Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: AP EXCLUSIVE: UN TO LET IRAN INSPECT ALLEGED NUKE WORK SITE [View all]geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)24. you didn't read the article.
The declared nuclear sites include any place where nuclear work is happening: uranium mines, uranium plants, centrifuge factories, and of course enrichment sites, which means the places where centrifuges spin up nuclear material. At those sites, inspectors do not have to wait. They will have nuclear sites under continual monitoring.
More derp.
But what about the rest of the country? What if inspectors worry that Iran might be conducting secret nuclear work someplace else? It's happened before, after all. But this was always going to be a hard problem, and so-called "anytime, anywhere" inspections are not realistically possible: Generally, only countries that have lost a war can be forced to agree to something so obtrusive. And a country like Iran, which fears an attack from the US, worries that Western inspectors could abuse access to military sites to give their governments intelligence on Iran's non-nuclear military programs.
Those who were insisting that inspectors would have access to anywhere in Iran, immediately, are really pushing a war, since that's the ONLY way that's ever going to happen, as it amounts to a complete surrender of sovereignty.
Moreover:
What critics have done is look at this timeline and focus on the fact that in the most extreme possible scenario, the time between when inspectors demand access and when they get access could be as much as 24 days. Weirdly, this assumes that not just Iran but even the US and its allies will push delays as long as possible, but that is only one of the smaller problems with this idea.
This is a lot more than just misleading it is a wild distortion of how inspections in general, and this inspection regime in particular, will work, based on a series of misleading or outright dishonest claims about how the deal works.
This is a lot more than just misleading it is a wild distortion of how inspections in general, and this inspection regime in particular, will work, based on a series of misleading or outright dishonest claims about how the deal works.
There is so much that is deceptive about this line of bullshit being thrown around by you folks in the pro-war camp that the article had to be long.
Schumer is a dissembling warmongering pig.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
104 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
You have a low post count, but some people on DU like to kill the messenger...
happyslug
Aug 2015
#35
I read a lot of people on DU, and I hate it when people leave do to attacks by others
happyslug
Aug 2015
#38
You should say, as calling out people for low post counts violates DU Rules. n/t
whathehell
Aug 2015
#54
You can't 'hide' radiation in 24 days. You're determined to put the worst possible light on this.
randome
Aug 2015
#25
But they keep saying they dont have a weapons program, so how would that be possible?
7962
Aug 2015
#87
RW media knows SO much more than nuclear scientists. GOP voters have been swallowing
blm
Aug 2015
#85
To be explained away at a later date. As soon as they can come up with something! nt
7962
Aug 2015
#12
No, because we happen to know that Parchin isn't even a nuclear research site.
geek tragedy
Aug 2015
#14
the ap already updated it's story and the administration never confirmed the story
karynnj
Aug 2015
#43
"I know DU trusts the oh-so-trustworthy mullahs " still getting your information
geek tragedy
Aug 2015
#64
AP has removed the claim that Iran would be making the inspections themselves, rather than UN
still_one
Aug 2015
#55
and I cannot either. However, I still question the original stories' implication
still_one
Aug 2015
#62
There are several things that have come out subsequently. For one thing, AP definitely distorted
still_one
Aug 2015
#75
If you're suggesting the administration has confirmed that it's going to allow
geek tragedy
Aug 2015
#67
HA! Good to know we've got DUers who are fine with North Korea & Iran having a nuke!
7962
Aug 2015
#72
And then 2 years later without an agreement, then what? Utter nonsense that you think
blm
Aug 2015
#97
AP has deliberately distorted the story. The Obama administration has said the following:
still_one
Aug 2015
#76