SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 13 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
According to the White House:
After many months [Ed: years?] of principled diplomacy, the P5+1 -- the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, Russia and Germany -- along with the European Union, have achieved a long-term comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran that will verifiably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and ensure that Iran's nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful going forward.
Reported at BBC, NYT, Reuters, and everywhere else. President Obama spoke about the deal for 15 minutes this morning.
The deal has been praised by Syrian President Bashar Assad and slammed by the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Text of the "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action."
Original Submission
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
P5+1 Reach Nuclear Deal With Iran
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 28 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Make a wish, it might come true.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2015, @06:46PM
Another event to drive down oil price, but we in SoCal are being gouged for gas - price shot up more than 70 cents/gallon in less than a week.
Fuck the sack-a-potato scumbags in bed with oil refineries. I'm buying a diesel.
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Tuesday July 14 2015, @07:22PM
Ah yes. Unrefined diesel. I can smell you coming! You're running on excess taco fat...
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2015, @07:37PM
No, you numbnut. There is no CA-special diesel, only gasoline. The Sacco fuckers previously forced MTBE in gas to poison the ground water. The whole damn thing is stupid - the gas additive reduced mileage so in the end any pollution was wash at best.
Hey, Iranian ragheads, wanna nuke Sacco, go for it.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Gravis on Tuesday July 14 2015, @07:02PM
The deal has been ... slammed by the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
i would be surprised if Netanyahu didn't slam any deal made with Iran. if you follow politics you know this guy is generally malcontent and a warmonger.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2015, @07:54PM
Dude has been slamming it for months. Today's slamming happened even before the full details were released. The guy is a fucking broken record.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2015, @08:01PM
As a red-blooded American, I demand my president to put this assclown in his place.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Wednesday July 15 2015, @03:34AM
Really? You want the President to lay a smackdown on "Gravis"? Sure, it was a ridiculous comment, but not really worthy of a presidential punch.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @04:05AM
No, the other assclown, you dork!!!
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Wednesday July 15 2015, @06:54AM
Anonymous Coward? You are calling for the President to lay a smackdown on yourself?
Bold move.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Tuesday July 14 2015, @08:39PM
I prefer sterile and neutral summaries, especially for political submissions.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday July 14 2015, @09:19PM
(Score: 4, Informative) by Geotti on Wednesday July 15 2015, @01:05AM
Turkey's a bit more than "cautiously" optimistic:
"Full implementation of the agreements will bring peace, security and stability to the region [...]"
http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150714/1024619717.html [sputniknews.com]
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Wednesday July 15 2015, @03:39AM
From the bbc article http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33527844 [bbc.com], why does this agreement have to be cancelled by Congress vs being passed by Congress?
As in, based on the BBC article, Congress would have to vote to cancel the agreement, then the president can veto the cancellation, and then Congress would need a 2/3rds majority to force it's cancellation, vs what I expected, that Congress would have to approve the agreement.
It just seems backwards. Are 'regular' trade agreements also like this?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JNCF on Tuesday July 14 2015, @07:07PM
From the agreement, after establishing that Iran is going to be building a nuclear power plant that uses heavy water:
There will be no additional heavy water reactors or accumulation of heavy water in Iran for 15 years. All excess heavy water will be made available for export to the international market.
Anybody know why this is in the agreement? Are the anti-Iran parties just worried about them making tritium, or are there other reasons to prevent Iran from stocking up on heavy water? I could see tritium control being reason enough, and I could also see it being used as a pretext to limit Iran's nuclear power production for economic reasons. Just wondering if I'm missing another obvious angle on it.
(Score: 5, Informative) by zeigerpuppy on Tuesday July 14 2015, @08:49PM
Heavy water reactors can be very efficiently used for breeding plutonium from U238
https://fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/heavy.htm [fas.org]
This is also probably to keep Iran dependent on imported fuel.
They'll thus be a half member of the nuclear club but not able to play with the big boys.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Tuesday July 14 2015, @09:12PM
Ah, didn't know that. Thankyou.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Tuesday July 14 2015, @07:21PM
The principle that sanctions Iran for being a compliant signatory of the NPT since the 70's?
The principle that excuses Israel from abiding by ay international legal or treaty obligation with regard to even acknowledging their nuclear capability and arsenal?
Sanctions should have been on Israel until they signed and complied with inspections. We have a mad-dog, capable of nuclear blackmail on the loose.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2015, @11:07PM
Maybe if Israel ever signed off their right to create nuclear weapons like other countries in question did you've had a point, they (and Pakistan) are among those that never signed off their ability to produce nuclear weapons.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by AlHunt on Tuesday July 14 2015, @07:51PM
Were I going to have any faith in this deal at all, I lost it at 7AM today when Obama got on the teevee blathering on about it how wonderful it's going to be.
I seem to recall that he's the bald-faced liar who spent 2 or 3 years saying "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", over and over again.
Obama has no credibility on any issue, whatsoever. He is an unmitigated, unapologetic liar. Nothing more.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by iwoloschin on Tuesday July 14 2015, @08:00PM
Well, are you surprised? He promised change. That's why we all voted for him. We just didn't anticipate that he'd change his word, we thought he'd change previous policies. Oh well, I'm not surprised, he is a politician after all! Can't ever really trust a politician.
(Score: 5, Funny) by fritsd on Tuesday July 14 2015, @07:57PM
I loved this cartoon : http://i.imgur.com/7OlJmQU.png [imgur.com]
from the "Polandball" cartoons in Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/polandball/ [reddit.com]
Really, some weeks there is just too much news. And I say this as a news junkie.
(Score: 2) by drussell on Wednesday July 15 2015, @12:00AM
Editors, please STOP IT!, already, with the excessive use of unnecessary "Breaking News" tabs!
Every news tidbit is NOT "Breaking News!!"
If a spacecraft crashes or a president gets shot, it is "Breaking News". If some CEO resigns or some international deal is announced, unless we have some kind of real scoop with new information or whatever, let the damn thing play out until everyone really knows whats going on.
Please stop cutting and pasting headlines as if it's the end of the world!
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday July 15 2015, @12:45AM
This is part of the new Nexus feature. Blizzard will release a patch to address it.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @12:59AM
But it is. Two days from now, SN better not be running these particular links (for a newly posted article), or people will hoot in derision. That's breaking news.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Geotti on Wednesday July 15 2015, @01:19AM
For (geo-)politics, this actually is breaking news. Yay!
Now they can join the SCO [chinadaily.com.cn] ("Iran's path was blocked on Thursday when a fourth round of United Nations sanctions fell on Teheran for its nuclear activities. The SCO has stated any country under UN sanctions cannot be admitted.").
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Wednesday July 15 2015, @12:59AM
Lets see, how many words in just the snippet quoted are entirely wrong....
principled. Nope, unless you are talking about Iran steamrolling us and getting pretty much everything they wanted. They do deserve credit for standing firm and rolling the pussies on the other side of the table.
achieved. Surrender is not an achievement, any idiot can accomplish submission.
deal. Please. We surrendered, Iran gave up nothing.
verifiably. Nope, no verification at all. We have seen this story too many times. Anybody remember North Korea, just to bring up the last abject failure of this sort of appeasement?
peaceful. No way. War is not only an absolute certainty now, it is now all but certain to include atom bombs bursting in air. And that is really the bottom line, appeasement of this sort always leads to a more horrible war than a principled hard won peace, even if it involves a short war to push the evildoers to the negotiating table.
Folks, these guys have been standing in a big square and chanting "Death to America! Death to Israel!" every Friday for more than thirty years now, when will some people begin to entertain the notion that perhaps they might just mean it? Try it, just as a thought experiment. Sit and imagine that they really, really do hate us and have burned with pure hate for a third of a century.... and they they have intercontinental missiles (they can launch to orbit, which means they can drop a payload anywhere on Earth) and have just been given a green light to build nukes. Just try to imagine that for a moment and you will understand my world and why I'm so hostile to this horrible deal.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @01:11AM
i tried imagining it, but for some reason you forgot that the two countries you mentioned can blast Iran back to the stone age, and both are capable of Ballistic Missile Defense
i don't see the problem here
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @03:25AM
Here's a page I like on this topic.
People who have never seen active military service but who lie and rattle sabers [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [globalresearch.ca]
It mentions how both US Intelligence and Israeli Intelligence have said that Iran has no nuclear -weapons- program.
N.B. The best Iran can do is produce medical grade isotopes of 10 percent concentrations (which is the goal of their nuclear program).
The only ones worse than lying warmongering Hillary is anyone connected with the GOP.
North Korea
Can you be the slightest bit specific?
Are you talking about the aftermath of the "nuclear" explosion that was so weak that many experts thought the Norks had simply stockpiled a bunch of conventional explosives and detonated that?
-- gewg_