Off Topic Thread 4.0

Dubinusa

Dubinusa wrote: »

Was not a very good deal. Obama paid them to behave and they didn't. A bad deal for the sake of a deal is stupid. Renegotiate and get a better more viable deal.

What part of the deal do you think is bad specifically and in what way do you feel that Iran haven't been behaving?

prawnsambo

Dubinusa wrote: »

Was not a very good deal. Obama paid them to behave and they didn't. A bad deal for the sake of a deal is stupid. Renegotiate and get a better more viable deal.

He paid them with their own money. :rolleyes:

Zzippy

https://twitter.com/yeh1a/status/993925191905566720

Dubinusa

Any time you have to pay and get little in return. The US picked up the tab. Why wasn't it split with the Saudi's, Israelis and the EU. Iran is propped up by Putin and is a state sponsored terrorist organization.
The check ups times are pre determined and there's no surprise inspections. The mullahs are idiots and have hijacked that nation. They sponsor Hezbollah which has destroyed Lebanon.
So, it really is not a good deal, imo. It reminds me of Neville Chamberlain negotiating with Hitler. He gave an inch and they took a nice long jaunt.
But it's only my opinion, carry on.

prawnsambo

Dubinusa wrote: »

Any time you have to pay and get little in return. The US picked up the tab. Why wasn't it split with the Saudi's, Israelis and the EU. Iran is propped up by Putin and is a state sponsored terrorist organization.
The check ups times are pre determined and there's no surprise inspections. The mullahs are idiots and have hijacked that nation. They sponsor Hezbollah which has destroyed Lebanon.
So, it really is not a good deal, imo. It reminds me of Neville Chamberlain negotiating with Hitler. He gave an inch and they took a nice long jaunt.
But it's only my opinion, carry on.

What did the US pay? Afaik, they unfroze Iranian funds in US banks.

Edit: Actually it was money Iran had paid for US military equipment back in 1979 but the hardware was never delivered because of the revolution.

Dubinusa

They also sent hundreds of millions. I can't remember the amount, but it was a lot.

prawnsambo

Dubinusa wrote: »

They also sent hundreds of millions. I can't remember the amount, but it was a lot.

Yes. It was $1.7 billion which Iran had paid the US for military equipment in 1979 but never got the hardware.

Dubinusa

Dubinusa wrote: »

Any time you have to pay and get little in return. The US picked up the tab. Why wasn't it split with the Saudi's, Israelis and the EU. Iran is propped up by Putin and is a state sponsored terrorist organization.
The check ups times are pre determined and there's no surprise inspections. The mullahs are idiots and have hijacked that nation. They sponsor Hezbollah which has destroyed Lebanon.
So, it really is not a good deal, imo. It reminds me of Neville Chamberlain negotiating with Hitler. He gave an inch and they took a nice long jaunt.
But it's only my opinion, carry on.

You came up with the above on your own?

Dubinusa

What do you mean?

prawnsambo

So basically, tell a lie enough times and as loud as you can and eventually people will see it as the truth. What a time to be alive. :rolleyes:

Dubinusa

Whos lying?

prawnsambo

Dubinusa wrote: »

Whos lying?

All those who are saying the USA piad Iran for the nuclear deal. They paid them alright, except it was with their own money that the US had held for almost 40 years.

Dubinusa

Right, it was frozen. But if the inspectors are not allowed access at non disclosed times, it's a bad deal. The inspectors should have carte blanche access. If the Iranians were more open to easy access it would certainly make it worthwhile, however, showing and permitting access at their convenience is of no benefit. Again, just my opinion. I still believe the only way forward with Iran is through Putin and China. It's a situation where Putin is so involved that they all should have a summit and go from there. It's like Potemkin in the early Russia, show them what they want to see. I hope I'm explaining it well.

prawnsambo

Dubinusa wrote: »

Right, it was frozen. But if the inspectors are not allowed access at non disclosed times, it's a bad deal. The inspectors should have carte blanche access. If the Iranians were more open to easy access it would certainly make it worthwhile, however, showing and permitting access at their convenience is of no benefit. Again, just my opinion. I still believe the only way forward with Iran is through Putin and China. It's a situation where Putin is so involved that they all should have a summit and go from there. It's like Potemkin in the early Russia, show them what they want to see. I hope I'm explaining it well.

Rather than wasting everyone's time, I suggest you fact check all of the above. Because even with my liimited knowledge, I know most of it's untrue. As was the statement about paying them.

There are people who want a war with Iran. At all costs. That should worry you.

Zzippy

Dubinusa wrote: »

Right, it was frozen. But if the inspectors are not allowed access at non disclosed times, it's a bad deal. The inspectors should have carte blanche access. If the Iranians were more open to easy access it would certainly make it worthwhile, however, showing and permitting access at their convenience is of no benefit. Again, just my opinion. I still believe the only way forward with Iran is through Putin and China. It's a situation where Putin is so involved that they all should have a summit and go from there. It's like Potemkin in the early Russia, show them what they want to see. I hope I'm explaining it well.

Do you by any chance watch Fox "News"?

Dubinusa

Any research that I have read has been inconsistent. I have read that the inspectors are denied access routinely and only have access with the mullahs blessing and at reserves times. Iran is closed state and are influenced by Russia. That's a fact. Iran is also propping up the Syrian regime, that's a fact. Russia is also backing the Syrian regime and supporting the Iranian meddling in Syria.
As far as fact checking, who do we trust? BBC? CNN? NY Times? FOX. Facts sometimes depend on who is reporting them. I can only go by the crap I have access to over here. Perhaps the news outlets in Europe are more reliable. The world is very complicated and politics divisive right now. As I said earlier the deal should be better for everyone, especially the neighbouring states, so it must be transparent and open and not just a deal for the sake of a deal. The middle east is combustible, as always and any deal made should be made with Irans neighbors st the table as well as the superstars

Dubinusa

No. Haven't watched any news shows in a long time. I read the local papers. Used to watch BBC America but that's shyte too. There isn't much choice really except c spam. But who could suffer through 24 hrs of political horsetrading?

Dubinusa

Dubinusa wrote: »

Any research that I have read has been inconsistent. I have read that the inspectors are denied access routinely and only have access with the mullahs blessing and at reserves times. Iran is closed state and are influenced by Russia. That's a fact. Iran is also propping up the Syrian regime, that's a fact. Russia is also backing the Syrian regime and supporting the Iranian meddling in Syria.
As far as fact checking, who do we trust? BBC? CNN? NY Times? FOX. Facts sometimes depend on who is reporting them. I can only go by the crap I have access to over here. Perhaps the news outlets in Europe are more reliable. The world is very complicated and politics divisive right now. As I said earlier the deal should be better for everyone, especially the neighbouring states, so it must be transparent and open and not just a deal for the sake of a deal. The middle east is combustible, as always and any deal made should be made with Irans neighbors st the table as well as the superstars

The US state department denied that Iran was in breach of the agreement. It said so less than 2 months ago.

Leaders of European countries have said the same. You don't need to believe the media, just read what world leaders are saying.

This is a bad result mostly for Iran. They struggle with fundamentalism and when the west pushes them away like Trump is doing, the hardliners win at a time when Women in Iran were starting to push for greater freedoms.

prawnsambo

Dubinusa wrote: »

Any research that I have read has been inconsistent. I have read that the inspectors are denied access routinely and only have access with the mullahs blessing and at reserves times. Iran is closed state and are influenced by Russia. That's a fact. Iran is also propping up the Syrian regime, that's a fact. Russia is also backing the Syrian regime and supporting the Iranian meddling in Syria.
As far as fact checking, who do we trust? BBC? CNN? NY Times? FOX. Facts sometimes depend on who is reporting them. I can only go by the crap I have access to over here. Perhaps the news outlets in Europe are more reliable. The world is very complicated and politics divisive right now. As I said earlier the deal should be better for everyone, especially the neighbouring states, so it must be transparent and open and not just a deal for the sake of a deal. The middle east is combustible, as always and any deal made should be made with Irans neighbors st the table as well as the superstars

You don't need to go to any news sites. The IAEA publish all their inspection data.

But here's the thing. Breaking the deal means there's no deal, which means the Iranians can go ahead and start creating fissionable material without any delays or inspections.

What does that achieve?

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

You don't need to go to any news sites. The IAEA publish all their inspection data.

But here's the thing. Breaking the deal means there's no deal, which means the Iranians can go ahead and start creating fissionable material without any delays or inspections.

What does that achieve?

It provides a reason to invade/strike first

Zzippy

I think the most important consideration for Trump was not whether Iran were complying with the deal, or whether inspectors were getting access, or whether the other countries involved agreed with him. It was simply the fact that this deal was a notable achievement of the Obama administration. We are dealing with a vindictive man-child who has no comprehension or regard for politics, diplomacy, peace or international relations. All he cares about is enriching himself and destroying the legacy of Obama.

Dubinusa

Good info, thanks. I just read on Sunday, Netanyahu claimed the deal has been violated? It was on my phone newsfeed. I think it was from Yahoo.
I still think the best deal should involve the neighbouring states. They will bear the brunt
I also really feel for the regular Iranian and Syrian. Terrible times we live in.
On another topic... I watched the epl match on NBC sports this past weekend. Chelsea v Liverpool and I thought it was a dull tedious game. Liverpool looked disjointed and had very little skill, imo.
When I was growing up, Liverpool and Leeds were unbelievably good. Almost every match I've seen this past few months have been very poor. British football is pedestrian and boring.
2 weeks ago I watched Bayern v Borussia . Total step up in class. Absolute cracker from Bayern. The difference was to me stunning. Although that the only Bundesliga match I've seen, I thought the quality was superior. Is the EPL that poor?

prawnsambo

Addison Yummy Fashion wrote: »

It provides a reason to invade/strike first

Yeah. That's it in a nutshell. It would really be nice if those who are clamouring for a war, could be dropped into the war zone and left to fight it out to their heart's content,

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yeah. That's it in a nutshell. It would really be nice if those who are clamouring for a war, could be dropped into the war zone and left to fight it out to their heart's content,

and cadet bonespurs should be the first one pushed out of the plane

prawnsambo

Dubinusa wrote: »

Good info, thanks. I just read on Sunday, Netanyahu claimed the deal has been violated? It was on my phone newsfeed. I think it was from Yahoo.

His claim is based on documents that Mossad stole from Iran. Documents that date back to 2003 and which in any case are not seen as breaches of the agreement. They had a nuclear program in the past and the documents relate to that. Everyone knew of their existence. Even the Israelis are split on this. It's not the smoking gun he's trying to make it seem.

Dubinusa

I doubt there would be an invasion of Iran. That would be ludicrous and beyond stupid. That's throwing a lighted match on petrol. I haven't heard anything about any invasion or any kind of military action. Is there any talk of that in Europe?
The American people are sick of war and would not support any invasion of Iran.

irishbucsfan

Dubinusa wrote: »

I doubt there would be an invasion of Iran. That would be ludicrous and beyond stupid. That's throwing a lighted match on petrol. I haven't heard anything about any invasion or any kind of military action. Is there any talk of that in Europe?
The American people are sick of war and would not support any invasion of Iran.

John Bolton wants war, he's the National Security Advisor of the United States

prawnsambo

Dubinusa wrote: »

I doubt there would be an invasion of Iran. That would be ludicrous and beyond stupid. That's throwing a lighted match on petrol. I haven't heard anything about any invasion or any kind of military action. Is there any talk of that in Europe?
The American people are sick of war and would not support any invasion of Iran.

Iraq was invaded on the back of a bunch of lies. The current administration is building another mountain of lies. Where do you think that's leading?

stephen_n

Dubinusa wrote: »

Any time you have to pay and get little in return. The US picked up the tab. Why wasn't it split with the Saudi's, Israelis and the EU. Iran is propped up by Putin and is a state sponsored terrorist organization.
The check ups times are pre determined and there's no surprise inspections. The mullahs are idiots and have hijacked that nation. They sponsor Hezbollah which has destroyed Lebanon.
So, it really is not a good deal, imo. It reminds me of Neville Chamberlain negotiating with Hitler. He gave an inch and they took a nice long jaunt.
But it's only my opinion, carry on.

State sponsored terrorism? Which state funded and trained the mujahadeen, which became the Taliban and then Alqaeeda? Which state sponsored and trained ISIS to overthrow the government in Syria? Which state gives 15 billion a year in military aid to Israel, to destabilize the region?

Dubinusa

Dubinusa wrote: »

I doubt there would be an invasion of Iran. That would be ludicrous and beyond stupid. That's throwing a lighted match on petrol. I haven't heard anything about any invasion or any kind of military action. Is there any talk of that in Europe?
The American people are sick of war and would not support any invasion of Iran.

You don't think there is any chance of war despite Isreal firing missiles at Iranian troups in Syria within hours of Trumps announcement?

You are in America right? Do you know the current national security adviser has written extensively on his desire for first strikes on Iran and North Korea?

He wrote this piece as the final passages of the current agreement were being drafted. He predicted a nuclearisation of the middle east, when in fact the agreement has been adhered to by all parties bar the US yesterday and the opposite of his predictions have come true.

I'm just going to be honest with you - your posts smack of the same kind of dangerous misinformation and misdirection that got Trump elected in the first place. Maybe I'll give his lawyer a few hundred grand and I can tell Trump myself over McDonalds.