Ponderable

Wez said:
You still don't get it, if Iran wants nukes, we can't stop them and weren't stopping them. Now we've at least delayed them and added some transparency.

You continually imply that the Iran deal is giving them nukes... it's plain wrong.
Click to expand...
Wishful thinking Wez. The Iran deal isn't giving them nukes, I never implied that, it gave them money and lifted the sanctions.
They wanted their frozen assets returned. We returned them plus interest, in cash!
The Iranians will do as the North Koreans have done, ignore the agreement and pursue their atomic bomb program.
 
..........................


WASHINGTON — Democrats and Republicans are vowing to decisively override President Barack Obama's veto of a bill to allow families of Sept. 11 victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia for the kingdom's alleged backing of the terrorists who killed nearly 3,000 people.
Obama rejected the bill Friday, warning of a host of unintended and severe consequences if it were enacted. The legislation, according to Obama, could leave American troops and diplomats overseas vulnerable to lawsuits in foreign courts from people seeking redress for actions taken by armed groups that are backed or trained by the United States.
The bill's proponents disputed Obama's rationale, arguing the measure is narrowly tailored and applies only to acts of terrorism that occur on U.S. soil.
"This is a disappointing decision that will be swiftly and soundly overturned in Congress," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who sponsored the bill. "If the Saudis did nothing wrong, they should not fear this legislation. If they were culpable in 9/11, they should be held accountable."
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, another of the bill's sponsor, criticized Obama for failing to listen to the families of the victims and said he looked forward to the opportunity for Congress to override the veto.
read more:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...-sept-11-bill/ar-BBwzrJK?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
 
Lion Eyes said:
The Iranians will do as the North Koreans have done, ignore the agreement and pursue their atomic bomb program.
Click to expand...

No Lion, they won't ignore the deal because they don't want harsh economic sanctions. Stop talking out your ass and read something about the deal. Your statements show great ignorance.

http://www.ploughshares.org/issues-analysis/article/one-year-iran-deal-working

"One year later, the agreement is working: all of Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon have been verifiably blocked, and international sanctions lifted. The agreement was won not by force, but by diplomacy. Over the course of the past 6 months since the deal was implemented in January, a number of experts, editorial boards and thought leaders have written about the benefits of the agreement -- and why it's so important that we protect it. Here are some valuable and informative quotations by some of them, and the articles from which they are sourced. "
 
Lion Eyes said:
Wishful thinking Wez. The Iran deal isn't giving them nukes, I never implied that, it gave them money and lifted the sanctions.
They wanted their frozen assets returned. We returned them plus interest, in cash!
The Iranians will do as the North Koreans have done, ignore the agreement and pursue their atomic bomb program.
Click to expand...
Can you show some sort of reference where the US wanted to keep the frozen assets plus the interest?
 
Wez said:
No Lion, they won't ignore the deal because they don't want harsh economic sanctions. Stop talking out your ass and read something about the deal. Your statements show great ignorance.

http://www.ploughshares.org/issues-analysis/article/one-year-iran-deal-working

"One year later, the agreement is working: all of Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon have been verifiably blocked, and international sanctions lifted. The agreement was won not by force, but by diplomacy. Over the course of the past 6 months since the deal was implemented in January, a number of experts, editorial boards and thought leaders have written about the benefits of the agreement -- and why it's so important that we protect it. Here are some valuable and informative quotations by some of them, and the articles from which they are sourced. "
Click to expand...

Bless your little optimistic heart...
The North Korean deal promised harsh sanctions also...
The deal allows Iran to continue enrichment of uranium.
We consider both agreements as "non proliferation" agreements. North Korea & Iran not so much.
Being your Huckleberry, let me suggest you pull your head out of your ass and explain what you believe is meant by Iran when they "suggest a new and constructive way to re-create the international order"?
Here's more talkin out my ass...Iran still preaches death to America and the destruction of Israel & is the number one supporter of international terrorism.
Since the agreement they have increased belligerent & aggressive actions in the Persian Gulf, pulled that one out of my ass too.
With billions in released cash, the Iranians can continue their pursuits...


NEW YORK — A year ago, Iran seemed on the verge of a new relationship with the United States and the world.
In his address to the United Nations last fall, President Hassan Rouhani said the nuclear deal just signed, lifting sanctions and setting limits on Iran’s nuclear program, was a foundation for change.
“We were not solely seeking a nuclear deal,” he said. “We want to suggest a new and constructive way to re-create the international order.”
Flash forward a year, and Rouhani’s optimism has been replaced by disappointment and finger-pointing.
In his U.N. speech and a wide-ranging news conference this week, Rouhani bitterly accused the United States of failing to live up to its obligations under the nuclear deal. In the eight months since the deal was implemented, he said, Washington had delayed licenses for business transactions and blocked Iran’s access to banks.
“The lack of compliance . . . on the part of the United States in the past several months represents a flawed approach that should be rectified forthwith,” he said Thursday.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...7a8611-335d-48c9-ac1f-777f960ebada_story.html

The U.S. regarded the Agreed Framework primarily a non-proliferation agreement, whereas North Korea placed greater value on measures normalizing relations with the U.S.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework
 
Andy Dukes said:
Can you show some sort of reference where the US wanted to keep the frozen assets plus the interest?
Click to expand...
We've had the frozen assets since the Jimmy Carter administrations.
Iran has been and continues to be the number one supporter if terrorism world wide.
To be number 1, one needs cash.
Apparently our negotiators believed giving back the cash PLUS interest was a good thing.
 
Lion Eyes said:
We've had the frozen assets since the Jimmy Carter administrations.
Iran has been and continues to be the number one supporter if terrorism world wide.
To be number 1, one needs cash.
Apparently our negotiators believed giving back the cash PLUS interest was a good thing.
Click to expand...
Are you aware, we were going to lose a court case for holding those assets?
 
Lion Eyes said:
The deal allows Iran to continue enrichment of uranium.
Click to expand...

True, up to about 3.7% U235, which is near the minimum usable in a nuclear power plant. In order to meet the requirement, Iran has to mix down any stocks already at a higher level, and are limited to 300 kilograms of enriched material in total. They are mothballing 2/3 of their enrichment centrifuges and converting one of their enrichment factories to other research.

Iran may have agreed to those limits because they realize, as have other technologically-advanced countries, that nuclear weapons development money is better spent on advanced conventional explosives (and other means of destruction) delivered by high-precision vehicles. Iran has already hinted that they have missiles capable of destroying most of Israel's defense infrastructure without using nuclear weapons.

As for North Korea, the weapon I fear most of theirs is their submarines. They have 10 or so obsolete Soviet Golf-class ballistic-missile subs which can legally patrol within a few miles of our coast. The bad news is that they certainly can make precision-delivery missiles, but the good news is that the Golf subs are diesel-powered, so they are easy for the USN to track.
 
Andy Dukes said:
Are you aware, we were going to lose a court case for holding those assets?
Click to expand...
Hmmm....what court would that be?

Edgartown, Massachusetts (CNN)Iran's former hard-line leader is pressuring President Barack Obama to return billions of dollars in seized Iranian assets, though it's almost certain his appeals will go nowhere.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president from 2005-2013, demanded in a letter that Obama overturn an April US Supreme Court ruling that allowed the seizure of $2 billion worth of Iranian assets to compensate victims of a 1983 terror attack.
In his entreaty, Ahmadinejad suggested Obama had failed to deliver on a promise to improve ties to Iran by allowing the court decision to stand.
"It is with great regret that your explicitly announced undertakings ... including your public as well as written announcements to mend ties with the Iranian nation, and to make compensation for about sixty years of oppression and cruelty by different American governments against the Iranian nation, were never fulfilled," he wrote.
America's high court agreed earlier this year with a lower court decision permitting seizure of the US-held assets to compensate families of a bombing attack on a US Marine barracks in Lebanon. The 1983 bombing, which killed 241 US service personnel, was traced to Hezbollah. In 2003, a US federal judge ruled the terrorist group carried out the attack at the direction of the Iranian government.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/mahmoud-ahmadinejad-letter-to-obama-seized-assets/index.html
 
Lion Eyes said:
Hmmm....what court would that be?

Edgartown, Massachusetts (CNN)Iran's former hard-line leader is pressuring President Barack Obama to return billions of dollars in seized Iranian assets, though it's almost certain his appeals will go nowhere.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president from 2005-2013, demanded in a letter that Obama overturn an April US Supreme Court ruling that allowed the seizure of $2 billion worth of Iranian assets to compensate victims of a 1983 terror attack.
In his entreaty, Ahmadinejad suggested Obama had failed to deliver on a promise to improve ties to Iran by allowing the court decision to stand.
"It is with great regret that your explicitly announced undertakings ... including your public as well as written announcements to mend ties with the Iranian nation, and to make compensation for about sixty years of oppression and cruelty by different American governments against the Iranian nation, were never fulfilled," he wrote.
America's high court agreed earlier this year with a lower court decision permitting seizure of the US-held assets to compensate families of a bombing attack on a US Marine barracks in Lebanon. The 1983 bombing, which killed 241 US service personnel, was traced to Hezbollah. In 2003, a US federal judge ruled the terrorist group carried out the attack at the direction of the Iranian government.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/mahmoud-ahmadinejad-letter-to-obama-seized-assets/index.html
Click to expand...

Treasury's War

https://books.google.com/books/abou...urce=kp_read_button&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
 
violating 18 U.S.C. 793(f), which states:

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed . . . Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(emphasis added)

In criminal law, unless strict liability applies, a statute can require four distinct mental states (“mens rea”) to commit a crime: (i) purpose, (ii) knowledge, (iii) recklessness, and (iv) criminal/gross negligence.
 
Wez said:
Yea, these people...

Cr7hCxNWIAAwSqk.jpg
Click to expand...
The worst part about Hillary isnʻt that she is a law breaking liar, chrony capitalist, sexist. Itʻs that her supporters know that and donʻt care. They still want to crown a liar as the first woman POTUS.
 
violating 18 U.S.C. 793(f), which states:

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed . . . Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(emphasis added)

In criminal law, unless strict liability applies, a statute can require four distinct mental states (“mens rea”) to commit a crime: (i) purpose, (ii) knowledge, (iii) recklessness, and (iv) criminal/gross negligence.
 
A current events question - when one is within sight of a police shooting, as happened yesterday in El Cajon, and the police confiscate everyone's cellphones (as bystanders reported happened yesterday in El Cajon), how long until the phones are returned?
 
espola said:
A current events question - when one is within sight of a police shooting, as happened yesterday in El Cajon, and the police confiscate everyone's cellphones (as bystanders reported happened yesterday in El Cajon), how long until the phones are returned?
Click to expand...

Is there an alternative to 911 that one can call when a non-lethal response is desired or indicated? Could we make one?
 
espola said:
Is there an alternative to 911 that one can call when a non-lethal response is desired or indicated? Could we make one?
Click to expand...
Just wade on in and handle it yourself.
If you dont want to, just wait and see what happens.
Do you have any idea how many 911 responses are made every day, and what percentage of those end in "lethal force"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top