A point that you keep missing, in my replies, is that it does not matter what they know, regarding nuclear energy or nuclear weapons. As I've repeatedly stated, in order for their assumptions to work, the Iranians had to initially be completely honest about their entire nuclear program infrastructure. Also, the Iranians would have to stick to the letter of the agreement.
If they don't, what the scientists argue won't matter. One can argue that they could only get an X quantity of this, or a Y quantity of that. If they do manage to get both quantities, by cheating, they're going to be able to accomplish what they want to accomplish.
I have military experience that relates to a major part of the equation involving that agreement. I have a working knowledge of logistics, as well as interdiction operations with regards to preventing the opposition from getting what they need to create what they should create.
I'm matching those "Q" scientists' comments, as well as your comments, against the text written in the Iran agreement. I don't know what agreement those scientists read, but the one that I downloaded does not support your side of the argument, nor those scientists' opinions.
There are three levels of security clearance. There is top-secret, secret, and confidential. Each of those have a breakdown. Your trying to throw around the "Q" security clearance is irrelevant to this argument.
That clearance is one issued by the Department of Energy. Even then, as with military security clearances, that does not make them knowledgeable on everything requiring a "Q" security clearance. These are on a "need to know" basis.
flghtr65: You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
The information that I provided, in my reply to your side the argument is information that is based on fact. It's not an opinion, but a logical, reasoned, fact-based argument. Don't dismiss the facts that I provide you, as "opinion," quotation marks used strongly.
Also, you definitely are not qualified to determine what is opinion what is fact without first proving your opinion of my facts. You failed to do that, your main argument seems to be you hiding behind the opinions of scientists, without you doing any analytical processing of information that you think supports your opinion.
It's plainly obvious that you have neither the experience, nor the expertise, related to the argument on this thread. You attempt to make up for that by hiding behind the arguments of other people, like the scientists. Again, for those scientists' opinions to be valid, certain conditions have to be in place. There's no evidence that those conditions will be in place.
There are other variables, that will influence whether this deal would be effective or not. One element is logistics, something I have working knowledge in.
When it comes to issues like this, where we have variables in place that draws in an element requiring military expertise, I have a leg to stand on compared to you, and those scientists. I'm far more qualified to talk about whether this agreement is good or not than those hamburger munching, comfortable environment working, scientists who are blind to the military and logistics aspects of what proves their opinions wrong, and who appear to have not read the text of the agreement in proper context to the real world that it's supposed to work in.
Yes, people are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. You need to take your own advice, as all you've done was present your opinion, and adapted a strategy involving hiding behind those scientists. I'm presenting to you a series of facts that proves your opinion, and that of the scientists, wrong.
You have to accept the fact that your opinion is wrong. You're entitled to that wrong opinion, but have to accept the fact that the facts don't support you.
flghtr65: We know there is a possibility that Iran will try to cheat,
Given their track record so far, that possibility is a 100% that they will cheat.
flghtr65: the scientists with the "Q" security clearance say that if Iran cheats they will get CAUGHT.
And they are wrong. You do realize, that the scientists with the "Q" security clearance, are expressing an opinion, do you? It's not fact.
Depending on the security measures that the Iranians implement when cheating, they may, or may not get caught. When it comes to something like this, you need 100% assurance that they will be caught. Based on how the agreement is written, that assurance is not there.
You assume that any attempt of them cheating will lead to them getting caught. The way the agreement is written, does not guarantee that. It also does not consider the variables behind the logistics for something like this.
flghtr65: You think Iran can move a centrifuge around without it being detected?
First, the text of the agreement itself allows Iran to not only continue running many of its centrifuges, but to also do a certain amount of enrichment. Dismantling of many of these centrifuges do not take place until 10 years after the agreement.
Additionally, the agreement, as written, requires sanctioning countries to lift the ban on nuclear related technologies to Iran. In other words, Iran can actually import those items into their country.
Second, this is where my logistics experience, and your "Q" security clearance scientists lack thereof, comes into play.
The scientists assume that the Iranians were 100% with regards to declaring what they had, or will be 100% if they haven't declared it yet. The scientists also assume that the Iranians will be 100% compliant with the agreement. This includes Iran not cheating.
Unless you could implement a 100% blockade of Iran, where you check every single thing coming into the country, from air, sea, and land, you can't prevent the Iranians from getting materials they need to enrich the amount of uranium that they need to create a nuclear weapon.
The Russians, and the Iranians, have a good working relationship. The Russians taught the Iraqis how to move WMD, and WMD components, in a way that prevented inspectors from seeing them. There's an excellent chance that they're doing the same thing with the Iranians.
If the Iranians just fed the international community enough information to get the sanctions removed, but not enough to prevent them from creating a nuclear weapon, the materials can easily be shipped to these other undeclared centrifuges. Also, bits and pieces of such centrifuges can be shipped into a secret site, where they can build a completely new one without being detected.
Yes, they can do this even with satellites overlooking the country. I know this for fact, as I had a sub-specialty, within a previous MOS, that required a working knowledge of satellite feed, and running tactical displays that required information obtained by satellites.
No, the satellites will not detect such movements if they are not known, or when they orbit out of range, assuming that those operating the satellites know exactly where to look. Again, Russian intelligence, and Russian special forces, would assist the Iranian's with doing things "under the nose" of the satellites.
I see all sorts of ways that Iran could do parts of the program in secret. The way the agreement is written, they could relocate everything in the time that is allotted for disagreements to be resolved over a "suspected" site.
flghtr65: I trust the scientists more than I trust you.
Hence, the statement that you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. The only reason that you are siding with those scientists is that they harp the same opinion that you embrace. I guarantee that if those same scientists voiced how this agreement could be undermined, and how this agreement was a bad idea, you would dismiss the scientists.
Again, I'm speaking with the facts, not opinion. It's no secret that you would disregard facts that harm your argument.
flghtr65: It's not just the scientists, there were 36 active generals and high ranked officers who agree with the scientists in the link posted by WTF.
Wrong, those were RETIRED generals and high-ranking officers, that agreed with the agreement. However, about 190 retired generals and admirals have written letter in opposition to the agreement. They did so in response to your generals and high-ranking officers.
In fact, the agreement, as written, supports the arguments advanced by those 190 retired generals and admirals. This same agreement, with Iran, does not substantiate the argument of those 36 retired generals and high-ranking officers.
If you are so quick to point to alleged subject matter expertise, where is your support for the 190 retired generals/admirals that oppose this plan?
It's not there, because it's like what I said. You don't support expert advice, you support opinion that supports your opinion. Your lack of support for these 190 retired general/admirals speaks volumes behind why you keep jumping behind those scientists and engineers.
flghtr65: You ever see the James Bond movie Thunderball , near the end of the movie Agent 007 gives the "Bond" girl a Geiger counter to check for radioactivity of the suspected bombs on the ship. Geiger counters today work the same way, they just don't make as much noise.
Again, I don't reference movies for pointers in an argument.
First, 20 years ago when the military was intensive with regards to doing battle drills involving nuclear detonations, I've had to learn how to operate Geiger counters. There were different types of devices that allow you to measure radioactivity. Some of them looked like a pen, others looked like the face of the watch, and there were other shapes and forms that they took.
Also, they sometimes gave false readings. Regardless of how advanced the equipment are today, they are not as clear-cut as they are in the movies. The ones I played around with did not match how they were portrayed in novels and movies. Your ears have to be trained, and have experience, to be able to pick up regular readings from phony/false readings.
Now, back to the agreement with Iran. The agreement itself authorizes the shipment of nuclear related technology to Iran. In fact, elsewhere in the agreement, Iran is authorized to do joint research on nuclear related material. So, there will not even be a point to conducting searches on ships for nuclear related material heading to Iran. With the lifting of sanctions prohibiting such technologies, interventions to prevent them from receiving that material will go in violation of the agreement.
You need to quit referencing movies when it comes to how things work in the real world. I realized that like your opinion, they are make-believe, but that does not build up your credibility.
flghtr65: The deal is really pretty simple a vote no and Iran gets a bomb in less than one year.
No, the deal the way it is written in the document that I downloaded, is the deal itself. It has been made. The voting process in our Congress is not the "deal." Also, that "one year" timeline of when they get the bomb is an arbitrary timeline. I've lost count of how many "timelines" that have been thrown out as to when they will get the bomb, that we have passed, and they're still projected as getting the bomb later on.
flghtr65: They have already harnessed quite a bit of Enriched Uranium (that would be Isotope U-235, the radioactive one).
[color=blue]That's based on both estimates and what the Iranians are willing to admit to. The real number can be higher. When they get the bomb isn't going to be impacted by these inspections or this treaty. [Color]
flghtr65: A vote yes and they don't get a bomb for 15 years.
Again, that's an arbitrary number. Regardless of whether the United States votes "yes" or "no", the Iranians are going to make the progress that they're going to make to get the bomb. Also, what use is a deal that allows a signatory to the nonproliferation treaty, to get the bomb, in violation of the treaty?
Again, that statement shows that this agreement is something that the Iranians won out on. You guys are satisfied with a solution that involves "hoping that we get eaten last."
flghtr65: No one has said that they(Iran) are never going to get a bomb.
The purpose of a deal, an agreement that we get into with the country trying to develop nuclear weapons in violation of the nonproliferation Treaty, which they sign, is to prohibit them from creating a nuclear bomb. The previous administration offered incentives and requirements that would've led to an end result of Iran benefiting economically without going further with a nuclear program.
THAT's what a treaty should be based on. Not as something that allows Iran to get something that they want, "later rather than now."
The real leadership in Iran will never be real friends towards the United States. They would never be real friends toward our allies in the region either. Right now, many of the countries in the Gulf state area don't trust Iran. Should the Iranians detonate a nuclear bomb, the fear factor from those other countries would shoot up.
It also allows Iran to receive the monies it needs to continue to fund the terrorism that they want to fund to destabilize our allies in that area. This agreement actually makes Iran far more dangerous in the future than it is now.
Hence, opposition from us, the conservatives, and from most of the military/veteran community.
flghtr65: You can't compare this with North Korea.
Wrong. The history with North Korea is extremely relevant to this current deal with Iran. In both cases, with countries that don't like the United States. In both cases, they started on a program to enrich uranium and to ultimately detonate the bomb.
So far, the Iranians have proven that they are going to be no different from the North Koreans when it comes to cheating the deal. This, despite the fact that the agreement that we just came up with the Iranians, is generous for the Iranian side.
Yes, a comparison between North Korea and Iran is very relevant to this argument. Such comparisons will be made as necessary.
flghtr65: Even Colin Powell who was SOS under Bush43 agrees with the deal. Wasn't he also former Chairman of Joints chief of Staff.
First, that makes him a part of the minority, among the retired generals and admirals, who voiced their argument either for or against the deal. Let's not forget that 190 retired generals and admirals who accurately identified it as a bad deal.
Second, he's a RINO, driven to make partisan commentary in favor of the Democrats. RINOs have no credibility among the conservatives.
Third, he argues about the reduction of centrifuges. Guess what? The agreement, as written, allows them to continue to use the centrifuges. Dismantling does not begin until 10 years from the agreement.
This tells me that RINO Colin Powell did not appear to have read the text of the agreement. If he did, he would not of talk about how it was on "good deal" given the "reduction in centrifuges."
Again, those 190 retired general/admirals have more credibility in my eyes in this argument than those that support your opinion. The text of the agreement supports the concerns of those 190 retired general/admirals.
It's blatantly obvious that the retired generals/admirals that support the deal did not read the text of the agreement. They are just going off secondhand information, and are obviously being partisan.
flghtr65: There is no need to debate this further,
Wrong, this is always subject to debate. Also, I will continue to debate this with you, and the opposition here, as long as you guys want to continue to debate it.
flghtr65: 34 democratic and independent senators have said they would vote yes for the deal and this would block a veto override attempt by the republicans. The Deal is going in.
Hence, my statement earlier in this thread that Republicans should send a resolution of disagreement with the deal to the White House. Yes, that will get a veto.
That's just the first stage. This first stage will get both sides on record as to whether they support this deal or not. It will also get the president on a record as supporting this deal. Now, for the second stage.
It will get vetoed. The Republicans should then force this to a veto override vote. If the Democrats try to filibuster it in the Senate, the Republicans should utilize the nuclear bomb option, excuse the pun, to destroy the filibuster and require a vote on a simple majority. Again, this will force them to take sides.
This will not get a veto override, but it will get the Democrats on record as supporting this deal twice.
The Iranian's are going to cheat. This is not just a possibility, but reality. This agreement is going to backfire. When it does, voting records will exist to show which politicians supported it, and which ones did not.
The fact that the deal is going to go through does not prohibit further arguments. I will continue to argue against this deal, just as I've argued against Obama's other initiatives, even though they've been passed.
Don't tell me not to debate this further, because I will continue to do so.
flghtr65: The point about Iraq needing a more inclusive government (to include all the sects) came from General Dempsey current chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff. You think you know more than him?
STRAW MANDempsey's statement DOES NOT negate the fact that I pointed out with regards to the need for US forces to stay behind. That was KEY on two fronts. I explained one of these fronts to you in my previous reply. The fact that we needed to stay behind to shore up the Iraqi military and the capability to projector power.
Now, what I said earlier in this thread, on one of my replies to one of your allies:
"While we were there, we gave our ambassador some teeth when dealing with Malaki, who wanted to do some of his stupid crap when we were there, but couldn't. Our ambassador kept him in check.
"Al Malaki already knew the answer to the question, 'Oh yeah, you and what Army?' He knew that the Iraqi military would side with us in a disagreement with him.
"Without the US military there? Our ambassador couldn't stop him from doing the stupid crap he started to do after the US left.
"No matter which way you look at this, you have Obama to blame for the situation that currently exists in Iraq." - herfacechair
What kind of "stupid crap" was I talking about? Well, the stupid crap that included his sacking the minorities and expanding Shiite control, sacking Iraqi generals that insisted on doing the right thing instead of being "yes" men, and other things.
Our presence in Iraq forced him to abide by our ambassadors' desires that he be inclusive with his government, and giving a voice to the minority.
Stay with me now, FOCUS! Pay attention! Had you read my entire series of replies, you would notice that the trend of my argument is consistent with Gen. Dempsey's. Now, let me go real slow for you.
Notice how I said that he was able to do his stupid crap after we left. Now, had Odumba supported the military, and the military was able to keep a sizable presence in Iraq to support the Iraqi military, our ambassador would still have had teeth. Al Malaki would not have been able to do the stupid crap that he eventually did, which included what you pointed out, which is consistent with what I pointed out.
KEY in this was a requirement for US forces to remain behind. When Odumba pulled them out, the main obstacle to Al Malaki doing what he did was removed. Meaning, had Odumba agreed with the military with regards to obtaining a SOFA, US forces would have been able to remain behind. This, in turn, would have prevented Al Malaki from doing something other than what our ambassador wanted him to do with regards to inclusiveness.
This also would've guaranteed a future where ISIS would've been repelled at the Syrian/Iraqi border. No matter which way you look at this, Odumba shoulders the blame.
flghtr65: Bush43 and his 77 average in History from Yale was the Worst President in history by far.
WRONG. President Obama is the worst president in modern history. Carter is second. I know for fact, based on my study of history, that George Bush, along with Ronald Reagan, will go down in history as one of the greatest presidents.
More on that later.
First, I'm not a history major, but I know more about history that a lot of them do. I've even argued against two people who had PhD's in history. I beat both of them in debate. One of them was an instructor.
What does that tell you?
How well you can memorize things in college is not an indication of what you actually know based on real study. I've only had one history class in my undergraduate plan. I received an A in it. I did not do as well in history prior to sixth grade.
However, I more than made up for that by being a history buff studying everything I could get regarding history that I'm interested in. I've been doing this for 3 ½ decades.
That's one of the things that makes a conservative a conservative. We look to the past, to our history, not just to see where he came from, but as a guide going into the future. We partly base our arguments on similar events that happened in the past.
So, regardless of what grade George Bush received at Yale, that does not dismiss the fact that his ongoing study of history, where the real learning of history happens, made him more than qualified to make decisions based on history.
flghtr65: His 69% disapproval rating confirms that. Iraq SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN INVADED.
wrong, the facts are not dictated by the number of people that believe in them, but by the fact that they are facts.
I could care less about what the majority of the American population thinks about if they choose the wrong side of the argument. What's right is right, even if everybody thinks it's wrong.
At one time in our history, the majority of the world's population believed that the sun orbited the Earth. Does it immediately follow that during that period, the sun did "in fact" orbit the earth because the majority believed so? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy the question, and accompanying yes/no selections, to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any attempt to add any "clarification" to this reply.
All that disapproval rating shows is that we have far too many people, in the American public, who are helplessly vulnerable and susceptible to propaganda. It does not confirm whether or not the invasion was right.
The facts indicate that it was right.
In fact, to argue that Iraq should never have been invaded, because "most people" disagree with such, is as idiotic as assuming that the sun orbited the Earth, simply because the majority of the population believes such.
That's exactly arguing by throwing opinion polls around when it comes to the correct course of action that we actually took. Again, I could care less about the opinions of people ignorant about asymmetrical warfare and about history.
From historical standpoint, from a current event standpoint, and from a geostrategic, geopolitical standpoint, Iraq in 2003 SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVADED. I stand by that argument. My argument, in favor of invading Iraq, has remained consistent ever since I started arguing about it when I came back from OIF the first time.
Second, Abraham Lincoln was lacerated, in the press, for his actions against the Confederacy. They even got a momentum going to pressure Abraham Lincoln to give the southern states what they wanted. Many of the same arguments that the liberal press, and their supporters, made with regards to the Iraq war, against Bush, are very similar to the same arguments advanced by the press against Abraham Lincoln with regards to Confederacy.
Again, I followed the news since 1982. I lost count of how much the media lacerated Ronald Reagan for his policies toward the Soviet Union. George Bush was not the first one to be labeled as utilizing "cowboy diplomacy." They use that on Ronald Reagan. They accused him of doing things that will get us destroyed.
Many people were willing to follow along with the mainstream media. Guess what? He is now seen, even by his former adversaries, as among one of the greatest leaders we've ever had.
What lesson can you draw here?
History will judge a president's actions based on his/her impact on history. Just as before, the opinions of ignorant people will be forgotten. George Bush will go down in history as one of our greatest leaders. I say that based on the argument that I made on why the Iraq invasion was the right decision.
flghtr65: The only weapons found were weapons that The USA had sold to Iraq as far back as 1980. They corroded to the point where they were no longer functional. This was in the New York times , the link was supplied by J.D. Barleycorn. I am not posting it again.
Wrong again. Both, that article that you talk about, which I also linked, mentioned the fact that the troops were attacked by IEDs laced with chemical agents. This happened throughout the Iraq war. I know this for a fact.
Right before I went on R&R leave, during my Iraq deployment, a couple of Iraqi security force personnel got injured by sarin laced IED's. The injuries that they took were consistent with a sarin attack.
How, pray tell, could this chemical agent be "no longer functional"?
Also, if you bothered reading the link, you would see that soldiers did not just get injured during those attacks, but also while they were handling those so-called "corroded to the point to where they were no longer functional" stockpiles.
Also, we did NOT give those WMD's to Iraq, not by a long shot. Technology to create the WMD existed since the late 19th century. The fact of the matter is that Saddam Hussein created these, using Iraqi assets, Iraqi scientists and engineers, we did not give them to him.
The closest, that anybody has came, to the assumption that we "gave," quotation marks used strongly, him the WMD is an article/report of repurposed commercial devices without the knowledge or consent of the commercial enterprises that sold him those devices. That's not the same thing as "giving him" WMD.
Which leads to another question.
Was your side of the argument wrong in insisting/arguing that there were "no" WMD in Iraq? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy this question, and the yes/no options, to your reply. Place an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional commentary that you would be tempted to add.
flghtr65: Tell me how I lost an argument on the ACA. SNIP [STRAWMAN ARGUMENT ABOUT ACA]
What you said:
"I haven't been proven wrong on anything." -- flghtr65
Key word, ANYTHING.
When you argue that you have not been proven wrong on ANYTHING, you're arguing that you have never been proven wrong on this or other threads. To prove you wrong, I accurately pointed out that you've been proven wrong on this and other threads as well as this one.
I'm proven you wrong on this thread. This goes against your claim that you not been proven wrong on ANYTHING. I've seen your arguments, about other topics, on other threads. The opposition proved you wrong in many of those arguments. All I need to do, to prove you wrong, is to point that fact out.
Regardless of whether you think that you were right with one argument or another is beside the point. You said that you haven't been proven wrong on ANYTHING.
Stay with me now, FOCUS! Pay attention to what you read!
....... Now THAT'S now you give a golden shower to a fireplug !!!
