|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:17 am Post subject: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached |
 |
|
| Quote: |
After arduous talks that spanned 20 months, negotiators have reached a landmark deal aimed at reining in Iran's nuclear program.
The agreement, a focal point of U.S. President Barack Obama's foreign policy, appears set to reshape relations between Iran and the West, with its effects likely to ripple across the volatile Middle East.
Representatives of Iran, the United States and the other nations involved in the marathon talks were holding a final meeting in Vienna on Tuesday.
Obama praised the deal reached Tuesday morning, saying the agreement met the goals he had in place throughout negotiations.
"Today after two years of negotiation the United States together with the international community has achieved something that decades of animosity has not: a comprehensive long-term deal with Iran that will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon," Obama said from the White House, with Vice President Joe Biden at his side.
"This deal is not built on trust. It's built on verification," Obama said Tuesday.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani also praised the deal, speaking after Obama finished, as televisions in Iran broadcast the U.S. President's statement live, translated into Farsi.
"Negotiators have reached a good agreement and I announce to our people that our prayers have come true," Rouhani said in a live address to the nation following Obama.
The essential idea behind the deal is that in exchange for limits on its nuclear activities, Iran would get relief from sanctions while being allowed to continue its atomic program for peaceful purposes.
After news of the deal emerged, Yukiya Amano, the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said he had signed a "roadmap" with the Iranian government "for the clarification of past and present outstanding issues regarding Iran's nuclear program."
The deal reduces the number of Iranian centrifuges by two-thirds. It places bans on enrichment at key facilities, and limits uranium research and development to the Natanz facility.
The deal caps uranium enrichment at 3.67 percent and limits the stockpile to 300 kg, all for 15 years.
Iran will be required to ship spent fuel out of the country forever, as well as allow inspectors from the IAEA inspectors certain access in perpetuity. Heightened inspections, including tracking uranium mining and monitoring the production and storage of centrifuges, will last for up to 20 years.
The U.S. estimates that the new measures take Iran from being able to assemble its first bomb within 2-3 months, to at least one year from now.
But the deal between Iran and world powers, brokered during lengthy negotiations in a Vienna hotel, is far from the end of the story.
The accord is expected to face fierce opposition from Republicans in the U.S. Congress, as well as from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a longstanding critic of the negotiations.
"From the initial reports we can already conclude that this agreement is a historic mistake for the world," Netanyahu said Tuesday. "Far-reaching concessions have been made in all areas that were supposed to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability."
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting.
It was safe to assume there would be more to say on this act by Nobama... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2015 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/history-obama-iran-deal-success/398915/
| Quote: |
| For more on the facts, apart from Graham Allison’s careful parsing of the deal, I direct you to the roundtable of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. (E.g. from Siegfried Hecker, former director of Los Alamos Labs: “Much hard work lies ahead to make it a historic opportunity. Even so, the Iran nuclear deal was hard-won and is better than any other reasonably achievable alternative.” Or from Sharon Squassoni, director of the Proliferation Prevention Program at CSIS: “The Vienna agreement with Iran ... is a lumbering, 159-page tome of historic dimensions. ... Still, the level of detail, nuance, and overlapping obligations is impressive. Some of the details are astonishing.”—which she means in a good way. Or from Kingston Reif, of the Arms Control Association: “Many observers, including this author, doubted whether such an agreement could be reached. While a final judgment on the deal must await its implementation, what has been achieved to date is remarkable and historic.”) Or consider this analysis from the Molad institute about why the deal is more advantageous for Israel than any real-world alternative. Or this from Steven Metz. |
People who oppose this deal fall into at least one of four camps:
(1) Political partisans;
(2) Israeli hardliners or their deluded sympathizers;
(3) Arms merchants or servants for the military-industrial complex; or
(4) the extremely Ignorant or Naive.
I will not defend the merits of the deal whatsoever, as the links above do that well enough. Instead, I will defend the logic of the agreement with the assumption that it fails.
Suppose the Iran deal fails because Iran does not comply. War may result, or further economic sanctions may be necessary. This does not change the status quo, except that international support for war, limited strikes, or simply further economic sanctions grows. Even if Iran obtains nuclear weapons technology in that time, this is technology that it would have obtained in the absence of an agreement. As for a preemptive strike, an attack meant to prevent the imminent threshold necessary for Iran to become a nuclear power, this would only delay Iran's realization of the bomb, at great cost, but also harden its resolve. Furthermore, Iran is a bitter opponent of ISIS, and so is the West. Therefore, it makes sense to come to an arrangement now, even if it only stalls for peace until an Iran strike, because there is nothing to lose from an agreement.
Only Iran loses from making an agreement and breaking it, and Iran knows that, and that's precisely why Iran can be trusted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2015 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, considering there was a time when one could call this forum "davesobamacafe", it seems nobody wants to discuss anything that can make Barry look bad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| From everything that I have read, I think it's a good deal. Much better than making secret deals with Iran giving them weapons, like Ronald Reagan did! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
T-J
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Location: Seoul EunpyungGu Yeonsinnae
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 8:29 pm Post subject: Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| Quote: |
After arduous talks that spanned 20 months, negotiators have reached a landmark deal aimed at reining in Iran's nuclear program.
The agreement, a focal point of U.S. President Barack Obama's foreign policy, appears set to reshape relations between Iran and the West, with its effects likely to ripple across the volatile Middle East.
Representatives of Iran, the United States and the other nations involved in the marathon talks were holding a final meeting in Vienna on Tuesday.
Obama praised the deal reached Tuesday morning, saying the agreement met the goals he had in place throughout negotiations.
"Today after two years of negotiation the United States together with the international community has achieved something that decades of animosity has not: a comprehensive long-term deal with Iran that will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon," Obama said from the White House, with Vice President Joe Biden at his side.
"This deal is not built on trust. It's built on verification," Obama said Tuesday.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani also praised the deal, speaking after Obama finished, as televisions in Iran broadcast the U.S. President's statement live, translated into Farsi.
"Negotiators have reached a good agreement and I announce to our people that our prayers have come true," Rouhani said in a live address to the nation following Obama.
The essential idea behind the deal is that in exchange for limits on its nuclear activities, Iran would get relief from sanctions while being allowed to continue its atomic program for peaceful purposes.
After news of the deal emerged, Yukiya Amano, the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said he had signed a "roadmap" with the Iranian government "for the clarification of past and present outstanding issues regarding Iran's nuclear program."
The deal reduces the number of Iranian centrifuges by two-thirds. It places bans on enrichment at key facilities, and limits uranium research and development to the Natanz facility.
The deal caps uranium enrichment at 3.67 percent and limits the stockpile to 300 kg, all for 15 years.
Iran will be required to ship spent fuel out of the country forever, as well as allow inspectors from the IAEA inspectors certain access in perpetuity. Heightened inspections, including tracking uranium mining and monitoring the production and storage of centrifuges, will last for up to 20 years.
The U.S. estimates that the new measures take Iran from being able to assemble its first bomb within 2-3 months, to at least one year from now.
But the deal between Iran and world powers, brokered during lengthy negotiations in a Vienna hotel, is far from the end of the story.
The accord is expected to face fierce opposition from Republicans in the U.S. Congress, as well as from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a longstanding critic of the negotiations.
"From the initial reports we can already conclude that this agreement is a historic mistake for the world," Netanyahu said Tuesday. "Far-reaching concessions have been made in all areas that were supposed to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability."
|
|
Can a supporter of this deal please explain the apparent contradiction of the two bold statements above? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 5:50 am Post subject: Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached |
|
|
| T-J wrote: |
| catman wrote: |
| Quote: |
After arduous talks that spanned 20 months, negotiators have reached a landmark deal aimed at reining in Iran's nuclear program.
The agreement, a focal point of U.S. President Barack Obama's foreign policy, appears set to reshape relations between Iran and the West, with its effects likely to ripple across the volatile Middle East.
Representatives of Iran, the United States and the other nations involved in the marathon talks were holding a final meeting in Vienna on Tuesday.
Obama praised the deal reached Tuesday morning, saying the agreement met the goals he had in place throughout negotiations.
"Today after two years of negotiation the United States together with the international community has achieved something that decades of animosity has not: a comprehensive long-term deal with Iran that will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon," Obama said from the White House, with Vice President Joe Biden at his side.
"This deal is not built on trust. It's built on verification," Obama said Tuesday.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani also praised the deal, speaking after Obama finished, as televisions in Iran broadcast the U.S. President's statement live, translated into Farsi.
"Negotiators have reached a good agreement and I announce to our people that our prayers have come true," Rouhani said in a live address to the nation following Obama.
The essential idea behind the deal is that in exchange for limits on its nuclear activities, Iran would get relief from sanctions while being allowed to continue its atomic program for peaceful purposes.
After news of the deal emerged, Yukiya Amano, the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said he had signed a "roadmap" with the Iranian government "for the clarification of past and present outstanding issues regarding Iran's nuclear program."
The deal reduces the number of Iranian centrifuges by two-thirds. It places bans on enrichment at key facilities, and limits uranium research and development to the Natanz facility.
The deal caps uranium enrichment at 3.67 percent and limits the stockpile to 300 kg, all for 15 years.
Iran will be required to ship spent fuel out of the country forever, as well as allow inspectors from the IAEA inspectors certain access in perpetuity. Heightened inspections, including tracking uranium mining and monitoring the production and storage of centrifuges, will last for up to 20 years.
The U.S. estimates that the new measures take Iran from being able to assemble its first bomb within 2-3 months, to at least one year from now.
But the deal between Iran and world powers, brokered during lengthy negotiations in a Vienna hotel, is far from the end of the story.
The accord is expected to face fierce opposition from Republicans in the U.S. Congress, as well as from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a longstanding critic of the negotiations.
"From the initial reports we can already conclude that this agreement is a historic mistake for the world," Netanyahu said Tuesday. "Far-reaching concessions have been made in all areas that were supposed to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability."
|
|
Can a supporter of this deal please explain the apparent contradiction of the two bold statements above? |
You put Biden in bold. He's known for being a bit bombastic and not being 100% accurate in his statements.
And if you oppose the deal, what do you propose should be done instead? What is a better alternative? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Detractors of the deal are currently "looking for bones in an egg," which means they are finding any small detail or excuse to condemn the deal.
The deal falls within the essential trade-off of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The NPT allows non-nuclear weapons powers aid for civilian nuclear research in exchange for their commitment to refrain from developing nuclear weapons. Right now, Iran is a threshold nuclear power, even after years of sanctions, assassinations of nuclear scientists, and cyber sabotage. They cannot be stopped, and a military strike would only persuade dissenters of nuclear development to acknowledge its necessity. A deal is the only way to a peaceful non-nuclear weapons result.
If you simply hate Obama, and you don't care about peace or wasteful and tragic wars, this deal rankles you because it will assure that Obama is taken seriously as a foreign policy President. On the heels of the Bush Presidency, this means that the curse of Carter (which was always overplayed anyway) would be overcome and Republicans would lose their (largely undeserved) favorable foreign policy reputation. This is the blinkered and narrow worldview under which many partisan right-wingers operate.
This deal is good for national security cons. For example, many criticize the deal because it unfreezes $100 billion in Iranian funds. These funds would inevitably become unfrozen, but now is the best time since Iran is a natural opponent of ISIS and it is likely that a substantial amount of that money will go towards defeating a U.S. enemy.
Nonetheless, I suspect this thread will contain more posts about how much this board loves Obama or other such substanceless griping. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Its a good deal when you consider all aspects of the situation. As for Obama, I have very serious issues with him. However, if one is fair, and using the standards that all Presidents are measured by, presidential historians will have no choice but to say he is the greatest president of the past 50 or 60 years hands down.
Domestically the reversal of the economy from near collapse to the present is unprecedented. Obamacare. Gay marriage. Foreign policy wise: Killing bin Laden. Cuba. Iran deal. De-escalating two wars.
Absolutely no question whatsoever IF one is fair minded. Again, I abhor the fact he was paid off by wall street and big money but to be fair and in context they all are. There is more I think he could have done and should have done on certain domestic issues. But if I consider myself a fair person he's extremely remarkable and what makes his accomplishments even more extraordinary is that he did with a Republican congress that often crossed the line of partisanship to outright mean spiritedness, possibly illegality (Bibi invitation) and racism.
AS for the Iran deal, international experts have cosigned on the deal. The big lie is that Iran is after a nuke to use it. That's been a lie for any state. Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb for no other reason than as an insurance policy against land invasion. Its why India and Pakistan got one each. To guarantee the other won't invade them. Iran is surrounded by American military on all sides in bases and carriers in the gulf. Israel wants to be the only power in the middle east with nuke capabilities and does not want to lose that edge with Iran. Iran getting it will be a deterrent from them being able to wantonly bomb them.
The only thing Iran getting a bomb will do is prompt Saudi Arabia to get one and set up a nuclear race in the region. That's the drawback if it develops one but as far as using it or giving a dirty bomb to terrorists? No way whatsoever. We now have the capability to tell what specific mine the uranium came from if a bomb goes off.
Republicans are against the deal for a variety of reasons. The two main one is AIPAC as well as wealthy jewish donors like the Koch brothers, Israel, etc. being against it and second, they know its a decent deal and want to deny Obama any further legacy building accomplishments, if you strip away all the rhetoric. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2015 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| Its a good deal when you consider all aspects of the situation. As for Obama, I have very serious issues with him. However, if one is fair, and using the standards that all Presidents are measured by, presidential historians will have no choice but to say he is the greatest president of the past 50 or 60 years hands down. |
You went off the rails here.
"No choice" and then later "Absolutely no question whatsoever."
We won't know whether the financial reforms were simply mediocre or totally inadequate until 10-15 years down the road when we can assess the fallout from another financial crisis or the lack of another financial crisis.
(Wiki also estimates India has over 100 nuclear weapons)
| Quote: |
| Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb for no other reason than as an insurance policy against land invasion. |
Yes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2015 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 for those two extremes.
Truman's approval rating when he left office was dreadfully low. He's considered an above average President now. George HW Bush was voted out of office, but in hindsight looks pretty good.
Some Presidential historians say a President can't be accurately judged for at least 20 years until he's left office. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallacy
Joined: 29 Jun 2015
Location: ex-ROK
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2015 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Obama the greatest? I will not be able to live out the 50-60 years it will take for historians to conclude thusly, so I may as well say until then that he might be considered among the greatest political operators of all time. Bill Clinton was of course "The Natural," and Obama has to work harder at it than that, but there is no doubt Obama figured out how to win contests. His track record from university onward to the executive branch is impressive. He can get out the votes. That might be noted by historians. As for popularity or legacy regarding achievements, I am not so sure about that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
