In letter to Obama, US scientists praise Iran nuclear deal: report

[url]http://nr.news-republic.com/Web/ArticleWeb.aspx?regionid=3&articleid=46137722[/url]

[QUOTE] More than two dozen top US scientists, among them nuclear researchers and Nobel prize winners, praised the Iran nuclear deal as major security achievement in a letter to President Barack Obama, The New York Times reported.

The two-page letter, from some of the world's most knowledgeable nuclear experts, could prove to be a shot in the arm for Obama, who has launched a major effort to sell the deals to skeptical members of the US Congress.

The letter tells the US president that the Iran deal "will advance the cause of peace and security in the Middle East and can serve as a guidepost for future nonproliferation agreements."

The Iran accord, the scientists said, has "more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated nonproliferation framework."

There were 29 signatories of the letter in all, some of whom are physicists who have held top level military security clearances. Others have advised Congress, the White House or federal agencies, on military security.

Among those who signed the letter are Leon Cooper of Brown University; Sheldon Glashow of Boston University; David Gross of the University of California, Santa Barbara; Burton Richter of Stanford; and Frank Wilczek of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology -- all Nobel laureates. [/QUOTE]
I guess this settles it for any thinking man with an open mind.

OK? There are many scientists who say it is a dumb deal.

Its even borderline whether there are enough Democrats in Congress backing the deal to allow Obama to veto.

The more important aspect is, Obama made a deal with the #1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world, according to his own government, and is willing to veto a majority vote of congress to shove it down our throats.

If a Republican president did this, you would be screaming dictatorship. But, Obama, you give him a pass.

well most scientists lean extremely left in their politics, and its not like most of the 'experts' were wrong about nuclear capability timetables for many of the countries with nukes today, or development of their programs. its like listening to economists who are regularly wrong.

besides the Iran deal has a lot of aspects to it outside of the realm of just nuclear like surge of income to put towards other anti US/Israel pursuits, of which their Ayatolah has blatantly stated they're not going to give up.

chuck schumer and other Dem's not supporting it speaks volumes.

[QUOTE=Godzuki][B]well most scientists lean extremely left in their politics[/B], and its not like most of the 'experts' were wrong about nuclear capability timetables for many of the countries with nukes today, or development of their programs. its like listening to economists who are regularly wrong.

besides the Iran deal has a lot of aspects to it outside of the realm of just nuclear like surge of income to put towards other anti US/Israel pursuits, of which their Ayatolah has blatantly stated they're not going to give up.

chuck schumer and other Dem's not supporting it speaks volumes.[/QUOTE]

Remember in 2008 when scientists went on ABC and told us NYC would be underwater by 2015. :applause:

Russia and China are coming.

[QUOTE=UK2K]OK? There are many scientists who say it is a dumb deal.
[/QUOTE]
Cool. So where's your citation?

[QUOTE=UK2K]Remember in 2008 when scientists went on ABC and told us NYC would be underwater by 2015. :applause:[/QUOTE]
[citation needed]

[QUOTE]There were 29 signatories of the letter in all, [B]some of whom are physicists who have held top level military security clearances. Others have advised Congress, the White House or federal agencies[/B], on military security.

Among those who signed the letter are Leon Cooper of Brown University; Sheldon Glashow of Boston University; David Gross of the University of California, Santa Barbara; Burton Richter of Stanford; and Frank Wilczek of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology -- [B]all Nobel laureates[/B]. [/QUOTE]
Well, as I said, the thinking man; not self-absorbed morons.

[QUOTE=Maksimilian]Youre from WA hey? Same with me. Australia is going to have a big decision to make in 40 years. Stick it out with the US, or jump ship to the Chinese. All depends who offers us the best deal and where out national interests best lie. What the Chinese have done for our Western Australian economy is out of this world. Australia would be nothing without us[/QUOTE]
Yeah for sure. West coast do it best coast. If only we got money from those big mining companies that literally steal from us. Rhineheart is making a fortune off of our minerals.

[QUOTE=Droid101]Cool. So where's your citation?[/QUOTE]

You really need a citation for scientists, military advisers, and politicians saying this is a bad idea? Really?

Even the Democrats in Congress aren't backing it. Do you think that's weird?

[QUOTE=Droid101][citation needed][/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.mrctv.org/videos/flashback-abcs-08-prediction-nyc-under-water-climate-change-june-2015[/url]

You'll like that, its funny.

On June 12, 2008, correspondent Bob Woodruff revealed that the program "puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015."

As one expert warns that in 2015 the sea level will rise quickly, a visual shows New York City being engulfed by water. The video montage includes another unidentified person predicting that "flames cover hundreds of miles." Then-GMA co-anchor Chris Cuomo appeared frightened by this future world.

He wondered, "I think we're familiar with some of these issues, but, boy, 2015? That's seven years from now. Could it really be that bad?" Ultimately, ABC delayed the air-date for Earth 2100 and the one-hour show didn't debut until June 2, 2009. The program showcased the terrible impact of global warming from 2015 through 2100.

In the special, a "storm of the century" wiped out Miami. Other highlights included a destroyed New York City and an abandoned Las Vegas. By 2084, Earth's population will apparently be just 2.7 billion.

And as a side note...

The scientists' position on the deal doesn't take into account any political aspects of the deal, they just approve of the science.

[QUOTE]If this highly respected group of scientists is not aware, for example, that the 24-day cap on Iran’s ability to delay an investigation into a facility suspected of supporting clandestine activities could actually be much longer than that, why would we attribute any more authority to this letter than to other sources making similar arguments to support the deal? [B]If the group had scrutinized paragraphs 75-76 in the Access section – that are not about science, but rather politics – they would have seen that Iran’s ability to play for time regarding inspections of suspicious military facilities begins when the IAEA first submits its concerns, and waits for Iran’s clarification. [/B]The 24-day count begins only after that, if and when the IAEA makes a request for access; but the preliminary phase has no time limit.[/QUOTE]

So Iran gets 24 days to get their facilities ready for inspection AFTER they respond to a request to inspect said facilities.

So they have about 60 days to clear out anything they aren't supposed to have before we are allowed to show up. :lol

You think they're going to leave behind illegal shit on accident? Cause thats the only way we'd catch them doing anything they aren't supposed to. IMO, I don't think our administration WANTS to catch them doing anything wrong.

Do we not see how stupid that is?

[QUOTE=Maksimilian]Do you not see how stupid it is to think that little Iran is a threat to the largest most violent superpower in the history of civilization?[/QUOTE]
The #1 state sponsor of terrorism, per our government...

Yeah, no biggie.