Obamas so called deal with Iran REQUIRES we give them a 24 DAY notice for any inspection!

[Care4all]

Are you shitting me? Then on top of that Iran gets another 14 days to consider the request?

Obama is such an amateur

I haven't read the article, or the rest of this thread yet, but IF we have to give this 24 day notice for us to search one of their facilities or all of their facilities, wouldn't we just have our Super Duper Satellites filming them, with the highest tech video that can super zoom in on these facilities in high definition... to see if any action out of the norm is occurring? I am certain we are zoomed in on them even as we speak, if our Defense Department is doing its job.... is what I was thinking?

 

[bendog]

actually you claimed that the deal required 24 days of notice. it does not. if iran were to protest an inspection the delay could be as little as 15 days - and that's if they dragged their feet as long as possible.

So we've boiled down a multipage argument to the semantics of the words?

your right. nobody should hold you to the statements that you make.
seriously, is that your argument? you were 100% wrong, but it's just semantics.

anyway, do you understand that there is no 24 day requirement?

I was 100% correct but worded it improperly. You remain 100% trivial. Kinda like all your liberal brethren who are pretending that lead does not exist.

how can you say that? you've been proven wrong. claiming that the deal requires 24 days of notice was wrong, not just a mis-wording.
do you believe you ever get something wrong?

I posted a link directly after the op that proves the 24 day fiasco. I went even further with a second more detailed link later in the thread.
I fucked up my title but posted the actual content.
You may continue to argue the semantics of the title but the content remains the problem that you can't refute. In fact the contents are the only important part. Or are you one to judge a book by its cover?
I admitted my wording mistake but it changes nothing about the end results. Just like idiots who somehow think labeling a murder a hate crime somehow changes the outcome.

It's not a wording mistake; it's a conceptual mistake. The inspections under the "deal" are better than inspections now. And Iran will never allow inspections of its military bases on demand. We didn't demand that of the Soviets, nor did they of us. Rather, the concept is knowing what the other side has in its stockpile, and making sure some doesn't go missing, and if it does, finding out where it is. Whether the "deal" is good enough at this is debatable, but it is NOT debatable that WITHOUT the deal, there's no inspections at all. And in sanctions stay, Iran will fire up its centrifuges again. So, the basic choice is war or peace.

I understand you're against any deal, but at least TRY a little honesty.

 

[LoneLaugher]

WelfareQueen and Rocko

Please read.

How the Iran Deal s Snap Back Mechanism Will Keep Tehran Compliant The Diplomat

 

[LoneLaugher]

So we've boiled down a multipage argument to the semantics of the words?

your right. nobody should hold you to the statements that you make.
seriously, is that your argument? you were 100% wrong, but it's just semantics.

anyway, do you understand that there is no 24 day requirement?

I was 100% correct but worded it improperly. You remain 100% trivial. Kinda like all your liberal brethren who are pretending that lead does not exist.

how can you say that? you've been proven wrong. claiming that the deal requires 24 days of notice was wrong, not just a mis-wording.
do you believe you ever get something wrong?

I posted a link directly after the op that proves the 24 day fiasco. I went even further with a second more detailed link later in the thread.
I fucked up my title but posted the actual content.
You may continue to argue the semantics of the title but the content remains the problem that you can't refute. In fact the contents are the only important part. Or are you one to judge a book by its cover?
I admitted my wording mistake but it changes nothing about the end results. Just like idiots who somehow think labeling a murder a hate crime somehow changes the outcome.

It's not a wording mistake; it's a conceptual mistake. The inspections under the "deal" are better than inspections now. And Iran will never allow inspections of its military bases on demand. We didn't demand that of the Soviets, nor did they of us. Rather, the concept is knowing what the other side has in its stockpile, and making sure some doesn't go missing, and if it does, finding out where it is. Whether the "deal" is good enough at this is debatable, but it is NOT debatable that WITHOUT the deal, there's no inspections at all. And in sanctions stay, Iran will fire up its centrifuges again. So, the basic choice is war or peace.

I understand you're against any deal, but at least TRY a little honesty.

There are times when Gramps will admit an error. However, those issues usually do not involve admitting that President Obama is competent. He has a very hard time with that concept.

 

[LoneLaugher]

WelfareQueen and Rocko

You can issue your retraction re: snap back stipulations as a reply to this post. Please do so with class.

 

[ogibillm]

actually you claimed that the deal required 24 days of notice. it does not. if iran were to protest an inspection the delay could be as little as 15 days - and that's if they dragged their feet as long as possible.

So we've boiled down a multipage argument to the semantics of the words?

your right. nobody should hold you to the statements that you make.
seriously, is that your argument? you were 100% wrong, but it's just semantics.

anyway, do you understand that there is no 24 day requirement?

I was 100% correct but worded it improperly. You remain 100% trivial. Kinda like all your liberal brethren who are pretending that lead does not exist.

how can you say that? you've been proven wrong. claiming that the deal requires 24 days of notice was wrong, not just a mis-wording.
do you believe you ever get something wrong?

I posted a link directly after the op that proves the 24 day fiasco. I went even further with a second more detailed link later in the thread.
I fucked up my title but posted the actual content.
You may continue to argue the semantics of the title but the content remains the problem that you can't refute. In fact the contents are the only important part. Or are you one to judge a book by its cover?
I admitted my wording mistake but it changes nothing about the end results. Just like idiots who somehow think labeling a murder a hate crime somehow changes the outcome.

you didn't post a link in your op.
but let's put that aside.
do you believe that it is realistic to expect unfettered access to military installations? do you have a basis for thinking that the 24 days would stop inspectors from discovering evidence of work with nuclear material?

do you think that we're better off without the ability to ever inspect any sites?

 

[bendog]

your right. nobody should hold you to the statements that you make.
seriously, is that your argument? you were 100% wrong, but it's just semantics.

anyway, do you understand that there is no 24 day requirement?

I was 100% correct but worded it improperly. You remain 100% trivial. Kinda like all your liberal brethren who are pretending that lead does not exist.

how can you say that? you've been proven wrong. claiming that the deal requires 24 days of notice was wrong, not just a mis-wording.
do you believe you ever get something wrong?

I posted a link directly after the op that proves the 24 day fiasco. I went even further with a second more detailed link later in the thread.
I fucked up my title but posted the actual content.
You may continue to argue the semantics of the title but the content remains the problem that you can't refute. In fact the contents are the only important part. Or are you one to judge a book by its cover?
I admitted my wording mistake but it changes nothing about the end results. Just like idiots who somehow think labeling a murder a hate crime somehow changes the outcome.

It's not a wording mistake; it's a conceptual mistake. The inspections under the "deal" are better than inspections now. And Iran will never allow inspections of its military bases on demand. We didn't demand that of the Soviets, nor did they of us. Rather, the concept is knowing what the other side has in its stockpile, and making sure some doesn't go missing, and if it does, finding out where it is. Whether the "deal" is good enough at this is debatable, but it is NOT debatable that WITHOUT the deal, there's no inspections at all. And in sanctions stay, Iran will fire up its centrifuges again. So, the basic choice is war or peace.

I understand you're against any deal, but at least TRY a little honesty.

There are times when Gramps will admit an error. However, those issues usually do not involve admitting that President Obama is competent. He has a very hard time with that concept.

Well, the deal will result in Iran having lots more money for Hamas and Hezbollah. But, the reason our allies signed onto sanctions when Hillary was SOS was solely to prevent nuclear weapons. So, the only reason to not be "for the deal" is if you think it makes it easier for Iran to get nukes ... and it simply does not do that. What it doesn't do is totally, and forever, remove any possibility of Iran doing so after ten-twenty years. But, I haven't heard of anyone having a way to accomplish that.

Israel has isolated itself with the settlements, and no country other than the US seems to have any use for Israel, beyond acknowledging a right to exist and making sure it can defend itself. If it wants the international community to address Iran's actions against it, it should probably alter policy to not be isolated.

 

[Rocko]

WelfareQueen and Rocko

You can issue your retraction re: snap back stipulations as a reply to this post. Please do so with class.

I think you're an idiot, and you're naive to believe everything you read in leftwing, crap sources.

 

[LoneLaugher]

WelfareQueen and Rocko

You can issue your retraction re: snap back stipulations as a reply to this post. Please do so with class.

I think you're an idiot, and you're naive to believe everything you read in leftwing, crap sources.

That is a left wing crap source? I had no idea. Where is your source?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I was 100% correct but worded it improperly. You remain 100% trivial. Kinda like all your liberal brethren who are pretending that lead does not exist.

how can you say that? you've been proven wrong. claiming that the deal requires 24 days of notice was wrong, not just a mis-wording.
do you believe you ever get something wrong?

I posted a link directly after the op that proves the 24 day fiasco. I went even further with a second more detailed link later in the thread.
I fucked up my title but posted the actual content.
You may continue to argue the semantics of the title but the content remains the problem that you can't refute. In fact the contents are the only important part. Or are you one to judge a book by its cover?
I admitted my wording mistake but it changes nothing about the end results. Just like idiots who somehow think labeling a murder a hate crime somehow changes the outcome.

It's not a wording mistake; it's a conceptual mistake. The inspections under the "deal" are better than inspections now. And Iran will never allow inspections of its military bases on demand. We didn't demand that of the Soviets, nor did they of us. Rather, the concept is knowing what the other side has in its stockpile, and making sure some doesn't go missing, and if it does, finding out where it is. Whether the "deal" is good enough at this is debatable, but it is NOT debatable that WITHOUT the deal, there's no inspections at all. And in sanctions stay, Iran will fire up its centrifuges again. So, the basic choice is war or peace.

I understand you're against any deal, but at least TRY a little honesty.

There are times when Gramps will admit an error. However, those issues usually do not involve admitting that President Obama is competent. He has a very hard time with that concept.

Well, the deal will result in Iran having lots more money for Hamas and Hezbollah. But, the reason our allies signed onto sanctions when Hillary was SOS was solely to prevent nuclear weapons. So, the only reason to not be "for the deal" is if you think it makes it easier for Iran to get nukes ... and it simply does not do that. What it doesn't do is totally, and forever, remove any possibility of Iran doing so after ten-twenty years. But, I haven't heard of anyone having a way to accomplish that.

Israel has isolated itself with the settlements, and no country other than the US seems to have any use for Israel, beyond acknowledging a right to exist and making sure it can defend itself. If it wants the international community to address Iran's actions against it, it should probably alter policy to not be isolated.

The worst thing about this whole episode is the rush to misinform on the part of those who are politically opposed to the president. Right up to the highest levels of congress. It's shit.

 

[WelfareQueen]

WelfareQueen and Rocko

You can issue your retraction re: snap back stipulations as a reply to this post. Please do so with class.

False per my link. Try again.


"The current nuclear-related sanctions are likely gone forever. The only way by which they could be reimplemented would be via a dispute resolution process (popularly referred to as a “snapback” of sanctions) in which one of the parties submits a complaint to an arbitration panel consisting of the U.S., Britain, Russia, Germany, France, China, the E.U. and Iran. If the complaint can’t be resolved within 35 days, the U.N. Security Council will have to vote on the sanctions."


The Iran nuclear deal simplified in seven key points Cover Story Jewish Journal

 

[LoneLaugher]

WelfareQueen and Rocko

You can issue your retraction re: snap back stipulations as a reply to this post. Please do so with class.

False per my link. Try again.


"The current nuclear-related sanctions are likely gone forever. The only way by which they could be reimplemented would be via a dispute resolution process (popularly referred to as a “snapback” of sanctions) in which one of the parties submits a complaint to an arbitration panel consisting of the U.S., Britain, Russia, Germany, France, China, the E.U. and Iran. If the complaint can’t be resolved within 35 days, the U.N. Security Council will have to vote on the sanctions."


The Iran nuclear deal simplified in seven key points Cover Story Jewish Journal

Your link is inaccurate.

I gave you the facts.

This is clear. The US can generate the snap back without Russian agreement. You were wrong. Simple. Just admit it like a man.

 

[bendog]

how can you say that? you've been proven wrong. claiming that the deal requires 24 days of notice was wrong, not just a mis-wording.
do you believe you ever get something wrong?

I posted a link directly after the op that proves the 24 day fiasco. I went even further with a second more detailed link later in the thread.
I fucked up my title but posted the actual content.
You may continue to argue the semantics of the title but the content remains the problem that you can't refute. In fact the contents are the only important part. Or are you one to judge a book by its cover?
I admitted my wording mistake but it changes nothing about the end results. Just like idiots who somehow think labeling a murder a hate crime somehow changes the outcome.

It's not a wording mistake; it's a conceptual mistake. The inspections under the "deal" are better than inspections now. And Iran will never allow inspections of its military bases on demand. We didn't demand that of the Soviets, nor did they of us. Rather, the concept is knowing what the other side has in its stockpile, and making sure some doesn't go missing, and if it does, finding out where it is. Whether the "deal" is good enough at this is debatable, but it is NOT debatable that WITHOUT the deal, there's no inspections at all. And in sanctions stay, Iran will fire up its centrifuges again. So, the basic choice is war or peace.

I understand you're against any deal, but at least TRY a little honesty.

There are times when Gramps will admit an error. However, those issues usually do not involve admitting that President Obama is competent. He has a very hard time with that concept.

Well, the deal will result in Iran having lots more money for Hamas and Hezbollah. But, the reason our allies signed onto sanctions when Hillary was SOS was solely to prevent nuclear weapons. So, the only reason to not be "for the deal" is if you think it makes it easier for Iran to get nukes ... and it simply does not do that. What it doesn't do is totally, and forever, remove any possibility of Iran doing so after ten-twenty years. But, I haven't heard of anyone having a way to accomplish that.

Israel has isolated itself with the settlements, and no country other than the US seems to have any use for Israel, beyond acknowledging a right to exist and making sure it can defend itself. If it wants the international community to address Iran's actions against it, it should probably alter policy to not be isolated.

The worst thing about this whole episode is the rush to misinform on the part of those who are politically opposed to the president. Right up to the highest levels of congress. It's shit.

But there's also a positive. This will now be the biggest natl security issue of the 16 campaign, and Hillary's not only a good person to explain it, but most Americans prefer diplomacy to war .. when there's an option. The real question the media and naysayers should be asking is "what happens in ten years if Iran decides it wants nukes to rattle the ME?" I don't think I've really heard a good answer. I hear, "the potus then will have all the tools we have now." Does that mean that after ten years of Iran getting it's petro dollars and buying Russian arms, we can go back to trying to rally nations for sanctions? It may be there's no real good answer, and in the real world there just aren't permanent solutions to all problems. And, I heard someone say Nixon said it'd be two decades before we knew whether his going to China was good or bad.

 

[WelfareQueen]

WelfareQueen and Rocko

You can issue your retraction re: snap back stipulations as a reply to this post. Please do so with class.

False per my link. Try again.


"The current nuclear-related sanctions are likely gone forever. The only way by which they could be reimplemented would be via a dispute resolution process (popularly referred to as a “snapback” of sanctions) in which one of the parties submits a complaint to an arbitration panel consisting of the U.S., Britain, Russia, Germany, France, China, the E.U. and Iran. If the complaint can’t be resolved within 35 days, the U.N. Security Council will have to vote on the sanctions."


The Iran nuclear deal simplified in seven key points Cover Story Jewish Journal

What link?

This is clear. The US can generate the snap back without Russian agreement. You were wrong. Simple. Just admit it like a man.

This link. Can't you ******* read?


The Iran nuclear deal simplified in seven key points Cover Story Jewish Journal


"The current nuclear-related sanctions are likely gone forever. The only way by which they could be reimplemented would be via a dispute resolution process (popularly referred to as a “snapback” of sanctions) in which one of the parties submits a complaint to an arbitration panel consisting of the U.S., Britain, Russia, Germany, France, China, the E.U. and Iran. If the complaint can’t be resolved within 35 days, the U.N. Security Council will have to vote on the sanctions."

 

[LoneLaugher]

WelfareQueen and Rocko

You can issue your retraction re: snap back stipulations as a reply to this post. Please do so with class.

False per my link. Try again.


"The current nuclear-related sanctions are likely gone forever. The only way by which they could be reimplemented would be via a dispute resolution process (popularly referred to as a “snapback” of sanctions) in which one of the parties submits a complaint to an arbitration panel consisting of the U.S., Britain, Russia, Germany, France, China, the E.U. and Iran. If the complaint can’t be resolved within 35 days, the U.N. Security Council will have to vote on the sanctions."


The Iran nuclear deal simplified in seven key points Cover Story Jewish Journal

What link?

This is clear. The US can generate the snap back without Russian agreement. You were wrong. Simple. Just admit it like a man.

This link. Can't you ******* read?


The Iran nuclear deal simplified in seven key points Cover Story Jewish Journal


"The current nuclear-related sanctions are likely gone forever. The only way by which they could be reimplemented would be via a dispute resolution process (popularly referred to as a “snapback” of sanctions) in which one of the parties submits a complaint to an arbitration panel consisting of the U.S., Britain, Russia, Germany, France, China, the E.U. and Iran. If the complaint can’t be resolved within 35 days, the U.N. Security Council will have to vote on the sanctions."

Yes. You are the retard who puts links at the bottom of a post so it looks like a sig. That's weird and causes undo confusion.

Link up top or at least in the body of your post.

Idiot.

The info in your link is incomplete. I provided the info. You are wrong. Own up.

 

[Dot Com]

There are times when Gramps will admit an error. However, those issues usually do not involve admitting that President Obama is competent. He has a very hard time with that concept.

true.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Again.....please read.

How the Iran Deal s Snap Back Mechanism Will Keep Tehran Compliant The Diplomat

"Where the United States preserved unique leverage–and immunity from a Russian or Chinese veto against resuming old UN Security Council sanctions–is the next step. If the Security Council doesn’t act in 30 days, all of the pre-JCPOA nuclear-related sanctions on Iran come back into place automatically. Basically, the U.S. and the EU states in the P5+1 can veto ongoing sanctions relief but Russia and China can’t veto a return to the status quo ante. A scenario where Iran is non-compliant with the JCPOA yet escapes the old sanctions simply won’t be possible.

The innovative nature of this mechanism is a testament to the work of the nuclear negotiators who’ve been slaving away over all-nighters to produce a deal that’s not dead-on-arrival when it reaches the various national legislatures. "

 

[Slyhunter]

When is Israel going to allow inspections of its nuclear sites and weapons? ......

Iran signed the nuclear treaty requiring inspections, Israel didn't.

 

[Rocko]

Again.....please read.

How the Iran Deal s Snap Back Mechanism Will Keep Tehran Compliant The Diplomat

"Where the United States preserved unique leverage–and immunity from a Russian or Chinese veto against resuming old UN Security Council sanctions–is the next step. If the Security Council doesn’t act in 30 days, all of the pre-JCPOA nuclear-related sanctions on Iran come back into place automatically. Basically, the U.S. and the EU states in the P5+1 can veto ongoing sanctions relief but Russia and China can’t veto a return to the status quo ante. A scenario where Iran is non-compliant with the JCPOA yet escapes the old sanctions simply won’t be possible.

The innovative nature of this mechanism is a testament to the work of the nuclear negotiators who’ve been slaving away over all-nighters to produce a deal that’s not dead-on-arrival when it reaches the various national legislatures. "

form your link

If the Security Council doesn’t act in 30 days, all of the pre-JCPOA nuclear-related sanctions on Iran come back into place automatically/QUOTE]

what does that mean?

 

[Unkotare]

Obama won again. .

You mean America lost again. Funny how those two things always coincide.