Rest assured I will let you know when they have something beside rhetoric to comment on. Talk is easy, an actual bipartisan bill is NOT!
|
Rest assured I will let you know when they have something beside rhetoric to comment on. Talk is easy, an actual bipartisan bill is NOT!
nah ,the House already passed one ,and the Senate is on board . At best ,Menendez indicated the terms of the sanctions they pass may be delayed ....and Schumer ,who is arguably the most influential Dem in the Senate after Reid is all on board for more sanctions.
http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/schum...ran-sanctions/
At least he probably accomplished half his goals, preventing Israel from attacking.
That's premature Speech, what has been achieved is to check Iran's progress and get a positive outcome in negotiations
check ? bwa haaa haaa haaa ! . Nothing of the sort has been achieved . Their centrifuges are still free to spin and produce enriched uranium .The only difference is that now they wont face any consequences for it for 6 months. It was very clear from Kerry's actions last week that he was desperate for this deal. Why ?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
feather in his cap as well as BO? Yes the Iranians are free to do what they have been doing anyway, so a little bit of reality and agreement not to take enrichment beyond 5%. The real loser here is the US who have had to back off a hard line approachQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
well it won't be long before Kerry tells us 'you have to pass the treaty to find out what's in it. What we do know is that prior to this weekend the US position was that Iran does not have a right to enrich uranium. That is the only change I see. We now say they do have that right .Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
It's really a sad day when the French are the ones who are trying to maintain the integrity of the sanction regime. The world will never be able to restore them to where they were . The only pressure left to apply will be military .Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
No the sanctions restricted their revenue and has destroyed their economy, unrestricted Iran will bloom industrially and could be a counter to China and India in the region, oil prices will come down and that has to be a good thing
Enrichment for the purpose domestic power is very different from making a bomb. Kind of hard to stop sovereign nations from doing as they please, short of mass destruction. But neocons everywhere always want war and find reasons for them instead of looking for alternatives.
I don't see the problem with domestic nuclear power, it's where their research takes them from there that can be a problem. They have nuclear neighbours, so lots of catchup and kudos to be had.
They have enriched to 20%, nobody seems to have talked about what to do with that fuel or why they needed to do it. perhaps the French can supply a fast breeder reactor.
So they are working on bringing Iran in from the cold, all the while hoping not to catch cold
They are not trustworthy to enrich uranium for "domestic purposes. If they want to refuel their reactors at the Bushehr site ,then they should purchase the rods and give spent rods back to a responsible nation for recycling .
I also note that this plan does not include the sites they don't admit to like the one at Natanz .
Natanz - Iran Special Weapons Facilities
If everyone knows it, I am sure so do we. I don't think we will take their word for it.
It is there ,undeclared and will be uninspected . They have a parallel program running that also includes a new hardened site at Mobarekeh, which is close to the existing military industrial complex, at Haft-e Tir. These sites will not be the subject of inspection ;and the emperor and the whole world knows it . That is why it's insanity that we came to this deal . They get what they want and we get nothing in return ... plus we have now officially recognized their right to enrich .
That's a reach to think they are not subject to inspection. The UN charter gives any nation the power to call inspection sites into questions and if nobody does, I hardly think Israel, to name one, will let these sites go unchallenged, no matter the level of denial.
Not seeing this as a license to enrich as you are since they were doing it anyway before.
I will amend and say that Fordo and Natanz will come under inspection.
Existence of the Fordo Plant was disclosed to the IAEA September 2009,but only after the site became known to Western intelligence services and there was a possible explosion there . Their Parchin site and other suspected sites remains out of UN oversight.
The last IAEA report spoke of "Possible Military Dimensions". (page 10)
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/u...n-20131114.pdf
"Since 2002, the Agency has become increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related organizations, including activities related to the development of a payload for a missile.”
The IAEA received information indicating activities "relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device." This was further corroborated by new information obtained since November 2011.
Iran has not been cooporative in the investigation of these findings .And the Geneva agreement doesn't bring it up.
Well, finally a promise Obama can keep.
Obama Promised Iran ‘If You Like Your Uranium, You Can Keep Your Uranium’
another correction Tom, two in a day. Does this mean your version of google doesn't search current articles or more likely you are stuck in a time warp. What part of they were doing it anyway don't you get? Did you impose these conditions on India or Pakistan? and Pakistan having the bomb is a far more dangerous scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I would've on Pakistan .That was negligence by every American administration in the 1970s. As for my corrections ,had I left them as is you would not have made the effort to do the reseach . So thank me.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Simply Tom I do research when I feel it is necessary, not to refute your arguments. Problem is you have to be even handed, there is nothing to suggest India is anymore reasonable than Pakistan and Iran may prove to be more reasonable than both of them when the contention no longer exists. The fact is you have used sanctions to hurt Iran in the same way you hurt Iraq and look where that got you. Are you sure you are not just a saudi toady? I'm sure Iran was happy you wiped out their old enemy for themQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Has the Indian leaders spoken in apocalyptic terms about ushering in the chaos that will lead to a return of a cult leader ? Has India ever threatened to use their nukes to wipe out another country off the face of the earth ? Silly moral equivalence.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
why did India acquire a nuclear deterrent? Who threated them? was it China or Pakistan? India acquired nuclear weapons before Pakistan but after China. The possession of nuclear weapons is the result of paranoia, not any form of moral equivalence. Would Iran feel threated by another nuclear armed state? They certainly destroyed Iragi capability and yet I can understand Iran wanting nuclear capability when it is surrounded by nuclear states, Israel, Russia, Pakistan and at greater distance China and the US, the latter of whom has a somewhat belligerent attitude towards Iran
They are the aggressors ,and the emperor did a Neville Chamberlain imitation.Quote:
Would Iran feel threated by another nuclear armed state?
http://www.drudgereport.com/onc.jpg
There are a lot of aggressors in this world. It will be interesting to see if the US matchs aircraft carrier for aircraft carrier in the East China Sea.
I can't deny the rhetoric of Ahamadjihad but he is no longer speaking for Iran, while he was president there was far too much aggression and it achieved nothing, just as US sanctions achieved nothing. These are different days and perhaps BO recognises that. We should welcome a lessening of tensions in the Gulf afterall there may be more than we can handle in the East China Sea
hey Tom here's what a fellow american says about the ACA
ACA badly implemented but still good for America (column) - The York Daily Record
Now I can understand that people in some states see it differently but this piece is written by a person nearby facing the same set of difficulties you are, so Tom how come he sees it differently?. I know, he is not listening to republican bulldust
This op ed was written by someone in York Pa. which is close to Gettysburg. She gripes about Gov. Corbett ,but I applaud his responsible actions regarding the Medicaid scam .
The rest of her rant is typical progressive pablum. Tal does a much better job of it .
You do realize that the person that wrote it has no connection to reality and is only spouting the party line. Just look at what they are writing. They make claims that don't exist. They tell lies to support their position. Maybe that is why they don't sound like Tom. Or anyone that actually looks at what is going on filtered with facts and reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Would Israel nuke Iran to protect itself?Quote:
Would Iran feel threated by another nuclear armed state?
Excellent Clete, but was telling was how my right wing friends resorted to name calling and denial instead of with facts. They have non, and its no excuse to be for exclusion, rather than inclusion. They try to redefine their BS but it's still BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
The broken free market is being exposed in almost every turn for what it is, greed and extraction and the failure of exclusive supply side economics.
Tal we didn't need another example of a broken market when this market was already broken before interference.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
A few benefit greatly from the broken market and pull no stops to stop anyone from fixing it.
Yes Tal I said before you can blame the insurance industry and the lobbists for the mess
lol as if the libs aren't in bed with them. This whole system was devised by the emperor and the Dem caucus . You think the insurance companies had any say ?
Hell yes, as did big Pharma. with part D. None have lost money in the deals, quite the contrary.
The right wing has its facts WRONG! And they know it!
FarsnewsQuote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Actually it's been the NORKS who have been doing R&D on the Iranian ballistic missile . Don't worry ,they are only developing ICBMs for peaceful purpose.
I seem to recall there are other uses for missile technology than ICBM. In any case Iran isn't interested in bombing the US so they don't need an ICBM. It seems only peaceful nations need ICBM, no doubt to grow pot plants on MARS.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Actually Tom North Korea has been remarkably silent since their last outburst. Ssshh! we don't want to wake them up while they work on their satellite technology
North Korea 'restarts' nuclear reactor, atomic watchdog warns | World news | theguardian.comQuote:
Actually Tom North Korea has been remarkably silent since their last outburst. Ssshh! we don't want to wake them up while they work on their satellite technology
They function as R&D for Iran because Iran pays well.
well someone got to do it
Turns out the Geneva deal is about " trust " ....but don't verify .
Kenneth Pollack | The Nuclear Deal With Iran Was About Trust, Not Verification | Foreign AffairsQuote:
In that sense, the interim deal is only important to the extent it helps to produce that ultimate, comprehensive agreement. Fortunately, the deal has real value as a confidence-building measure.
Simply put, the United States and Iran don't trust each other. That is understandable given how they have both behaved in the 34 years since the Islamic Revolution. Mistrust is so deeply rooted on both sides that it has often threatened to make any serious negotiations impossible.
What is most significant about the current deal is its potential to overcome that mutual mistrust.
Former CIA chief Michael Hayden stated what has been clear since the deal was reached .....that the US conceded that Iran has a "right " to enrich uranium even as it violated every US and UN sanctions prohibiting it .
Former CIA head: U.S. has
Nobody would care if they were just providing power, but the idea of a nuclear missile is scary. But you have to start somewhere and talking and working on a comprehensive agreement is better than rhetorical threats.
The sanctions worked, and they know it. How far the process can take us, is something we will see about.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:24 AM. |