Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Knowing where to inspect does not equal being allowed to inspect. Additionally, often there are classified sources giving info on a site that may not be in the official 'may inspect' list, and you may not want to burn your source to let Iran know what you know.
As for Iran being a harder target than Syria. so? Does not mean a good air campaign coupled with select raids doesn't work. Is it more extensive than a single strike? Yep. Do we need to invade and occupy in order to destroy select capabilities and sites.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Maddermax wrote: As for 2, putting aside that Iran is much more capable than Iraq or Syria were during those strikes, if you know where to strike to stop their nuclear program then you should know where to inspect to verify the terms of any deals are being kept. The premise of the sentence you quoted was that you would be unable to verify their actions in terms of their nuclear program.
And you're right, by the way, Iraq didn't end up all that well for the Iraqis. Which is why I would say not to bother spending extraordinary amounts of time and treasure trying to leave the country better than we found it if we have to take action against Iran. Burn as many nuke sites as possible, kill or capture as much of the Iranian nuclear brain trust as possible. Much likely doable from the air. Get out and don't particularly worry about it if the chuckleheads start up sectarian gak in the aftermath. Repeat as necessary.
Or even better, just stay out of it. When their oil runs out they have nothing but dirt, and their oil production curves are on the downward bend.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote: Or even better, just stay out of it. When their oil runs out they have nothing but dirt, and their oil production curves are on the downward bend.
With Iraq drilling into their oil, that process should be speeded.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/25 14:25:32
On the positive, their production curves are on decline too. The fun question becomes, what happens when the ME runs out of oil?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Seaward wrote: It's not really at the cost of Iran's nuclear program though, is it? It's at the cost of Iran saying that it is.
Yes, that is how international agreements work.
generalgrog wrote: The interesting thing to me was how flowery and sappy the MSN report was. When I read the report, they made it sound like Kerry was some sort of diplomatic Master and this "deal" was something akin to Camp David.
If you're going to produce an argument based on a specific article, then you should provide a link to that article. If you do not, no one will know what you're talking about.
Seaward wrote: Burn as many nuke sites as possible, kill or capture as much of the Iranian nuclear brain trust as possible. Much likely doable from the air. Get out and don't particularly worry about it if the chuckleheads start up sectarian gak in the aftermath. Repeat as necessary.
OK, LBJ.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2013/11/25 15:59:59
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Frazzled wrote: On the positive, their production curves are on decline too. The fun question becomes, what happens when the ME runs out of oil?
then canada will be found to have a local terrorist sect running it, and then "operation alberta oilsand freedom" will commence.
]
there is already propaganda out to this effect...
So, I hear a lot of people saying that we can't trust the Iranians. Therefore this deal sucks. So I guess we can't trust the Iranina sto make a deal therefore:
1. Let them get a Nuke since dealing with them is useless.
2. Go to War, as that is the only way to stop them from getting a Nuke.
That sounds sane.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Considering we just did #1 your option is accurate.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
The thought of Saudi Arabia "thumping" anyone is almost hysterical. . .
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Considering the agreement allows them to enrich to only 5%, requires anything enriched beyond that to be diluted, that we have inspectors to verify sites are compliant, and that they need to enrich to 90% to have weapons grade uranium, saying that they're getting a nuke is a bit dramatic at this time.
Is it possible they could still get one if things go south long term? Sure. But if this agreement is followed, it should not happen.
If you're asking why we should trust the Iranians, well they're probably asking themselves the same question about us. After all, we got inspectors into Iraq, and then ordered them out and started the war. Yes, Hussein wasn't 100% compliant, but the UN wasn't pulling them just yet, we told them to bail or get bombed, which, to the Iranians, likely looks like us going back on an agreement with Iraq and starting the war.
I think people need to at least consider that this current Iran might be open to getting rid of its nuclear weapons program. Consider the pressure the Ayatollah is under. He was very nearly overthrown recently, and while he weathered it, his country is suffering massive economic losses because of sanctions, leading to 24 percent unemployment.
Simply put, even if they had stayed stubborn and managed to get a nuke, they'd likely be overthrown before anything could happen, considering how angry the populace was. The leadership may be opting for keeping their power sans nuke, instead of likely losing their power and maybe getting one nuke before they're overthrown. And that's without taking foreign military intervention into account, which was far more likely without an agreement in place.
DogofWar1 wrote: Considering the agreement allows them to enrich to only 5%, requires anything enriched beyond that to be diluted, that we have inspectors to verify sites are compliant, and that they need to enrich to 90% to have weapons grade uranium, saying that they're getting a nuke is a bit dramatic at this time.
The hardest part is those 5%
If I remembering correctly (I may be butchering this tho)... it takes 90% effort/technical expertise to refine the first 5%. You get that, you can cruise to your way to weapon's grade uranium.
Is it possible they could still get one if things go south long term? Sure. But if this agreement is followed, it should not happen.
It'll go south.
If you're asking why we should trust the Iranians, well they're probably asking themselves the same question about us. After all, we got inspectors into Iraq, and then ordered them out and started the war. Yes, Hussein wasn't 100% compliant, but the UN wasn't pulling them just yet, we told them to bail or get bombed, which, to the Iranians, likely looks like us going back on an agreement with Iraq and starting the war.
Re-writing history here dontcha think?
I think people need to at least consider that this current Iran might be open to getting rid of its nuclear weapons program. Consider the pressure the Ayatollah is under. He was very nearly overthrown recently, and while he weathered it, his country is suffering massive economic losses because of sanctions, leading to 24 percent unemployment.
Nearly overthrown?? I think not. The Iranian Republican Guard and the Mullah has control of that country by a large margin.
Simply put, even if they had stayed stubborn and managed to get a nuke, they'd likely be overthrown before anything could happen, considering how angry the populace was. The leadership may be opting for keeping their power sans nuke, instead of likely losing their power and maybe getting one nuke before they're overthrown. And that's without taking foreign military intervention into account, which was far more likely without an agreement in place.
It all depends on their end-game.
Thusly, if they want Nukes... then this agreement doesn't do gak.
Frankly, I understand why the Mullah's want Nukes...
It's just a matter of would the regional powers accept that.
Isreal won't. Saudi Arabia for sure won't.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/25 22:52:45
this just cant help but remind me of north koreas run up to them declaring they had the bomb...
formatted into face-book-ese for all the cool kids.
USA" we really cant have these wackos having nukes."
international community "come on NK, no nukes dude."
NK "OK we PROMISE not to make nukes, we cool now?"
NK has joined the group "nuclear powers"
everyone "WTF?!?!?"
just so people know what kind of deals NK was signing
" In late 1991 North and South Korea signed the Agreement on Reconciliation, Non-aggression, Exchanges and Cooperation and the Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The Joint Declaration called for a bilateral nuclear inspection regime to verify the denuclearization of the peninsula. The Declaration, which came into force on 19 February 1992, states that the two sides "shall not test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deployor use nuclear weapons," and that they "shall not possess nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities." A procedure for inter-Korean inspection was to be organized and a North-South Joint Nuclear Control Commission (JNCC) was mandated with verification of the denuclearization of the peninsula.
On 30 January 1992 the DPRK also signed a nuclear
safeguards agreement with the IAEA, as it had pledged to do in 1985 when acceding to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This safeguards agreement allowed IAEA inspections to begin in June 1992. In March 1992, the JNCC was established in accordance with the joint declaration, but subsequent meetings failed to reach agreement on the main issue of establishing a bilateral inspection regime. "
Easy E wrote: So, I hear a lot of people saying that we can't trust the Iranians. Therefore this deal sucks.
What have they've done that they ARE trustyworthy?
What have we done that they should trust us?
If I were them, the lesson I learned from Iraq/Afghanistan/North Korea is that no nuke = no chance.
We haven't made our foreign policy "DEATH TO IRAN!"
No, but reading this thread, it seems many of you want it to be.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/26 00:43:05
Looking for a club in Brisbane, Australia? Come and enjoy a game and a beer at Pubhammer, our friendly club in a pub at the Junction pub in Annerley (opposite Ace Comics), Sunday nights from 6:30. All brisbanites welcome, don't wait, check out our Club Page on Facebook group for details or to organize a game. We play all sorts of board and war games, so hit us up if you're interested.
Pubhammer is Moving! Starting from the 25th of May we'll be gaming at The Junction pub (AKA The Muddy Farmer), opposite Ace Comics & Games in Annerley! Still Sunday nights from 6:30 in the Function room Come along and play Warmachine, 40k, boardgames or anything else!
d-usa wrote: So everybody is happy about this except Israel and Conservatives?
Saudis don't care for it either. Along with the UAE. There are also quite a few Democrats that aren't happy either, and are still planning deal-breaking sanctions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/26 01:25:17
"Sometimes the only victory possible is to keep your opponent from winning." - The Emperor, from The Outcast Dead.
"Tell your gods we are coming for them, and that their realms will burn as ours did." -Thostos Bladestorm
To be honest, Iran and surrounding countries have spent decades getting kicked in the balls by having western countries playing Bannanna Republic style games with their governments and power succesion.
It's really no mystery why they want to feel like they have some kind of power.
The more I read about this the more I become unsure about if it's as doomed as I thought it was initially. They really don't get all that much for what they are (allegedly) pulling back, there is a 6 month sunset clause if they start getting cute, most of the sanctions are staying in place - especially the banking ones, which are the real problem for them - and so on. I earlier said that getting a nuclear weapon is critical for their national security, but I suppose that becomes less pressing if the people wind up throwin a revolution prior to attaining one because of the poor economy.
Maybe this won't go anywhere useful, sure, but at least we're actually working with each other now. Easy E called it - either they can never be trusted, so we must go to war with them, or let them get a nuke - nothing in between - but there has got to be another way. Maybe this is it.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
Come along and play Warmachine, 40k, boardgames or anything else! 
5000