Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 20, 2017, 06:46:49 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Six Points of Kissinger and Schultz’s Refutation of the Iran Deal  (Read 11073 times)
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51838

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« on: April 09, 2015, 04:48:26 PM »

Good analysis.

The Six Points of Kissinger and Schultz’s Refutation of the Iran Deal
Posted on April 9, 2015
by Keith Koffler

It’s no surprise that Marie Harf at the State Department sought Wednesday to dismiss the analysis by Henry Kissinger and George Schultz of the Iran deal as little more than “big words and big thoughts.” When you hear administration officials launch ad hominem attacks, you know it is because they are deeply threatened.

That’s because Kissinger and Scultz’s Wall Street Journal piece is the most thorough and damning evisceration of President Obama’s Iran arms deal you can find. And it’s been lodged by two of the foreign policy establishment’s wisest and most experienced hands, neither known for their partisan fervor.

I thought I’d take you through their argument, which you may not be able to access on the Wall Street Journal website. Because it’s a major statement about what may be the most important issue of our time.

Below, I’ve placed my own headlines above quotes from the piece to clarify their main points. There are six.

1. The deal permits a nuclear Iran

Negotiations that began 12 years ago as an international effort to prevent an Iranian capability to develop a nuclear arsenal are ending with an agreement that concedes this very capability, albeit short of its full capacity in the first 10 years. The gradual expiration of the framework agreement, beginning in a decade, will enable Iran to become a significant nuclear, industrial and military power after that time—in the scope and sophistication of its nuclear program and its latent capacity to weaponize at a time of its choosing. Limits on Iran’s research and development have not been publicly disclosed (or perhaps agreed). Therefore Iran will be in a position to bolster its advanced nuclear technology during the period of the agreement and rapidly deploy more advanced centrifuges—of at least five times the capacity of the current model—after the agreement expires or is broken.

2. Iran triumphed in the negotiations

While Iran treated the mere fact of its willingness to negotiate as a concession, the West has felt compelled to break every deadlock with a new proposal. In the process, the Iranian program has reached a point officially described as being within two to three months of building a nuclear weapon.

Ambiguities apply to the one-year window for a presumed Iranian breakout. Emerging at a relatively late stage in the negotiation, this concept replaced the previous baseline—that Iran might be permitted a technical capacity compatible with a plausible civilian nuclear program. Iran permanently gives up none of its equipment, facilities or fissile product to achieve the proposed constraints. It only places them under temporary restriction and safeguard—amounting in many cases to a seal at the door of a depot or periodic visits by inspectors to declared sites.

3. The agreement is probably unenforceable

The physical magnitude of the effort is daunting. Is the International Atomic Energy Agency technically, and in terms of human resources, up to so complex and vast an assignment? In a large country with multiple facilities and ample experience in nuclear concealment, violations will be inherently difficult to detect. Devising theoretical models of inspection is one thing. Enforcing compliance, week after week, despite competing international crises and domestic distractions, is another. Any report of a violation is likely to prompt debate over its significance—or even calls for new talks with Tehran to explore the issue.

Compounding the difficulty is the unlikelihood that breakout will be a clear-cut event. More likely it will occur, if it does, via the gradual accumulation of ambiguous evasions. When inevitable disagreements arise over the scope and intrusiveness of inspections, on what criteria are we prepared to insist and up to what point? If evidence is imperfect, who bears the burden of proof? Undertaking the “snap-back” of sanctions is unlikely to be as clear or as automatic as the phrase implies. Iran is in a position to violate the agreement by executive decision. Restoring the most effective sanctions will require coordinated international action.

4. The deal result in nuclear proliferation

Some of the chief actors in the Middle East are likely to view the U.S. as willing to concede a nuclear military capability to the country they consider their principal threat. Several will insist on at least an equivalent capability. Saudi Arabia has signaled that it will enter the lists; others are likely to follow. In that sense, the implications of the negotiation are irreversible.

Among the original nuclear powers, geographic distances and the relatively large size of programs combined with moral revulsion to make surprise attack all but inconceivable. How will these doctrines translate into a region where sponsorship of nonstate proxies is common, the state structure is under assault, and death on behalf of jihad is a kind of fulfillment?

Are the guarantees extended against the use of nuclear weapons—or against any military attack, conventional or nuclear? Is it the domination by Iran that we oppose or the method for achieving it?

5. An expansionist Iran will be newly empowered

For some, the greatest value in an agreement lies in the prospect of an end, or at least a moderation, of Iran’s 3½ decades of militant hostility to the West and established international institutions, and an opportunity to draw Iran into an effort to stabilize the Middle East.  There exists no current evidence that Iran and the U.S. are remotely near such an understanding. Even while combating common enemies, such as ISIS, Iran has declined to embrace common objectives. Iran’s representatives (including its Supreme Leader) continue to profess a revolutionary anti-Western concept of international order; domestically, some senior Iranians describe nuclear negotiations as a form of jihad by other means.

The final stages of the nuclear talks have coincided with Iran’s intensified efforts to expand and entrench its power in neighboring states. Iranian or Iranian client forces are now the pre-eminent military or political element in multiple Arab countries, operating beyond the control of national authorities. With the recent addition of Yemen as a battlefield, Tehran occupies positions along all of the Middle East’s strategic waterways and encircles archrival Saudi Arabia, an American ally.

6. The administration erred in de-linking the nuclear deal from other issues

Unless political restraint is linked to nuclear restraint, an agreement freeing Iran from sanctions risks empowering Iran’s hegemonic efforts.

Some have argued that these concerns are secondary, since the nuclear deal is a way station toward the eventual domestic transformation of Iran. But what gives us the confidence that we will prove more astute at predicting Iran’s domestic course than Vietnam’s, Afghanistan’s, Iraq’s, Syria’s, Egypt’s or Libya’s?

Absent the linkage between nuclear and political restraint, America’s traditional allies will conclude that the U.S. has traded temporary nuclear cooperation for acquiescence to Iranian hegemony. They will increasingly look to create their own nuclear balances and, if necessary, call in other powers to sustain their integrity.

Nuclear arms must not be permitted to turn into conventional weapons. The passions of the region allied with weapons of mass destruction may impel deepening American involvement. If the world is to be spared even worse turmoil, the U.S. must develop a strategic doctrine for the region. Stability requires an active American role.

*******

This is typical Obama. As Kissinger and Schultz point out, we have no strategy. No broad thinking has gone into this agreement. We just put a bandaid on the situation for ten years while strengthening our adversary, Iran, and destabilizing the region.

And we and our children will pay dearly for it.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2015/04/09/kissinger-schultzs-refutation-iran-deal/
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51838

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2015, 03:18:22 PM »

Is he going to get b-slapped like Schumer? 

Democrat Rep. Norcross: 'I Can't in Good Conscience Vote for Iran Deal'

Image: Democrat Rep. Norcross: 'I Can't in Good Conscience Vote for Iran Deal'
By Rep. Donald Norcross     
Wednesday, 19 Aug 2015

Iran must never be allowed to become a nuclear threat to the world. Not today. Not 10 or 15 years from now. Never.

The Iranian regime is a known sponsor of terrorism that has made no secret of its hatred for both the Unites States and Israel. Providing relief for them by lifting economic sanctions now essentially rewards past behavior and infuses billions of dollars into the their economy that could be used to buy more weapons and outsource more terror.

Moreover, the deal does not provide enough assurance that Iran will be restricted from developing or acquiring nuclear weapons. So this windfall may ultimately help fund their nuclear ambitions.

In April, prior to the announcement of a deal, I wrote a letter to President Obama, voicing my concerns over the negotiations with Iran and missed deadlines. In it, I outlined my belief that an acceptable deal would be long-term and fully transparent, and would provide for the dismantling of Iran's nuclear program verified by intrusive inspections in exchange for phased sanctions relief. Unfortunately, the JCPOA falls short in each of these criteria.

For these reasons, I cannot in good conscience endorse this deal.

Even though I applaud the Obama Administration and other world powers that worked diligently on a diplomatic solution, the deal ultimately falls short of the guarantees necessary to assure the American people that it will do more good than harm.

During the 60-day congressional review period of the deal, I met twice with President Obama, including a briefing inside the White House Situation Room. I was also briefed by Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, and senior members of the U.S. Department of Defense. As a member of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, I had the opportunity to review classified documents related to the Iran nuclear deal multiple times and as recently as last Friday.

Earlier this month, I traveled to Israel as part of a bipartisan Congressional Delegation. During the trip, I received a two-hour long briefing from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, met with Israeli Knesset members, military officers, and Israeli citizens.
I, as well as my staff in Washington, D.C. and at the First Congressional District office in Cherry Hill have met and continue to meet with constituents both in favor and against the deal.

I’ve listened. I’ve studied the issues. And, after careful consideration, I must vote against this deal.

We all know no deal is perfect or iron-clad. I’m not looking for perfection, but I do believe that a better deal can be achieved. We have not exhausted all efforts. Diplomacy has worked and can continue to work. That’s why I urge all parties back to the bargaining table so we can continue a dialogue that can help us achieve an accord that ensures a nuclear-free Iran and a safer world. To that end, I promise to work with congressional leaders to foster more diplomatic action.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/donald-norcross-cannot-support/2015/08/19/id/670902/#ixzz3jImVcBNR
Report to moderator   Logged
LurkerNoMore
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16198

Tossing sand in your Va-Jay-Jay


« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2015, 06:38:11 PM »

35 US military generals and admirals support it.
Various Israeli generals, admirals, and military experts support it.
Numerous nuclear scientists support it.

"Good analysis".
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51838

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2015, 07:34:45 PM »

No doubt. 
Report to moderator   Logged
catracho
Getbig III
***
Gender: Male
Posts: 968


I don't want to be "that guy"!


« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2015, 07:44:44 PM »

35 US military generals and admirals support it.
Various Israeli generals, admirals, and military experts support it.
Numerous nuclear scientists support it.

"Good analysis".

I wonder how many of those Generals and Admirals Obama would fire if they didn't support it.
Report to moderator   Logged
LurkerNoMore
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16198

Tossing sand in your Va-Jay-Jay


« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2015, 06:12:47 AM »

I wonder how many of those Generals and Admirals Obama would fire if they didn't support it.

None.  Seeing how they are all retired, I would have to say it is pretty impossible for him to fire them for speaking their minds. 
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2015, 09:46:44 AM »

None.  Seeing how they are all retired, I would have to say it is pretty impossible for him to fire them for speaking their minds. 

YEP
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #7 on: August 20, 2015, 09:48:11 AM »

Good analysis.

The Six Points of Kissinger and Schultz’s Refutation of the Iran Deal
Posted on April 9, 2015
by Keith Koffler

It’s no surprise that Marie Harf at the State Department sought Wednesday to dismiss the analysis by Henry Kissinger and George Schultz of the Iran deal as little more than “big words and big thoughts.” When you hear administration officials launch ad hominem attacks, you know it is because they are deeply threatened.

That’s because Kissinger and Scultz’s Wall Street Journal piece is the most thorough and damning evisceration of President Obama’s Iran arms deal you can find. And it’s been lodged by two of the foreign policy establishment’s wisest and most experienced hands, neither known for their partisan fervor.

I thought I’d take you through their argument, which you may not be able to access on the Wall Street Journal website. Because it’s a major statement about what may be the most important issue of our time.

Below, I’ve placed my own headlines above quotes from the piece to clarify their main points. There are six.

1. The deal permits a nuclear Iran

Negotiations that began 12 years ago as an international effort to prevent an Iranian capability to develop a nuclear arsenal are ending with an agreement that concedes this very capability, albeit short of its full capacity in the first 10 years. The gradual expiration of the framework agreement, beginning in a decade, will enable Iran to become a significant nuclear, industrial and military power after that time—in the scope and sophistication of its nuclear program and its latent capacity to weaponize at a time of its choosing. Limits on Iran’s research and development have not been publicly disclosed (or perhaps agreed). Therefore Iran will be in a position to bolster its advanced nuclear technology during the period of the agreement and rapidly deploy more advanced centrifuges—of at least five times the capacity of the current model—after the agreement expires or is broken.

2. Iran triumphed in the negotiations

While Iran treated the mere fact of its willingness to negotiate as a concession, the West has felt compelled to break every deadlock with a new proposal. In the process, the Iranian program has reached a point officially described as being within two to three months of building a nuclear weapon.

Ambiguities apply to the one-year window for a presumed Iranian breakout. Emerging at a relatively late stage in the negotiation, this concept replaced the previous baseline—that Iran might be permitted a technical capacity compatible with a plausible civilian nuclear program. Iran permanently gives up none of its equipment, facilities or fissile product to achieve the proposed constraints. It only places them under temporary restriction and safeguard—amounting in many cases to a seal at the door of a depot or periodic visits by inspectors to declared sites.

3. The agreement is probably unenforceable

The physical magnitude of the effort is daunting. Is the International Atomic Energy Agency technically, and in terms of human resources, up to so complex and vast an assignment? In a large country with multiple facilities and ample experience in nuclear concealment, violations will be inherently difficult to detect. Devising theoretical models of inspection is one thing. Enforcing compliance, week after week, despite competing international crises and domestic distractions, is another. Any report of a violation is likely to prompt debate over its significance—or even calls for new talks with Tehran to explore the issue.

Compounding the difficulty is the unlikelihood that breakout will be a clear-cut event. More likely it will occur, if it does, via the gradual accumulation of ambiguous evasions. When inevitable disagreements arise over the scope and intrusiveness of inspections, on what criteria are we prepared to insist and up to what point? If evidence is imperfect, who bears the burden of proof? Undertaking the “snap-back” of sanctions is unlikely to be as clear or as automatic as the phrase implies. Iran is in a position to violate the agreement by executive decision. Restoring the most effective sanctions will require coordinated international action.

4. The deal result in nuclear proliferation

Some of the chief actors in the Middle East are likely to view the U.S. as willing to concede a nuclear military capability to the country they consider their principal threat. Several will insist on at least an equivalent capability. Saudi Arabia has signaled that it will enter the lists; others are likely to follow. In that sense, the implications of the negotiation are irreversible.

Among the original nuclear powers, geographic distances and the relatively large size of programs combined with moral revulsion to make surprise attack all but inconceivable. How will these doctrines translate into a region where sponsorship of nonstate proxies is common, the state structure is under assault, and death on behalf of jihad is a kind of fulfillment?

Are the guarantees extended against the use of nuclear weapons—or against any military attack, conventional or nuclear? Is it the domination by Iran that we oppose or the method for achieving it?

5. An expansionist Iran will be newly empowered

For some, the greatest value in an agreement lies in the prospect of an end, or at least a moderation, of Iran’s 3½ decades of militant hostility to the West and established international institutions, and an opportunity to draw Iran into an effort to stabilize the Middle East.  There exists no current evidence that Iran and the U.S. are remotely near such an understanding. Even while combating common enemies, such as ISIS, Iran has declined to embrace common objectives. Iran’s representatives (including its Supreme Leader) continue to profess a revolutionary anti-Western concept of international order; domestically, some senior Iranians describe nuclear negotiations as a form of jihad by other means.

The final stages of the nuclear talks have coincided with Iran’s intensified efforts to expand and entrench its power in neighboring states. Iranian or Iranian client forces are now the pre-eminent military or political element in multiple Arab countries, operating beyond the control of national authorities. With the recent addition of Yemen as a battlefield, Tehran occupies positions along all of the Middle East’s strategic waterways and encircles archrival Saudi Arabia, an American ally.

6. The administration erred in de-linking the nuclear deal from other issues

Unless political restraint is linked to nuclear restraint, an agreement freeing Iran from sanctions risks empowering Iran’s hegemonic efforts.

Some have argued that these concerns are secondary, since the nuclear deal is a way station toward the eventual domestic transformation of Iran. But what gives us the confidence that we will prove more astute at predicting Iran’s domestic course than Vietnam’s, Afghanistan’s, Iraq’s, Syria’s, Egypt’s or Libya’s?

Absent the linkage between nuclear and political restraint, America’s traditional allies will conclude that the U.S. has traded temporary nuclear cooperation for acquiescence to Iranian hegemony. They will increasingly look to create their own nuclear balances and, if necessary, call in other powers to sustain their integrity.

Nuclear arms must not be permitted to turn into conventional weapons. The passions of the region allied with weapons of mass destruction may impel deepening American involvement. If the world is to be spared even worse turmoil, the U.S. must develop a strategic doctrine for the region. Stability requires an active American role.

*******

This is typical Obama. As Kissinger and Schultz point out, we have no strategy. No broad thinking has gone into this agreement. We just put a bandaid on the situation for ten years while strengthening our adversary, Iran, and destabilizing the region.

And we and our children will pay dearly for it.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2015/04/09/kissinger-schultzs-refutation-iran-deal/

Even though you constantly lie and say you're sitting on the fence and haven't made a decision, I'm going to go out on a limb and say you are against the Iran nuclear deal since you only print articles which are against the deal Wink
Report to moderator   Logged
LurkerNoMore
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16198

Tossing sand in your Va-Jay-Jay


« Reply #8 on: August 20, 2015, 10:55:21 AM »

YEP

I don't think 'zero' was the answer he was fishing for.
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: I am a geek!!


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 20, 2015, 11:06:37 AM »

I wonder how many of those Generals and Admirals Obama would fire if they didn't support it.

i read on drudge that obama fired them all immediately.   

obama's pilot was so outraged, he refused to take off.
Report to moderator   Logged

Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51838

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #10 on: August 20, 2015, 11:12:51 AM »

Even though you constantly lie and say you're sitting on the fence and haven't made a decision, I'm going to go out on a limb and say you are against the Iran nuclear deal since you only print articles which are against the deal Wink

Oh no.  Foiled again.  Good work detective.   Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
LurkerNoMore
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16198

Tossing sand in your Va-Jay-Jay


« Reply #11 on: August 20, 2015, 11:49:43 AM »

i read on drudge that obama fired them all immediately.   

obama's pilot was so outraged, he refused to take off.

OMG!   Shocked

Zinger of the week right here.
Report to moderator   Logged
catracho
Getbig III
***
Gender: Male
Posts: 968


I don't want to be "that guy"!


« Reply #12 on: August 20, 2015, 09:30:47 PM »

None.  Seeing how they are all retired, I would have to say it is pretty impossible for him to fire them for speaking their minds.  

Your post states Generals and Admirals, not Retired Generals and Admirals.  If you are going to post facts, at least be accurate. That's like inviting me to a party you say is going to be full of women and when I get there it's Caitlin Jenner and his "girl" friends. Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
Coach is Back!
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 38369


Obama is a coke sniffing ball washing homo


WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 20, 2015, 09:38:22 PM »

I think it's a great idea to let a country that's a terrorist state inspect their own reactors. Great move that was kept under wraps by Obama. lol.
Report to moderator   Logged
Coach is Back!
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 38369


Obama is a coke sniffing ball washing homo


WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 20, 2015, 09:39:24 PM »

Excuses coming in 3....2....
Report to moderator   Logged
catracho
Getbig III
***
Gender: Male
Posts: 968


I don't want to be "that guy"!


« Reply #15 on: August 20, 2015, 11:36:00 PM »

35 US military generals and admirals support it.
Various Israeli generals, admirals, and military experts support it.
Numerous Iranian nuclear scientists support it.


fixed! Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
Skeeter
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1644


Born to raise hell


« Reply #16 on: August 21, 2015, 07:38:08 AM »

""The story was the Iranians would take the samples under some kind of IAEA monitoring," Jeffrey Lewis, the arms control expert, told me. "The details of that monitoring were not provided, so it's hard to say how weird that is. Some IAEA officials say that it's not unusual to let a country physically take the samples if there's an IAEA inspector present.""


"A couple of hours after first publishing, the AP added in a bunch of quotes from Republicans furiously condemning the revelations, but at the same time, the AP removed most of the actual revelations. The information in the article was substantially altered, with some of the most damning details scrubbed entirely. No explanation for this was given.
The new version of the story said nothing about environmental sampling. It said that Iran will provide photos and videos of the site, as well as mechanisms by which the IAEA can verify that these are authentic. But information about how the IAEA would verify this, which was in the original story, had also been removed."


"Jonathan Alter, the "if true" political reporter, tweeted that the IAEA would indeed be "on the ground" at Parchin, according to the White House. The IAEA has since come out and said the final agreement on Parchin meets all its standards. The IAEA inspector general issued a statement saying he was "disturbed" by the AP story, which "misrepresent(s) the way in which we will undertake this important verification work.""


"The world pretty much already knows what happened in Parchin. The best-case outcome of inspecting the facility is that we are happily surprised to learn that our suspicions about weaponization work were incorrect. The worst-case, and perhaps more likely, scenario is that inspections end up confirming what we already suspected, but we get a bit more detail on how it went down. To be clear, learning this would not violate or kill the nuclear deal.
A key point here: The Parchin inspection is not part of the Iran nuclear deal that was negotiated by the US and other world powers with Iran. Rather, this is something the IAEA negotiates directly with the country it's inspecting, in this case Iran."




http://www.vox.com/2015/8/20/9182185/ap-iran-inspections-parchin

http://news.antiwar.com/2015/08/19/bogus-ap-claim-of-iran-self-inspection-at-parchin-fuels-condemnation/
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #17 on: August 21, 2015, 07:42:39 AM »

Oh no.  Foiled again.  Good work detective.   Smiley

so you finally admit you're a liar...good job Wink
Report to moderator   Logged
Skeeter
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1644


Born to raise hell


« Reply #18 on: August 21, 2015, 11:12:09 AM »

"Jahn’s claims and the document didn’t perfectly square in the first place, but the real blow here is that a former top IAEA official, Tariq Rauf, has pointed out a number of glaring errors in the document, labeling it a “crude” forgery attempting to derail the P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran.

Rauf, a Canadian who serves as director of the Arms Control program for the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, offered an annotated version of the AP’s putative transcript, pointing out among other things that in the second paragraph the transcript actually got Iran’s name wrong, incorrectly labeling them the “Islamic State of Iran.”

That’s more than a minor typo from the Iranian perspective, as the nation refers to itself as the “Islamic Republic of Iran,” and in later cases when they are simply called “Iran,” the preferred shortened version in official documents would be the Islamic Republic.

Ironically they correctly called it the Islamic Republic of Iran at the end, but in the same sentence the IAEA incorrectly identified the title of its own official, calling Tero Varjoranta the “Deputy Director General for Safeguards” as opposed to the “head of the department of safeguards.”

There were other technical errors in the document. An IAEA sample kit contains six swipes, and the text purports that there will be seven samples collected, a figure Rauf suggested was likely arbitrary. The addition of two other swipes outside Parchin, which again is huge, made even less sense, since the whole document is supposed to be about Parchin in the first place.

A lot of the other language just reads wrong, according to Rauf, with a lot of the language inappropriate for an IAEA official document, or referring to things in ways that are not standard IAEA language. The inclusion of a promised visit of the IAEA Director General as a “dignitary guest” likewise made no sense, with Rauf noting he’s “not a tourist” and only goes to countries when there are technical problems to be resolved.

Rauf likens the forgery to “guy Letter” forgery that emerged ahead of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, and which US officials used as primary evidence for their bogus claims of an active Iraqi nuclear weapons program."




http://news.antiwar.com/2015/08/21/former-iaea-official-ap-doc-on-iran-a-crude-forgery/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/former-nuclear-safeguards-official-says-parchin-document-looks-fake_55d67d53e4b020c386de2f7e
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51838

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #19 on: August 21, 2015, 03:59:07 PM »

None.  Seeing how they are all retired, I would have to say it is pretty impossible for him to fire them for speaking their minds. 

i read on drudge that obama fired them all immediately.   

obama's pilot was so outraged, he refused to take off.

OMG!   Shocked

Zinger of the week right here.

How is this the "zinger of the week right here" if they were all retired??  He cannot fire them if they're retired, which you already admitted.   
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51838

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #20 on: August 21, 2015, 03:59:59 PM »

so you finally admit you're a liar...good job Wink

sar·casm

noun
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
Report to moderator   Logged
LurkerNoMore
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16198

Tossing sand in your Va-Jay-Jay


« Reply #21 on: August 21, 2015, 06:44:57 PM »

I wonder how many of those Generals and Admirals Obama would fire if they didn't support it.



How is this the "zinger of the week right here" if they were all retired??  He cannot fire them if they're retired, which you already admitted.   

 Roll Eyes

sar·casm

noun
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

Why is this backfire on your behalf not a surprise?
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: I am a geek!!


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #22 on: August 22, 2015, 12:07:12 AM »

OMG, LOL, WTF, LNM FTW.
Report to moderator   Logged

LurkerNoMore
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16198

Tossing sand in your Va-Jay-Jay


« Reply #23 on: August 22, 2015, 06:38:08 AM »

OMG, LOL, WTF, LNM FTW.

QFT!
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51838

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #24 on: August 24, 2015, 04:16:54 PM »



 Roll Eyes

Why is this backfire on your behalf not a surprise?

You were being sarcastic?  Sure.  Right.   Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!