Originally posted by Surtur
I don't even need to read that link before telling you to be ready for people to attack that, to attack the source, etc. To attack anything that might show this deal isn't good.
Its an article written by the Associated Press..so how is anyone to attack that source?
The Associated Press Story
VIENNA (AP) — Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.
The revelation on Wednesday newly riled Republican lawmakers in the U.S. who have been severely critical of a broader agreement to limit Iran's future nuclear programs, signed by the Obama administration, Iran and five world powers in July. Those critics have complained that the wider deal is unwisely built on trust of the Iranians, while the administration has insisted it depends on reliable inspections.
A skeptical House Speaker John Boehner said, "President Obama boasts his deal includes 'unprecedented verification.' He claims it's not built on trust. But the administration's briefings on these side deals have been totally insufficient - and it still isn't clear whether anyone at the White House has seen the final documents."
Said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce: "International inspections should be done by international inspectors. Period."
But House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi shrugged off the revelation, saying, "I truly believe in this agreement."
The newly disclosed side agreement, for an investigation of the Parchin nuclear site by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency, is linked to persistent allegations that Iran has worked on atomic weapons. That investigation is part of the overarching nuclear-limits deal.
Evidence of the inspections concession is sure to increase pressure from U.S. congressional opponents before a Senate vote of disapproval on the overall agreement in early September. If the resolution passes and President Barack Obama vetoes it, opponents would need a two-thirds majority to override it. Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, has suggested opponents will likely lose a veto fight, though that was before Wednesday's disclosure.
John Cornyn of Texas, the second-ranking Republican senator, said, "Trusting Iran to inspect its own nuclear site and report to the U.N. in an open and transparent way is remarkably naive and incredibly reckless. This revelation only reinforces the deep-seated concerns the American people have about the agreement."
The Parchin agreement was worked out between the IAEA and Iran. The United States and the five other world powers were not party to it but were briefed by the IAEA and endorsed it as part of the larger package.
On Wednesday, White House National Security Council spokesman Ned Price said the Obama administration was "confident in the agency's technical plans for investigating the possible military dimensions of Iran's former program. ... The IAEA has separately developed the most robust inspection regime ever peacefully negotiated."
All IAEA member countries must give the agency some insight into their nuclear programs. Some are required to do no more than give a yearly accounting of the nuclear material they possess. But nations— like Iran — suspected of possible proliferation are under greater scrutiny that can include stringent inspections.
The agreement in question diverges from normal procedures by allowing Tehran to employ its own experts and equipment in the search for evidence of activities it has consistently denied — trying to develop nuclear weapons.
Olli Heinonen, who was in charge of the Iran probe as deputy IAEA director general from 2005 to 2010, said he could think of no similar concession with any other country.
The White House has repeatedly denied claims of a secret side deal favorable to Tehran. IAEA chief Yukiya Amano told Republican senators last week that he was obligated to keep the document confidential.
Iran has refused access to Parchin for years and has denied any interest in — or work on — nuclear weapons. Based on U.S., Israeli and other intelligence and its own research, the IAEA suspects that the Islamic Republic may have experimented with high-explosive detonators for nuclear arms.
The IAEA has cited evidence, based on satellite images, of possible attempts to sanitize the site since the alleged work stopped more than a decade ago.
The document seen by the AP is a draft that one official familiar with its contents said doesn't differ substantially from the final version. He demanded anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the issue in public.
The document is labeled "separate arrangement II," indicating there is another confidential agreement between Iran and the IAEA governing the agency's probe of the nuclear weapons allegations.
Iran is to provide agency experts with photos and videos of locations the IAEA says are linked to the alleged weapons work, "taking into account military concerns."
That wording suggests that — beyond being barred from physically visiting the site — the agency won't get photo or video information from areas Iran says are off-limits because they have military significance.
While the document says the IAEA "will ensure the technical authenticity" of Iran's inspection, it does not say how.
The draft is unsigned but the proposed signatory for Iran is listed as Ali Hoseini Tash, deputy secretary of the Supreme National Security Council for Strategic Affairs. That reflects the significance Tehran attaches to the agreement.
Iranian diplomats in Vienna were unavailable for comment, Wednesday while IAEA spokesman Serge Gas said the agency had no immediate comment.
The main focus of the July 14 deal between Iran and six world powers is curbing Iran's present nuclear program that could be used to make weapons. But a subsidiary element obligates Tehran to cooperate with the IAEA in its probe of the past allegations.
The investigation has been essentially deadlocked for years, with Tehran asserting the allegations are based on false intelligence from the U.S., Israel and other adversaries. But Iran and the U.N. agency agreed last month to wrap up the investigation by December, when the IAEA plans to issue a final assessment.
That assessment is unlikely to be unequivocal. Still, it is expected to be approved by the IAEA's board, which includes the United States and the other nations that negotiated the July 14 agreement. They do not want to upend their broader deal, and will see the December report as closing the books on the issue.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Where is all the supporters of this deal "good deal" now?
I truly believe those people who were claiming it was a good deal before knew that it really wasn't. I think they truly want Israel to be destroyed. Most of the people on here who were supporters of the deal have always been talking trash about Israel and its citizens while saying stupid things like "Iranians are pretty cool peeople" or "Israel is a human rights violator" or some other ridiculous hogwash. LMAO. Agreement even states that the U.S. will ****ing defend those American-hating terrorist bastards if Israel decides to attack them (to defend themselves from nuclear annhilation) before they get a chance to build up their nuclear arsenal. LOL. It's obvious Obama hates Israel and wants them destoyed. He such a ****ing disgrace to what this country stands for. He can't be gone soon enough. Seems like the idiot wants us to get in a war with our longtime ally because he hasn't left them any options besides waiting around for Iran to get nukes and wipe them off the face of the earth or attacking Iran so he will have a justifiable reason (according to him anyway) to make war with them. God help us if that old bag Hillary gets elected. Things'll be even worse.
The only people who thinks this is a good deal are the ones who hate Israel. Like Nancy Peloski (or whatever her name is). The article in your link says the ***** just shrugged her shoulders and said it seems like a good deal. Of course it is, you *****, if u want Israel annhilated. She's just another god**** dumbass dumbocrat. Those ****ers will be the end of us all.
I will say this, I don't think it was necessarily people saying this was a good deal, just that it was better then no deal at all. Which is certainly true...up to a point, since yeah obviously something is better then nothing. However, with this..it's almost seeming like now taking this deal might just be another way of us saying "go ahead and just take advantage of us".
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
All the blind supporters of this deal like Omega, Bardock, Q99, Rob have headed for the hills. They refuse to take a stance cause they know they were dead wrong.
👆
Except they don't think they were wrong because it really is a good deal from their POV because they hate Israeli's.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Omega was the only one man enough said he was wrong. But he didn't say it in this thread. Which is suspect.
That's misleading. Omega said he was wrong about a very specific thing, i.e. that Americans aren't allowed as inspectors.
You are making it seem like he's agreeing with all your points, that's most definitely not the case.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
What would you know? You were one of them who said this was a good deal.The primary method of enforcement is inspections. Now Iranians will be conducting them on their own.
I did? Can you produce evidence for this claim?
Iran will still be inspected by IAEA. Just because Iranians will be involved, doesn't mean they are the only ones inspecting, as you are trying to misleadingly claim.
Bush has no chance of winning.
Its going to be Trump vs Sanders, keep thinking its going to be Bush and Hillary though..its like you can't move on from your idolization of these has beens.
Honestly I will be all for either Trump or Sanders winning. I will vote for though Trump for principle. If Sanders wins, that means the country wants a shot a socialism, if Trump wins, the country wants capitalism, plain and simple.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Bush has no chance of winning.Its going to be Trump vs Sanders, keep thinking its going to be Bush and Hillary though..its like you can't move on from your idolization of these has beens.
Honestly I will be all for either Trump or Sanders winning. I will vote for though Trump for principle. If Sanders wins, that means the country wants a shot a socialism, if Trump wins, the country wants capitalism, plain and simple.
👆
Agree w/everything except part about wanting the socialist Sanders to win. It'll be a cold day in Hell before I ever vote for a ****ing democrat. If I don't like the republican nominee then I just won't vote unless Trump runs independent.
Originally posted by Time-ImmemorialPutting this in my profile for later.
Bush has no chance of winning.Its going to be Trump vs Sanders, keep thinking its going to be Bush and Hillary though..its like you can't move on from your idolization of these has beens.
Honestly I will be all for either Trump or Sanders winning. I will vote for though Trump for principle. If Sanders wins, that means the country wants a shot a socialism, if Trump wins, the country wants capitalism, plain and simple.