bbauska

Has the Iranians followed the conditions of the treaty?

Yes.
They've eliminated their plutonium production site permanently.
They've dismantled 19500 of the 20,000 centrifuges they had.
They've exported 98% of their fissionable material out of Iran. (into Russia, who are parties to the treaty)
They've allowed free access to all of the sites requested.

For Iran to somehow fool the inspections, they would have to: 1) have a completely new and unknown team of scientists and engineers capable of the work, and who they could spirit into a secret location.
2) Open a new uranium mine undetected or import uranium or plutonium undetected. Difficult .
3) Construct 20,000 or more centrifuges without anyone finding out and locate them somewhere they can't be detected. And since the radiation from this process is easily detectable ....


So, things are working out. Maybe not as well for the Iranians as they'd hoped since the price of oil is at $30 and for them to resurrect their finances they need oil at $140 a barrel.

Fate

You don't know what happened. This is speculation

But you're not?
Nor was the US media ?

Fate

Even if we were at war with Iran, shooting an airliner down would not be legal. However, it might be explicable.

Here's the key part of your article, which is comparing the East Ukranians shooting down a jet with the Vincennes.

The United States was admittedly deficient in acknowledging the error of its servicemen in the case of Flight 655. The United States initially tried to find another answer to the disaster, claiming that the Iranian pilot was more to blame. However, the United States did pay compensation to the victims of the crash and state its “deep regret” regarding the incident. And regardless of the tardiness of the American response, it was accepted early on that an American ship shot down Flight 655, although American officials distorted the reasons for this incident. While belated, the United States did, in fact, take responsibility and try to make amends for its role in the disaster

.
What I said before Fate:

But whats really worth reviewing is how the US media treated the incident.

The US media treated this incident like they and the Government at the time treated the Vincennes crime.
There's little patience, no balance and a willingness to accept anything they are told by their government if it suites their narrative. I think you should always consider things from the other guys view point. Your media seldom offers that ...

You could probably work for Fox news just fine..

rickyp wrote:Fate

Even if we were at war with Iran, shooting an airliner down would not be legal. However, it might be explicable.

Here's the key part of your article, which is comparing the East Ukranians shooting down a jet with the Vincennes.

The United States was admittedly deficient in acknowledging the error of its servicemen in the case of Flight 655. The United States initially tried to find another answer to the disaster, claiming that the Iranian pilot was more to blame. However, the United States did pay compensation to the victims of the crash and state its “deep regret” regarding the incident. And regardless of the tardiness of the American response, it was accepted early on that an American ship shot down Flight 655, although American officials distorted the reasons for this incident. While belated, the United States did, in fact, take responsibility and try to make amends for its role in the disaster

.
What I said before Fate:

But whats really worth reviewing is how the US media treated the incident.

The US media treated this incident like they and the Government at the time treated the Vincennes crime.
There's little patience, no balance and a willingness to accept anything they are told by their government if it suites their narrative. I think you should always consider things from the other guys view point. Your media seldom offers that ...

You could probably work for Fox news just fine..

And, you could work in hell just fine. You're dishonest and full of nonsense.

bbauska wrote:

rickyp wrote:bbauska

So says Neville Chamberlain

Ron (trust but verify) Reagan signed nuclear non-proliferation treaties with Russia. Was he giving in to them too?

A treaty backed up with action is fine. Has the Iranians followed the conditions of the treaty?

Interesting to see Ron Reagan crop up in a debate about giving in to Iran. Was it twice that arms sales to the regime were used to get hostages released? When Chamberlain got his "piece of paper" He wasn't arming Hitler.

Why do we talk about the shooting down of a plane by the name of the ship that did it?

Iran Air flight 655 was the designation of the flight on which 290 civilians died that day.