its nuclear weapons program.

As for NK, Nk had begun building its nuclear weapons under Clinton's deal, with the US financing it, and that is why Bush cancelled the deal. There is no rational way to deny that Clinton was suckered by NK, just as he was suckered by China and just as he was suckered by Arafat.

AHAHA!! Bad news...

Sorry bud your response is fake news, good try though.

Nearly all of the enriched uranium Iran turned over was low enriched uranium, a long, long way from being able to use it in a bomb.

Complete and total fake news, get some facts sorry... here ya go:

Why do the limits on Iran's uranium enrichment matter?

That is because going from uranium's natural state of 0.7% concentration of U-235 to 20% takes about 90% of the total effort required to get to weapons-grade.

Before the nuclear deal was implemented in 2016, Iran had a sufficient amount of 20% enriched uranium and number of centrifuges that its so-called "break-out time" - the time it would theoretically take to acquire enough fissile material for one bomb, if it chose to do so - was estimated to be about two to three months.

Sorry bud, you fake news though. Good try though...
Iran's "breakout time" was estimated to be 2-3 months...

There is no evidence Iran has restarted its nuclear weapons program

More fake news. Iran has admitted ... THEY ADMITTED...they are enriching uranium again and are moving step by step to 20% enrichment. As we have already established going to 20% is the most difficult part and once at 20% their breakout time is only a few months...

This is identical to NK in 2003. NK screamed "we are escalating our nuke program" REMEMBER??? probably not... they repeated the claim... Bush did nothing... Then they made a nuke... exactly what Iran is doing now...

Iran warns EU over nuclear commitments as deadline for further steps looms - Reuters

Tehran has threatened to take further steps by Sept. 6, such as enriching uranium to 20% or restarting mothballed centrifuges, machines that purify uranium for use as fuel in power plants or, if very highly enriched, in weapons.

Nk had begun building its nuclear weapons under Clinton's deal, with the US financing it,

More fake news by you. Find a source that says the US gave NK money??? The US gave NK 2 light water reactors to replace the heavy water reactor they already had, as you probably don't know light water reactors are harder to get weapons grade material from than heavy. The US also gave NK fuel oil until the light water reactors were built in order to have NK shut down their heavy water reactor. BUT no money/financing

No financing... more fake news by you.
You just fabricated 3 separate fake arguments and I busted you bad...
Get back to me when you have some real facts... nice try though
I guess the good news is you finally learned that Iran was close to making a nuke in 2015...

 

[toomuchtime_]

Iran continues to insist that it has never had a nuclear weapons program and doesn't want one today, and there was never any evidence Iran was less than a year away from being able to build a bomb; furthermore, the Obama nuclear deal only got Iran to pause one aspect of its nuclear program for a few years in return for hundreds of billions of dollars, so it was at best worthless.

As for NK, Clinton's deal only gave the inspectors the ability to make sure NK wasn't using plutonium from its reactor to make nuclear weapons but they did not have the right to inspect other facilities and Bush presented evidence that NK had been trying to build nuclear weapons using highly enriched uranium instead of plutonium when he canceled the deal.

What is identical about these two situations is that both Clinton and Obama are skilled politicians and neither of them was a competent negotiator.

You keep throwing out way too many hypotheticals. You still haven't been able to address the fact that the absolute worst outcome possible happened (NK making a nuke and testing it), and Bush canceling the deal made that possible.

Do you think NK would have tested a nuke if the deal were still in tact? Probably not. You keep repeating bad deal, bad deal, cheating, but sometimes in life you take what you can get because it is the best possible outcome you can get? You don't seem to understand that.

Seeing how the decision that you defend was the worst possible outcome and therefore the worst possible decision, I don't see how you can defend that?

I ask you again what do we have in place to prevent Iran from making a nuke. We had something in place and now we don't (you can claim it was useless, but lo and behold... it was working!!!!!!!!) Just like with NK we had something in place and then Bush canceled it. Were you surprised NK made a nuke? Will you be surprised if Iran makes one? Iran is actively increasing their nuke program as we speak, and there is nothing to stop them.

Nk was already building nuclear weapons while the US was financing the effort under Clinton's deal, so clearly they put no great importance on the deal and would have tested their bomb whenever they thought it would be beneficial. If you recall, Clinton asked the Pentagon to draw up plans to bomb NK but was dissuaded from taking action by SK. Clinton, like Obama, was only a politician and never a political leader, and everywhere in the world he went, he left a mess behind him, again, just like Obama. There simply was no deal to be made that would have prevented NK from developing nuclear weapons.

We had nothing in place to stop Iran from building nukes under Obama. The deal merely caused Iran to pause it enrichment of uranium for a few years and then removed all impediments to Iran rolling out a nuke a month for as long as it wanted to. Not only did Obama's deal do nothing to prevent Iran from building nukes, but it made the whole world a much more dangerous place because it trashed the international non proliferation protocols that had been in place since the 1950's by allowing Iran to enrich its own fuel and process its own spent rods.

There has always been only one way to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes and that is economy destroying sanctions backed by a credible threat of force. Obama simply didn't have the backbone to handle the situation.

Too bad everything you just said is partisan fantasy talk, right from Foxnews.

You can't even truthfully acknowledge the Obama Iran deal so how can anyone have a real debate with you?

Here's reality: Iran turned over 95% of their enriched uranium. Iran had enough to make a bomb and probably had the capabilities, so iran would have just made a bomb had Obama not made the deal. Additionally the deal ensured that iran would not continue to enrich Uranium or make nukes, and there was not a shred of evidence to suggest it was violating the deal. You seem to forget these facts...

Now Iran has restarted their nuke program so your sanctions and military threat is doing jack shit... Per Usual... You seem to ignore this reality... This pretty much destroys your entire argument..

Sanctions and military threat did nothing to stop NK, once the deal was canceled. Sanctions and military threat is doing nothing to stop Iran as they are accelerating their nuke program as we speak.

There simply was no deal to be made that would have prevented NK from developing nuclear weapons.

The absolute worst possible outcome happened with NK. Your only argument is that it still would've happened the same way under the Clinton deal is just unlikely. And that's the problem, your partisan bias has completely clouded your judgement. You can't admit that Bush misplayed this situation even though the results were the worst possible, this you partisan bias has nullified your already weak argument.

The GOP NKorea plan failed, and the GOP Iran plan looks to be failing as well.

The reality of Obama's deal with Iran is that Iran agreed to pause its enrichment activities for a few years in return for hundreds of billions of dollars and all aspects of the deal had sunset clauses which means that after a few years there would be no restrictions on what Iran could do. Even worse, Obama trashed the international non proliferation protocols in order to get this worthless deal. Nearly all of the enriched uranium Iran turned over was low enriched uranium, a long, long way from being able to use it in a bomb. Iran had not exceeded 200 kg of 20% enriched uranium since 2012 when Netanyahu announced at the UN he would attack Iran if it did. The deal was completely worthless and cost the world the non proliferation protocols that the world had relied on since the 1950's and it financed Iran's aggressions and support of terrorism around the world.

There is no evidence Iran has restarted its nuclear weapons program - which it still claims it never had. It has merely made some piddling gestures of defiance in an attempt to extort money from the Europeans to compensate for the extensive damage to its economy being done by US sanctions. Your whole post is built on the lie that Iran has restarted its nuclear weapons program.

As for NK, Nk had begun building its nuclear weapons under Clinton's deal, with the US financing it, and that is why Bush cancelled the deal. There is no rational way to deny that Clinton was suckered by NK, just as he was suckered by China and just as he was suckered by Arafat.

AHAHA!! Bad news...

Sorry bud your response is fake news, good try though.

Nearly all of the enriched uranium Iran turned over was low enriched uranium, a long, long way from being able to use it in a bomb.

Complete and total fake news, get some facts sorry... here ya go:

Why do the limits on Iran's uranium enrichment matter?

That is because going from uranium's natural state of 0.7% concentration of U-235 to 20% takes about 90% of the total effort required to get to weapons-grade.

Before the nuclear deal was implemented in 2016, Iran had a sufficient amount of 20% enriched uranium and number of centrifuges that its so-called "break-out time" - the time it would theoretically take to acquire enough fissile material for one bomb, if it chose to do so - was estimated to be about two to three months.

Sorry bud, you fake news though. Good try though...
Iran's "breakout time" was estimated to be 2-3 months...

There is no evidence Iran has restarted its nuclear weapons program

More fake news. Iran has admitted ... THEY ADMITTED...they are enriching uranium again and are moving step by step to 20% enrichment. As we have already established going to 20% is the most difficult part and once at 20% their breakout time is only a few months...

This is identical to NK in 2003. NK screamed "we are escalating our nuke program" REMEMBER??? probably not... they repeated the claim... Bush did nothing... Then they made a nuke... exactly what Iran is doing now...

Iran warns EU over nuclear commitments as deadline for further steps looms - Reuters

Tehran has threatened to take further steps by Sept. 6, such as enriching uranium to 20% or restarting mothballed centrifuges, machines that purify uranium for use as fuel in power plants or, if very highly enriched, in weapons.

Nk had begun building its nuclear weapons under Clinton's deal, with the US financing it,

More fake news by you. Find a source that says the US gave NK money??? The US gave NK 2 light water reactors to replace the heavy water reactor they already had, as you probably don't know light water reactors are harder to get weapons grade material from than heavy. The US also gave NK fuel oil until the light water reactors were built in order to have NK shut down their heavy water reactor. BUT no money/financing

No financing... more fake news by you.
You just fabricated 3 separate fake arguments and I busted you bad...
Get back to me when you have some real facts... nice try though
I guess the good news is you finally learned that Iran was close to making a nuke in 2015...

First, you haven't refuted the fact that nearly all the enriched uranium Iran gave up was low enriched uranium. Second, regardless of the article, according to the IAEA Iran had less than 200 kg of 20% enriched uranium, the amount needed to further enrich to a Hiroshima size nuke, when Obama caved in to the ayatollahs. Third, break out time does not mean the time to build a nuke device that can be delivered, it merely means there is enough 90% enriched uranium to make some kind of nuclear device. It took NK longer to miniaturize its nuke to fit into the nose cone of a missile than it took to develop the nuke. So there was no urgency about making a deal with Iran, and in fact, there is no urgency today since Iran has made no substantial move to restarted its nuclear weapons program, which it claims it never had.

 

[baileyn45]

The amazing thing to me is that some people trust Iran or for that matter North Korea. I mean really, you have to be a complete idiot to trust either. It's not paranoia, it's pragmatic reality. These are the sleaziest pieces of human filth that have ever existed. Trust? You've got to be kidding.

 

[JoeB131]

Iran was close to making a nuke in 2015, the hated Obama Iran deal stopped that and Iran turned over ~95% of its enriched uranium.

What do we have in place to stop Iran from making a nuke today???


Iran openly admits that they are escalating their nuke program because the US cancelled the nuke deal:

Why shouldn't they?

One way to make sure no one invades you... have a nuke.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, Iran’s enemy’s were so grateful to obozo for ensuring their safety. Get real. Obozo bribed Iran with cash to get them to delay their nuclear weapons program. It was a dumb and irresponsible move. Why deny reality?

Naw, dumb is letting the Zionists dictate our policies... that's dumb.

The Iran deal was imperfect, but probably the best deal we were going to get. Trump managed to blow it.

 

[Maxdeath]

I know what a light water reactor is not everyone is uninformed.
So we should have just continued with the N.K. deal even when they admitted that they were not following it. Talk about not having a clue.

Bush should have taken a stand with N.K. just as 44 should have.

I think Trump should renegotiate with Iran and not make a silly deal that means nothing just so he can claim a victory. The last deal was pretty much a joke and p.r. stunt.

But if you can claim victory for even half a day some see it as a win.

If you know what a light water reactor is then why would you criticize Clinton for it?????
Trading a heavy water reactor for a light water reactor is a win.

Any violations of the Clinton deal were minor and certainly if the deal was in place NK would not being testing nukes, so anyway you slice it what Bush did was absolutely stupid and the worst possible outcome. Keeping the Clinton deal in place would have been a substantially better option.

How is the iran deal that got Iran to turn over 95% of their nuclear material and have real inspection silly??

Again, right now we have the worst possible outcome as Iran is actively enriching uranium and advancing their nuclear program, and Trump has done nothing to stop this. Iran is much more of a threat today than 2016.

You seem to think Trump is going to somehow obtain some magic deal, the same way you thought Bush would somehow obtain a magic deal with NK. That magic deal never happened and resulted in NK making nukes? Meanwhile Iran is on their way to making a nuke (just like NK in 2003) and Trump hasn't done anything to stop them, just like Bush.

So your whole proposition is no matter how much they were cheating, no matter that they did not have nuclear capability yet we should have turned a blind eye and kept up our end of the deal. Almost as good as deciding that you should pay someone $100.00 for some weed then finding out they plan to shoot you in the heart and steal the $500.00 you have on you. But better to go through with the deal, right.

You really can't think that North Korea was not trading nuclear secrets to Iran.
The deal was only for a limited time. After which they had free reign to do whatever they wanted. By that time they may very well have gotten everything from N.K. To have the bomb or a number of them in a few weeks.

I gather you missed the fact I thought that both Bush and 44 should have negotiated with N.K. but they failed to even try. Do I expect Trump to succeed better then 44 did? No way to tell. I will not decide on an outcome before something happens. I do know that the so called deal wthat was with Iran was no better then a photo op.

The problem is that in the end we have the worst possible outcome with NK, and it is an outcome that could have been prevented, and it is an outcome that is causing serious problems right now. So if you have an NK deal with some NK cheating, it is still 1,000x better than what we have now.

Then you fail to see that this situation is identical to the Iran situation (accept there was no Iran cheating). The Iran deal wasn't perfect, but it was working and made the world safer whether you want to admit that or not. Iran has already escalated their nuke program Since Trump canceled the deal, this is bad. This also would not be happening if the deal were in place. There is nothing in place to prevent Iran from making a nuke.

If Iran makes a nuke it will be predominantly Trumps fault, just like it is predominantly Bush's fault that N Korea made a nuke. You better be able to accept that, because I find that the right has a hard time taking responsibility for their bad decisions.

To put it simply they felt as if there was no deal. They received two reactors for shutting down one. They were still doing research. They were still producing plutonium, yes in smaller amounts, but still doing it. They were receiving loads of heavy fuel oil. Nothing like rewarding bad behavior.

If Iran makes a nuke it will be primarily due to North Koreas help.
Of course all the money they recieved and lifted sanctions will also play a large part.

Got to love how crazy people always have to make everything about my side is better then the other.
But I tend to look at individuals not parties.
I can see that you have no intrest in the how or why you are only interested in Republicans are bad Democrats are good.

Nope I am just pointing out that republicans can never take responsibilities for their bad results and decisions, as if they are all somebody else's fault?

You keep throwing out way too many hypotheticals. You still haven't been able to address the fact that the absolute worst outcome possible happened, and Bush canceling the deal made that possible.

Do you think NK would have tested a nuke if the deal were still in tact? Probably not. You keep repeating bad deal, bad deal, cheating, but sometimes in life you take what you can get because it is the best possible outcome you can get? You don't seem to understand that.

The decision that you defend was the worst possible outcome and therefore the worst possible decision, I don't see how you can defend that?

I ask you again what do we have in place to prevent Iran from making a nuke. We had something in place and now we don't... Just like with NK we had something in place and then Bush canceled it. Were you surprised NK made a nuke? Will you be surprised if Iran makes one?

Man you are delusional. You claim I can't prove what I claim yet you make the same claims with things like N.K. would not have created a nuke if the deal was still in place.

You claim your post is not political yet you trash Republicans.

Got to love someone so transparent.

 

[sartre play]

One thing we all (I would hope) would be better off with out is nukes, cost lots of money & do not help humans in any positive way.

 

[hjmick]

Iran Advancing its Nuke program, Again.

Again? This would imply they stopped at some point. Only a fool would believe that. I think you meant:


Iran Still Advancing its Nuke program.

 

[The Banker]

If you know what a light water reactor is then why would you criticize Clinton for it?????
Trading a heavy water reactor for a light water reactor is a win.

Any violations of the Clinton deal were minor and certainly if the deal was in place NK would not being testing nukes, so anyway you slice it what Bush did was absolutely stupid and the worst possible outcome. Keeping the Clinton deal in place would have been a substantially better option.

How is the iran deal that got Iran to turn over 95% of their nuclear material and have real inspection silly??

Again, right now we have the worst possible outcome as Iran is actively enriching uranium and advancing their nuclear program, and Trump has done nothing to stop this. Iran is much more of a threat today than 2016.

You seem to think Trump is going to somehow obtain some magic deal, the same way you thought Bush would somehow obtain a magic deal with NK. That magic deal never happened and resulted in NK making nukes? Meanwhile Iran is on their way to making a nuke (just like NK in 2003) and Trump hasn't done anything to stop them, just like Bush.

So your whole proposition is no matter how much they were cheating, no matter that they did not have nuclear capability yet we should have turned a blind eye and kept up our end of the deal. Almost as good as deciding that you should pay someone $100.00 for some weed then finding out they plan to shoot you in the heart and steal the $500.00 you have on you. But better to go through with the deal, right.

You really can't think that North Korea was not trading nuclear secrets to Iran.
The deal was only for a limited time. After which they had free reign to do whatever they wanted. By that time they may very well have gotten everything from N.K. To have the bomb or a number of them in a few weeks.

I gather you missed the fact I thought that both Bush and 44 should have negotiated with N.K. but they failed to even try. Do I expect Trump to succeed better then 44 did? No way to tell. I will not decide on an outcome before something happens. I do know that the so called deal wthat was with Iran was no better then a photo op.

The problem is that in the end we have the worst possible outcome with NK, and it is an outcome that could have been prevented, and it is an outcome that is causing serious problems right now. So if you have an NK deal with some NK cheating, it is still 1,000x better than what we have now.

Then you fail to see that this situation is identical to the Iran situation (accept there was no Iran cheating). The Iran deal wasn't perfect, but it was working and made the world safer whether you want to admit that or not. Iran has already escalated their nuke program Since Trump canceled the deal, this is bad. This also would not be happening if the deal were in place. There is nothing in place to prevent Iran from making a nuke.

If Iran makes a nuke it will be predominantly Trumps fault, just like it is predominantly Bush's fault that N Korea made a nuke. You better be able to accept that, because I find that the right has a hard time taking responsibility for their bad decisions.

To put it simply they felt as if there was no deal. They received two reactors for shutting down one. They were still doing research. They were still producing plutonium, yes in smaller amounts, but still doing it. They were receiving loads of heavy fuel oil. Nothing like rewarding bad behavior.

If Iran makes a nuke it will be primarily due to North Koreas help.
Of course all the money they recieved and lifted sanctions will also play a large part.

Got to love how crazy people always have to make everything about my side is better then the other.
But I tend to look at individuals not parties.
I can see that you have no intrest in the how or why you are only interested in Republicans are bad Democrats are good.

Nope I am just pointing out that republicans can never take responsibilities for their bad results and decisions, as if they are all somebody else's fault?

You keep throwing out way too many hypotheticals. You still haven't been able to address the fact that the absolute worst outcome possible happened, and Bush canceling the deal made that possible.

Do you think NK would have tested a nuke if the deal were still in tact? Probably not. You keep repeating bad deal, bad deal, cheating, but sometimes in life you take what you can get because it is the best possible outcome you can get? You don't seem to understand that.

The decision that you defend was the worst possible outcome and therefore the worst possible decision, I don't see how you can defend that?

I ask you again what do we have in place to prevent Iran from making a nuke. We had something in place and now we don't... Just like with NK we had something in place and then Bush canceled it. Were you surprised NK made a nuke? Will you be surprised if Iran makes one?

Man you are delusional. You claim I can't prove what I claim yet you make the same claims with things like N.K. would not have created a nuke if the deal was still in place.

You claim your post is not political yet you trash Republicans.

Got to love someone so transparent.

It's the most likely scenario. In the end the Bush policy failed miserably and the worst possible outcome occurred so really anything would have been better. And certainly keeping a deal, however flawed it was, would have had a better outcome than the one we got.

You're trying to argue that failed policy is acceptable because you can't hold Bush accountable, because the GOP never holds any of their people accountable. It's always somebody else's fault.

Now, you fail to acknowledge that this Iran situation is progressing 100% identical to the NK. Maybe you don't remember what was going on back in 2003-4-5, but NK pretty much announced their intention to enrich and make a nuke. Right now Iran is doing the same thing and is openly stating they are going to enrich uranium to 20% again. (Does this sound familiar???) Somehow you think this outcome is going to be different than the last? Things are going to be different this time?

 

[Maxdeath]

So your whole proposition is no matter how much they were cheating, no matter that they did not have nuclear capability yet we should have turned a blind eye and kept up our end of the deal. Almost as good as deciding that you should pay someone $100.00 for some weed then finding out they plan to shoot you in the heart and steal the $500.00 you have on you. But better to go through with the deal, right.

You really can't think that North Korea was not trading nuclear secrets to Iran.
The deal was only for a limited time. After which they had free reign to do whatever they wanted. By that time they may very well have gotten everything from N.K. To have the bomb or a number of them in a few weeks.

I gather you missed the fact I thought that both Bush and 44 should have negotiated with N.K. but they failed to even try. Do I expect Trump to succeed better then 44 did? No way to tell. I will not decide on an outcome before something happens. I do know that the so called deal wthat was with Iran was no better then a photo op.

The problem is that in the end we have the worst possible outcome with NK, and it is an outcome that could have been prevented, and it is an outcome that is causing serious problems right now. So if you have an NK deal with some NK cheating, it is still 1,000x better than what we have now.

Then you fail to see that this situation is identical to the Iran situation (accept there was no Iran cheating). The Iran deal wasn't perfect, but it was working and made the world safer whether you want to admit that or not. Iran has already escalated their nuke program Since Trump canceled the deal, this is bad. This also would not be happening if the deal were in place. There is nothing in place to prevent Iran from making a nuke.

If Iran makes a nuke it will be predominantly Trumps fault, just like it is predominantly Bush's fault that N Korea made a nuke. You better be able to accept that, because I find that the right has a hard time taking responsibility for their bad decisions.

To put it simply they felt as if there was no deal. They received two reactors for shutting down one. They were still doing research. They were still producing plutonium, yes in smaller amounts, but still doing it. They were receiving loads of heavy fuel oil. Nothing like rewarding bad behavior.

If Iran makes a nuke it will be primarily due to North Koreas help.
Of course all the money they recieved and lifted sanctions will also play a large part.

Got to love how crazy people always have to make everything about my side is better then the other.
But I tend to look at individuals not parties.
I can see that you have no intrest in the how or why you are only interested in Republicans are bad Democrats are good.

Nope I am just pointing out that republicans can never take responsibilities for their bad results and decisions, as if they are all somebody else's fault?

You keep throwing out way too many hypotheticals. You still haven't been able to address the fact that the absolute worst outcome possible happened, and Bush canceling the deal made that possible.

Do you think NK would have tested a nuke if the deal were still in tact? Probably not. You keep repeating bad deal, bad deal, cheating, but sometimes in life you take what you can get because it is the best possible outcome you can get? You don't seem to understand that.

The decision that you defend was the worst possible outcome and therefore the worst possible decision, I don't see how you can defend that?

I ask you again what do we have in place to prevent Iran from making a nuke. We had something in place and now we don't... Just like with NK we had something in place and then Bush canceled it. Were you surprised NK made a nuke? Will you be surprised if Iran makes one?

Man you are delusional. You claim I can't prove what I claim yet you make the same claims with things like N.K. would not have created a nuke if the deal was still in place.

You claim your post is not political yet you trash Republicans.

Got to love someone so transparent.

It's the most likely scenario. In the end the Bush policy failed miserably and the worst possible outcome occurred so really anything would have been better. And certainly keeping a deal, however flawed it was, would have had a better outcome than the one we got.

You're trying to argue that failed policy is acceptable because you can't hold Bush accountable, because the GOP never holds any of their people accountable. It's always somebody else's fault.

Now, you fail to acknowledge that this Iran situation is progressing 100% identical to the NK. Maybe you don't remember what was going on back in 2003-4-5, but NK pretty much announced their intention to enrich and make a nuke. Right now Iran is doing the same thing and is openly stating they are going to enrich uranium to 20% again. (Does this sound familiar???) Somehow you think this outcome is going to be different than the last? Things are going to be different this time?

Got to love it not only are you a blind partisan but you are unable to understand simple concepts and look at everything through rose colored partisan glasses.

You seem to be unable to comprehend that since N.K. was cheating they would still have developed the same capabilities that they did. The only difference would have been that they would have had a free use of all the heavy fuel oil in the process. You keep blaming the failed treaty for N.K. 's actions. You so far have only shown that you don't understand anything. Do you really think that anyone that wants something bad enough will stop? We have made things like killing illegal, we have even used the death penalty to inforce it. It has not stopped killings. Learn something about human nature and a little about history.

You still have failed to comprehend that Iran and N.K. were trading. N. K. had only one thing that Iran would want. What do you think that was?

Get off your partisan high horse. Look at the real world.