tmw you're so desperate to defend a fellow idiot's ridiculous claim that you conflate ratification of a treaty and inspection notices...

10 run on sentences higher

congrats i laughed a good belly laugh



do you have credible reason to think that the inspections weren't in the framework that was given to Iran to mull over between April and June 14th? because it seems like a wiki says otherwise.

they were notified there would be inspections many days before there were inspections, it was built into the deal.

like i said, i dont think that affected what if anything inspections would find. it just seems like an odd contention to make by you and Scaly.

Because it's not true. You may notice a pattern in my posts - I often call out shit for not being true regardless of my stance on the larger argument. The devil is in the details bud and when you're ok with those details being false as long as the wider picture fits your narrative then I'm gonna call you, or anyone else, on it.

'many days' is not 'minimum of 45 days'. Obama was busy reassuring people they wouldn't even know 27 days ahead.

Also people talking bout 'moving' shit like it's a meth lab. Fucking lol.

This post was edited by Scaly on May 10 2018 02:22pm

please address the numbers and not your credability (which i didnt question).

framework which included provisions for inspections was given for the Iranians to mull over and potentially sign in april. then they signed it 45 or so days later on june 14th. unless im reading that wrong, i had to look up the timeline today to find out.

as to the last, you act like the iranian govt has the resources of a meth dealer.

if you've got a source which shows they were surprised by inspections i'd love to read it.

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 10 2018 02:26pm

There's a big fuckin' gap between 'surprised' and '45 days'.

They also haven't had just one inspection. Inspections are ongoing.

I dunno man. They might be working on nukes undercover. I'm not arguing either side here. I'm just saying Many_Names' original comment was some bullshit representation of how inspections work. I'm also more inclined to take the opinions of experts on the subject over a random racist on jsp... or the random racist in the white house.

A nuclear program also isn't something you can just pick up and move. My point about the meth lab was that a nuclear program is not like a shitty meth operation. It's large-scale. You're talking large facilities full of uranium centrifuges which are very hard to make, to the point where it is one of the main hurdles for most countries trying to start a nuclear program and the Iranian govt gave up 15,000 of their 20,000 as part of the deal, to enrich uranium. You need huge quantities of uranium and hydroflouric acid. You need storage, you need all kinds of shit that's beyond the capability of many countries even to make or acquire.

The idea that they're constantly moving this shit around and not leaving a trace is ridiculous.

This post was edited by Scaly on May 10 2018 04:07pm

the thing about the deal is that no one in their right mind would claim it's perfect or even close to it from our perspective. no, ofc not - and iran is most certainly not a good or even rational actor when it comes to their foreign and military policy, especially concerning their constant threats against israel. i wouldn't trust that regime further than i can throw it, so being suspicious is certainly justified.

that being said though, according to almost every expert (that's not a conservative american or israeli), inspector, and analyst, iran adhered to the terms of the deal, which effectively resulted in a complete halt on their way to the bomb. and while some morons on our side try to score political points with their uninformed base by labeling it 'the worst deal in history' or some ridiculous shit that only gullible fools would take at face value, the reality is that it was probably the best we could do at that point.
people in the west (especially conservatives) tend to look at iran as one homogeneous hostile entity, but the reality is much more complex. the iranian delegation that negotiated the deal for example faced massive pressure, political opposition, and even death threats from conservatives in iran who blamed them for making too many concessions - and that's just one of the many aspects people conveniently overlook when pointing to the flaws of the deal and acting like it would have been so easy to make a better one.

but i guess that's the kind of 'argument' you have to expect from people who apparently get their information exclusively from FOX news and similar outlets, still repeating those countless times debunked 45 or 27 days notice stories, acting like you could just make enrichment facilities disappear on short notice, and like weapons grade uranium (as well as the equipment and technology required to produce it) wasn't traceable...

50 duds for each laugh - the robin williams method

Because the deal didn't block Iran from building nuclear weapons.