No, this isn't a joke.

This is real life.

Insanity. Thanks Obama & Kerry!

You have GOT TO BE KIDDING ! can't link page

Link doesn't work.

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-kerr...ack-2015-7

Not sure why it isn't working.

So you left out the word "cyber" huh?

Nice. You got me.

(07-24-2015 11:41 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  So you left out the word "cyber" huh?

Nice. You got me.

You really think it will stop at that? And why are we even doing that? **** Iran.

If the point is keeping a nuclear site stable, an ACTUAL attack is far worse than a cyber attack from a potential fallout scenario, no?

From "sabotage"...

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/...-sabotage/

In a concession to the US, Iran has agreed that it will limit testing of any future nuclear weapons to a very limited area, centered around 32° 4' 4" N / 34° 45' 53" E.

(07-24-2015 11:42 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 11:41 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  So you left out the word "cyber" huh?

Nice. You got me.

You really think it will stop at that? And why are we even doing that? **** Iran.

If the point is keeping a nuclear site stable, an ACTUAL attack is far worse than a cyber attack from a potential fallout scenario, no?

But will the United States stop Israel from an actual attack? Is there any evidence of that?

Iran wants nukes. We wanted a piece of paper. Both sides got what they wanted. Some would call that a win-win.

(07-24-2015 12:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 11:42 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 11:41 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  So you left out the word "cyber" huh?

Nice. You got me.

You really think it will stop at that? And why are we even doing that? **** Iran.

If the point is keeping a nuclear site stable, an ACTUAL attack is far worse than a cyber attack from a potential fallout scenario, no?

But will the United States stop Israel from an actual attack? Is there any evidence of that?

"Top Obama administration officials testified Thursday that the United States would help ensure the “physical security” of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure as part of the nuclear agreement they reached with the Islamic republic two weeks ago.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) asked the assembled officials whether a controversial provision in Annex III of the agreement obligated the United States to help protect Iran’s nuclear program from future sabotage by Iran’s opponents, notably Israel.

The charge was ducked, but not denied, by Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz.

“I believe that refers to things like physical security and safeguards,” Moniz said. “All of our options and those of our allies and friends will remain in place.”

Secretary of State John Kerry clarified that the annex in question was designed to ensure that Iran’s nuclear capacity was “adequately protected” from unconventional threats such as cyber warfare."

(07-24-2015 12:31 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 12:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 11:42 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 11:41 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  So you left out the word "cyber" huh?

Nice. You got me.

You really think it will stop at that? And why are we even doing that? **** Iran.

If the point is keeping a nuclear site stable, an ACTUAL attack is far worse than a cyber attack from a potential fallout scenario, no?

But will the United States stop Israel from an actual attack? Is there any evidence of that?

"Top Obama administration officials testified Thursday that the United States would help ensure the “physical security” of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure as part of the nuclear agreement they reached with the Islamic republic two weeks ago.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) asked the assembled officials whether a controversial provision in Annex III of the agreement obligated the United States to help protect Iran’s nuclear program from future sabotage by Iran’s opponents, notably Israel.

The charge was ducked, but not denied, by Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz.

“I believe that refers to things like physical security and safeguards,” Moniz said. “All of our options and those of our allies and friends will remain in place.”

Secretary of State John Kerry clarified that the annex in question was designed to ensure that Iran’s nuclear capacity was “adequately protected” from unconventional threats such as cyber warfare."

You might want to read that last paragraph again.

(07-24-2015 11:50 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  In a concession to the US, Iran has agreed that it will limit testing of any future nuclear weapons to a very limited area, centered around 32° 4' 4" N / 34° 45' 53" E.

32° 4' 4" N / 34° 45' 53" E. don't have a map currently, assume it's Israel !

(07-24-2015 12:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 12:31 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 12:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 11:42 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 11:41 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  So you left out the word "cyber" huh?

Nice. You got me.

You really think it will stop at that? And why are we even doing that? **** Iran.

If the point is keeping a nuclear site stable, an ACTUAL attack is far worse than a cyber attack from a potential fallout scenario, no?

But will the United States stop Israel from an actual attack? Is there any evidence of that?

"Top Obama administration officials testified Thursday that the United States would help ensure the “physical security” of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure as part of the nuclear agreement they reached with the Islamic republic two weeks ago.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) asked the assembled officials whether a controversial provision in Annex III of the agreement obligated the United States to help protect Iran’s nuclear program from future sabotage by Iran’s opponents, notably Israel.

The charge was ducked, but not denied, by Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz.

“I believe that refers to things like physical security and safeguards,” Moniz said. “All of our options and those of our allies and friends will remain in place.”

Secretary of State John Kerry clarified that the annex in question was designed to ensure that Iran’s nuclear capacity was “adequately protected” from unconventional threats such as cyber warfare."

You might want to read that last paragraph again.

The entire thing is cryptic, Fit. That's the point.

My question is, why are we ensuring ANY sort of security WHATSOEVER to the Iranians?!??!? When did we become allies?? Are they not still the world's #1 state sponsor of terrorism??? Are they not CURRENTLY fighting proxy wars against us and Israel all over the world? Are they not holding 4 American hostages for no reason?

It's one thing for our President to bend over and take a huge one in the rear like he did with this deal, it's another thing ENTIRELY to PROTECT them while they're developing weapons designed specifically to destroy the US and Israel.

(07-24-2015 01:01 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 12:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 12:31 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 12:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 11:42 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  You really think it will stop at that? And why are we even doing that? **** Iran.

If the point is keeping a nuclear site stable, an ACTUAL attack is far worse than a cyber attack from a potential fallout scenario, no?

But will the United States stop Israel from an actual attack? Is there any evidence of that?

"Top Obama administration officials testified Thursday that the United States would help ensure the “physical security” of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure as part of the nuclear agreement they reached with the Islamic republic two weeks ago.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) asked the assembled officials whether a controversial provision in Annex III of the agreement obligated the United States to help protect Iran’s nuclear program from future sabotage by Iran’s opponents, notably Israel.

The charge was ducked, but not denied, by Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz.

“I believe that refers to things like physical security and safeguards,” Moniz said. “All of our options and those of our allies and friends will remain in place.”

Secretary of State John Kerry clarified that the annex in question was designed to ensure that Iran’s nuclear capacity was “adequately protected” from unconventional threats such as cyber warfare."

You might want to read that last paragraph again.

The entire thing is cryptic, Fit. That's the point.

My question is, why are we ensuring ANY sort of security WHATSOEVER to the Iranians?!??!? When did we become allies?? Are they not still the world's #1 state sponsor of terrorism??? Are they not CURRENTLY fighting proxy wars against us and Israel all over the world? Are they not holding 4 American hostages for no reason?

It's one thing for our President to bend over and take a huge one in the rear like he did with this deal, it's another thing ENTIRELY to PROTECT them while they're developing weapons designed specifically to destroy the US and Israel.

I can almost bet You if We are using Security measures to monitor and protect Iran from hackers, They can easily hack into Our systems. Cut the cord !

(07-24-2015 12:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Iran wants nukes. We wanted a piece of paper. Both sides got what they wanted. Some would call that a win-win.

I found your picture on the internet

(07-24-2015 01:11 PM)RobertN Wrote:  [quote='Owl 69/70/75' pid='12223583' dateline='1437758055']
Iran wants nukes. We wanted a piece of paper. Both sides got what they wanted. Some would call that a win-win.
[/quote

What was even the slightest bit incorrect about his statement?

Obama wanted a signed deal. He got one.

Iran gets nukes in 10 years, arms in 5, BILLIONS of dollars now.

Iran wins.

But that's not even the point of this thread.

The point of this thread is that not only are we allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, we are going to PROTECT them while they do so.

We got fleeced. Plain and simple. But getting fleeced would imply that our President went into this with the intention of dismantling Iran's nuclear program, which Kerry has since said was NEVER our intention.

Perhaps we don't want to be Iran's worst enemy anymore. This is basically an olive branch to modern-day Persia. Neutral relations with Iran are not that bad of a thing considering that everyone to their East is an utter basket case.

Israel are worried for no reason. Iran isn't that stupid - they have influence right now. That's what they wanted all along. If Iran attacks Israel, then Iran will cease to be a functioning nation. Everyone knows the house rules.

RELAX.

(07-24-2015 01:01 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  When did we become allies??

Last year, when IRGC troops started fighting alongside ours against ISIS.