The IAEA has a substantially better record of keeping track of WMD cheaters than the US does.
ETA: and by the way, do police give you all the details on how they conduct investigations?
For a deal as bad as Trump kept saying it was while on the campaign, he sure seems to have decided it’s tolerable and barely worth mentioning these days.
Again - there is an agreement between IAEA and Iran about the inspections. You have no idea what is in the agreement. I have no idea what is in the agreement. And “no American” is allowed to ever see the agreement. Why do you think that is?
Again, did you read the IAEA source I provided and did you follow the additional links in therein?
Why do you stubbornly insist on quoting some piss poor investigative reporting from an article that is over 2 years old? You didn’t even realize the article was out of date until it was pointed out to you. But you’ll be damned if you’re going to be moved from your ill-informed position, despite being handed exactly the kind of information you insist is being hidden from you.
Yes, I did. Can you show me the text of the inspection agreement between Iran and IAEA? Is it anywhere in those links?
I have made this once and it was the best flan I’ve ever tried:
FLAN
This recipe should be made at least one day before serving. We recommend an 8 1/2 by 4 1/2-inch loaf pan for this recipe. If your pan is 9 by 5 inches, begin checking for doneness at 1 hour. You may substitute 2 percent milk for the whole milk, but do not use skim milk. Serve the flan on a platter with a raised rim to contain the liquid caramel.
INGREDIENTS
• 2/3cup (4 2/3 ounces) sugar
• 2large eggs plus 5 yolks
• 1(14-ounce) can sweetened condensed milk
• 1(12-ounce) can evaporated milk
• 1/2cup whole milk
• 1 1/2tablespoons vanilla extract
• 1/2teaspoon salt
INSTRUCTIONS
-
- Stir together sugar and 1/4 cup water in medium heavy saucepan until sugar is completely moistened. Bring to boil over medium-high heat, 3 to 5 minutes, and cook, without stirring, until mixture begins to turn golden, another 1 to 2 minutes. Gently swirling pan, continue to cook until sugar is color of peanut butter, 1 to 2 minutes. Remove from heat and swirl pan until sugar is reddish-amber and fragrant, 15 to 20 seconds. Carefully swirl in 2 tablespoons warm tap water until incorporated; mixture will bubble and steam. Pour caramel into 8 1/2 by 4 1/2-inch loaf pan; do not scrape out saucepan. Set loaf pan aside.
- Adjust oven rack to middle position and heat oven to 300 degrees. Line bottom of 13 by 9-inch baking pan with dish towel, folding towel to fit smoothly, and set aside. Bring 2 quarts water to boil.
- Whisk eggs and yolks in large bowl until combined. Add sweetened condensed milk, evaporated milk, whole milk, vanilla, and salt and whisk until incorporated. Strain mixture through fine-mesh strainer into prepared loaf pan.
- Cover loaf pan tightly with aluminum foil and place in prepared baking pan. Place baking pan in oven and carefully pour all of boiling water into pan. Bake until center of custard jiggles slightly when shaken and custard registers 180 degrees, 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 hours. Remove foil and leave custard in water bath until loaf pan has cooled completely. Remove loaf pan from water bath, wrap tightly with plastic wrap, and chill overnight or up to 4 days.
- To unmold, slide paring knife around edges of pan. Invert serving platter on top of pan and turn pan and platter over. When flan is released, remove loaf pan. Using rubber spatula, scrape residual caramel onto flan. Slice and serve. (Leftover flan may be covered loosely with plastic wrap and refrigerated for up to 4 days.)
What, you want me to just repeat my posts? I’m happy to, but if they were ignored the first time, there’s no education in the second kickbof a mule.
I’m looking right through your transparent attempts to avoid acknowledging that you’re wrong and to push your predictable anti-Obama agenda.
So I’m going to decline your request to do your homework for you. If you’re as interested as you claim, you’ll find the information you say you want in the links I provided and by using the helpful search feature on the IAEA site. In addition, I’m sure you can figure out how to use google and enter the search terms IAEA + IRAN + JCPOA.
But I’m thinking you won’t. Because it doesn’t serve the conclusion you’ve already arrived at, sans fact, per modus operandi.
You better contact the IAEA and tell them you’re (allegedly) American and you’re not allowed to see this The Text of the Agreement Between Iran and the Agency for the Application of Safeguards in Connection with the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons | IAEA.
After you contact them and have the text of the agreement, including it’s translations, taken down, spend a little time here so you’ll know what you’re talking about before starting threads https://armscontrolcenter.org/the-real-facts-on-the-iran-nuclear-negotiations/
Whenever a Democratic president leaves office, for a portion of the electorate it’s like retiring from a hated job. Overwhelming relief at first, but with the ostensible source of all one’s problems gone, it quickly turns to aimless puttering around the house, dwelling on the past.
Don’t lose hope, Oke. If we all keep our fingers crossed, maybe the Dems will retake the House and life will begin anew.
I’m starting to think I know what Trumps’ Doper username is.
Your second cite contradicts your first one:
“Some critics are calling this a secret side deal between the IAEA and Iran; however, this is standard operating procedure, and every such agreement the IAEA has with other countries is also confidential.”
So which is it? “Confidential” or “published on the IAEA web site”?
Why would we ACTUALLY research a subject when you can take one quote from a two year old opinion piece and use that as your entire argument instead? That takes time and doesn’t properly ramp up the recreational outrage machine.
Mind’s Eye, Watering, the “recipe technique” is a way to not respond to trolls, so it is, in essence, accusing the OP of being a troll.
We are not in the Pit, so accusations of trolling are not allowed.
Do not do this again, in this tread or any other, outside the Pit.
This article seems more damning. To get the deal done, Obama gave them back a bunch of guys who were pivotal to the acquisition and/or production of nuclear arms.
Seems like a pretty good deal for the Iranians. After having their capability to manufacture nukes disabled, they pledge to “make no more” - a pretty easy deal when that’s all you can do - in return for being able to get their capability back. Obviously, the hope would be that they follow through on the agreement anyways, but it does sound like a rather obvious thing to not agree to on the American side.
The only way that you could seriously post the bolded part is if you literally have no idea what the JCPOA requires. Eliminating 98% of Iran’s uranium is not “getting their capability back.” Eliminating 2/3rds of its centrifuges is not “getting their capability back.” Filling the Arak reactor with cement is not “getting their capability back.”
I didn’t intend to imply immediately get it back. Obviously, they would have to go back through the whole process of procurement and development again.
Does anything in the current agreement preclude the nations involved from continuing to negotiate with Iran to drop their nuclear weapons program entirely? Is it a bad agreement by virtue of the fact that the world didn’t get everything it wanted on the first try?
Instead of just rehashing an almost two year old argument there is another issue at work here. We don’t have a time machine to go back and change the decisions and actions made in the past.
This was a multi-party agreement (US, UK, France, China, Russia, Germany and the EU). Those first five are all nuclear powers and all are permanent members of the UN Security council. That mean they have a veto on any potential UN sanctions. In addition it would take an overall majority of all current UNSC members even if those five all supported or abstained. The best the US can do by itself is back out of the agreement and implement unilateral sanctions. Because of the closeness of the relationship with Europe we might be able to coax the EU to implement sanctions again. UN sanctions, as long as China and Russia are happy with the deal, might not be feasible to reimplement.
So Okrahoma, aside from bitching about a guy who isn’t in office anymore, what would you have us do now? It’s 2017. The decision is no longer is this a good deal that we should have agreed to. The current decision is whether there is a better option right now given that we did agree to it and things have changed since then. Without foreign policy proposals based on the current situation this is just a “Was it a smart decision for Japan to attack Pearl Harbor?” type thread - interesting but meaningless.
Oh, I don’t know, but perhaps Iran doesn’t trust or like the American Government? Perhaps they are afraid if the US knows the details there will be pressure/criticism of the conclusion of the IAEA?
The whole point of an independent agency is one that is not subject to pressure from participants in their work. Clearly in an ideal world no participant would pressure the independent agency and no one would have to keep secrets. In this world, I can see how a suspicious Iran would want to have some assurances about the independence of the IAEA.
After all, all participants are relying on the professionalism and independence of the IAEA in this matter. If they are going to cheat, our knowing their plans won’t prevent that cheating. Some level of trust is fundamental to any agreement. When the two sides have no trust, they turn to a third party.