We have peace in our time.

This is the historical quote that comes to mind as Obama announces the agreement with Iran regarding nuclear weapons.

Like Bush's "Mission accomplished" on the aircraft carrier?

namelessfly wrote:This is the historical quote that comes to mind as Obama announces the agreement with Iran regarding nuclear weapons.

Daryl wrote:Like Bush's "Mission accomplished" on the aircraft carrier?

namelessfly wrote:This is the historical quote that comes to mind as Obama announces the agreement with Iran regarding nuclear weapons.

That sign was written by the crew of an Aircraft carrier after a successful mission not by Bush. Personally I think Obama's agreement with the mullahs is more like Chamberlain's infamous "Piece in our time," agreement with Adolf Hitler. Chamberlain sold out Czechoslovakia just as Obama just sold out Israel.

Poker

I noticed that Pokermind spelled it "PIECE" rather than "PEACE."

This reminds me of my theory about how women's suffrage was passed. The women were employing a strategy best described as "NO JUSTICE, NO PIECE.". I leave it to the reader to deduce whatnthe men were deprived a piece of until they voted for women's suffrage.

I could perhaps verify this theory with a correlation of declining birth rates?

Daryl wrote:Like Bush's "Mission accomplished" on the aircraft carrier?

namelessfly wrote:This is the historical quote that comes to mind as Obama announces the agreement with Iran regarding nuclear weapons.

The invasion was very much accomplished as was this mission to ensure thatbSaddam did not get nuclear weapons.

It turned out that Saddam did not have ahn active WMD program but he did have all of the needed expertise and critical materials to reconstitute it. Iraq had never been more than a year or so from having a nuke.

The invasion of Iraq did motivate Daffy Gadaffy to surrender his WMD including gas centrifuges that the CIA did not suspect that he had. The invasion also motivated Iran to sypuspend it's nuclear program.

Of course after getting to know so many Europeans on the Weber forums, I now favor rather than oppose nuclear proliferation. Given energy independence and a neoisolationists foreign policy combined with an ABM system, the US will probably not be attacked successfully. However; Europe is not protected by geography and has no prospect of energy independence so it is likely that Europeans will be nuked. The destruction of technological civilization in Europe will eliminate their CO2 emissions thus making it possible for the US to continue to prosper without reducing our CO2 emissions.

May be we should be supplying nukes to all of Europe's neighbors, with limited range delivery systems of course?

From an article in the Jeruselum Post.

http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/New ... omb-332816

For me, this quote alludes to the key aspect,

" For example, he said, it would eliminate Iran's stock of uranium gas refined to a fissile purity of 20 percent, a source of deep concern for the West as it represents a relatively short technical step away from bomb-grade material.
Under the agreement, Iran must halt this higher-grade enrichment and also dilute or convert its existing reserve of such uranium to a form that is not suitable for further enrichment, according to a US fact sheet."

What exactly does "convert" mean in this context?   If "convert" does not mean dilution to a lower U-235 concentration, then we are talking about chemically converting the highly enriched Uranium into a metal or non gaseous compound such as Uranium-Oxide which can't be processed by centrifuges. Such a conversion can be reversed just as easily. This sets the stage for a delayed but more serious breakout with Iran having multiple nukes.

Our local papers noted from a middle eastern political scientist that the concessions from both sides were just time buying concessions to allow more full negotiation, so Im guessing it may be dilution or conversion that may occur, but the forced switching over is just a time delay so that if things do break down, they are slightly further back then they would otherwise be.

Iraq had never been more than a year or so from having a nuke.

That is utter rubbish.

Just like Iran has been "a few years" from making nukes ever since the early 1980s.

It turned out that Saddam did not have ahn active WMD program

Something that was fairly well known, even if the utter absence of even something minor did surprise some people.

The invasion of Iraq did motivate Daffy Gadaffy to surrender his WMD including gas centrifuges that the CIA did not suspect that he had. The invasion also motivated Iran to sypuspend it's nuclear program.

That´s a big fat nope on both claims.
Khadaffi was the result of longterm negotiations by mostly EU.
And Iran never suspended it´s nuclear program.

This is the historical quote that comes to mind as Obama announces the agreement with Iran regarding nuclear weapons.

Funny thing is how it was your political faction that thought it was a great idea to start up Irans nuclear programme.
While Iran was ruled by a hardcore racist, facist dictator openly stating his plans to rule the middle east and more.

Not to forget how there´s still no impartial evidence that Iran has actually even tried to develop nukes rather than nuclear power.
Actually, there´s NO evidence at all. And the claims that they are getting nukes comes from sources that were previously shouting about how Saddam were massproducing gas weapons in 2002...

Yeah, how very reliable...

Tenshinai,
I agree with you on most things, but I have never heard
of any reason to believe that the Shah of Iran was a racist.
I never heard of him accused of racism before now.
Proud Nationalist, yes.

HTM

Tenshinai wrote:[snip - htm]
While Iran was ruled by a hardcore *racist*, facist dictator openly stating his plans to rule the middle east and more.

Tenshini makes up almost all of his facts.

However; given the historic antipathy between Persians and Arabs, the Shah should be expected to be less than cordial to his neighbors.

However; unlike the Arab countries, Persia has not in recent centuries engaged in the massive capture and importation of slaves from Africa and subjecting the males to total castration. The Arabs cannot complain about racism.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:Tenshinai,
I agree with you on most things, but I have never heard
of any reason to believe that the Shah of Iran was a racist.
I never heard of him accused of racism before now.
Proud Nationalist, yes.

HTM

Tenshinai wrote:[snip - htm]
While Iran was ruled by a hardcore *racist*, facist dictator openly stating his plans to rule the middle east and more.