Trump strikes blow at Iran nuclear deal in major U.S. policy shift

[ilostmypassword]

17 minutes ago, riclag said:

Can I tell you I almost bought into the deal as a good thing, I wanted to see Iran have nuclear energy for  electric etc.

 

But when I googled through the nuts and bolts .I found the hoax and that is not being able to perform unfettered inspections . Denied access to  Parchin military base where Iran is suspected to be engaging in nuclear weapons development.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-inspectors-access-any-site-iran-true/

Well on the one hand you must be a very naive person if you think a developing nation with a troubled with huge resources of petroleum would be developing a nuclear facility for power generation. Or are you concern trolling?

As for the military inspection question Iran has legitimate reasons to object to a regime of instant inspections. If that were the case, nations hostile to Iran (there's one I'm particularly thinking of) could demand inspections simply to spy on then.

"But, during the debate over this provision, intelligence officials noted that they could surround the facility with surveillance tools, which would detect any clean-up effort, and that, once inside the site, inspectors could spot, for instance, radioactive debris. So, it’s a bit tricky, but the deal allows more intrusive inspection and verification than any arms-control treaty in history."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2017/10/why_trump_s_iran_speech_was_one_of_the_most_dishonest_and_dangerous_ones.html

[thaihome]

The US president certifying Iran's compliance is a purely internal US condition by the Senate to ratify the treaty.  Iran's compliance according to the treaty is certified by the the IACA,  which they have done. 

 

Trump's action to not comply with the Senate conditions is meaningless in terms of the treaty itself. These conditions were put into place in  order to make the president endorse the deal every 90 days, something that was OK if it was Obama doing, but is unacceptable to Trump. 

 

Trump did this as a way to satisfy a campaign promise without actually breaking the deal.  Something that is way too subtle for his base to understand (and apparently most media). 

 

What Trump basically did is just throw the whole thing to the Congress to deal with [or not] and absolve himself of any blame what ever happens, which is likely nothing as the deal still stands. The chance of congress enacting any sanctions is virtually zero. 

 

The headline of the OP is completely misleading and is exactly the reaction Trump was looking for. 

TH 

 

Edited October 14, 2017 by thaihome

[boomerangutang]

3 hours ago, riclag said:

The story insinuates Twitterman has decided this against his adviser's wishes.I'm showing links that his adviser's are in line with his idea's .And that is let Congress decide on it.  

Your links are probably alt-right fake news.  His advisers are not on-board with his dumb-ass decision.  They advised against it.  If they appeared to go along, it was because the angry/naughty child was going to have a shit-fit unless everyone appeared to be backing him.  If you've ever had to provide care to a seriously naughty boy, you'll know what I'm talking about.

 

3 hours ago, janclaes47 said:

I'm sure you must have sat on a barstool next to me in the past.

That's the type of remark I expect from someone with no ideas.  P.S. I don't hang in bars.

[Morch]

17 hours ago, ezzra said:

Why? the world doesn't need another N. Korea, Iran was pulling the wool over the west eyes for so many years now, one would be embarrassed to think otherwise that Iran is enriching  uranium for many years now with help of Pakistan and the N. Korean for " peace purposes", Iran has loft ambitions to rule the middle east, at an cost, and are actively has it's hands dirty with man wars and acts of terrorism around the glob, would any one trust this kind of a regime with a nuclear device?

so the sooner this mocker of an agreement will be

terminated and a better, more enforceable one put in place, the better for everyone, even for the Iran.....

 

Even if the above was correct - how would a "more enforceable" agreement be "put in place"? There is no international support, there is no Iranian willingness to renegotiate, and the USA loses credibility and leverage with every tweet from it's president.

 

[Morch]

16 hours ago, tonray said:

 

Some people are simply stooges of Israeli policy and that supersedes what is good for America's security. 

 

And some people repeat the above because they are not overly informed. As much as Netanyahu applauds Trump's position on the nuclear agreement with Iran, his views are not generally accepted among Israel's intelligence and security chiefs. Kinda like Trump on that one.

[ilostmypassword]

57 minutes ago, thaihome said:

The US president certifying Iran's compliance is a purely internal US condition by the Senate to ratify the treaty.  Iran's compliance according to the treaty is certified by the the IACA,  which they have done. 

 

Trump's action to not comply with the Senate conditions is meaningless in terms of the treaty itself. These conditions were put into place in  order to make the president endorse the deal every 90 days, something that was OK if it was Obama doing, but is unacceptable to Trump. 

 

Trump did this as a way to satisfy a campaign promise without actually breaking the deal.  Something that is way too subtle for his base to understand (and apparently most media). 

 

What Trump basically did is just throw the whole thing to the Congress to deal with [or not] and absolve himself of any blame what ever happens, which is likely nothing as the deal still stands. The chance of congress enacting any sanctions is virtually zero. 

 

The headline of the OP is completely misleading and is exactly the reaction Trump was looking for. 

TH 

 

It's not a treaty. 

[Morch]

16 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Except it now releases Iran from any restrictions on developing nukes.

There's a reason that all US and European experts, including the Chinese and Russian leaders backed the deal:  It was the best that could reasonably be expected.  

 

Along comes Dangerous Dufus, and now the Iranian nuclear genie is let out of the bottle.

 

It doesn't actually "release Iran from any restrictions on developing nukes". So long as the USA did not formally withdraw from the agreement, Iran is bound by its terms. Of course, Trump's moves do allow for Iran to make similar noises and engage in its own posturing. But until such time as things go beyond that, nothing changes.

 

The additional provisions made in the USA with regard to periodical affirmations of the agreement were there since the start. They were not considered a deal breaker. Adding more of them, by itself, is not much of a justification for Iran to scrap the deal.

 

Whether the agreement holds if the USA does officially withdraw, is a good question. I don't think that there's a generally accepted clear and objective answer, though.

[Morch]

14 hours ago, hansnl said:

Obama did nothing good about the Iran deal.  Although the "watchdogs" think all is well, reports indicate Iran is secretly going on trying to buy nuclear technology.  And going on enriching in secret places where the watchdogs are not allowed to inspect.  In fact the deal made the world a more dangerous place.  Much more so.

Since the deal, the connections between Iran and NK have been intensified to levels never seen before.  I presume those levels are not cultural exchange... Better lay the blame of the troubles with NK and Iran where they belong, the Obama period.  Better to accept that period has ended, now to repair the damage.  If possible.

 

 

 

13 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

 

These "watchdogs" (as you refer to them) are the US Secretary of Defense, the US National Security Adviser, the US Secretary of State, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, the European partners, the IAEA, the Russians, the Chinese, the UN and more.

 

I tend to believe them, but apparently you do not.

 

You say that "reports indicate" that Iran is secretly buying nuclear tech. What reports and why do you think the list above doesn't know about them?

 

"And going on enriching in secret places where the watchdogs are not allowed to inspect." Hmmm... You must have some incredible sources! I will follow the US Secretary of Defense, the US National Security Adviser, the US Secretary of State, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, the European partners, the IAEA, the Russians, the Chinese, the UN.

 

"In fact the deal made the world a more dangerous place."  Again, I'll go with the US Secretary of Defense, the US National Security Adviser, the US Secretary of State, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, the European partners, the IAEA, the Russians, the Chinese, the UN

 

"Since the deal, the connections between Iran and NK have been intensified to levels never seen before.

I presume those levels are not cultural exchange..."  My my you have some incredible sources! However, as you seem to know that these contacts exist, how come you don't know the content?

 

Your post is conspiracy theory nonsense.

 

What a waste of time...

 

 

I believe that the reports regarding Iran's attempts to purchase nuclear technology, were presented on Fox News. If understood correctly, these refer to Germany and originate from either an undisclosed private investigative firm or local (not national) agencies. Most of the incidents included relate to Iran's ballistic, rather than nuclear, program.

 

There were various reports on issues of access to certain facilities, and further issues with checking up on some unlisted (or unconfirmed) sites. In at least one instance, this was solved by implementing monitoring equipment. While it is reasonable to assume that Iran does not actually allow unrestricted access, and that involved agencies might not be keen on confrontation at this stage, it remains a question if these issues amount to a serious breach of the terms. That's perhaps one of the few areas in which the agreement may be better enforced.

 

As for continuing enrichment efforts and research - there were specified parameters included in the agreement. Iran's compliance on this part is a bit dodgy - but again, perhaps not something justifying scraping the agreement.

 

Not going to comment on intensified ties with NK, as not clear what this specifically refers to.

 

All 'n all, Iran's conduct is pretty much as expected: compliance with ongoing infringements at a level bellow red lines.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

I grew up in Wash DC and have known people in the CIA and other intel agencies.  Some of them (usually elders) like to wax superior and say things like, "Well, you don't really know, do you? We have more intel than you."    I can articulate a hundred examples of how that's been proven to be untrue.  

 

Actually, a big problem right now, re; the WH, is intel folks aren't sure how much data to share with the prez.  They know he's the top banana and that they're obliged to send summaries up to him (whether he reads intel reports/findings is debatable).  Yet, he surely reads intel which implicates him and his cronies in crimes such as Russia interfering in the US campaign. 

 

But, you see the problem there:   Trump will soon be a defendant (legal and impeachment issues) in a range of criminal charges, .....yet he is/will be privy to everything the prosecution has on him.  So, he can pre-emptively fire people, and suppress data which incriminates him - which he's already been doing, and will only increase doing it. 

  

He's like a bank robber about to go to trial, who sees all the incriminating data against him, and can fire the prosecutors and can tweak/suppress data at will.

 

Right on.  But then, do we expect anything better from Trump? ....a person who thinks Alex Jones is wise.

 

Are you kidding?  Republican congresspeople have as much knowledge and wisdom as a clump of clay.  They're 97% partisan, and don't give a hoot for the well-being of Americans.  

 

Goes on about "Some of them (usually elders) like to wax superior and say things like, "Well, you don't really know, do you? We have more intel than you."  - claims essentially the same thing.

 

You cannot articulate hundreds of counterexamples of having more intel or knowing better. They do not exist, and if they did, you'd probably be violating a few rules.

 

You may be right about Republican congresspeople lack of wisdom. But as for knowledge, probably way of mark. The issue, if anything, would be of them making certain choices despite of possessing relevant knowledge. Labeling them all the partisan is partisan in itself but eh...

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Thongkorn said:

Mr Trump has no authority to change anything that was voted by Britain , France Russia Germany China,  And the rest of the United Nations. All talk .

 

The agreement does not specify that signatories relinquish their sovereignty. Well, alright....Iran's sovereignty may have taken a bit of a hit there. 

 

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Ahab said:

It is not damaging the USA in any manner.

 

Any country that negotiates with the USA must have the negotiation ratified by the US Senate in order to be binding. Specifically: "The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it. Once a treaty is ratified, it becomes binding on all the states under the Supremacy Clause."

 

The constitution of the United States is the highest law of our country, failure to follow it is in my opinion a dereliction of duty by the President and a farce for publicity. Nothing more, and nothing less.

 

It's not about whether the USA have or doesn't have the right to review the agreement or even altogether withdraw. If this was so, then objections should have been raised much earlier. It's more about the wisdom of the current course of action, and on whether the circumstances objectively justify it.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The agreement does not specify that signatories relinquish their sovereignty. Well, alright....Iran's sovereignty may have taken a bit of a hit there. 

It's USA's sovereignty, no, it's USA's ability to be part of the Global community, which is taking a big hit. 

We would like to have USA's 5% of our Global community to be part of us, but if you decide to become the next isolated country like North Korea, Russia or Iran... it's up to you. 

[Morch]

 

It is sometimes said about the nuclear agreement with Iran that it may not be perfect, but that it was the best possible. No idea if that's true, but it seems as if Trump's speech represents the best possible compromise between Trump's ego and his remaining hardliner buddies, and the views of his more mainstream advisors.

 

As posted by others, it's nothing short of cop out. If Trump really wanted to, he could have thrown the agreement out the window. Whether he didn't because his advisors got through to him, or because he's more of a bigmouth and less of a hardened leader, is a good question. Or perhaps, a more charitable view - some sort of political maneuvering allowing him both saving face and creating an easy scapegoat. Neither option inspires much confidence that the USA is in capable hands.

 

There are a lot of assessments out there as to how Iran will react. Some say it will embolden Iran, others that it will play it safe and cautious. Guess it will be nothing as straightforward, but a bit of both. Depending on circumstances, prevailing conditions and opportunities. What's sure is that they'll milk this for all its diplomatic value.

 

While there's a lot of commentary about POTUS and Congress role, or on how the USA signing agreements cannot be trusted due to these - worth bearing in mind that the Iranian government is subject to overriding decisions and edicts by Iran's Supreme Leader.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, oilinki said:

It's USA's sovereignty, no, it's USA's ability to be part of the Global community, which is taking a big hit. 

We would like to have USA's 5% of our Global community to be part of us, but if you decide to become the next isolated country like North Korea, Russia or Iran... it's up to you. 

 

My post was in reply to a comment that said Trump "has no authority to change anything that was voted by Britain , France Russia Germany China....".

 

I'm not arguing that Trump's move was wise, timely or even smart. Quite the opposite.

 

Always amusing to see posters imagine they speak for "We", and the same goes for misplaced "you"'s.

[Nigel Garvie]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

And some people repeat the above because they are not overly informed. As much as Netanyahu applauds Trump's position on the nuclear agreement with Iran, his views are not generally accepted among Israel's intelligence and security chiefs. Kinda like Trump on that one.

.......in reply to  Tonray's post  .........Some people are simply stooges of Israeli policy and that supersedes what is good for America's security. 

Wow, Israel are not responsible for Netanyahu, and the US is not responsible for Trump. We should also note that those lovely Saudis are in there cheering Trump on. Without wishing to appear too cynical I think the question is simply how much does it cost to buy a congressman nowadays, I wouldn't be surprised if the Saudis are going for the ones that are not already signed up by the Israelis.

 

In the UK no one can say anything against the Saudis for a start. Whether or not this is linked to Tory MPs ownership of shares in the arms business is unproven, however likely it may appear. To top that they have an absurd buff00n as Foreign Sec. 

 

The most worrying thing for ordinary US and UK  citizens - expats or others - is the dwindling amount of control their nations now appear to have over their foreign policy.

[simple1]

6 hours ago, riclag said:

You want to be able to make a deal with a country that has mocked the T & C's,Thank god  Twitterman and his adviser's seen right through this.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/04/21/krauthammer-trumps-right-iran-violating-spirit-nuke-deal

 In this link Tillerson agreed with Twitterman that this agreement was a failure.

 

This above article also discusses how O B WON and Ketchupman negotiated a bad deal. 

The article below confirm's how stupid and wrong the deal was. So much for OB Won's anytime anywhere inspection's.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-inspectors-access-any-site-iran-true/

 

Bring on the Congress

At this stage the IAEA, signatory parties, including the US, have not provided any grounds to require inspections of sites not covered by the current inspection regime. Trump wishes to push the envelop with Iran, personally I cannot see the benefit for the US to again alienate itself from allies.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-inspections/u-s-pressure-or-not-u-n-nuclear-watchdog-sees-no-need-to-check-iran-military-sites-idUSKCN1BB1JC

 

IMO Trump is IMO, to use a right wing phase, value signalling to his base, without benefit for US and regional security. In Trump's statement attempting to justify his actions, Trump again made statements that are misleading or outright lies. Trump is unfit to hold the Office of the President of the USA.

 

 

 

Edited October 14, 2017 by simple1

[Kiwiken]

20 hours ago, ezzra said:

Why? the world doesn't need another N. Korea, Iran was pulling the wool over the west eyes for so many years now, one would be embarrassed to think otherwise that Iran is enriching  uranium for many years now with help of Pakistan and the N. Korean for " peace purposes", Iran has loft ambitions to rule the middle east, at an cost, and are actively has it's hands dirty with man wars and acts of terrorism around the glob, would any one trust this kind of a regime with a nuclear device?

so the sooner this mocker of an agreement will be

terminated and a better, more enforceable one put in place, the better for everyone, even for the Iran.....

And if you can't get a better deal. Indeed maybe now no deal. You push Iran in a corner. 

They develop Nuclear weapons . Good Strategy Donald.

[craigt3365]

23 hours ago, Golgota said:

The one who shows he cannot be trusted is USA not Iran.

 

Why blame the US for this?  Iran has been trying to produce a bomb for decades.  And has been hiding a lot from the inspectors.  I would dare say it's Iran that cannot be trusted.  If Iran gets a bomb, so will Saudi Arabia, then another country, then another.  Not a good proposition.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-11927720
 

Quote

 

The IAEA subsequently complained it had been unable to "provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran" and that it continued to have "serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme".

.......

It began building the site in secret, but was later forced to acknowledge its existence after being confronted with satellite imagery evidence in September 2009.

 

 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Why blame the US for this?  Iran has been trying to produce a bomb for decades.  And has been hiding a lot from the inspectors.  I would dare say it's Iran that cannot be trusted.  If Iran gets a bomb, so will Saudi Arabia, then another country, then another.  Not a good proposition.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-11927720
 

 

I'm pretty sure that the history told us, USA did try to produce a nuclear bomb back in late 40's and succeeded doing it. USA have also managed to create various missiles to deliver the nuclear warheads to anywhere in the world. 

 

Should we isolate USA for possessing  those weapons of mass destruction?

I thought the nuclear deal with Iran was a global community effort, which aim was to stop nuclear weapon development in the middle east. Leaving only Israel being the one and only country which have nuclear weapons and therefore the ultimate power on that region. 

Why we haven't put very high restrictions toward Israel? The nuclear power on that region?

 

Btw. That BBC article is from 2015. 

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, oilinki said:

I'm pretty sure that the history told us, USA did try to produce a nuclear bomb back in late 40's and succeeded doing it. USA have also managed to create various missiles to deliver the nuclear warheads to anywhere in the world. 

 

Should we isolate USA for possessing  those weapons of mass destruction?

I thought the nuclear deal with Iran was a global community effort, which aim was to stop nuclear weapon development in the middle east. Leaving only Israel being the one and only country which have nuclear weapons and therefore the ultimate power on that region. 

Why we haven't put very high restrictions toward Israel? The nuclear power on that region?

 

Btw. That BBC article is from 2015. 

I do believe this is about nuclear non proliferation.  Cat's out of the bag for a bunch of countries anyway.  All of which are involved with trying to contain Iran and it's nuclear ambitions.  Should we isolate all the countries for their possession of those weapons?

 

The article link was to show Iran is not 100% up front with regards to it's activities.  Even today, military complexes are off limits to the inspectors.  Right....

 

Sadly, Trump is screwing things up.  Luckily, it's now up to congress to deal with this.  Cooler heads prevail there and their thinking is in line with the other nations involved with this.

 

If I am correct, one of the big complaints is Iran's support for terrorist organizations.  Several.  But trying to tie this all together is tough.

[craigt3365]

30 minutes ago, oilinki said:

I'm pretty sure that the history told us, USA did try to produce a nuclear bomb back in late 40's and succeeded doing it. USA have also managed to create various missiles to deliver the nuclear warheads to anywhere in the world. 

 

Should we isolate USA for possessing  those weapons of mass destruction?

I thought the nuclear deal with Iran was a global community effort, which aim was to stop nuclear weapon development in the middle east. Leaving only Israel being the one and only country which have nuclear weapons and therefore the ultimate power on that region. 

Why we haven't put very high restrictions toward Israel? The nuclear power on that region?

 

Btw. That BBC article is from 2015. 

This is scary:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24823846

 

Quote

 

Saudi nuclear weapons 'on order' from Pakistan

Saudi Arabia has invested in Pakistani nuclear weapons projects, and believes it could obtain atomic bombs at will, a variety of sources have told BBC Newsnight.

While the kingdom's quest has often been set in the context of countering Iran's atomic programme, it is now possible that the Saudis might be able to deploy such devices more quickly than the Islamic republic.

 

 

 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

I do believe this is about nuclear non proliferation.  Cat's out of the bag for a bunch of countries anyway.  All of which are involved with trying to contain Iran and it's nuclear ambitions.  Should we isolate all the countries for their possession of those weapons?

Actually we should do just that. 

 

We could divide the World to two different parts. Both with almost equal population. The countries with nuclear weapons and the countries without. 

 

The countries without nukes would disallow companies from countries with nukes, to do business within their countries. We could even disallow the people from nuke countries to visit nuke-free countries.

This would naturally be disastrous to the world economy, which might not be that bad thing anyway.

 

Hmm.. this requires further thinking :)

[craigt3365]

11 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Actually we should do just that. 

 

We could divide the World to two different parts. Both with almost equal population. The countries with nuclear weapons and the countries without. 

 

The countries without nukes would disallow companies from countries with nukes, to do business within their countries. We could even disallow the people from nuke countries to visit nuke-free countries.

This would naturally be disastrous to the world economy, which might not be that bad thing anyway.

 

Hmm.. this requires further thinking :)

Remember, Russia has the most nuclear weapons now...good luck negotiating with them!  Or China!  Or Pakistan.  Or....

[Guest]

 

Just now, craigt3365 said:

Remember, Russia has the most nuclear weapons now...good luck negotiating with them!  Or China!  Or Pakistan.  Or....

Any amount over 200 nuclear weapons is overkill. Both USA and Russia could destroy the life on Earth, simply by nuking their own countries.

Those two countries are the biggest threat to our existence.  It's just wrong that few men in power, have the ability to kill us all. 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Remember, Russia has the most nuclear weapons now...good luck negotiating with them!  Or China!  Or Pakistan.  Or....

Right now China is the old wise man of the group. It wishes stability above all. I know very little about Pakistan. 

At the moment, Russia even with Putin, seems to be much more stabile country than USA is. Therefore I think USA is currently the greatest threat to humanity with it's simply nuts leadership.  You do know how I feel about Russia, so let it sink in. :) 

[boomerangutang]

10 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Remember, Russia has the most nuclear weapons now...good luck negotiating with them!  Or China!  Or Pakistan.  Or....

Agreed, that Russia and China are difficult to negotiate with, but they both agreed, along with the US (when Obama was prez) to the Iran deal.  Yet another reason why Trump is single-handedly trying to nix the Iran deal (like he's trying to nix the Paris accords, plus health care for poor Americans). He wants to erase everything from the Obama years while also giving the finger to Russia, China and Europe.

 

On the plus side:  The Iran deal stays, if US Congress doesn't tear it up within 60 days.  Since the Republican-majority US Congress is stymied on issues, the Iran deal will probably stay.  Trump can say to his 19% core supporters, "You see? I tried to destroy the Iran deal, but Congress kept it going.  I'm the good guy.  Aren't you glad you're still in my fan club?!"

 

MSNBC political analysis opines that the above-scenario is most likely (Congress not acting, therefore keeping the Iran deal intact).  The US gov't is becoming a process of thwarting Trump's harmful initiatives.  Strange times.

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Those two countries are the biggest threat to our existence.  It's just wrong that few men in power, have the ability to kill us all. 

I disagree.  Both Russia and the USA are well aware of the consequences of MAD.  The biggest threat to our existence is a rogue nation selling their technology to terrorists.  Kinda like Pakistan selling it to Saudi Arabia.  China helping Pakistan develop their nuclear weapons program.  Pakistan giving the technology to North Korea.  Etc, etc, etc.

 

I see this being the biggest threat to our existence.  Especially if it continues. 

 

The US and Russia are not going to nuke a country unless they are hit first.  The others?  Not so sure.

[baboon]

7 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

 

The US and Russia are not going to nuke a country unless they are hit first.  The others?  Not so sure.

What do you mean by 'hit'?

[selftaopath]

22 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

 

These "watchdogs" (as you refer to them) are the US Secretary of Defense, the US National Security Adviser, the US Secretary of State, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, the European partners, the IAEA, the Russians, the Chinese, the UN and more.

 

I tend to believe them, but apparently you do not.

 

You say that "reports indicate" that Iran is secretly buying nuclear tech. What reports and why do you think the list above doesn't know about them?

 

"And going on enriching in secret places where the watchdogs are not allowed to inspect." Hmmm... You must have some incredible sources! I will follow the US Secretary of Defense, the US National Security Adviser, the US Secretary of State, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, the European partners, the IAEA, the Russians, the Chinese, the UN.

 

"In fact the deal made the world a more dangerous place."  Again, I'll go with the US Secretary of Defense, the US National Security Adviser, the US Secretary of State, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, the European partners, the IAEA, the Russians, the Chinese, the UN

 

"Since the deal, the connections between Iran and NK have been intensified to levels never seen before.

I presume those levels are not cultural exchange..."  My my you have some incredible sources! However, as you seem to know that these contacts exist, how come you don't know the content?

 

Your post is conspiracy theory nonsense.

 

What a waste of time...

 

Agree.

Sounds like someone takes Fox - not news - seriously.

Edited October 15, 2017 by selftaopath

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, baboon said:

What do you mean by 'hit'?

In case of Russia, they are willing to hit themselves to be able to start a war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Mainila