CDZ The Iranian nuclear deal: a deeper look

[irosie91]

Josf-----don't give up your day job, . For those confused----Iran was not rendered a monarchy by the Zionist-controlled-cia as josf wants you to believe-----it had been a
monarchy for several thouosand years and----DA SHAH----was the son of the previous king-----he was not a mossad plant. His KINGYSHIP had extensive support amongst the common Iranian population---lots of whom adored him.
He was not MADE KING----he inherited a postion and his Iranian supporters enacted a COUP -----to the delight of the USA and Great Britain because neither liked the other guy because he nationalized stuff in which foreign investors did have a legal interest Shah ---peacock brain-----was a bit despotic----but as compared to oriental potentates-----quite progressive and even secular----it was that "secular" thing that got him in trouble-----DA MULLAHS did not like it. He was thrown out in a JIHAD like mess and Iran remains a jihad mess today controlled by JIHADIAN nuts who are also possessed of peacock brains---but far more AMBITIOUS than peacocks------they want to make a the entire planet a COSMIC SHIITE PARADISE

 

[Josf]

Character assassination is against the rules, and despite rules commonly agreed upon: those who deliberately, and with malice aforethought, break those rules are those who confess their true colors as rule breakers.

If there is a counter claim concerning the criminal acquisition of Iranian resources, followed by the defense of the Iranian people through representative republicanism, in Iran, as an elected official representative of Iranian people named Mohammad Mosaddegh threw out the criminals, and then in 1953 a group of criminals falsely claiming to be representing the American and British people criminally overthrowing Mohammad Mosaddegh, then said counter claim can be backed up.

Ideally the perpetrators of the most serious crimes would be tried by common laws of free people whereby the idea was to base any culpability and therefore any offer of redemption to the culprits on demonstrations of the facts presented to the whole country of free people in the form of a trial by jury of randomly selected free people in that country where people defend each other voluntarily.

No such trial has been offered by anyone to anyone so as to establish the validity of any claims; but demonstrations of facts found by those caring enough to find the facts abound: some of which has already been offered (linked) - thankfully - in this so called debate where aggressors aggressively - and with malice aforethought - break the rules common to free defenders of free people, as they resort to the commonly shared criminal libel routine.

True colors are often confessed while the offenders wave their false flags. Is that self defeating counter productive wishful thinking? Is that blind obedience to falsehood without question? Is that merely the common thread among criminal minds?

 

[irosie91]

Character assassination is against the rules, and despite rules commonly agreed upon: those who deliberately, and with malice aforethought, break those rules are those who confess their true colors as rule breakers.

If there is a counter claim concerning the criminal acquisition of Iranian resources, followed by the defense of the Iranian people through representative republicanism, in Iran, as an elected official representative of Iranian people named Mohammad Mosaddegh threw out the criminals, and then in 1953 a group of criminals falsely claiming to be representing the American and British people criminally overthrowing Mohammad Mosaddegh, then said counter claim can be backed up.

Ideally the perpetrators of the most serious crimes would be tried by common laws of free people whereby the idea was to base any culpability and therefore any offer of redemption to the culprits on demonstrations of the facts presented to the whole country of free people in the form of a trial by jury of randomly selected free people in that country where people defend each other voluntarily.

No such trial has been offered by anyone to anyone so as to establish the validity of any claims; but demonstrations of facts found by those caring enough to find the facts abound: some of which has already been offered (linked) - thankfully - in this so called debate where aggressors aggressively - and with malice aforethought - break the rules common to free defenders of free people, as they resort to the commonly shared criminal libel routine.

True colors are often confessed while the offenders wave their false flags. Is that self defeating counter productive wishful thinking? Is that blind obedience to falsehood without question? Is that merely the common thread among criminal minds?

you said nothing Josf. The IRANIAN people accepted a monarch-----with the backing of LOTS OF IRANIAN people who happens to have been the son of
the PREVIOUS monarch and he worked all his life for the betterment of IRAN----he was a bit of a tyrant-----(I am convinced) but he was not FORCED on Iran by strangers from the planet ROMMULUS The Shah of Iran did quite a bit of good----he did not STEAL from you to give it to me. Today you got crooks and murderers running Iran -----the CIA did not put them there. Today Iran is SHIT-----it is a totalitarian cesspit -----ambitious to the point of self destruction

 

[Josf]

"you said nothing Josf."

If that were true, which it is demonstrably not true, then why would the character assassin resort to this form of deception as a means of communicating? If I said nothing then there would be nothing to respond to. Why do people so easily reach for deception as their preferred form of communicating?

 

[irosie91]

"you said nothing Josf."

If that were true, which it is demonstrably not true, then why would the character assassin resort to this form of deception as a means of communicating? If I said nothing then there would be nothing to respond to. Why do people so easily reach for deception as their preferred form of communicating?

You threw a whole bunch of meaningless words together

 

[Josf]

"You threw a whole bunch of meaningless words together"

The plot thickens, the story changes, the previous deception is exposed therefore inspiring an new one?

 

[Josf]

Why do people prejudge entire countries of people based upon the actions of a few very obvious criminals? Is it the working of a criminal mind, or is it just a routine process that pays well in the short term?

Destabilization may be the goal. The goal after hate is infused into people and people are at each other's throats like rats on a sinking ship may be to then weaken all those people so as then to be able to control them once they have weakened each other during the hateful battles that people are inspired to fight because someone inspired each individual to hate each other individual?

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

eagle1462010, et al,

This is (IMO) closer to the track of the discussion -- where it should be.

The Iran Nuclear Negotiations U.S. Concession After U.S. Concession

So what are the metrics to judge the outcome—to judge whether this is a good or bad deal. I think they are straightforward. Here are five:

1. Does the agreement deny Iran a nuclear weapons capability—the longstanding declared goal of the United States and the international community?
2. Does the agreement, once the constraints expire, prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon in a short amount of time?
3. Does the agreement extend the breakout time in a meaningful way?
4. Is the agreement effectively verifiable?
5. And is there a meaningful phased relief of sanctions and are there guaranteed snap-back provisions?

The answer to each of these questions is NO—a reality that is becoming apparent across party lines.

(COMMENT)

Q1: Does the agreement deny Iran a nuclear weapons capability — the longstanding declared goal of the United States and the international community?

A1: Even the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) does not deny any country Nuclear Weapons (NW). At best it can delay it. Under Article X each party to the NPT has the right to withdraw if it decides that the agreement jeopardizes the their individual national security interests. Any party can withdrawal at any time given a 90 day notice (3 months). Iran is no exception. Iran is not likely to accept any deal that does not have a similar escape clause. While the NPT, which entered into force in 1970 --- has been extended indefinitely (Decision 3 --- 1995 NPT Review Conference), there is a review conferences required every five years; with the last one held in last month (May 2015). The NPT is 45 years old.​

Q2: Does the agreement, once the constraints expire, prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon in a short amount of time?

A2: This new agreement seems to prevent Iran from building a Heavy Water (HW) facility or accumulating Heavy Water for a 15 year period (2030). This only delays the production of of weapons grade plutonium based on the one technology. I'm not sure how confident we should be that other technologies will not become available in that interval. The current Arak HW Reactor is not currently fueled. Under the new agreement, Iran agrees to re-engineer the Arak Reactor such that it cannot be used to general the useable fuel rods. All spent fuel will be shipped to a disposal program outside Iran; for as long as the Arak Reactor exists. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) will cut the centrifuges use by about 75% (least efficient models) and Iran will limit their enrichment process to less than 5% (3%-4% concentration of U-235). It appears the the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will pickup surveillance. The language used was a "extraordinary and robust monitoring, verification, and inspection." Apparently Iran has agreed to implement the additional Protocols relative to the Safeguards Agreement.​

Q3: Does the agreement extend the breakout time in a meaningful way?

A3: Break-out Time is related to the factors that constrain the development of plutonium at the 90% enrichment level. By reducing the number of centrifuges to about 25% of their current numbers and retaining the least efficient models; as well as preventing enrichment beyond the 5% level, the break-out period will be approximately 45 days to generate weapons grade material in the quantity required to make the first weapon after the termination of the agreement.​

Q4: Is the agreement effectively verifiable?

A4: I'm not sure the question can be answered. However, the production, logistics, storage and maintenance of a warhead is very expensive under normal security conditions. The necessary covert and clandestine activities associated with and necessary to defeat IAEA Inspection Protocols would be huge. Even in Iran, it might become cost prohibitive.​

Q5: And is there a meaningful phased relief of sanctions and are there guaranteed snap-back provisions?

A5: "Snap-Back refers to the UN approved sanctions/embargoes mechanisms, once lifted, to be re-introduced and put back in place. As extensive as the provisions are, it might take 3-to-6 months to get a majority in place, while some --- may never get back in place.​

So how did we get into this mess? The answer is clear:

• The Administration has violated every rule of good negotiating practice—the basic tenets of negotiating 101.
• Instead of increasing pressure on Tehran through more sanctions, they relieved sanctions to, in their words, keep Iran at the table, but it was these very sanctions that brought them to the table.
• Instead of making clear to Iran that Iran needed an agreement more than we, the Administration has demonstrated just the opposite: that it is desperate for an agreement—a desperation that Iran’s negotiators have exploited to the fullest, as seen today with Iran’s last minute insistence on ending the arms embargo.
• Instead of insisting that a deadline actually means a deadline, the Administration has allowed Iran to squeeze further concessions each time the latest deadline approaches and passes.
• Most important, instead of holding the line on those key issues that would determine whether the agreement is good or bad—whether it advances our security interests or undermines them—the Administration made concession after concession.

(COMMENT)

Maybe. Certainly I know a number of knowledgeable people that would agree with some of this criticism. Having said that, the establishment of a NW Program is an expensive proposition for any nation; superpowers on down --- let alone Iran. And it is a weapons system that Iran is not likely to ever use. Any nation that would attempt to use such a weapon, or provide it to some hostile non-state actor, or a state actor supporting some radical or jihadist movement, runs the risk of being significantly harmed by one or more of the superpowers. The idea of sanctions is to induce the sanctioned party to the negotiations table and act in good faith. And importantly enough, it is the need to steer research and development in the direction of high energy commercial projects; as opposed to, weapons programs.

It is almost impossible to tell the actual motivation (political, diplomatic, militarily, economically, industrially and cultural legacy) behind the US involvement in the P5+1 (US, UK, France, China and Russia plus Germany) sponsorship of these negotiations. It is likely that while there are some commonalities shared in the effort, some of the parties are interested in some future advantage this might hold for them in the future.

I think (IMO) it is a bit too early to cheer or criticize the outcomes. We simply do not have enough information on the subject.

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree with most of what you say here

if you read my essay, you would know my response to that, but it appears you have not.

I read that which you optimistically call your "essay"------In fact it is an exercise in
supercilious self back patting. You do make a very interesting ASSERTION---being ----this new deal will result in LESS TERRORISM-----no doubt you mean----less Iranian backed terrorism. Wanna bet? In fact this deal will result in
MORE TERRORISM-------both Shiite and Sunni. You also assert that no person who has enough food and a nice house becomes a terrorist-----thus placing a final seal on the fact that you are clueless. I have known ---in the USA --Iranians since the mid 60s. Lots. All were intelligent and motivated
to be happy successful prosperous ----something like upper middle class americans. I was so impressed that in 1979 (being still young) I ASSERTED that this ayatoilet stuff will be ALL OVER in two years. BUT----over the years knowing lots of Iranians (I even have an Iranian relative by marriage) ----I have a deeper insight into "IRANIAN"-------Iranians are-----whether YOU want to believe it or not-----a people with an interesting ethos pertaining to BEING
IRANIAN.-----------in fact they are something like germans -----who----whether YOU want to believe it or not------are........are you ready? -------breathe evenly and slowly----------PRONE TO NATIONALISM. as in------for the sake of simplicity "WE IS THE BEST" Iranians and germans are not the only we is the best" people-----even Japanese have a "we is the best" complex I learned all about it from Iranians------not just muslim Iranians----even jewish Iranians (like my distant relative and some of my colleagues) Today's Iranians are very nationalistic and together with islam of the Shiite variety what iran is today is something like 15th century SPAIN seeking its manifest destiny----- or the BRITISH EMPIRE----doing its cosmic good deed of bringing tea to the
the brownish people of the world. Right now its big time project is TAKE MECCA------he who owns the rock -----owns the UMMAH

feel free to ask questions------you are not as smart as you think you are-----
in fact you express youself like an Iranian

the relevant points you make here are ones I have already addressed many times. your attacks on my intelligence and knowledge of the situation are unfounded and just make you sound desperate. If you want to present a relevant argument, I am happy to talk, but all you are doing is saying that I am wrong without any sort of counterclaim. you think that you know everything about the middle east because you know a few Iranians, but you are wrong, and I would venture to say you are not as smart as you think you are.

wrong again----you made very specific and UNFOUNDED assertions which I countered. ------but--it is true---not in detail. You decided that people with a clean house and food-----never become terrorists. You decided that the deal between the US and Iran WILL reduce Iranian terrorism. You were very nonspecific as to what YOU consider Iranian terrorism----and I, very simply, disagreed and still do I consider terrorism that which Iran has supported
in YEMEN for many years and now accelerating. Hezbollah in an organization FULLY funded and controlled by Iran----with plants all over the middle east.
You can ASSERT from today until tomorrow and standing on your head that Hezbollah will no longer engage in terrorism or even that it never did as many
persons who imagine themselves "liberal humanists" claim----
Iran has an agenda that it has OPENLY stated of ISLAM OF THE SHIITE VARIETY FOR THE WORLD -------you missed that fact completely---or preferred to ignore it ------or want to cover it up. It is for this reason that I considered the possibility that you are Iranian. You also ignore the reality of the Middle east----
TODAY------including the MANIACAL ambitions of ERDOGAN-----and----isis.
You delight youself with--------"if everyone eats, nobody fights" << nope

again, you provide no counter to my arguments. you keep saying that Iran has funded-and continues to fund terrorist organizations. this is true, and I never denied it. you have not, however, told me why you disagree with my prediction.

Ok----here goes----you have predicted that somehow----the "agreement" will provide impoverished Iranians with a clean house and food-----and therefore---it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to want to be involved in that "DEATH TO...." cult that the AYATOILETS have imposed on them since 1979 because they will be 'HAPPY"---------History has demonstrated that "food and a clean house" has
never excluded the LURE OF TERRORISM---------some of our most nefarious
terrorist murderers come from-----"clean houses" and more than sufficient food. ------take the recent event in CHATTANOOGA-------middle class American
muslim-------college graduate----degree in engineering-------SHOT UP A BUNCH OF KIDS HE NEVER MET FOR THE GLORY OF ALLAH---and his rapist pig friend ---muhummad ------Go further back in history-----HERNAN CORTEZ was a wildly wealthy man when he decided that he needed to murder MONTEZUMA and thousands of Mexicans for the glory of Christianity and endless gold and the favor of that disgusting whore ISABELLA ----and----ultimately------the pope. Starvation does not create Islamic or --past Christian terrorism--------the two religions did it

i'm going to stop responding to your illogical comments and respond to RoccoR's instead, because he presents valid points.

 

[irosie91]

"You threw a whole bunch of meaningless words together"

The plot thickens, the story changes, the previous deception is exposed therefore inspiring an new one?

"an" new one ?? why "an"??

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

Yes, many people believed that Iran was "desperate;" but it was not.

it is true that the country in all was not "desperate", many people living there were

Eventually, Iran will play this card again.

why do you say that? I still stand by what I said before that this deal eliminates all reasons for Iran to do this.

 

[Tehon]

you said nothing Josf. The IRANIAN people accepted a monarch-----with the backing of LOTS OF IRANIAN people who happens to have been the son of
the PREVIOUS monarch and he worked all his life for the betterment of IRAN----he was a bit of a tyrant-----(I am convinced) but he was not FORCED on Iran by strangers from the planet ROMMULUS The Shah of Iran did quite a bit of good----he did not STEAL from you to give it to me. Today you got crooks and murderers running Iran -----the CIA did not put them there. Today Iran is SHIT-----it is a totalitarian cesspit -----ambitious to the point of self destruction

The point that I would like to see you address is to whether or not there was in existence at the time a Persian Constitution and was the Shah operating within it's limits.

 

[irosie91]

eagle1462010, et al,

This is (IMO) closer to the track of the discussion -- where it should be.

The Iran Nuclear Negotiations U.S. Concession After U.S. Concession

So what are the metrics to judge the outcome—to judge whether this is a good or bad deal. I think they are straightforward. Here are five:

1. Does the agreement deny Iran a nuclear weapons capability—the longstanding declared goal of the United States and the international community?
2. Does the agreement, once the constraints expire, prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon in a short amount of time?
3. Does the agreement extend the breakout time in a meaningful way?
4. Is the agreement effectively verifiable?
5. And is there a meaningful phased relief of sanctions and are there guaranteed snap-back provisions?

The answer to each of these questions is NO—a reality that is becoming apparent across party lines.

(COMMENT)

Q1: Does the agreement deny Iran a nuclear weapons capability — the longstanding declared goal of the United States and the international community?

A1: Even the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) does not deny any country Nuclear Weapons (NW). At best it can delay it. Under Article X each party to the NPT has the right to withdraw if it decides that the agreement jeopardizes the their individual national security interests. Any party can withdrawal at any time given a 90 day notice (3 months). Iran is no exception. Iran is not likely to accept any deal that does not have a similar escape clause. While the NPT, which entered into force in 1970 --- has been extended indefinitely (Decision 3 --- 1995 NPT Review Conference), there is a review conferences required every five years; with the last one held in last month (May 2015). The NPT is 45 years old.​

Q2: Does the agreement, once the constraints expire, prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon in a short amount of time?

A2: This new agreement seems to prevent Iran from building a Heavy Water (HW) facility or accumulating Heavy Water for a 15 year period (2030). This only delays the production of of weapons grade plutonium based on the one technology. I'm not sure how confident we should be that other technologies will not become available in that interval. The current Arak HW Reactor is not currently fueled. Under the new agreement, Iran agrees to re-engineer the Arak Reactor such that it cannot be used to general the useable fuel rods. All spent fuel will be shipped to a disposal program outside Iran; for as long as the Arak Reactor exists. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) will cut the centrifuges use by about 75% (least efficient models) and Iran will limit their enrichment process to less than 5% (3%-4% concentration of U-235). It appears the the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will pickup surveillance. The language used was a "extraordinary and robust monitoring, verification, and inspection." Apparently Iran has agreed to implement the additional Protocols relative to the Safeguards Agreement.​

Q3: Does the agreement extend the breakout time in a meaningful way?

A3: Break-out Time is related to the factors that constrain the development of plutonium at the 90% enrichment level. By reducing the number of centrifuges to about 25% of their current numbers and retaining the least efficient models; as well as preventing enrichment beyond the 5% level, the break-out period will be approximately 45 days to generate weapons grade material in the quantity required to make the first weapon after the termination of the agreement.​

Q4: Is the agreement effectively verifiable?

A4: I'm not sure the question can be answered. However, the production, logistics, storage and maintenance of a warhead is very expensive under normal security conditions. The necessary covert and clandestine activities associated with and necessary to defeat IAEA Inspection Protocols would be huge. Even in Iran, it might become cost prohibitive.​

Q5: And is there a meaningful phased relief of sanctions and are there guaranteed snap-back provisions?

A5: "Snap-Back refers to the UN approved sanctions/embargoes mechanisms, once lifted, to be re-introduced and put back in place. As extensive as the provisions are, it might take 3-to-6 months to get a majority in place, while some --- may never get back in place.​

So how did we get into this mess? The answer is clear:

• The Administration has violated every rule of good negotiating practice—the basic tenets of negotiating 101.
• Instead of increasing pressure on Tehran through more sanctions, they relieved sanctions to, in their words, keep Iran at the table, but it was these very sanctions that brought them to the table.
• Instead of making clear to Iran that Iran needed an agreement more than we, the Administration has demonstrated just the opposite: that it is desperate for an agreement—a desperation that Iran’s negotiators have exploited to the fullest, as seen today with Iran’s last minute insistence on ending the arms embargo.
• Instead of insisting that a deadline actually means a deadline, the Administration has allowed Iran to squeeze further concessions each time the latest deadline approaches and passes.
• Most important, instead of holding the line on those key issues that would determine whether the agreement is good or bad—whether it advances our security interests or undermines them—the Administration made concession after concession.

(COMMENT)

Maybe. Certainly I know a number of knowledgeable people that would agree with some of this criticism. Having said that, the establishment of a NW Program is an expensive proposition for any nation; superpowers on down --- let alone Iran. And it is a weapons system that Iran is not likely to ever use. Any nation that would attempt to use such a weapon, or provide it to some hostile non-state actor, or a state actor supporting some radical or jihadist movement, runs the risk of being significantly harmed by one or more of the superpowers. The idea of sanctions is to induce the sanctioned party to the negotiations table and act in good faith. And importantly enough, it is the need to steer research and development in the direction of high energy commercial projects; as opposed to, weapons programs.

It is almost impossible to tell the actual motivation (political, diplomatic, militarily, economically, industrially and cultural legacy) behind the US involvement in the P5+1 (US, UK, France, China and Russia plus Germany) sponsorship of these negotiations. It is likely that while there are some commonalities shared in the effort, some of the parties are interested in some future advantage this might hold for them in the future.

I think (IMO) it is a bit too early to cheer or criticize the outcomes. We simply do not have enough information on the subject.

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree with most of what you say here

I read that which you optimistically call your "essay"------In fact it is an exercise in
supercilious self back patting. You do make a very interesting ASSERTION---being ----this new deal will result in LESS TERRORISM-----no doubt you mean----less Iranian backed terrorism. Wanna bet? In fact this deal will result in
MORE TERRORISM-------both Shiite and Sunni. You also assert that no person who has enough food and a nice house becomes a terrorist-----thus placing a final seal on the fact that you are clueless. I have known ---in the USA --Iranians since the mid 60s. Lots. All were intelligent and motivated
to be happy successful prosperous ----something like upper middle class americans. I was so impressed that in 1979 (being still young) I ASSERTED that this ayatoilet stuff will be ALL OVER in two years. BUT----over the years knowing lots of Iranians (I even have an Iranian relative by marriage) ----I have a deeper insight into "IRANIAN"-------Iranians are-----whether YOU want to believe it or not-----a people with an interesting ethos pertaining to BEING
IRANIAN.-----------in fact they are something like germans -----who----whether YOU want to believe it or not------are........are you ready? -------breathe evenly and slowly----------PRONE TO NATIONALISM. as in------for the sake of simplicity "WE IS THE BEST" Iranians and germans are not the only we is the best" people-----even Japanese have a "we is the best" complex I learned all about it from Iranians------not just muslim Iranians----even jewish Iranians (like my distant relative and some of my colleagues) Today's Iranians are very nationalistic and together with islam of the Shiite variety what iran is today is something like 15th century SPAIN seeking its manifest destiny----- or the BRITISH EMPIRE----doing its cosmic good deed of bringing tea to the
the brownish people of the world. Right now its big time project is TAKE MECCA------he who owns the rock -----owns the UMMAH

feel free to ask questions------you are not as smart as you think you are-----
in fact you express youself like an Iranian

the relevant points you make here are ones I have already addressed many times. your attacks on my intelligence and knowledge of the situation are unfounded and just make you sound desperate. If you want to present a relevant argument, I am happy to talk, but all you are doing is saying that I am wrong without any sort of counterclaim. you think that you know everything about the middle east because you know a few Iranians, but you are wrong, and I would venture to say you are not as smart as you think you are.

wrong again----you made very specific and UNFOUNDED assertions which I countered. ------but--it is true---not in detail. You decided that people with a clean house and food-----never become terrorists. You decided that the deal between the US and Iran WILL reduce Iranian terrorism. You were very nonspecific as to what YOU consider Iranian terrorism----and I, very simply, disagreed and still do I consider terrorism that which Iran has supported
in YEMEN for many years and now accelerating. Hezbollah in an organization FULLY funded and controlled by Iran----with plants all over the middle east.
You can ASSERT from today until tomorrow and standing on your head that Hezbollah will no longer engage in terrorism or even that it never did as many
persons who imagine themselves "liberal humanists" claim----
Iran has an agenda that it has OPENLY stated of ISLAM OF THE SHIITE VARIETY FOR THE WORLD -------you missed that fact completely---or preferred to ignore it ------or want to cover it up. It is for this reason that I considered the possibility that you are Iranian. You also ignore the reality of the Middle east----
TODAY------including the MANIACAL ambitions of ERDOGAN-----and----isis.
You delight youself with--------"if everyone eats, nobody fights" << nope

again, you provide no counter to my arguments. you keep saying that Iran has funded-and continues to fund terrorist organizations. this is true, and I never denied it. you have not, however, told me why you disagree with my prediction.

Ok----here goes----you have predicted that somehow----the "agreement" will provide impoverished Iranians with a clean house and food-----and therefore---it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to want to be involved in that "DEATH TO...." cult that the AYATOILETS have imposed on them since 1979 because they will be 'HAPPY"---------History has demonstrated that "food and a clean house" has
never excluded the LURE OF TERRORISM---------some of our most nefarious
terrorist murderers come from-----"clean houses" and more than sufficient food. ------take the recent event in CHATTANOOGA-------middle class American
muslim-------college graduate----degree in engineering-------SHOT UP A BUNCH OF KIDS HE NEVER MET FOR THE GLORY OF ALLAH---and his rapist pig friend ---muhummad ------Go further back in history-----HERNAN CORTEZ was a wildly wealthy man when he decided that he needed to murder MONTEZUMA and thousands of Mexicans for the glory of Christianity and endless gold and the favor of that disgusting whore ISABELLA ----and----ultimately------the pope. Starvation does not create Islamic or --past Christian terrorism--------the two religions did it

i'm going to stop responding to your illogical comments and respond to RoccoR's instead, because he presents valid points.

I have you stumped-----keep in mind----YOU PREDICTED that Hezbollah terrorism will be attenuated because IRAN GOT SOME MONEY

 

[irosie91]

you said nothing Josf. The IRANIAN people accepted a monarch-----with the backing of LOTS OF IRANIAN people who happens to have been the son of
the PREVIOUS monarch and he worked all his life for the betterment of IRAN----he was a bit of a tyrant-----(I am convinced) but he was not FORCED on Iran by strangers from the planet ROMMULUS The Shah of Iran did quite a bit of good----he did not STEAL from you to give it to me. Today you got crooks and murderers running Iran -----the CIA did not put them there. Today Iran is SHIT-----it is a totalitarian cesspit -----ambitious to the point of self destruction

The point that I would like to see you address is to whether or not there was in existence at the time a Persian Constitution and was the Shah operating within it's limits.

I already stated-----that the SHAH in the tradition of Iranian kings----was a tyrant------his SAVAK was no better than was the KGB. so? the ayatoilets are better?

 

[Tehon]

you said nothing Josf. The IRANIAN people accepted a monarch-----with the backing of LOTS OF IRANIAN people who happens to have been the son of
the PREVIOUS monarch and he worked all his life for the betterment of IRAN----he was a bit of a tyrant-----(I am convinced) but he was not FORCED on Iran by strangers from the planet ROMMULUS The Shah of Iran did quite a bit of good----he did not STEAL from you to give it to me. Today you got crooks and murderers running Iran -----the CIA did not put them there. Today Iran is SHIT-----it is a totalitarian cesspit -----ambitious to the point of self destruction

The point that I would like to see you address is to whether or not there was in existence at the time a Persian Constitution and was the Shah operating within it's limits.

I already stated-----that the SHAH in the tradition of Iranian kings----was a tyrant------his SAVAK was no better than was the KGB. so? the ayatoilets are better?

The point being made is that the Shah was in fact acting criminally and Mossadegh was the one acting within the confines of the Persian Constitution when he nationalized the oil industry on behalf of the Iranian people. Is this not the point Josf was making that you besmirched?

 

[irosie91]

you said nothing Josf. The IRANIAN people accepted a monarch-----with the backing of LOTS OF IRANIAN people who happens to have been the son of
the PREVIOUS monarch and he worked all his life for the betterment of IRAN----he was a bit of a tyrant-----(I am convinced) but he was not FORCED on Iran by strangers from the planet ROMMULUS The Shah of Iran did quite a bit of good----he did not STEAL from you to give it to me. Today you got crooks and murderers running Iran -----the CIA did not put them there. Today Iran is SHIT-----it is a totalitarian cesspit -----ambitious to the point of self destruction

The point that I would like to see you address is to whether or not there was in existence at the time a Persian Constitution and was the Shah operating within it's limits.

I already stated-----that the SHAH in the tradition of Iranian kings----was a tyrant------his SAVAK was no better than was the KGB. so? the ayatoilets are better?

The point being made is that the Shah was in fact acting criminally and Mossadegh was the one acting within the confines of the Persian Constitution when he nationalized the oil industry on behalf of the Iranian people. Is this not the point Josf was making that you besmirched?

 

[irosie91]

you said nothing Josf. The IRANIAN people accepted a monarch-----with the backing of LOTS OF IRANIAN people who happens to have been the son of
the PREVIOUS monarch and he worked all his life for the betterment of IRAN----he was a bit of a tyrant-----(I am convinced) but he was not FORCED on Iran by strangers from the planet ROMMULUS The Shah of Iran did quite a bit of good----he did not STEAL from you to give it to me. Today you got crooks and murderers running Iran -----the CIA did not put them there. Today Iran is SHIT-----it is a totalitarian cesspit -----ambitious to the point of self destruction

The point that I would like to see you address is to whether or not there was in existence at the time a Persian Constitution and was the Shah operating within it's limits.

I already stated-----that the SHAH in the tradition of Iranian kings----was a tyrant------his SAVAK was no better than was the KGB. so? the ayatoilets are better?

The point being made is that the Shah was in fact acting criminally and Mossadegh was the one acting within the confines of the Persian Constitution when he nationalized the oil industry on behalf of the Iranian people. Is this not the point Josf was making that you besmirched?

try again----NATIONALIZING projects which foreign investors finances is THEFT The Iranians are going to get lots of money now----they are going to
INVEST-----good idea if in whatever country they INVEST would nationalize all
their investments-----GOOD PRECEDENT

 

[Tehon]

you said nothing Josf. The IRANIAN people accepted a monarch-----with the backing of LOTS OF IRANIAN people who happens to have been the son of
the PREVIOUS monarch and he worked all his life for the betterment of IRAN----he was a bit of a tyrant-----(I am convinced) but he was not FORCED on Iran by strangers from the planet ROMMULUS The Shah of Iran did quite a bit of good----he did not STEAL from you to give it to me. Today you got crooks and murderers running Iran -----the CIA did not put them there. Today Iran is SHIT-----it is a totalitarian cesspit -----ambitious to the point of self destruction

The point that I would like to see you address is to whether or not there was in existence at the time a Persian Constitution and was the Shah operating within it's limits.

I already stated-----that the SHAH in the tradition of Iranian kings----was a tyrant------his SAVAK was no better than was the KGB. so? the ayatoilets are better?

The point being made is that the Shah was in fact acting criminally and Mossadegh was the one acting within the confines of the Persian Constitution when he nationalized the oil industry on behalf of the Iranian people. Is this not the point Josf was making that you besmirched?

try again----NATIONALIZING projects which foreign investors finances is THEFT The Iranians are going to get lots of money now----they are going to
INVEST-----good idea if in whatever country they INVEST would nationalize all
their investments-----GOOD PRECEDENT

I'm not the one who needs to try again. Taking back Iran's rightful resource was done through the parliament, it was voted on unanimously. The issue over supposed British property rights was working it's way through the International Courts. Mossadegh had also made offers of reimbursement. Nationalizing the oil industry in no way gave the Brits, the US, or the Shah a license to overthrow Mossadegh.

It would seem to me, as evidenced by your posts in this thread, that you have little concern that the Iranian people are ruled by tyrants.........so long as the tyrants are suited to your fancy.

 

[RoccoR]

PhilosphyBeforeParty, et al,

Clearly, there is some validity here, in your observation.

Yes, many people believed that Iran was "desperate;" but it was not.

it is true that the country in all was not "desperate", many people living there were

(COMMENT)

Yes, there are two levels represented here in this observation; the government/national level and the private/citizenry level.

Sanctions have made it harder for the Iranian Regime to acquire weapons and military technology. But not impossible; as the Majlis (the Iranian pseudo-Parliament) explicitly recommended and funded operations using the private sector, in conjunction resources of the Revolutionary Guard, to circumvent sanctions and to import prohibited goods into Iran.

There is no question that many western observers have indicated that the sanctions have been punishing and dire conditions were the catalyst for Iran’s rapid push for a nuclear agreement. But that is not necessarily the case. Most countries have GDPs that run in cycles.

GDP IRAN 2014
Iran: GDP increases 1.5%

Gross Domestic Product of Iran grew 1.5% in 2014 compared to last year . This rate is 34-tenths of one percent higher than the figure of -1.9% published in 2013.

The GDP figure in 2014 was $415,339 million, Iran is number 30 in the ranking of GDP of the 195 countries that we publish. The absolute value of GDP in Iran dropped $34,991 million with respect to 2013.

The GDP per capita of Iran in 2014 was $5,293, $382 less than in 2013, when it was $4,911. To view the evolution of the GDP per capita, it is interesting to look back a few years and compare these data with those of 2004 when the GDP per capita in Iran was $2,655.

If we order the countries according to their GDP per capita, Iran is in 104th position of the 195 countries whose GDP we publish.

Here we show you the progression of the GDP in Iran. You can see GDP in other countries in GDP and see all the economic information about Iran in Iran's economy.
​

​

The US imposed sanctions in 1979; then expanded those sanctions in 1995. In 2006, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1696 and imposed sanctions after Iran refused to suspend its uranium enrichment program. But as you can see, the GDP has not suffered a huge impact from the implementation.

Eventually, Iran will play this card again.

why do you say that? I still stand by what I said before that this deal eliminates all reasons for Iran to do this.

(COMMENT)

This is sometimes referred to as "economic jihad." This is based in the guidance from the Supreme Leader (Ali Hosseini Khamenei, Head of State) that under Islamic Law, "any form of domination of infidels over Muslims in any field, political, social, cultural, economic and military, is not allowed.” Thus, it is generally believed by Western Intelligence Services that no matter what Islamic Republic of Iran may formally agree to with the E3+3, under Islamic Law, there is no dishonor in breaking an obligation in which the Muslim is subordinate to a non-believer (infidel). When the time comes that an agreement is no longer advantageous for the Muslim, fraud and deception may be used to circumvent the obligations in the eyes of Islamic Law (as interpreted by the Supreme Leader).

The need for the weapon is not at issue. You may be right -- that Iran does not need the weapon. Gaining the diplomatic upper hand by merely turning up enrichment to 90% will rattle the Western Powers and Gulf Region States to make concessions they otherwise would not be inclined to agree to.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Tehon, et al,

Yes, in 1905 --- the Iranian Constitutional Revolution resulted in the Constitution in 1906 with a Parliament; and the Supplemental Laws of 1907.

The point that I would like to see you address is to whether or not there was in existence at the time a Persian Constitution and was the Shah operating within it's limits.

(COMMENT)

This is really a question that only the Persians can answer. The Supplemental Laws of 1907 actually address the issues of rights and powers.

Powers of the Realm

Art. 26. The powers of the realm are all derived from the people; and the Fundamental Law regulates the employment of those powers.

Art. 27. The powers of the realm are divided into three categories.

First, the legislative power which is specially concerned with the making or amelioration of laws. This power is derived from His Imperial Majesty, the National Consultative Assembly, and the Senate, of which three sources each has the right to introduce laws, provided that the continuance thereof be dependent on their not being at variance with the standards of the ecclesiastical law, and on its approval by the Members of the two Assemblies, and the Royal ratification. The enacting and approval of laws connected with the revenue and expenditure of the kingdom are, however, specially assigned to the National Consultative Assembly. The explanation and interpretation of the laws are, moreover, amongst the special functions of the above-mentioned assembly.

Second, the judicial power, by which is meant the determining of rights. This power belongs exclusively to the ecclesiastical tribunals in matters connected with the ecclesiastical law, and to the civil tribunals in matters connected with ordinary law.

Third, the executive power, which appertains to the King, that is to say, the laws and ordinances are carried out by the Ministers and State officials in the august name of His Imperial Majesty in such manner as the Law Defines.
​

Art. 28. The three powers above mentioned shall ever remain distinct and separate from one another.

Art. 29. The special interests of each province, department and district shall be arranged and regulated, in accordance with special laws on this subject, by provincial and departmental councils (anjumans).
​

The Shah, by Constitution, had very far reaching powers.

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[Tehon]

Tehon, et al,

Yes, in 1905 --- the Iranian Constitutional Revolution resulted in the Constitution in 1906 with a Parliament; and the Supplemental Laws of 1907.

The point that I would like to see you address is to whether or not there was in existence at the time a Persian Constitution and was the Shah operating within it's limits.

(COMMENT)

This is really a question that only the Persians can answer. The Supplemental Laws of 1907 actually address the issues of rights and powers.

Powers of the Realm

Art. 26. The powers of the realm are all derived from the people; and the Fundamental Law regulates the employment of those powers.

Art. 27. The powers of the realm are divided into three categories.

First, the legislative power which is specially concerned with the making or amelioration of laws. This power is derived from His Imperial Majesty, the National Consultative Assembly, and the Senate, of which three sources each has the right to introduce laws, provided that the continuance thereof be dependent on their not being at variance with the standards of the ecclesiastical law, and on its approval by the Members of the two Assemblies, and the Royal ratification. The enacting and approval of laws connected with the revenue and expenditure of the kingdom are, however, specially assigned to the National Consultative Assembly. The explanation and interpretation of the laws are, moreover, amongst the special functions of the above-mentioned assembly.

Second, the judicial power, by which is meant the determining of rights. This power belongs exclusively to the ecclesiastical tribunals in matters connected with the ecclesiastical law, and to the civil tribunals in matters connected with ordinary law.

Third, the executive power, which appertains to the King, that is to say, the laws and ordinances are carried out by the Ministers and State officials in the august name of His Imperial Majesty in such manner as the Law Defines.
​

Art. 28. The three powers above mentioned shall ever remain distinct and separate from one another.

Art. 29. The special interests of each province, department and district shall be arranged and regulated, in accordance with special laws on this subject, by provincial and departmental councils (anjumans).​

The Shah, by Constitution, had very far reaching powers.

Most Respectfully,
R​

The Constitution dictated that the Shah act within the confines of the law as dictated by the legislature. Are you now going to suggest that conspiring with foreign entities to overthrow the elected Prime Minister was within those laws. It could also be argued that the Shah's power was confined to appointing Ministers. That is something the Iranians would need to answer.