Pence right about Iran "deal" making us less safer in VP debate

[Jan2017]

Well, if quantified officially by the Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists -
set at three minutes to midnight in 2015 - during the BO administration, the closest to doom since 1983

Doomsday Clock hands remain unchanged, despite Iran deal and Paris talks

January 26, 2016 – The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Science and Security Board announced today that the minute hand of its closely watched Doomsday Clock will remain at three minutes to midnight, since recent progress in the Iran nuclear agreement and the Paris climate accord “constitute only small bright spots in a darker world situation full of potential for catastrophe.”

“Three minutes (to midnight) is too close. Far too close. We, the members of the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,want to be clear about our decision not to move the hands of the Doomsday Clock in 2016: That decision is not good news, but an expression of dismay that world leaders continue to fail to focus their efforts and the world's attention on reducing the extreme danger posed by nuclear weapons and climate change. When we call these dangers existential, that is exactly what we mean: They threaten the very existence of civilization and therefore should be the first order of business for leaders who care about their constituents and their countries."

http://thebulletin.org/press-release...aris-talks9122
http://thebulletin.org/sites/default...nal%5B5%5D.pdf

Pence at 1:50 in first tube below but there are other lines I was looking for.

[CPUd]

Maybe Iran will be willing to renegotiate after they get the $#@! bombed out of them.

[Jan2017]

Maybe Iran will be willing to renegotiate after they get the $#@! bombed out of them.

Nah, all that unlimited UF₆ Putin gets from Iran was quite a "deal" though.

[Keith and stuff]

When we first learned details on the Iran deal, it sounded like it might be progress. I liked that Ron Paul was even on board. Then we learned the truth. There were massive cash payments to Iran that were covered up. Unforunately, it appears that the deal buys time, but also pays for the coming Iran nuclear weapons.

[AtlantaIconoclast]

When we first learned details on the Iran deal, it sounded like it might be progress. I liked that Ron Paul was even on board. Then we learned the truth. There were massive cash payments to Iran that were covered up. Unforunately, it appears that the deal buys time, but also pays for the coming Iran nuclear weapons.

Is this the Ron Paul Forums or the Weekly Standard Forums? Where do you guys get this crap about Iran going for nukes. Even our own intelligence had to admit that there was no evidence that Iran was pursuing nukes. Thy were pursuing nuclear energy, which is their right. And the massive cash payments were done in a very sneaky way sure, but that money was owed to Iran from years past.

[nikcers]

Is this the Ron Paul Forums or the Weekly Standard Forums? Where do you guys get this crap about Iran going for nukes. Even our own intelligence had to admit that there was no evidence that Iran was pursuing nukes. Thy were pursuing nuclear energy, which is their right. And the massive cash payments were done in a very sneaky way sure, but that money was owed to Iran from years past.

This is Trump subforum now- Trump attacked Ron Paul in 2011 about this - not one of the Trump supporters care.

[Ender]

Is this the Ron Paul Forums or the Weekly Standard Forums? Where do you guys get this crap about Iran going for nukes. Even our own intelligence had to admit that there was no evidence that Iran was pursuing nukes. Thy were pursuing nuclear energy, which is their right. And the massive cash payments were done in a very sneaky way sure, but that money was owed to Iran from years past.

Absolutely.

Iran is surround by bases and other countries that have nukes- Israel has an estimated 400 nuclear warheads- yet the spin is that Iran is the danger. We have always wanted Iran's oil; overthrew their elected PM to grab their oil.

And we took billions of dollars from Iran when we put them under sanctions- the money received so far is a drop in the bucket to what is owed them.

[openfire]

When we first learned details on the Iran deal, it sounded like it might be progress. I liked that Ron Paul was even on board.

Then we learned the truth.

There were massive cash payments to Iran that were covered up. Unforunately, it appears that the deal buys time, but also pays for the coming Iran nuclear weapons.

There were no "massive cash payments" that I'm aware of, just the unfreezing of Iranian funds and other assets which were a part of the lifted sanctions.

As for the deal "buying time" for "the coming Iranian nuclear weapons", both Panetta, the director of the CIA at the time, and Pardo, head of Israel Mossad openly admitted that Iran not only wasn't/isn't building nuclear weapons (as Fox news and the neocons claim), but that Iran had not even decided to try to attain nuclear weapons.

[Jan2017]

Is this the Ron Paul Forums or the Weekly Standard Forums? Where do you guys get this crap about Iran going for nukes. Even our own intelligence had to admit that there was no evidence that Iran was pursuing nukes. Thy were pursuing nuclear energy, which is their right. And the massive cash payments were done in a very sneaky way sure, but that money was owed to Iran from years past.

Yeah, I agree. More than just a right - Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (unlike that rogue 70 year old zionist nation which defies UN resolutions and is not a member of the NPT).

Sanctions and trade wars are how nations fight in part, since at least the Jimmy Carter "Food as a Weapon" plan

[Ender]

There were no "massive cash payments" that I'm aware of, just the unfreezing of Iranian funds and other assets which were a part of the lifted sanctions.

As for the deal "buying time" for "the coming Iranian nuclear weapons", both Panetta, the director of the CIA at the time, and Pardo, head of Israel Mossad openly admitted that Iran not only wasn't/isn't building nuclear weapons (as Fox news and the neocons claim), but that Iran had not even decided to try to attain nuclear weapons.

On. The. Nose.

[erowe1]

The content of the OP says the exact opposite of the thread title.

[erowe1]

When we first learned details on the Iran deal, it sounded like it might be progress. I liked that Ron Paul was even on board. Then we learned the truth. There were massive cash payments to Iran that were covered up. Unforunately, it appears that the deal buys time, but also pays for the coming Iran nuclear weapons.

Source?

[Influenza]

When we first learned details on the Iran deal, it sounded like it might be progress. I liked that Ron Paul was even on board. Then we learned the truth. There were massive cash payments to Iran that were covered up. Unforunately, it appears that the deal buys time, but also pays for the coming Iran nuclear weapons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_frozen_assets

They shouldn't need to cover up any cash payments, billions of dollars should be and are being returned to Iran that were stolen.

[Jan2017]

The content of the OP says the exact opposite of the thread title.

Exchange in debate was that Timmy Kaine said we are safer because of Hillary and Obama with the "Iran deal" to end sanctions
Pence said that is just not true.

From a transcript of the VP debate :

PENCE: . . . a reference to the Iranian deal, the Iranian deal that Hillary Clinton initiated, $150 billion to the radical mullahs in Iran.
KAINE: Stopping a nuclear weapons program without firing a shot?
PENCE: You didn't stop the nuclear weapons program.
KAINE: Yes, we did.
PENCE: You essentially...
KAINE: Even the Israeli military says it stopped.
PENCE: ... guaranteed that Iran will someday become a nuclear power, because there's no limitations once the period of time of the treaty comes off.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ipt-annotated/

Pence says we are not safer . . . and if the Doomsday Clock is used as an indicator . . . we are not safer.

[juleswin]

Is this the Ron Paul Forums or the Weekly Standard Forums? Where do you guys get this crap about Iran going for nukes. Even our own intelligence had to admit that there was no evidence that Iran was pursuing nukes. Thy were pursuing nuclear energy, which is their right. And the massive cash payments were done in a very sneaky way sure, but that money was owed to Iran from years past.

I am with you on this, I look at some of the posts above yours and I wonder what these people are smoking. Anyone who thinks Iran is a danger to the US and not the other way around is an indication of someone who has gone over the deep end. These people can no longer be rehabilitated and their presence in a forum with liberty in the title is a head scratcher

[erowe1]

Pence says we are not safer . . . and if the Doomsday Clock is used as an indicator . . . we are not safer.

That's the exact opposite of what you say in the thread title.

In the thread title you claim that we are less safe (not just "not safer"). But, according to your own quote, the Doomsday Clock says that we are more safe, since the Iran deal constitutes a small bright spot in the midst of other dangers that overshadow it. The Doomsday Clock says that Pence is wrong.

[Jan2017]

The linked article is a bulletin from the Atomic Scientists from January -
it is about their opinion about the Iraq deal - their perspective - we all is not safer

Tick tocks are three minutes to midnight as we were in 1982 . . . with Trump v Kaine (after Hillary soon dies)

Probably the USA H-Bomb in 1952 nobody was counting then yet (?) and an "Atomic Clock" might have been in seconds imho.

[Zippyjuan]

Should we have nuked Iran instead?

[Zippyjuan]

The linked article is a bulletin from the Atomic Scientists from January -
it is about their opinion about the Iraq deal - their perspective - we all is not safer

Tick tocks are three minutes to midnight as we were in 1982 . . . with Trump v Kaine (after Hillary soon dies)

Probably the USA H-Bomb in 1952 nobody was counting then yet (?) and an "Atomic Clock" might have been in seconds imho.

The article says that the Iran deal was good- they didn't move it farther from midnight due to rising tensions between US and Russia.

While recognizing the important progress represented by the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris climate accord, the Bulletin cautions that these positive steps have been offset in large part by foreboding developments. “Even as the Iran agreement was hammered out, tensions between the United States and Russia rose to levels reminiscent of the worst periods of the Cold War. Conflict in Ukraine and Syria continued, accompanied by dangerous bluster and brinkmanship, with Turkey, a NATO member, shooting down a Russian warplane involved in Syria, the director of a state-run Russian news agency making statements about turning the United States to radioactive ash, and NATO and Russia repositioning military assets and conducting significant exercises with them. Washington and Moscow continue to adhere to most existing nuclear arms control agreements, but the United States, Russia, and other nuclear weapons countries are engaged in programs to modernize their nuclear arsenals, suggesting that they plan to keep and maintain the readiness of their nuclear weapons for decades, at least — despite their pledges, codified in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to pursue nuclear disarmament.”

[erowe1]

The linked article is a bulletin from the Atomic Scientists from January -
it is about their opinion about the Iraq deal - their perspective - we all is not safer

Iran deal.

According to the quote that you yourself provided from your own source, it's the exact opposite of what you keep claiming. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists in January referred to the Iran deal as a" positive step" and a "bright spot." It did make us safer in their perspective.

But because of other factors which make us less safe, thus offsetting the gain in safety brought about by the Iran deal, the net result is that we are no more safe overall.

[Jan2017]

The article says that the Iran deal was good- they didn't move it farther from midnight due to rising tensions between US and Russia.

The original page linked was not - and not so kind to Israel as is typical status quo USA policy . . . sometin' got changed (?) welcome to the machine . . .

[erowe1]

The original page linked was not - and not so kind to Israel as is typical status quo USA policy . . . sometin' got changed (?) welcome to the machine . . .

But your own quote bears out exactly what Zippy said. They might have changed some words. But even in what you originally posted, they clearly said that the Iran deal made us safer, and that the reason we're not safer overall is because it was counteracted by other factors that make us less safe, contrary to your characterization of what they said.

[Jan2017]

But your own quote bears out exactly what Zippy said. They might have changed some words. But even in what you originally posted, they clearly said that the Iran deal made us safer, and that the reason we're not safer overall is because it was counteracted by other factors that make us less safe, contrary to your characterization of what they said.

Oh my . . . my characterization is wrong . . . can I have a former Congressman like Mike Pence clarify for me (?)
btw it IS beer festival weekend in Colorado - enjoy responsibly

[erowe1]

Oh my . . . my characterization is wrong . . . can I have a former Congressman like Mike Pence clarify for me (?)
btw it IS beer festival weekend in Colorado - enjoy responsibly

Why not just tell the truth? No need to make it any more complicated than that.