Reply With Quote
He is more likely to believe something written in Farsi.
Im eating Persian Grill to celebrate!
He is more likely to believe something written in Farsi.
Does anyone think that CC is coming up with this on his own?
CC is still embarrassed about his sources.
I have zero problems with it. Hopefully they don't take too long to nuke eachother and turn that place into a giant parking lot. Hopefully Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and India all get involved too.
I think it's unavoidable and bound to happen, might as well get it done while I'm alive, so I can enjoy the fireworks.
Just like Iranian lives are in jeopardy because of Israel's nuclear program?
but they hate 'Murica.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/Noonan’s complaint about the nuclear deal doesn’t many sense, either. She worries about a “bad deal” that will only “slow the deadly project, not end it.” Anything that does slow the development of Iran’s nuclear program would be an improvement over the old status quo, and under the framework agreed this week the program will be put under more significant restrictions than it has had before. Like many Iran hawks, Noonan is annoyed that the administration has not achieved the impossible goal of “ending” the entire program. Noonan is making it sound as if “ending” Iran’s entire nuclear program could be achieved through greater “political pressure through increased economic sanctions.” We have every reason to believe that this wouldn’t happen. This is the path that was pursued for a decade when the previous administration refused to make a deal on much more favorable terms. Besides, ratcheting up economic pressure takes for granted that this would make Iran capitulate, and it assumes that international support for stricter sanctions would continue indefinitely. Neither assumption is valid. We know from the North Korean example that the opposite reaction to greater pressure is more likely, and there is every reason to think that most of Iran’s trading partners are eager to get back to doing business as usual.
if followed up with a deal this summer, these would be significant:
sameAccording to European officials, roughly 5,000 centrifuges will remain spinning enriched uranium at the main nuclear site at Natanz, about half the number currently running. The giant underground enrichment site at Fordo – which Israeli and some American officials fear is impervious to bombing – will be partly converted to advanced nuclear research and the production of medical isotopes. Foreign scientists will be present. There will be no fissile material present that could be used to make a bomb.
A major reactor at Arak, which officials feared could produce plutonium, would operate on a limited basis that would not provide enough fuel for a bomb.
Trita Parsi counterblasts the hawks:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/...ong-iran-12538
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...st_option.htmlIf this deal is fully implemented, Iran will be unable to build a nuclear bomb by enriching uranium or by reprocessing plutonium for at least 10 years. Some of the restrictions imposed by this deal would last 15 years. The international inspections of certain aspects of Iran’s nuclear program would stay in place for 25 years.
As for the economic sanctions against Iran, they would be lifted not upon the deal’s signing, as the Iranians initially demanded, but only after the inspectors have verified that Iran has fulfilled all of its commitments in the deal.
These commitments include reducing the number of Iran’s installed centrifuges by two-thirds (from about 19,000 to 6,104, with only 5,060 allowed to enrich uranium); reducing its stockpile of enriched uranium by 97 percent (from 10,000 kilograms to 300 kilograms); to remove all advanced centrifuges (those that can enrich uranium at a much faster rate) and to place them in internationally monitored storage; to destroy the core of the Arak heavy-water reactor (which could produce a plutonium bomb), ship all its spent fuel out of the country, and forgo additional reprocessing; among other things.
Whine . With the windmill reverse 360 slam dunk
slapping the obama hatin war mongers
Over/under for Iranian nukes? 5 years?
Sounds wonderful. I read the complete US version too.
Anyone in here want to put some money down that the final deal is really that strict when it's signed?
I'll match $100 bets from anyone that wants to play. I say it's watered down extensively and economic sanctions will be lifted gradually with some lifted just for signing.
That's easy money.
refusing to negotiate and ramping up sanctions has been a proven failure. a flawed deal beats no deal -- easy money.
So everyone in here agrees to the carrot without the stick approach and that any deal is better than no deal?
hmmm...OK.
Hopefully under. Iranian nukes would bring stability to the region. Jews are running amok at the moment
What should the stick be if not renewed sanctions?
You are a smart guy. You could obviously come up with some options if you thought about it. Additional sanctions, Building a coalition for military intervention, etc.
sanctions, esp limiting Iran's oil sales, has STICKed Iran seriously. Iranians anticipating sanctions lifting were in the streets celebrating all night.
How are those off the table?
I need to see the language that says those options are specifically excluded if the Iranians do not meet the terms of the framework.
CC wants a war sooooooo bad
Not wanting a crazy ass country to have weapons of mass destruction =/= wanting war
a bunch of crazy ass countries have weapons of mass destruction. most of them are RIGHT next to iran.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
