B-Man Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 Iran, world powers reach historic nuclear deal http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/kerry-in-geneva-raising-hopes-for-historic-nuclear-deal-with-iran/2013/11/23/53e7bfe6-5430-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html Lets give a big shout out to Barack Obama, John Kerry and the entire Obama administration, there is every reason to believe that this deal will significantly ease the economic pressure on Iran’s rulers — in exchange for merely cosmetic concessions that do nothing to set back Iran’s nuclear breakout capability. Iran’s rulers can pop the pomegranate juice tonight. They are a big step closer to being nuclear-armed and to achieving their ambitions in the Middle East and well beyond. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 On the bright side, France gave Obama permission to sign off on the agreement with China and Russia also signing. So it's not really Obama's fault if Iran reneges on the deal. Someone else made that happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 24, 2013 Author Share Posted November 24, 2013 Peace in our Time Nuke Deal Reached – Iran gets to keep its enrichment program Implicit in Geneva is acceptance of Iranian enrichment program in comprehensive agreement "This agreement makes a nuclear Iran more, not less, likely." . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 It's actually a good deal and a good first step to a de-nuclearized Iran and normalized US-Iran relations... ...except that we have an administration with an extremely demonstrable track record of craven and cowardly avoidance of making any sort of stand. And the Iranians know full well they can break this agreement at any time and face no repercussions, since Russia has their back and the US will back down rather than take action against a violation. So the comparison to Chamberlain is somewhat accurate (hyperbolic, since no one's partitioned a third-party country in this case, but ultimately this is much ado about a piece of paper signed by parties that won't enforce it.) I wonder what the Saudis are thinking about this? Americans think Iran's certain to use a nuke on Israel...in truth, it's a crap shoot between Tel Aviv and Riyadh. The Arabian Peninsula's got to be going apeshit right now. And this probably doesn't bode too well for Iraqi stability, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 I'm not sure why everyone is getting excited here. Iran is like under the radar, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 Wow, second time this AM I've read the word craven on OBD. I didn't know so many people liked those little cranberry thingys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 It's actually a good deal and a good first step to a de-nuclearized Iran and normalized US-Iran relations... ...except that we have an administration with an extremely demonstrable track record of craven and cowardly avoidance of making any sort of stand. And the Iranians know full well they can break this agreement at any time and face no repercussions, since Russia has their back and the US will back down rather than take action against a violation. So the comparison to Chamberlain is somewhat accurate (hyperbolic, since no one's partitioned a third-party country in this case, but ultimately this is much ado about a piece of paper signed by parties that won't enforce it.) I wonder what the Saudis are thinking about this? Americans think Iran's certain to use a nuke on Israel...in truth, it's a crap shoot between Tel Aviv and Riyadh. The Arabian Peninsula's got to be going apeshit right now. And this probably doesn't bode too well for Iraqi stability, either. Yeah, but they did something. So there's that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 24, 2013 Author Share Posted November 24, 2013 Netanyahu: 'A Historic Mistake' Let's Not Celebrate This Iran Deal. . . Yet http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/lets-not-celebrate-this-iran-dealyet-100292.html Abject Surrender by United States by John Bolton Negotiations for an “interim” arrangement over Iran’s nuclear weapons program finally succeeded this past weekend, as Security Council foreign ministers (plus Germany) flew to Geneva to meet their Iranian counterpart. After raising expectations of a deal by first convening on November 8-10, it would have been beyond humiliating to gather again without result. So agreement was struck despite solemn incantations earlier that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” This interim agreement is badly skewed from America’s perspective. Iran retains its full capacity to enrich uranium, thus abandoning a decade of Western insistence and Security Council resolutions that Iran stop all uranium-enrichment activities. Allowing Iran to continue enriching, and despite modest (indeed, utterly inadequate) measures to prevent it from increasing its enriched-uranium stockpiles and its overall nuclear infrastructure, lays the predicate for Iran fully enjoying its “right” to enrichment in any “final” agreement. Indeed, the interim agreement itself acknowledges that a “comprehensive solution” will “involve a mutually defined enrichment program.” This is not, as the Obama administration leaked before the deal became public, a “compromise” on Iran’s claimed “right” to enrichment. This is abject surrender by the United States. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 The fact that the Iranaian government has signed a deal with "The Great Satan" is important in itself. Reagan was heavily criticized by the right wing for signing deals with the Soviets but look where that got the communists. The only way the Iran can be legitametly marginalized as a threat is to bring them into the international community as a partner nation and this is a nice first step. As they open up their people will more and more turn away from the religious nuts running the place. The sanctions worked, and Iran wants to move away from them and be more like the nations that are booming over there now, this is a step in that direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 Well since the US will soon be a net exporter of oil and NG wouldn't turmoil in the ME be great for us and Russia- Obama is playing chess you guys are playing bean bag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 24, 2013 Author Share Posted November 24, 2013 (edited) "Without continued pressure, what incentive does Iran have to take serious steps that actually dismantle its nuclear weapons capability"? -- Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu Iran Deal: Not as Bad as It Could Be, but Still Bad Key Democrat: Obama’s Iran Deal ‘Disappointing’ The top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee called President Obama’s Iran deal “disappointing” on CNN today. “It’s disappointing to me that Iran is still going to be allowed to enrich while they’re talking. I would have thought that should be a prerequisite to any kind of talks. We’re not asking them to dismantle any of their centrifuges. So that’s disappointing,” Representative Eliot Engel told host Candy Crowley. ‘Cosmetic Concessions’ From Illinois senator Mark Kirk: I share the President’s goal of finding a diplomatic solution to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, but this deal provides the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism with billions of dollars in exchange for cosmetic concessions that neither fully freeze nor significantly roll back its nuclear infrastructure. Furthermore, the deal ignores Iran’s continued sponsorship of terrorism, its testing of long-range ballistic missiles and its abuse of human rights. I will continue working with my colleagues to craft bipartisan legislation that will impose tough new economic sanctions if Iran undermines this interim accord or if the dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is not underway by the end of this six-month period. Edited November 24, 2013 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 Well since the US will soon be a net exporter of oil and NG wouldn't turmoil in the ME be great for us and Russia- Obama is playing chess you guys are playing bean bag You've still got some on your chin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 24, 2013 Author Share Posted November 24, 2013 (edited) ‘Sucker’s deal’ rescues mullahs by Charles Krauthammer A president desperate to change the subject and a secretary of state desperate to make a name for himself are reportedly on the verge of an “interim” nuclear agreement with Iran. France called it a “sucker’s deal.” France was being charitable. The only reason Iran has come to the table after a decade of contemptuous stonewalling is that economic sanctions have cut so deeply — Iran’s currency has collapsed, inflation is rampant — that the regime fears a threat to its very survival. Nothing else could move it to negotiate. Regime survival is the only thing the mullahs value above nuclear weapons. And yet precisely at the point of maximum leverage, President Obama is offering relief in a deal that is absurdly asymmetric: The West would weaken sanctions in exchange for cosmetic changes that do absolutely nothing to weaken Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Don’t worry, we are assured. This is only an interim six-month agreement to “build confidence” until we reach a final one. But this makes no sense. If at this point of maximum economic pressure we can’t get Iran to accept a final deal that shuts down its nuclear program, how in God’s name do we expect to get such a deal when we have radically reduced that pressure? A bizarre negotiating tactic. And the content of the deal is even worse. It’s a rescue package for the mullahs. Read more at bostonherald.com ... GregGutfeld @greggutfeld @ Iran in 8 words: we pay you not to mug us, yet. about 13 hours ago . Edited November 24, 2013 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 It's actually a good deal and a good first step to a de-nuclearized Iran and normalized US-Iran relations... ...except that we have an administration with an extremely demonstrable track record of craven and cowardly avoidance of making any sort of stand. And the Iranians know full well they can break this agreement at any time and face no repercussions, since Russia has their back and the US will back down rather than take action against a violation. So the comparison to Chamberlain is somewhat accurate (hyperbolic, since no one's partitioned a third-party country in this case, but ultimately this is much ado about a piece of paper signed by parties that won't enforce it.) I wonder what the Saudis are thinking about this? Americans think Iran's certain to use a nuke on Israel...in truth, it's a crap shoot between Tel Aviv and Riyadh. The Arabian Peninsula's got to be going apeshit right now. And this probably doesn't bode too well for Iraqi stability, either. I'm surprised AIPAC let this happen. I thought they controlled all US foreign/domestic policy!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 Well since the US will soon be a net exporter of oil and NG wouldn't turmoil in the ME be great for us and Russia- Obama is playing chess you guys are playing bean bag I'm genuinely surprised there is anyone here short of gatorman who actually believes that, somehow, Barack Obama is a smart man. Obama is a lot of things, but smart ain't one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 I'm genuinely surprised there is anyone here short of gatorman who actually believes that, somehow, Barack Obama is a smart man. Obama is a lot of things, but smart ain't one of them. What, you can't believe that Obama is capable of reading a teleprompter speech about other people playing chess? I say reading a speech about chess, because we all know that buffoon is far too short-sighted and stupid to actually be playing the game himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 I'm genuinely surprised there is anyone here short of gatorman who actually believes that, somehow, Barack Obama is a smart man. Obama is a lot of things, but smart ain't one of them. I think he's smart...in terms of raw brain power. I just think he's "ivory tower" smart, having lived in nothing resembling reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 It's actually a good deal and a good first step to a de-nuclearized Iran and normalized US-Iran relations... ...except that we have an administration with an extremely demonstrable track record of craven and cowardly avoidance of making any sort of stand. And the Iranians know full well they can break this agreement at any time and face no repercussions, since Russia has their back and the US will back down rather than take action against a violation. So the comparison to Chamberlain is somewhat accurate (hyperbolic, since no one's partitioned a third-party country in this case, but ultimately this is much ado about a piece of paper signed by parties that won't enforce it.) I wonder what the Saudis are thinking about this? Americans think Iran's certain to use a nuke on Israel...in truth, it's a crap shoot between Tel Aviv and Riyadh. The Arabian Peninsula's got to be going apeshit right now. And this probably doesn't bode too well for Iraqi stability, either. Israel military are the baddest mothers on the planet, if Iran is stupid enough to do something to Israel, they will feel the wrath like never before. So go ahead Ayatollah, start something with Israel, your country will vanish over night. Something Jimmy Carter never had the balls to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Well since the US will soon be a net exporter of oil and NG wouldn't turmoil in the ME be great for us and Russia- Obama is playing chess you guys are playing bean bag Exactly how is ME turmoil & low price of gas & oil good for Mother Russia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Exactly how is ME turmoil & low price of gas & oil good for Mother Russia? ME turmoil = high price gas & oil- maybe you wait until your brain is fully awake to post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts