# Iran nuke deal signed? Or, what Iran deal, oil prices drop in time for summer road trip!



## poison (Jul 14, 2015)

Oil prices tumble as Iran, global powers reach deal



> Oil prices tumbled more than a dollar on Tuesday as Iran and six global powers reached a nuclear deal that could see an easing of sanctions against Tehran and a gradual increase in its oil exports just as Asian economies showed further signs of weakness.
> 
> Iran and six major powers have reached a historic nuclear deal, which will grant Tehran sanctions relief in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program, an Iranian diplomat said on Tuesday.



I found this interesting (from elsewhere):



> A diplomat quoted by the Associated Press said the deal included a compromise over the inspection of nuclear sites. It would allow UN inspectors to monitor military sites, but Iran could challenge requests for access, the diplomat said.



Iran was saying 'no military site inspections', so this sounds like they gave a bit (perhaps without giving much at all). 

Interesting.


----------



## Brill (Jul 14, 2015)

:youllpay:

I'm confident the deal is legit and serves our best interests. Remember, this is the same Admin that secured the deal for Berghdal's release.

Kevin Bacon said it best: "All's well. Remain calm."


----------



## Etype (Jul 14, 2015)

lindy said:


> :youllpay:
> 
> I'm confident the deal is legit and serves our best interests. Remember, this is the same Admin that secured the deal for Berghdal's release.
> 
> Kevin Bacon said it best: "All's well. Remain calm."


O-BA-MA! O-BA-MA! O-BA-MA!

Say it with me now!


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 14, 2015)

This is pretty exciting.  I can't wait to read the full text of the deal, which is supposed to be 100+ pages long.


----------



## Centermass (Jul 14, 2015)

China and Russia are both extremely happy about it........

What does that tell you????

This deal complete with so called "Unfettered access" for inspectors, I guarantee will resemble / replicate the joke Iraq had with the UN inspectors years ago.

One can only hope that those in Congress, with common sense, will read the deal in it's entirety and decide whether or not America should support it, and not just this administration. 

So far, it appears to me Iran got everything they wanted. 

The bottom line is this: The devil is in the details. I have a feeling the administration was so hard pressed to come up with something, that we conceded almost everything. I haven't read it (The Treaty details in its entirety) so as of now, my gut tells me we will continue to smear lipstick, on a pig.......


----------



## Blizzard (Jul 14, 2015)

Saw this and thought it summed it up well:

"We promise to stop making nuclear weapons...until you're not looking and then we'll go back to what we were doing yesterday.
P.S.  Thanks for the money." - Iran


----------



## Grunt (Jul 14, 2015)

Centermass said:


> ...This deal complete with so called "Unfettered access" for inspectors...



Unfortunately, I can't imagine the US having "unfettered access" any where in the ME, much less Iran. I am sure we will have access to anywhere we want, as long as it doesn't have a "lock on the door." 

The only "unfettered access" that I think we could possibly have there is the access we grant ourselves by "taking it."


----------



## Etype (Jul 14, 2015)

We should have a policy with the rest of the world that reads something like this- we have more nukes than all of you combined, try something and we'll shoot your shit down then blast your country into a muddy crater.

that's the type of message even Arabs and Persians can understand. If they didn't get it, they would understand after the first example was made.


----------



## Rapid (Jul 14, 2015)

Etype said:


> We should have a policy with the rest of the world that reads something like this- we have more nukes than all of you combined, try something and we'll shoot your shit down then blast your country into a muddy crater.
> 
> that's the type of message even Arabs and Persians can understand. If they didn't get it, they would understand after the first example was made.



I'm with you on that, but in what world would such a policy pass? Maybe a few decades ago. But these days, Western citizens are practically gay for the likes of Obama, Snowden and whoever the next traitor (or in their eyes, "hero") is. And it doesn't get any better. Every year, every generation, our people are becoming more and more liberal, so it's all decline from here. Well, at least until shit gets really bad. Though at that point it will be pretty late.

I know there are places out there (particularly in the US) where a lot of people are still hanging on to reason, but given enough time, even those places will just become enclaves.

I'd love for someone to seriously argue that this isn't going to happen. Because it's depressing, quite frankly.


----------



## Brill (Jul 14, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> This is pretty exciting.  I can't wait to read the full text of the deal, which is supposed to be 100+ pages long.



A talking head on NPR said that Obama was the right person to negotiate the deal however it will take a different man/woman to enforce it.


----------



## CDG (Jul 14, 2015)

Etype said:


> We should have a policy with the rest of the world that reads something like this- we have more nukes than all of you combined, try something and we'll shoot your shit down then blast your country into a muddy crater.
> 
> that's the type of message even Arabs and Persians can understand. If they didn't get it, they would understand after the first example was made.



China and Russia could still make things pretty bad here if they so chose, and I'm not sure such a policy would be worth it.  You may be being somewhat tongue-in-cheek and I'm taking you too literally though.   Besides, with the risk-averse mentality that's prevalent these days, we'd probably launch a couple nukes into the ocean or desert as a "warning shot" before actually nuking another country.

This deal looks good on the surface, from the limited amount I've read.  Obviously it's up in the air if the Iranians will actually comply and if the so-called "snapback sanctions" will be enforced if it comes to it.  At least the number of nations, and which nations they are, that are signatories will prevent Russia, China, and Iran from teaming up and having the legal power to change things.  That may not mean much at some point down the road, but hopefully Congress has enough of an understanding of what the true risk of that is before signing yea or nay.


----------



## Brill (Jul 14, 2015)

Syria, Russia, China, and Iran are praising the deal. That's all I need to know.

Oh, Hillary is for it as well.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jul 14, 2015)

We will regret this.....just a matter of time.


----------



## Scotth (Jul 14, 2015)

It's easy to complain about the deal and a whole lot harder to have a different plan.

Does anyone believe Russia and China was going to voluntarily not sell Iran military technology if no deal was reach?  Does anyone believe Russia wasn't going to help Iran build nuclear reactors if no deal was in place?  The deal did get a 5 year moratorium on conventional weapon sales to Iran and 8 years on ballistic missile technology.
How the Pentagon got its way in Iran deal

Does anyone believe that Iran was going to voluntarily stop it's nuclear pursuit if no deal was reached?

People will argue we could have gotten a better deal.  How did that strategy work out with North Korea?

Nobody has offered a different path that doesn't lead to Iran getting a nuclear weapon at the end of the day.  That is the big fail over this whole issue.


----------



## poison (Jul 15, 2015)

I don't like Obama, for many reasons, so it's easy to vilify him, and the deal. But he's been very clear that he will not allow a nuclear Iran. He's said it multiple times, as many ways as can be said. So either he completely lied, or misspoke, or has capitulated, or he's playing the game. Even if this is a bad deal, he could still be keeping the option of military action on the table. Maybe all the antagonism between him and Bibi was part of the game. Is it possible he 'capitulated' simply to postpone an attack on Iran until absolutely necessary, or until the time is right for the US? Maybe. Would that be bad? Not intrinsically. Based on his presidency, I don't think this is the case, but what do I know.


----------



## Brill (Jul 15, 2015)

Scotth said:


> It's easy to complain about the deal and a whole lot harder to have a different plan.
> 
> Does anyone believe Russia and China was going to voluntarily not sell Iran military technology if no deal was reach?  Does anyone believe Russia wasn't going to help Iran build nuclear reactors if no deal was in place?  The deal did get a 5 year moratorium on conventional weapon sales to Iran and 8 years on ballistic missile technology.
> How the Pentagon got its way in Iran deal
> ...



What was wrong with the current plan: economic sanctions and isolation?

Your last sentence is, in my opinion naive as there was no clear and present NEED for a different plan, save Obama's legacy.  With or without the deal, the Islamic Republic of Iran WILL become a nuclear power in the future, that is a shared reality.  This agreement simply unfreezes the $100 billion in assets and allows Iran to begin selling their oil on the world market...and that flow will dramatically increase upon upgrading their oil extraction/transportation infrastructure.

The Iranian proxy forces just went on a shopping spree and unfortunately we will be on the receiving end of their new toys....AGAIN.  5-year moratorium on weapons purchases??? Really??? Where the hell did they get these in 2013 or these in 2015?

Obama arrogantly believes he can negotiate and reason with Iran because he has economic leverage.  Why not wait to gain MORE leverage and tip the scales to our advantage?  Oh, let's piss off all of our allies in the region at the same time.  Brilliant statesmanship.


----------



## Brill (Jul 15, 2015)

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/{65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9}/s_2015_401.pdf


----------



## poison (Jul 15, 2015)

lindy said:


> What was wrong with the current plan: economic sanctions and isolation?
> 
> Your last sentence is, in my opinion naive as there was no clear and present NEED for a different plan, save Obama's legacy.  With or without the deal, the Islamic Republic of Iran WILL become a nuclear power in the future, that is a shared reality.  This agreement simply unfreezes the $100 billion in assets and allows Iran to begin selling their oil on the world market...and that flow will dramatically increase upon upgrading their oil extraction/transportation infrastructure.
> 
> ...



Obviously Obama is choosing a different side, and would rather deal with Iran, than the Arabs or Israel.


----------



## AWP (Jul 15, 2015)

This wouldn't be such an issue if Iran had a shred of trustworthiness or hadn't conspired to or openly acted to kill our guys in multiple countries. Ultimately we won't stop Iran while also alienating our Gulf allies. Time will tell though.

I'm waiting for the Israelis to bomb and our indignation at their efforts to undermine the "peace" process.


----------



## poison (Jul 16, 2015)

Iran is the biggest support of terror in the world, and has been for decades. Iran killed more Americans than any other country, through direct terror attacks, and support of the insurgency in Iraq. Iran has assassinated those in its way around the world, most recently Nisman in Argentina; that plot reads like a clancy novel, and involves 4 SA countries, nuclear equipment, expansion of terror operations, teaming up with cartels, and lots more. Hizbullah is the most highly trained terror org in the world, with the deepest pockets, greatest capabilities, and longest reach, due to Iranian (and russian) involvement. But yeah, they're perfectly trustworthy.

What's this?



> Disturbing details of the Iran nuclear deal signed Tuesday continue to come to light, revealing why critics are more concerned than ever.
> 
> One particularly interesting detail: Tucked away near the very end of the deal's massive text is a section entitled "Nuclear Safety, Safeguards and Security," which stipulates that the West will train Iran to thwart sabotage against its nuclear facilities.
> 
> ...



http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/docs/iran_agreement/annex_3_civil_nuclear_cooperation_en.pdf


----------



## Il Duce (Jul 16, 2015)

Thought this was an excellent summary of a number of lines of reasoning, as well as a thoughtful position - though it differs from my own in some areas:

Why I'm torn about the Iran deal: Was it worth it?


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 16, 2015)

Scotth said:


> It's easy to complain about the deal and a whole lot harder to have a different plan.
> 
> Does anyone believe Russia and China was going to voluntarily not sell Iran military technology if no deal was reach?  Does anyone believe Russia wasn't going to help Iran build nuclear reactors if no deal was in place?  The deal did get a 5 year moratorium on conventional weapon sales to Iran and 8 years on ballistic missile technology.
> How the Pentagon got its way in Iran deal
> ...



You miss the point regarding the North Korea deal.
It was a good deal, except the North Koreans never honored their part, and Clinton waffled over forcing them to honor the deal.
Which is why this deal stinks, another weak President who will look the other way as Iran instantly ignores the deal they signed.
Unfettered access is a joke when you consider the 24 DAY notification requirement.


----------



## Scotth (Jul 16, 2015)

lindy said:


> What was wrong with the current plan: economic sanctions and isolation?
> 
> Your last sentence is, in my opinion naive as there was no clear and present NEED for a different plan, save Obama's legacy.  With or without the deal, the Islamic Republic of Iran WILL become a nuclear power in the future, that is a shared reality.  This agreement simply unfreezes the $100 billion in assets and allows Iran to begin selling their oil on the world market...and that flow will dramatically increase upon upgrading their oil extraction/transportation infrastructure.
> 
> ...



My last statement isn't naive.  No deal means the international sanctions go away.  The Russian and Chinese went along with the understanding that a deal would be reached and some normalcy would eventually take place and they could conduct business with Iran.  Chinese want there oil and Russia has been dealing with Iran for a long time now.  European's wanted Iran's oil as well.

Russia actually had military hardware sales pending that they with held off on and now there is a 5 year moratorium on military hardware sales to Iran and 8 years for ballistic weapons.  That was a pretty big achievement to get the Russian's to agree to that.  No I'm not talking about sending AK's to Hezabollah we are talking Air Defense missiles.
Russia-Iran Weapons Sale a Deal of Mutual Opportunity

Sure the US could have kept our sanctions in place but how affective was that going to be really when we don't do business with Iran in the first place and the Chinese are buying Iran's oil and Russia is selling them military hardware.  Add into that equation with the Chinese build their own financial market Iran could easily circumvent the American banking system.  So our ability to go it alone on economic sanctions are getting cut dramatically in the future as the Chinese try to become important world players.

Bush argued that very same idea of increased economic sanctions to force a better deal from North Korea and that didn't work out well at all.  Bush was also doing that unilaterally and Obama had to work with 5 other nations and Iran.  It probably makes the deal a little weaker overall but if you have China and Russia in on the deal the chance of cheating go down substantially as well.  You can wait longer and then what?  Israel was never going to like any deal with Iran outside invading them.  Eventually, Iran would have said screw it, just like North Korea did, an gone nuclear.


----------



## Brill (Jul 16, 2015)

Il Duce said:


> Thought this was an excellent summary of a number of lines of reasoning, as well as a thoughtful position - though it differs from my own in some areas:
> 
> Why I'm torn about the Iran deal: Was it worth it?



Very good post!


----------



## Brill (Jul 16, 2015)

Scotth said:


> Russia actually had military hardware sales pending that they with held off on and *now there is a 5 year moratorium on military hardware sales to Iran and 8 years for ballistic weapons.  That was a pretty big achievement to get the Russian's to agree to that.*  No I'm not talking about sending AK's to Hezabollah we are talking Air Defense missiles.
> Russia-Iran Weapons Sale a Deal of Mutual Opportunity



I fully agree that Iran will go nuclear...as will Saudi Arabia.

The SA-10 deal signed with Rostec Corp back in 2007 but put on hold in 2010 because of...UN resolution 1929.  Hell, even Iran filed a $4 billion lawsuit in international court for breach of contract.  So in Feb, Rostec's CEO (a former KGB buddy of Pootie Poo), offered Iran the Antey-2500 (an even more modern version of the SAM system offered in 2010) if they withdraw the lawsuit.  Worth noting that Medvedev place a ban on missile sales to Iran but Pootie lifted that ban in *April*.

Russian arms sales have ZERO to do with money and are all about foreign policy in the form of power projection (like pissing off adversaries via a friendly government).  The US is talking about providing weapons to Ukraine so what will Russia do? Any bets whether there will be a Russian military base in Iran before the 5 years is up? 

This nuclear deal really just solidified the Russian, Iranian, and Chinese alliance in the Near East and has nothing to do with business. Obama is focused on his library and legacy whereas our enemies are looking at more strategic targets (e.g. backing this deal, OPM database, etc).

Mr Chow, a possible Chinese "illegal", said it best when he jumped out of the trunk of the Mercedes in Vegas.


----------



## Scotth (Jul 17, 2015)

lindy said:


> I fully agree that Iran will go nuclear...as will Saudi Arabia.
> 
> The SA-10 deal signed with Rostec Corp back in 2007 but put on hold in 2010 because of...UN resolution 1929.  Hell, even Iran filed a $4 billion lawsuit in international court for breach of contract.  So in Feb, Rostec's CEO (a former KGB buddy of Pootie Poo), offered Iran the Antey-2500 (an even more modern version of the SAM system offered in 2010) if they withdraw the lawsuit.  Worth noting that Medvedev place a ban on missile sales to Iran but Pootie lifted that ban in *April*.
> 
> ...



Again with no deal what will happen with the Iran/Russia and Iran/Chinese relationship?  

There will be no rules so you can complain all day long about this deal but what other solutions does anyone offer because the status quo goes away if the deal goes away?  Complaining is the easy part, solution are a lot harder.


----------



## Brill (Jul 17, 2015)

It's a sad day when a disadvantagous deal is better than no deal. At least Congress will be part of the debate...oh wait, the deal will go before the UNSC well before the Sept US deadline so POTUS made Congressional approval completely irrelavant.

I just don't understand the logic.


----------



## Rapid (Jul 18, 2015)

Heh...

Iran nuclear: Ayatollah Khamenei chastises 'arrogant' US - BBC News

"Iran's stance towards the "arrogant" US will not change despite the nuclear deal reached earlier this week, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said. In a speech marking the end of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, he said Iran still had sharp differences with the US, above all over the Middle East. Iran would continue to back Syria, Iraq, the Palestinians and "oppressed people" in Yemen and Bahrain, he said."

"'Death to America' and 'Death to Israel' slogans were chanted during Friday prayers at the Tehran University campus in spite of the nuclear deal agreed earlier this week"


----------



## poison (Jul 18, 2015)

Scotth said:


> Again with no deal what will happen with the Iran/Russia and Iran/Chinese relationship?
> 
> There will be no rules so you can complain all day long about this deal but what other solutions does anyone offer because the status quo goes away if the deal goes away?  Complaining is the easy part, solution are a lot harder.



The negotiations should have been tied to Iranian behavior, not in a vacuum, as if their terror-supporting and American-killing ways did not exist. If Iran were a peaceful country, no one would give a damn about their desire for nuke power; but they are a problem, and that's why it's such a big issue. 

You want sanctions to go away, and a nuke program? OK, stop supporting Hizbullah, the Houthis, and whtever other fucked up organizations you foster, acknowledge Israel's right to exist, stop with the regional hegemony bullshit, and maybe, over the next 5 years, we will lessen or drop sanctions. THEN we can come to the table, and negotiate nukes.


----------



## Scotth (Jul 19, 2015)

poison said:


> The negotiations should have been tied to Iranian behavior, not in a vacuum, as if their terror-supporting and American-killing ways did not exist. If Iran were a peaceful country, no one would give a damn about their desire for nuke power; but they are a problem, and that's why it's such a big issue.
> 
> You want sanctions to go away, and a nuke program? OK, stop supporting Hizbullah, the Houthis, and whtever other fucked up organizations you foster, acknowledge Israel's right to exist, stop with the regional hegemony bullshit, and maybe, over the next 5 years, we will lessen or drop sanctions. THEN we can come to the table, and negotiate nukes.



That's all well a good.  The only downfall is the international sanctions go away.  Russia and China say we are done with this process and walk away meaning the UN as well.  Iran sells it's oil to China unabated and uses the Chinese financial market to get paid and avoid our sanctions.  They take their new found cash and buy military arms and new nuclear reactors from Russia.  Even the Europeans will buy Iran's oil so they don't have to depend on Russian oil as much.

How bad do you think US sanction alone will hurt them now and how willing do you think they will be to change their ways and negotiate then?

You pick the fights you can win.  It doesn't mean you ignore the others things in the future.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 19, 2015)

Scotth said:


> That's all well a good.  The only downfall is the international sanctions go away.  Russia and China say we are done with this process and walk away meaning the UN as well.  Iran sells it's oil to China unabated and uses the Chinese financial market to get paid and avoid our sanctions.  They take their new found cash and buy military arms and new nuclear reactors from Russia.  Even the Europeans will buy Iran's oil so they don't have to depend on Russian oil as much.
> 
> How bad do you think US sanction alone will hurt them now and how willing do you think they will be to change their ways and negotiate then?
> 
> You pick the fights you can win.  It doesn't mean you ignore the others things in the future.


China's economy is getting ready to sink.
Their stock market hasn't crashed because the government is forcing investors to stay in.
They can buy Iranian oil all day long with little impact here.
The Chinese want Alaskan oil, cheaper to ship.  They can now trade Alaskan crude for Iranian crude and ship the Iranian crap here.


----------



## poison (Jul 20, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> China's economy is getting ready to sink.
> Their stock market hasn't crashed because the government is forcing investors to stay in.
> They can buy Iranian oil all day long with little impact here.
> The Chinese want Alaskan oil, cheaper to ship.  They can now trade Alaskan crude for Iranian crude and ship the Iranian crap here.



Sure, it's too late now. But negotiations have been going on for years now, they've strung everyone along, built secret facilities, etc. If the negotiations had started years ago by addressing behavior, we might be in a different place today.


----------



## policemedic (Jul 21, 2015)

poison said:


> Sure, it's too late now. But negotiations have been going on for years now, they've strung everyone along, built secret facilities, etc. If the negotiations had started years ago by addressing behavior, we might be in a different place today.



Shame the Israelis didn't bury their nuke project under a hundred tonnes of rubble.


----------



## Il Duce (Jul 23, 2015)

Thought this was also a well-reasoned argument in favor of the Iran deal, though I think the rational argument for Iran's pursuit of nuclear capability is incorrectly dismissed as the province of 'ideologues' alone.

For the Iran Deal, Against the Conservation of Enemies


----------



## amorris127289 (Jul 23, 2015)

This is Allen West speech from time square, I do not know if it has been posted, I searched and found no one posted it. I think it is awesome, not sure if this is the right place to post it, but he does mention the Iran deal a few times.


----------



## AWP (Jul 23, 2015)

I wish Allen West would go away.


----------



## poison (Jul 24, 2015)

Assad did not give up entire chemical weapons arsenal — report



> Last month, the world’s chemical weapons watchdog said all effluents from Syria’s neutralized chemical weapons arsenal have been destroyed. Of the 1,300 metric tons of Syria’s declared chemical weapons only 16 metric tons of hydrogen fluoride remain to be destroyed at a facility in Port Arthur in Texas, according to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
> 
> *The international operation to rid Syria of its chemical weapons was welcomed by the US as a success, even as various reports emerged in May of additional chemical attacks in Syria and the discovery of undeclared chemical weapons.*
> 
> ...




lol!

IT'S A SUCCESS! shhhhhhhhh

Who's in for round two of 'success'?


----------



## Brill (Jul 24, 2015)

It's amazing how this administration has the ability to determine how dangerous the world would be had some of the chem weps not been surrendered.


----------



## Totentanz (Jul 25, 2015)

poison said:


> Assad did not give up entire chemical weapons arsenal — report


----------



## Scotth (Jul 28, 2015)

poison said:


> Assad did not give up entire chemical weapons arsenal — report
> lol!
> 
> IT'S A SUCCESS! shhhhhhhhh
> ...



The Times of Israel is a source?  They write three piece and cite a series of anonymous reports and quotes and cite nothing to support their story.  Then they come up with some great logical arguments like inspectors couldn't go where they wanted of course they can't name any names for that claim.  Then they come up with this gem of a quote,

"According to a Reuters report citing diplomatic sources, samples taken from the site by inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition and Chemical Weapons (OPCW) tested positive for traces of sarin gas and VX (nerve agent).

“This is a pretty strong indication they have been lying about what they did with sarin,” a diplomatic source told Reuters on condition of anonymity. “They have so far been unable to give a satisfactory explanation about this finding.”

They make the case they couldn't inspect what they wanted to but some how they inspected an undeclared cite with traces of Sarin and VX in it.  Not even the actual agents just the precursors for the agents according to Reuters.  So obviously they have to be lying because the inspectors that found the traces obviously didn't pursue the issue any further and didn't ask where the munitions went or looked around further for them according to unnamed sources and with no reports to back up that claim.

I remember being sold a similar bill of goods not so long ago.  At the end of the day 1290 metric tons of less chemical weapons in the world is a win.

Most interesting about all of this is funny how these reports about things that happened in 2013 are just getting publish as an Iran deal is coming together.


----------



## poison (Jul 29, 2015)

In the amount of time it took you to type up your post, you could have paid attention to what you were reading, seen its quoting a wall Street journal report, and quoting inspectors themselves.

It's known that all of them were not turned over, with reports coming out every 6 months or so on it. What is new is the revelation that the inspectors, by what is apparently their own admission, knew assad was holding back, and not revealing facilities, but tiptoes around so as not to offend assad and tank the whole deal. 

Thus is highly relevant to Iran, and not only because Syria is Iran's bitch. It's relevant because this administration wants this deal so bad, and we already know they're playing games with the 'secret annexes'. There aren't supposed to be us inspectors on the iaea teams in Iran, the iaea has already made side agreements with Iran, and based on past history in Syria, violations were brushed under the carpet for whatever agenda was desirable at the time.


----------



## AWP (Jul 29, 2015)

A word or thousand on sources:

Learn how to use a search engine.

Take a phrase from an article and search against that. The Times of Israel article cites a Wall Street Journal article, BUT if you click on the embedded link you receive the "You must pay" blah, blah. Instead, Google that phrase (I used 'Because the regime was responsible...' and use the link in the results. Bam, no more problem with seeing the story.

If you find a story, take 30 seconds to run it through a search engine to see who else is reporting that information. Given the vermin's....err, "media's" joy at printing articles designed to generate ad revenue, you won't see an unbiased source. Run that story through a search engine and you'll see the story's locations. If need be, do it with more than one phrase. It doesn't even take a minute.


----------



## poison (Aug 7, 2015)

The Vienna Accord only postpones confrontation with Iran

It's long, so I won't cut and paste, but it's written by Amidror:



> Maj. Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror is former national security advisor to the Prime Minister. He served 36 years in senior IDF posts, including commander of the Military Colleges, military secretary to the Minister of Defense, director of the Intelligence Analysis Division in Military Intelligence, and chief intelligence officer of the Northern Command. He is a senior fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, and a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.



Pretty much what I believe to be the case.


----------



## poison (Aug 18, 2015)

Dershowitz: ‘Inept negotiator’ Obama gave Iran green light to build nuke

Dershowitz: I wouldn't let Kerry/Obama negotiate a 30 day lease. 

Ha, ouch.


----------



## pardus (Aug 18, 2015)

poison said:


> Dershowitz: ‘Inept negotiator’ Obama gave Iran green light to build nuke
> 
> Dershowitz: I wouldn't let Kerry/Obama negotiate a 30 day lease.
> 
> Ha, ouch.



He'd be right too!


----------



## poison (Aug 19, 2015)

Dershowitz makes some good points all around. I like his idea of focusing on the 'never' aspect of Iranian nukes, and tieing the signing if it to preauthorization for military force if they cross the line. Sure, just because it's not in there now doesn't mean a future president couldn't, if he so chose, but it would mean a hell of a lot more to Iran if it was tied to the agreement. That's a hell of a threat. As it is, Iran is correct in the assumption that the US won't do jack shit.


----------



## Florida173 (Sep 13, 2015)

Latest Iranian propaganda


----------

