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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

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 tomder55

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 ?

---

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 approach

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 approach

---

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

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 approach

---

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 .

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’

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

---

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 paraclete

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.

---

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 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.

---

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 them