Quote:I'm glad to see that your commitment to a detailed point by point to a response you disagree with hasn't left you old friend.  

 

I trust people that have been proven correct over time and have been proven to be honest over time.  

 

As for war its not the people of the United States demanding war with Iran, its the leadership of war chanting DEATH TO AMERICA, killing american soldiers and arming themselves for a common conflict.  It's the people of America simply saying let's not help arm our enemies!

 

We gave up a more stringent inspection regime to the Russians in the START treaty (which they have threatened to violate) than we got in these negotiations.  Some of the most secretive and suspicious sites are completely off limits (Putchine), when you game out the appeals process the time it would take for us to get in and inspect is greater than their estimated break out time, American inspectors are bared from Iranian soil, and Its gotten so ridiculous in some instances that they are demanding that they are the ones who collect the soil samples to give to the IAEA.  That's a joke!  they can't even keep the top General in country, he's off negotiating arms deals with Russia in clear violation of international mandates.  

 

Oh and the snap back sanctions exempt any LONG TERM deals made with IRAN.  

 

So what you have is Iran as a threshold nuclear power that can do whatever they want whenever they want with the 150 billion dollars that we just gave back to them and maybe some day if they're in a good mood they might hand over some soil samples they collected from a site of their choosing after three months of bureaucratic nonsense...   Now that's CHANGE you can believe in!!!!

 

 

I am not sure what you expect. You approach the matter from a place of fear and a desire to flex power on a world stage. I do not. I support peaceful solutions and anything that even attempts to avoid all out conflict I am in favor of. It's a real hard debate to have because I genuinely do not understand the absolutism some exhibit in matters like these.

 

These generals are not trustworthy or were proven incorrect time and time again? Same with the nuclear watchdogs that support this deal? Name the trustworthy ones. Presumably they are politicians or journalists of some kind. I won't expect many scientists based on your thoughts on them.

 

If they wanted to race for a bomb they could have prior to this deal and still can if the opponents of the deal get their way. This deal makes it harder. All known sites can be inspected anytime why do we keep perpetuating this myth that there are no any time inspections? There are. As I said in a previous reply it's absurd to expect any country to allow any country full, unfettered access to anywhere in there country. 

 

Again, what's the alternative? It's ok to say it. War. That's that Bibby wants and that's what the warmongers want. I do not. I support negotiation. I am sure many on the right do as well but they approach negotiation from a perceived stance of power that is just not there (outside of full true war). US does not control the world as evidenced by multiple nations being involved in these negotiations. 

 

The deal is not perfect, no deal is perfect in any negotiation between nations. IMO, we ought not let perfect be the enemy of the good. 

---