200 retired generals and admirals sign letter opposing terrible Iran deal Watch

LockheedSpooky
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
A group of nearly 200 retired generals and admirals will send a letter to Congress Wednesday urging lawmakers to reject the Iran nuclear agreement, which they say threatens national security.The letter is the latest in a blizzard of missives petitioning Congress to either support or oppose the agreement with Iran, which lifts sanctions if Iran pares back its nuclear program. Letters have been sent by ad hoc groupings of rabbis, nuclear scientists, arms control and nonproliferation experts — and now, retired senior military officers, many of whom have worked in the White House during various administrations dating back to the 1980s.


“The agreement will enable Iran to become far more dangerous, render the Mideast still more unstable and introduce new threats to American interests as well as our allies,” the letter states.

The signatories include retired generals and flag officers from every branch of service, including a handful who were involved in some public controversies during their careers.

Many of the signatories served in the White House, under Democratic administrations as well as Republican. The only thing they appear to have in common is that they consider the Iran deal a threat to U.S. interests in the region and its own national security.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...ampaign=buffer
0
reply
LockheedSpooky
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#2
But the main point is that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism on a scale not matched by any other nation. They're destabilising nations around them, have sworn to "export their revolution" and make genocidal threats against Israel.

And what has Obama done about it? given them a deal in which Iranians would be inspecting their own military sites and given 4 week + notice of any IAEA inspections.

Now with the windfall of billions of dollars, things are are going to get a lot worse in the M.E.
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
And the alternative is......

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
WhìteHumanRights
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
Israel is a bigger threat to national security. See 9/11.
0
reply
mizzip
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by LockheedSpooky)
Well, yes.

But the main point is that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism on a scale not matched by any other nation. They're destabilising nations around them, have sworn to "export their revolution" and make genocidal threats against Israel.

And what has Obama done about it? given them a deal in which Iranians would be inspecting their own military sites and given 4 week + notice of any IAEA inspections.

Now with the windfall of billions of dollars, things are are going to get a lot worse in the M.E.
Oh please.. The West, including Israel, are the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the world. South America, the Middle East, Eastern Europe and South East Asia as examples from recent decades.


Western intelligence agencies have even admitted that there is no evidence Iran has recently attempted to create a nuclear weapon. These sanctions, and the whole story, has nothing to do with Iran attempting to create a nuclear weapon, but the fact that Iran refuses to become a client state of the West. Just like any other nation which is demonised and attacked by us: Russia, Syria, China, Venezuela, Libya and Zimbabwe amongst others (note how countries such as Saudi and Bahrain can persecute gays and abuse their citizen's human rights without fear of reprisal).
1
reply
Errm7
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by Skip_Snip)
Giving nuclear weapons to muslims is a really stupid idea.
In other news, Pakistan's nuclear arsenal was discovered to have gone "missing" yesterday...
0
reply
Errm7
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by LockheedSpooky)
Well, yes.

But the main point is that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism on a scale not matched by any other nation. They're destabilising nations around them, have sworn to "export their revolution" and make genocidal threats against Israel.

And what has Obama done about it? given them a deal in which Iranians would be inspecting their own military sites and given 4 week + notice of any IAEA inspections.

Now with the windfall of billions of dollars, things are are going to get a lot worse in the M.E.
Coming from a supporter of what many consider an "illegitimate State" that won't even confirm or deny that they have a nuclear arsenal, I find the stench of hypocrisy overwhelming.
2
reply
MagicNMedicine
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
As we all know nuclear weapons are a deterrent which is why we must have Trident so Iran is not a threat to the US, UK or Israel as they all have the nuclear deterrent.
0
reply
Studentus-anonymous
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by Skip_Snip)
Giving nuclear weapons to muslims is a really stupid idea.
I dunno, Pakistan hasn't caused WW3 (yet).

On he other hand I don't think Iran should have the bomb, nor have any deals which enable it to carry out bomb-making (in open or secret).

Edit: Don't let your hate of the west blind you guys. Yeah America is bad, Israel is bad, western aggression is bad, still doesn't make a nuclear Iran any more palatable.
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
I'd like to see them offer a credible, well thought-out alternative. One of the most prominent opponents of the deal, Michael T Flynn, conspicuously cannot spell out an alternative. The opponents of the deal are acting out of hysterical paranoia or due to strategic reasons, and the only alternative we've seen over the years is the threat, in violation of the UN Charter and international law, from Israel and the United States that they'll attack Iran. Which is neither credible, moral or well thought-out.

This deal will reduce the risk of Iran building a nuclear weapon even further, and is good for both the people of Iran and the rest of the world.

Even if Iran were currently building a nuclear weapon (which they aren't, according to Western intelligence agencies), the Iranian leadership isn't suicidal: if they even attempted to fire a nuclear weapon, the whole country would be obliterated within minutes.

The real reason that Israel and the American hawks oppose the deal is that a stronger Iran will "destablise the region", which of course means that the US and Israel won't be free to commit acts of aggression in the Middle East as easily as they've been able to.
0
reply
Skip_Snip
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by viddy9)
I'd like to see them offer a credible, well thought-out alternative.
How about ... not putting nukes, or any other weapons, into the hands of Iran? Why does there need to be an alternative, just don't give 'em owt!
0
reply
Illiberal Liberal
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Skip_Snip)
How about ... not putting nukes, or any other weapons, into the hands of Iran? Why does there need to be an alternative, just don't give 'em owt!
Sometimes I wonder how it is possible for people to be so retarded.

I mean, do you have any idea what the Iran Deal does?

How people can interpret a deal that prevents Iran from ever getting nuclear weapons, agreed upon by the USA, China, Russia, the UK, France and Germany (and Iran), as a deal that puts "nukes... into the hands of Iran" is utterly stupefying. :indiff:
1
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by Law-Hopeful)
Sometimes I wonder how it is possible for people to be so retarded.

I mean, do you have any idea what the Iran Deal does?

How people can interpret a deal that prevents Iran from ever getting nuclear weapons, agreed upon by the USA, China, Russia, the UK, France and Germany (and Iran), as a deal that puts "nukes... into the hands of Iran" is utterly stupefying. :indiff:
What do you think of the deal in the long term. It's valid for 15(?) years. After that Iran is free to do as it pleases.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
bassbabe
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
I read generals as genitals 😶
0
reply
Illiberal Liberal
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by Aj12)
What do you think of the deal in the long term. It's valid for 15(?) years. After that Iran is free to do as it pleases.

Posted from TSR Mobile
That's simply not true.

The range of restrictions on Iran's nuclear (civilian, IMO, not a very popular opinion, but my opinion nonetheless) programme will be in place for varying amounts of time; some for 10 years, some for 15, some for 25 years and some never expire.

I just created a thread that discussed an article created by The Centre For Arms Control and Non-Proliferation that deconstructs 17 of the most common criticisms of the deal. You can read that here to see why all the criticisms are flawed/disingenuous.

CLAIM 17: THE DEAL, IF IMPLEMENTED, WILL EXPIRE AFTER 10 OR 15 YEARS AND ALLOW IRAN TO BUILD A NUCLEAR WEAPON AT THAT TIME.

The Facts:

According to the comprehensive agreement, for at least 15 years, Iran will only enrich uranium up to 3.67 percent (uranium enriched at 20% or lower is considered low enriched uranium (LEU); uranium enriched above 90% is weapons grade.)

This does not, however, mean that on day one of year 16, Iran will have enough weapons-grade uranium to build a bomb. Yes, after 15 years Iran could begin enriching uranium beyond 3.67 percent. But without this deal, Iran could head for a bomb tomorrow.

Some aspects of the agreement will last 25 years, including the monitoring of Iran’s uranium mines and supply chain. Other aspects, such as the implementation of robust IAEA safeguards and access to investigate suspicious sites for illicit nuclear activity, are permanent.

Regardless of what specific restrictions are lifted, Iran is still prohibited from pursuing nuclear weapons. Any activity that is clearly not intended for “peaceful use” (i.e. highly enriching uranium) will raise red flags and trigger a response from the international community.

Ultimately, the deal rolls back Iran’s nuclear program for more than a decade, pushing Iran’s “breakout time” (time it would take to enrich enough nuclear material for 1 nuclear weapon) from a few months to at least one year. It also gives IAEA inspectors greater insight for monitoring Iran’s nuclear program well into the future.
In addition, you have to ask yourself - what is the purpose of the deal? The purpose of the deal is to prove Iran's peaceful intentions re: its nuclear programme, and it was decided that those restrictions (as mentioned, some of which last 25 years and others forever) are adequate to do that. I don't think the USA (because it is largely just the USA that would be in favour of this) has any grounds to demand draconian restrictions permanently on a civilian nuclear programme. Regardless of my view, the entire supply chain of Iran's nuclear material will remain under 24/7 supervision for 25 years and the most stringent supervision regime of a country's nuclear facilities in history will last forever (or until one party withdraws from the deal).

Anyone who opposes this is simply not after any deal at all, imo.
1
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by Law-Hopeful)
That's simply not true.

The range of restrictions on Iran's nuclear (civilian, IMO, not a very popular opinion, but my opinion nonetheless) programme will be in place for varying amounts of time; some for 10 years, some for 15, some for 25 years and some never expire.

I just created a thread that discussed an article created by The Centre For Arms Control and Non-Proliferation that deconstructs 17 of the most common criticisms of the deal. You can read that here to see why all the criticisms are flawed/disingenuous.



In addition, you have to ask yourself - what is the purpose of the deal? The purpose of the deal is to prove Iran's peaceful intentions re: its nuclear programme, and it was decided that those restrictions (as mentioned, some of which last 25 years and others forever) are adequate to do that. I don't think the USA (because it is largely just the USA that would be in favour of this) has any grounds to demand draconian restrictions permanently on a civilian nuclear programme. Regardless of my view, the entire supply chain of Iran's nuclear material will remain under 24/7 supervision for 25 years and the most stringent supervision regime of a country's nuclear facilities in history will last forever (or until one party withdraws from the deal).

Anyone who opposes this is simply not after any deal at all, imo.
Thanks. I was not aware of many of those restrictions.

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (150)
59.29%
No I haven't decided yet (58)
22.92%
Yes but I might change my mind (45)
17.79%

Watched Threads

View All