Conservatives will of course dismiss it for being a 'liberal source' (meanwhile continuing to say that Liberals shouldn't call into question the reliability of the sources they post...) but for others that are interested:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/1...V920150716

 

OK, let's use your link:


 

 

If Iran refuses access but five of the eight international signatories to the deal demand an investigation under a newly created joint commission, Iran must comply, she said.


<p style="font-size:1.6em;font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">"It's not a request. It's a requirement," Rice said. Iran would be "bound to grant that access."

<p style="font-size:1.6em;font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Under the deal announced earlier this week, sanctions imposed by the United States, European Union and United Nations will be lifted in exchange for Iran agreeing to long-term curbs on its nuclear program, which the West and Israel have suspected was aimed at creating a nuclear bomb.

<p style="font-size:1.6em;font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">As part of the deal, Iran will have a 24-day period in which it can address concerns over suspicious sites and agree to inspections.

<p style="font-size:1.6em;font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">But the procedure does not explicitly force Iran to admit that its military sites could be open to foreign inspections, leaving some uncertainty over the access Iran will allow in practice.

 

So after a "joint commission" meets and agrees that Iran needs to allow access, they still have 24 days to delay access.


 

That's worthless.


 

EDIT: or if 24+ days aren't enough, Iran can just claim it's a military site

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

OK, let's use your link:


 

 

So after a "joint commission" meets and agrees that Iran needs to allow access, they still have 24 days to delay access.


 

That's worthless.


 

EDIT: or if 24+ days aren't enough, Iran can just claim it's a military site

You do realize that they can detect if radiation had been there for far longer than 24 days, right?


In fact I believe Susan Rice said such material could be detected after several months, even years in some cases.  


 

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

You do realize that they can detect if radiation had been there for far longer than 24 days, right?


In fact I believe Susan Rice said such material could be detected after several months, even years in some cases.  


 

Again, it's not a meth lab in a motor home in the AZ desert. I truly understand the reservations of people with this deal, I'm remaining cautiously optimistic based on the multi national support for the deal along with, what appears to be, the approval of the IAEA and other experts in the non-proliferation sectors. 

---

It was stupid in your world view. But just because your world view doesn't allow you to understand it, does not mean it has not validity.


Think about it. I know you are very reserved to admitting fault in your world view... That is a very conservative trait. So I do not fault you that inability.


But if you try, just try to see things outside your world view, you may be able to see that there are many similarities.


As I said before... Gay marriage is one. The Iranian nuclear deal is another. Both those positions are similar to conservatives in Iran and in the USA.

Isn't homosexuality punishable by death in Iran? I don't know any conservatives that even call it a crime?

---

Isn't homosexuality punishable by death in Iran? I don't know any conservatives that even call it a crime?

Now I don't think Carson supports these views but it's the first thing that popped into my head when I read this.

 

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/ben-c...-executed/

---

You do realize that they can detect if radiation had been there for far longer than 24 days, right?


In fact I believe Susan Rice said such material could be detected after several months, even years in some cases.  


 

 

What are Susan Rice's credentials other than lying repeatedly about a video being the root cause of the death of 4 Americans in Benghazi?  We should just trust her word, right?

 

As far as this deal goes, it's a bad one for the United States and quite frankly the rest of the world.  The negotiation tactics utilized by the administration rivaled that of the biggest rube walking into the most crooked used car dealership and paying whatever the asking price is PLUS volunteering to pay an extra premium for an extended warranty, floor mats, etc..

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

You do realize that they can detect if radiation had been there for far longer than 24 days, right?


In fact I believe Susan Rice said such material could be detected after several months, even years in some cases.  


 

 

Radiation in external material is created by neutron emission, and can be from a legitimate nuclear power facility.  Finding residual radiation proves nothing. And even if they find proof of Iran building a bomb, there are no consequences listed in the agreement.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Wrong topic.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Again, it's not a meth lab in a motor home in the AZ desert. I truly understand the reservations of people with this deal, I'm remaining cautiously optimistic based on the multi national support for the deal along with, what appears to be, the approval of the IAEA and other experts in the non-proliferation sectors. 

 

We're talking about a month here. Are you really suggesting that a determined military can't remove bomb-making evidence from a facility in 24 days?


 

Your reason for optimism totally rests on trust in authority. That seems to be one of the hallmarks of the left, to trust the ruling elite to always do the right thing. History says otherwise. As far as this particular deal is concerned, the text says otherwise. How can you be optimistic about a deal 
with no meaningful verification, and no set consequences if by some miracle the Iranians are stupid enough to get caught? Do you actually trust the Iranian government?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Very good interview from Ted Cruz.  After reading his book and doing some research on him, he's starting to gain my favor.  I'm looking forward to the debates.

 

Regarding his comments about this deal with Iran, I agree with him 100%.

 

Excellent!   

 

Even if Ted Cruz doesn't become your first or even second preferred choice in the 2016 Republican Nomination for President process,   my optimism about Cruz' overall support level increases when people like yourself who have great knowledge of the issues,  like what you are hearing and reading from Ted Cruz.    

 

I'm very concerned that the Iranian Nuclear agreement has put the lives of millions of Americans,  Israelis,  and others in great jeopardy.   The situation is a living nightmare.   With the very realistic possibility that the only earthly thing that can prevent this from happening is Ted Cruz or a very select few others being elected President in 2016.     I'm near convinced that if Hillary is elected President,    there's no turning back for the United States.  

---

Excellent!


Even if Ted Cruz doesn't become your first or even second preferred choice in the 2016 Republican Nomination for President process, my optimism about Cruz' overall support level increases when people like yourself who have great knowledge of the issues, like what you are hearing and reading from Ted Cruz.


I'm very concerned that the Iranian Nuclear agreement has put the lives of millions of Americans, Israelis, and others in great jeopardy. The situation is a living nightmare. With the very realistic possibility that the only earthly thing that can prevent this from happening is Ted Cruz or a very select few others being elected President in 2016. I'm near convinced that if Hillary is elected President, there's no turning back for the United States.

I can't imagine how anyone could conceive this as a "living nightmare." Do you people really have nothing better to do but sit around and fret all day? My God.

---

I can't imagine how anyone could conceive this as a "living nightmare." Do you people really have nothing better to do but sit around and fret all day? My God.

 

 I take the Iranian leaders words seriously.   The ones that call America the Great Satan.    And the ones that use deception to hide their true intentions.  

---

I take the Iranian leaders words seriously. The ones that call America the Great Satan. And the ones that use deception to hide their true intentions.

Yea, I wouldn't worry about that. What would you prefer? The sanctions continue and they get the bomb anyways. Or we agree to phase out the sanctions and they phase out their nuclear-bomb program? Seems like a no brainer to me.

---

I'm very concerned that the Iranian Nuclear agreement has put the lives of millions of Americans,  Israelis,  and others in great jeopardy.   The situation is a living nightmare.   With the very realistic possibility that the only earthly thing that can prevent this from happening is Ted Cruz or a very select few others being elected President in 2016.     I'm near convinced that if Hillary is elected President,    there's no turning back for the United States.

 

Seriously though, relax. Hillary will not be the next President. I'm far from convinced that she'll even be the Democratic nominee. Likewise, Ted Cruz will not be the next President. He probably won't even be the nominee. After 16 years of watching the parties' outliers pull further and further apart, Americans are ready to move back towards the middle, and I think you'll see that when candidates like Martin O'Malley, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, all of whom are closer to center than Cruz, Santorum, Clinton or Sanders are the names we're talking about heading into the conventions.

 

And the Iran deal is not "a living nightmare". Did we rake Iran over the coals and leave them begging for mercy? No, but we were never going to. The deal doesn't go as far as I'd have liked it to, but it's a start and a show of good will. The best case scenario is that Iran lives up to its end of the deal, and I think that's what will end up happening. Worst case scenario? Israel and Iran go to war, but hey, that was going to happen anyway if we didn't have a deal, so there's no downside in trying to prevent that.

 

If Iran builds a bomb, Israel will use a few of the 80 nukes it unjustifiably has to turn it into a parking lot, and because Israel has those 80 nukes to the zero possessed by the rest of the Middle East, they'd get away with it.

---

We're talking about a month here. Are you really suggesting that a determined military can't remove bomb-making evidence from a facility in 24 days?


 

Your reason for optimism totally rests on trust in authority. That seems to be one of the hallmarks of the left, to trust the ruling elite to always do the right thing. History says otherwise. As far as this particular deal is concerned, the text says otherwise. How can you be optimistic about a deal 
with no meaningful verification, and no set consequences if by some miracle the Iranians are stupid enough to get caught? Do you actually trust the Iranian government?

As opposed to constant fear and distrust of everyone?

 

Look I come to my cautious optimism as I have previously posted, based on a multi national support backing the deal as well as what appears to be a positive reception in the non-proliferation community including the IAEA itself.

 

I fully understand a hallmark of the right is total distrust of everyone without an R in front of their name and in particular scientists and those in the intellectual community that disagrees with you. Since we are making sweeping generalizations and all. 

---

 

Seriously though, relax. Hillary will not be the next President. I'm far from convinced that she'll even be the Democratic nominee. Likewise, Ted Cruz will not be the next President. He probably won't even be the nominee. After 16 years of watching the parties' outliers pull further and further apart, Americans are ready to move back towards the middle, and I think you'll see that when candidates like Martin O'Malley, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, all of whom are closer to center than Cruz, Santorum, Clinton or Sanders are the names we're talking about heading into the conventions.

 

And the Iran deal is not "a living nightmare". Did we rake Iran over the coals and leave them begging for mercy? No, but we were never going to. The deal doesn't go as far as I'd have liked it to, but it's a start and a show of good will. The best case scenario is that Iran lives up to its end of the deal, and I think that's what will end up happening. Worst case scenario? Israel and Iran go to war, but hey, that was going to happen anyway if we didn't have a deal, so there's no downside in trying to prevent that.

 

If Iran builds a bomb, Israel will use a few of the 80 nukes it unjustifiably has to turn it into a parking lot, and because Israel has those 80 nukes to the zero possessed by the rest of the Middle East, they'd get away with it.

There is no room for reasonable thoughts and ideals here. Get out of here with that!

---

As opposed to constant fear and distrust of everyone?

 

Look I come to my cautious optimism as I have previously posted, based on a multi national support backing the deal as well as what appears to be a positive reception in the non-proliferation community including the IAEA itself.

 

I fully understand a hallmark of the right is total distrust of everyone without an R in front of their name and in particular scientists and those in the intellectual community that disagrees with you. Since we are making sweeping generalizations and all. 

 

Once again, trust the data, not the people. In this case, that means read the text of the agreement. When Vox says "invasive inspections" Vox is flat out lying.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

When you have part of Iran's population still chanting "death to America" as well as another segment of their population celebrating the deal, it can't be good.  Where are the "celebrations" here?

 

When Hillary refuses to answer questions regarding the deal, it probably is not a good deal.  Even the far left MSNBC couldn't believe it.

 

When President Obama threatens congress regarding the deal, then it's probably not a good deal.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

 

<div>Once again, trust the data, not the people. In this case, that means read the text of the agreement. When Vox says "invasive inspections" Vox is flat out lying.
 

</div>

What does Vox have to do with those in the non-proliferation community as well as the atomic watchdogs being generally in favor of the agreement? 

---

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_IRAN_NUCLEAR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-07-17-06-47-35'>When you have part of Iran's population still chanting "death to America" as well as another segment of their population celebrating the deal, it can't be good.</a> Where are the "celebrations" here?


When Hillary refuses to answer questions regarding the deal, it probably is not a good deal. <a class="bbc_url" href='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkrA0lXl7SI'>Even the far left MSNBC couldn't believe it</a>.


When President Obama threatens congress regarding the deal, then it's probably not a good deal.

So do you know anything about the deal itself that makes it a bad deal? Or are you just shooting from the hip based on the above?

---