Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > General Interest > The Political Forum
The Political Forum Discuss anything related to politics in this forum. World politics, US Politics, State and Local.

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 645
MoneyManMatt 490
Still Looking 399
samcruz 398
Jon Bon 385
Harley Diablo 370
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
nicemusic 285
You&Me 281
Starscream66 262
sharkman29 250
George Spelvin 244
Top Posters
DallasRain70383
biomed160296
Yssup Rider59850
gman4452865
LexusLover51038
WTF48267
offshoredrilling47429
pyramider46370
bambino40275
CryptKicker37064
Mokoa36485
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
The_Waco_Kid35149
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-05-2019, 06:51 AM   #766
adav8s28
Valued Poster
 
adav8s28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 4, 2011
Location: sacremento
Posts: 3,210
Encounters: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman View Post
How would you conduct a "100%" preliminary inspection? You keep pretending someone else could have done so. Which is bullshit.
Who truly believes there will be 100% compliance in all aspects of the treaty?
What about "secret" don't you understand? Do sites that were unreported violate the agreement? It depends on exactly what was unreported.
Look at the article below. Are the Iranians supposed to detail secret programs that ended 10 years before this agreement was signed? And that could still be contaminated?

Up until we bailed, they had no enriched, weapon's grade material. That was a major goal of the deal. It appears that part was successful. Before trump bailed without any replacement. the Iranians were showing restraint. You people are real big on trashing things without offering replacements. Your excuses are the deal could be better. But you don't get around to saying how.

"Inspectors from the UN’s nuclear agency have found traces of radioactive material at a building in Tehran .."

"VIENNA (Reuters) - Samples taken by the U.N. nuclear watchdog at what Israel’s prime minister called a “secret atomic warehouse” in Tehran showed traces of uranium that Iran has yet to explain, two diplomats who follow the agency’s inspections work closely say.“There are lots of possible explanations,” that diplomat said. But since Iran has not yet given any to the IAEA it is hard to verify the particles’ origin, and it is also not clear whether the traces are remnants of material or activities that predate the landmark 2015 deal or more recent, diplomats say.

Both the IAEA and U.S. intelligence services (here) believe Iran had a nuclear weapons program that it ended more than a decade before the deal."
+1000

Good post Munch. Iran did not have any highly enriched or weapons grade uranium when Trump left the deal. They certainly had weapons grade uranium before Obama cut the deal with them. This was confirmed by the enrichment charts posted by Lustylad. Obama cut a good deal. Iran has no atomic bomb.
adav8s28 is offline   Quote
Old 10-05-2019, 11:00 AM   #767
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adav8s28 View Post
+1000

Good post Munch. Iran did not have any highly enriched or weapons grade uranium when Trump left the deal. They certainly had weapons grade uranium before Obama cut the deal with them. This was confirmed by the enrichment charts posted by Lustylad. Obama cut a good deal. Iran has no atomic bomb.
It was a bullshit post, just like Odumbo's agreement was bullshit. You concede that Odumbo didn't establish a proper and informed baseline, and then you vomit excuses for his failures. BULLSHIT!
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 10-05-2019, 11:05 AM   #768
WTF
Lifetime Premium Access
 
WTF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1, 2010
Location: houston
Posts: 48,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering View Post
It was a bullshit post, just like Odumbo's agreement was bullshit. You concede that Odumbo didn't establish a proper and informed baseline, and then you vomit excuses for his failures. BULLSHIT!
WTF is offline   Quote
Old 10-05-2019, 06:58 PM   #769
winn dixie
Premium Access
 
winn dixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 5, 2017
Location: austin
Posts: 21,520
Encounters: 22
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adav8s28 View Post
+1000

Good post Munch. Iran did not have any highly enriched or weapons grade uranium when Trump left the deal. They certainly had weapons grade uranium before Obama cut the deal with them. This was confirmed by the enrichment charts posted by Lustylad. Obama cut a good deal. Iran has no atomic bomb.
Brought to you by the same people who said there were no wmd's! Fucking puppets. Do you think criminals would let you see anything they dont want you to see? They fucking moved them! Just like iran is doing!
Bunch of fucking parroting idiots.
winn dixie is offline   Quote
Old 10-05-2019, 07:00 PM   #770
winn dixie
Premium Access
 
winn dixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 5, 2017
Location: austin
Posts: 21,520
Encounters: 22
Default

Kinda like slick willy saying "i did not have sex with that woman" !

You fucking libs will believe anything your leaders allow you to believe. fucking idiots
winn dixie is offline   Quote
Old 10-05-2019, 09:34 PM   #771
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF View Post
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 10-06-2019, 04:36 AM   #772
adav8s28
Valued Poster
 
adav8s28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 4, 2011
Location: sacremento
Posts: 3,210
Encounters: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by winn dixie View Post
Brought to you by the same people who said there were no wmd's!
The WMD's were the ones they obtained when Reagan was president. They were designed by the USA, manufactured in Europe and installed on Iraqi soil by AMERICAN companies. Just go read that New York times link posted by the infamous J.D. Barleycorn.


BTW those same weapons decayed to a point where they could no longer work as originally designed.

You should layoff the mind altering substances, you don't have a clue.
adav8s28 is offline   Quote
Old 10-06-2019, 04:51 AM   #773
adav8s28
Valued Poster
 
adav8s28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 4, 2011
Location: sacremento
Posts: 3,210
Encounters: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering View Post
You concede that Odumbo didn't establish a proper and informed baseline
The baseline comment came from your favorite scientist Albright. You took his comment out of context, Albright was talking about where Iran was missile research, not the enrichment of Uranium. The Obama deal LIMITS Iran's ability to enrich Uranium. If you don't enrich Uranium to a 90% concentration of U-235, You cannot get an ATOMIC Bomb. To Jackie S, please enlighten your republican friend. Hankering has no knowledge of physics and doesn't understand bombs.
adav8s28 is offline   Quote
Old 10-06-2019, 06:35 AM   #774
eccielover
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 24, 2014
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,267
Encounters: 1
Default

It's funny. We are 52 pages into what is basically the same two sentiments repeated over and over again.
  1. Iran didn't enter nor did it participate in the agreement in an above board manner in any way
  2. The only important thing about the agreement was the uranium enrichment level so it was good

In the end though, Trump took the correct approach as Iran was continuing to violate this and umpteen other UN resolutions and it was obvious they weren't being up front in anything they did.

The left can continue to whine, cry, bitch, moan about how great of a job Obama did with this, but Trump saw through it and since Obama did it basically by Presidential decree without Congress, Trump was just as able to undo it(like much of Obama's legacy) and we are no longer a part of it.
eccielover is offline   Quote
Old 10-06-2019, 08:02 AM   #775
adav8s28
Valued Poster
 
adav8s28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 4, 2011
Location: sacremento
Posts: 3,210
Encounters: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eccielover View Post
[*]The only important thing about the agreement was the uranium enrichment level so it was good
Obama's nuke deal with Iran was DESIGNED to insure that Iran does NOT get an ATOMIC BOMB. Iran has not and can not enrich to 90% concentration of U-235. All of the high-speed centrifuges are turned off. Hankerings favorite scientist (Albright) put that in the report as well. Did you read that link posted by Waco Kid. Either you did not read the link, or you could not understand what you were reading.
adav8s28 is offline   Quote
Old 10-06-2019, 10:21 AM   #776
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adav8s28 View Post
The baseline comment came from your favorite scientist Albright. You took his comment out of context, Albright was talking about where Iran was missile research, not the enrichment of Uranium. The Obama deal LIMITS Iran's ability to enrich Uranium. If you don't enrich Uranium to a 90% concentration of U-235, You cannot get an ATOMIC Bomb. To Jackie S, please enlighten your republican friend. Hankering has no knowledge of physics and doesn't understand bombs.
I understand liars lie, and you, Odumbo and Kerry are liars. And Iran lied and cheated before Odumbo put pen to paper. Odumbo was played for a fool, and you're a fool trying to defend his POS agreement that wasn't worth the paper it was written on.
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 10-06-2019, 10:54 AM   #777
eccielover
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 24, 2014
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,267
Encounters: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adav8s28 View Post
Obama's nuke deal with Iran was DESIGNED to insure that Iran does NOT get an ATOMIC BOMB. Iran has not and can not enrich to 90% concentration of U-235. All of the high-speed centrifuges are turned off. Hankerings favorite scientist (Albright) put that in the report as well. Did you read that link posted by Waco Kid. Either you did not read the link, or you could not understand what you were reading.
I have no problem understanding that from Post #1 of this thread, Iran was playing Obama/Kerry for fools. Trump correctly saw they were lying all along and pulled us from the deal. Elections have consequences. Whine, Bitch, Moan all you want. Obama was played the fool. Didn't do the treaty right with Congress in the first place and his legacy with it is decimated. Done and Over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering View Post
THEY SAID: POUR CEMENT INTO THE TUBES. FINE. WE HAD OTHERS'

Iran’s nuclear chief: We bought spares for nuke equipment we agreed to destroy

Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, has detailed how Iran quietly purchased replacement parts for its Arak nuclear reactor while it was conducting negotiations for an international agreement under which it knew it would be required to destroy the original components....

“When our team was in the midst of negotiations, we knew that [the Westerners] would ultimately renege on their promises,” Salehi said. “The leader [Khamenei] warned us that they were violators of agreements. We had to act wisely. Not only did we avoid destroying the bridges that we had built; but, we also built new bridges that would enable us to go back faster if needed.” ....

“When they told us to pour cement into the tubes… we said: ‘Fine. We will pour.’ But we did not tell them that we had other tubes. Otherwise, they would have told us to pour cement into those tubes as well. Now we have the same tubes.” ....

Salehi also clarified that a photo apparently showing the Arak reactor pit filled with cement was fake, a photoshopped image produced by Iranian hardliners who opposed the nuclear deal...
eccielover is offline   Quote
Old 10-06-2019, 09:31 PM   #778
adav8s28
Valued Poster
 
adav8s28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 4, 2011
Location: sacremento
Posts: 3,210
Encounters: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eccielover View Post
I have no problem understanding that
Like I wrote, you either did not read the link posted by Waco Kid or you did not understand what you were reading.

Albright put in his report Iran got RID of their weapons grade Uranium that they had and all of the high-speed centrifuges were turned off. With all of the high-speed centrifuges turned off it is not scientifically possible to enrich to 90% concentration of U-235. If you don't enrich to 90% U-235, then you cannot get an Atomic Bomb. Good job by President Obama and SOS Kerry.

Iran is in no position to try nuclear proliferation even if they wanted to, they don't have an Atomic Bomb.
adav8s28 is offline   Quote
Old 10-07-2019, 02:53 AM   #779
eccielover
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 24, 2014
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,267
Encounters: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adav8s28 View Post
Like I wrote, you either did not read the link posted by Waco Kid or you did not understand what you were reading.

Albright put in his report Iran got RID of their weapons grade Uranium that they had and all of the high-speed centrifuges were turned off. With all of the high-speed centrifuges turned off it is not scientifically possible to enrich to 90% concentration of U-235. If you don't enrich to 90% U-235, then you cannot get an Atomic Bomb. Good job by President Obama and SOS Kerry.

Iran is in no position to try nuclear proliferation even if they wanted to, they don't have an Atomic Bomb.
Are we still in the bad agreement?

Is Iran abiding by it with the other countries they are still bound to it by or even abiding by any other UN resolution at this point.
eccielover is offline   Quote
Old 01-06-2020, 05:49 PM   #780
Tiny
Lifetime Premium Access
 
Join Date: Mar 4, 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 8,503
Encounters: 2
Default

Since this is one of the classic threads in ECCIE political forum history and since it's particularly timely, I'm taking the liberty of resurrecting it.

Long ago I wrote,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiny View Post
I.B., you know a ton more about this than I do. You have affected my thinking, in particular with your observations about ICBM testing. I was in favor of the treaty, especially after seeing the Mossad documentary, and am now an agnostic.
In view of recent developments I'm rethinking my agnosticism, and believe the USA would have been better off if we'd stuck to the terms of the nuclear agreement with Iran.

On Sunday, Iran announced it will cease to honor all operational restrictions imposed by the nuclear deal, including restrictions related to uranium enrichment, production and research. So instead of slowing Iran's march to obtain nuclear weapons, now we're speeding it up.

The USA's abandonment of the deal and the economic hardship imposed by our sanctions arguably lead to the provocations by Iran and their proxies, including Kataib Hezbollah's strikes against U.S. interests in Iraq. This in turn lead to the USA's retaliation by assassinating Soleimani and others.

Iraqis were mounting huge demonstrations against Iran. Now they're demonstrating against the USA.

Iranians were getting fed up with corruption in their government and mounting huge demonstrations against people in power. Now they're demonstrating against the USA. We've actually increased the power domestically of the mullahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

Trump wisely wanted to remove U.S. troops from the Middle East. Now we're having to send our sons and daughters back in greater (but still small compared to Bush and Obama) numbers.

The U.S. and Iran were fighting ISIS in Iraq. Maybe Iran still is, but this week the U.S. suspended its operations against the Islamic State to protect its bases and the Iraqi Parliament voted to get U.S. troops out of Iraq. Actually maybe that last part is a good thing.

To be clear, yes, posters here have a strong case that Iran's ICBM testing and meddling in foreign countries were weak points in the deal. And I believe the case for killing Soleimani and the leader of Kataib Hezbollah was much stronger than the case for abandoning the nuclear deal -- we had to retaliate somehow. But instead of tearing down what Obama and the Europeans did, we should have been building on it and trying to improve relations.

Trump's instincts regarding foreign entanglements are good - he wants to stay out of them. So what happened? My theory is that Trump was trying the same thing he did with the North Koreans, subject them to economic hardship and scare the crap out of them and then negotiate. The Mullahs and many others don't respond to that. They look forward to the harem of virgins they'll have in the next life if they're off'ed by the Great Satan in this one.

Trump's unilateralist instincts are too strong. It hurt us with trade, and now it's hurting us in Iran. Why not work with our allies and try to work constructively with the Iranians to improve their behavior. When you impose sanctions on Iran, and countries like Russia and China are ignoring them, and Europe is looking for any way possible to get around them, they're a lot less effective than they would be if most countries were on board.
Tiny is offline   Quote
Reply



AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved