Iran deal

[Soonerjeepman]

So, 2 issues...

#1 The White House and Iran's gov are putting out 2 DIFFERENT releases regarding the "talks" and what was agreed on...

"The bottom line is Iran has not agreed to a political framework that addresses all parameters of a comprehensive agreement, but rather has put out a dueling framework that contradicts the one put out by the United States," Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., said in a written statement.

#2 obama admits deal will allow Iran to have nuclear warhead after 13 years, basically putting the problem off (kind of like the deficit)...

President Obama admitted Tuesday in a broadcast interview that his nuclear agreement with Iran only delays Tehran from eventually acquiring a weapon, which could come immediately after Year 13 of the agreement -- leaving the problem for future presidents.

Course it's by the evil fox (faux) news so probably all just bullcrap fear mongering by the pitchfork/torch carrying circle jerking lemmings...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...-from-us-iran/

[SoonerProphet]

Kirk has a vested interest in seeing this thing fail, he, along with the crook Menedez who sponsored the new sanctions legislation. Maybe it is just me but he does not sound like an objective voice on the issue.

I have heard a lot about this 13 year deal and don't really get it. Is there a link to these statements. Arak will have limited plutonium production and they don't even have a reprocessing plant to convert into weapons grade stuff. Same can be said of uranium, takes 90% enrichment for weapons grade.

So at this magical 13 year mark Iran is going to reveal an ICBM with a nuke on top?

[Serenity Now]

So, 2 issues...

#1 The White House and Iran's gov are putting out 2 DIFFERENT releases regarding the "talks" and what was agreed on...

"The bottom line is Iran has not agreed to a political framework that addresses all parameters of a comprehensive agreement, but rather has put out a dueling framework that contradicts the one put out by the United States," Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., said in a written statement.

#2 obama admits deal will allow Iran to have nuclear warhead after 13 years, basically putting the problem off (kind of like the deficit)...

President Obama admitted Tuesday in a broadcast interview that his nuclear agreement with Iran only delays Tehran from eventually acquiring a weapon, which could come immediately after Year 13 of the agreement -- leaving the problem for future presidents.

Course it's by the evil fox (faux) news so probably all just bullcrap fear mongering by the pitchfork/torch carrying circle jerking lemmings...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...-from-us-iran/

I rarely post anything from gawker, mediamatters, huffpost, etc. Likewise, when I see wnd, brietbart, etc. I do the old eye roll.

Once the mullahs die off the much more progressive populace will be running things. The problem is that the hawks on both sides are setting the agenda. It's like both sides of the ring have their hype men stirring up the trouble.

[rock on sooner]

Naw, all that does is give the Israelis more time to identify ALL the
turbans working on the program and where they're working...Bibi
sez go and the Mossad will solve it.....

[Serenity Now]

Good thing he's on the case. He's a great prognosticator at these things!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...b89_story.html

He's been banging this war drum for 25 years. Read that article. The Bush administration scuttled negotiations in the mid 2000's when Iran had 164 centrifuges. After that they built up to 19,000. I wonder how many of them were sold by Haliburton?

[BoulderSooner79]

I rarely post anything from gawker, mediamatters, huffpost, etc. Likewise, when I see wnd, brietbart, etc. I do the old eye roll.

Once the mullahs die off the much more progressive populace will be running things. The problem is that the hawks on both sides are setting the agenda. It's like both sides of the ring have their hype men stirring up the trouble.

You pretty much nailed it. The problem is that when the old mullahs die off, there will be less-old mullahs trying to take their place. Maybe the progressives could prevent that, but a power vacuum will attract multiple parties trying to fill it.

As I said before, it would be in our best interest to have some kind of formal relationship with Iran. I don't know if this nuclear "deal" is the right path, but seems as good as any. But there is no deal here. If you cut through the rhetoric, they made up a deadline and it passed by with no deal. So, they made up a framework for a deal with a new deadline instead of calling it quits. My bet is that date will come and go with no progress too. I think the hardliners will kill this, but it will be Iran's hardliners - not ours. It is certainly in Iran's best interest to rejoin the world, but that is from the average citizen's point of view. The guys in power just want to stay in power and they know a more worldly and affluent population would be a threat to that end.

[Serenity Now]

You pretty much nailed it. The problem is that when the old mullahs die off, there will be less-old mullahs trying to take their place. Maybe the progressives could prevent that, but a power vacuum will attract multiple parties trying to fill it.

As I said before, it would be in our best interest to have some kind of formal relationship with Iran. I don't know if this nuclear "deal" is the right path, but seems as good as any. But there is no deal here. If you cut through the rhetoric, they made up a deadline and it passed by with no deal. So, they made up a framework for a deal with a new deadline instead of calling it quits. My bet is that date will come and go with no progress too. I think the hardliners will kill this, but it will be Iran's hardliners - not ours. It is certainly in Iran's best interest to rejoin the world, but that is from the average citizen's point of view. The guys in power just want to stay in power and they know a more worldly and affluent population would be a threat to that end.

What makes me giggle, sadly, is how much the hardliners from Israel, Iran and the U.S. have in common. I just don't get it.

[BoulderSooner79]

What makes me giggle, sadly, is how much the hardliners from Israel, Iran and the U.S. have in common. I just don't get it.

Think power and paranoia and there is the common thread. But under the covers, I do think the motivations are different. I've already stated what I think drives the power in Iran. I don't really believe Israel fears nuke weapons as much as they let on, but their paranoia is understandable given the geography and the Iranian rhetoric. It was a great way for Netanyahu to win an election though. I think the hardliners in Israel just want to keep Iran isolated and under sanctions for as long as possible to limit their power. There isn't a deal they would like.

The US hardliner motivation is pretty simple - make sure it a campaign issue for 2016. Even a great deal for the US strategically would be shat upon. I'm not saying this would be a great deal - I'm saying it wouldn't matter if it was.

[dwarthog]

Good thing he's on the case. He's a great prognosticator at these things!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...b89_story.html

He's been banging this war drum for 25 years. Read that article. The Bush administration scuttled negotiations in the mid 2000's when Iran had 164 centrifuges. After that they built up to 19,000. I wonder how many of them were sold by Haliburton?

Do you have actual proof of Halliburton selling Iran centrifuges or are you just repeating mindless internet drivel with the hope if it's repeated enough it'll become fact?

[Serenity Now]

It's not documented on faux news but you can go to encarta and read about it.

[East Coast Bias]

I rarely post anything from gawker, mediamatters, huffpost, etc. Likewise, when I see wnd, brietbart, etc. I do the old eye roll.

Once the mullahs die off the much more progressive populace will be running things. The problem is that the hawks on both sides are setting the agenda. It's like both sides of the ring have their hype men stirring up the trouble.

I think your comment about the mullahs dying off has some parallels to the whole gay marriage/rights issue. Think about the above comment in reference to some of the generational issues....

[Turd_Ferguson]

Hmmm, the only thing I see coming up on a search is from DailyKos/Infowars/etc...all they say is "Cheney's" haliburton sells "Technology" to Iran...

[SoonerProphet]

Hmmm, the only thing I see coming up on a search is from DailyKos/Infowars/etc...all they say is "Cheney's" haliburton sells "Technology" to Iran...

Don't think they sold centrifuges. Halliburton has helped companies develop Iranian gas fields, but that is the kinda sh1t they do, they are in that business after all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Feb2.html

[hawaii 5-0]

I don't think anything will be signed till it's gone over with a fine toothed comb.

Continued Verification is key.

5-0

[olevetonahill]

I don't think anything will be signed till it's gone over with a fine toothed comb.

Continued Verification is key.

5-0

Agreed Obammy and his crowed aint gonna rush anything. Look how well they vetted the Bergdahl deal!

[ouwasp]

The US has owed Iran a hard punch in the nose ever since '79. But, we're not gonna do it, ever.

As for the deal? What's in it for us? How does it benefit the US? Israel doesn't like it, so why should we?

Why Israel tolerates the constant Iranian proxy attacks by Hamas and other mooslem thugs is beyond me. But one of these days they'll hand Iran the spanking they deserve.

[BoulderSooner79]

The US has owed Iran a hard punch in the nose ever since '79. But, we're not gonna do it, ever.

As for the deal? What's in it for us? How does it benefit the US? Israel doesn't like it, so why should we?

Why Israel tolerates the constant Iranian proxy attacks by Hamas and other mooslem thugs is beyond me. But one of these days they'll hand Iran the spanking they deserve.

You do realize Iran has been under severe economic sanctions orchestrated by the US ever since '79? Those have had a much more profound effect at limiting Iran's power than any military strike would have (your punch to the nose?). Perhaps you think we just vaporize them now. You also know their hostage taking was in reaction to the US supporting a brutal regime under the Shah, so it's not like it came out of no where. I'm not saying US bad, Iran good - far from it. The fact is as long as we have a policy of being adventurers in the middle east, there is the potential for backlash. I suspect the folks that made our Iran policy 50 years ago knew the risk and decided it was worth it.

Personally, I wonder if any of this is worth it and we might be better off staying arm length (heh, military arms too) from the region. But we've gone many decades and probably a dozen administrations on this course, so I don't see it changing.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Kirk has a vested interest in seeing this thing fail, he, along with the crook Menedez who sponsored the new sanctions legislation. Maybe it is just me but he does not sound like an objective voice on the issue.

I have heard a lot about this 13 year deal and don't really get it. Is there a link to these statements. Arak will have limited plutonium production and they don't even have a reprocessing plant to convert into weapons grade stuff. Same can be said of uranium, takes 90% enrichment for weapons grade.

So at this magical 13 year mark Iran is going to reveal an ICBM with a nuke on top?

We ALL have a vested interest in seeing this abomination FAIL! No way, no how should Iran get a nuke... Obama is treasonous to allow this to happen. Valeria Jarrett all over this and her Iranian born heritage... We need to shut them down, now hard. We need to go in and destroy their capabilities. Period.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I rarely post anything from gawker, mediamatters, huffpost, etc. Likewise, when I see wnd, brietbart, etc. I do the old eye roll.

Once the mullahs die off the much more progressive populace will be running things. The problem is that the hawks on both sides are setting the agenda. It's like both sides of the ring have their hype men stirring up the trouble.

SN, what farts are you sniffing? There will not be any Aryan "progressives". The hard line is entrenched, backed up by the Republican Guards. This is a strong fundamentalist theocracy and will remain that for a long time...Up until the 13th Iman or whatever arrives...

[Serenity Now]

SN, what farts are you sniffing? There will not be any Aryan "progressives". The hard line is entrenched, backed up by the Republican Guards. This is a strong fundamentalist theocracy and will remain that for a long time...Up until the 13th Iman or whatever arrives...

hey Bibi. You've been wrong for 25 years.