Iran Deal - US buys time and Iran postpones its goals

confuzzled dude wrote:""...How can anyone trust any agreement with a totalitarian and that too an iSlamic government."

kowtowing of Israel for 60+ years didn't yield desired results, let's what's the change in direction brings to the table.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:""...How can anyone trust any agreement with a totalitarian and that too an iSlamic government."

kowtowing of Israel for 60+ years didn't yield desired results, let's what's the change in direction brings to the table.

Hey I have a NEW idea.... Merge Israel with Syria and make it a province under Syria....

Same way, disenfranchise all hindus - as they are fundametalists - merge with Pakistan and give voting rights only to Muslims. Then create a hindu parliament - as they have one in the Land of the Pure - but based on the arithmetic of the "Pure people" 1 muslim = 10 hindus, and no financial, educational, defense, communications, or culture under its control.

Now that is a very new approach and "You and Your Ilk" should have absolutely no issue with it.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:""...How can anyone trust any agreement with a totalitarian and that too an iSlamic government."

kowtowing of Israel for 60+ years didn't yield desired results, let's what's the change in direction brings to the table.

Hey I have a NEW idea.... Merge Israel with Syria and make it a province under Syria....

Same way, disenfranchise all hindus - as they are fundametalists - merge with Pakistan and give voting rights only to Muslims. Then create a hindu parliament - as they have one in the Land of the Pure - but based on the arithmetic of the "Pure people" 1 muslim = 10 hindus, and no financial, educational, defense, communications, or culture under its control.

Now that is a very new approach and "You and Your Ilk" should have absolutely no issue with it.

Calm down! The world is not gonna end because of this. All those sanctions over the years didn't do much, have they? Can THE US afford to go on another war in search of [fake?] WMDs? Also, I wouldn't blindly support all Israeli actions either.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:


Let  us hear your new approach...

Hellsangel wrote:What Israel? Doesn't exist. (At least according to most Arab nations officially)

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:What Israel? Doesn't exist. (At least according to most Arab nations officially)

How well do you think creating a new SriLankan country in or around WB/Orissa and relocating all non-tamilian Srilankans will be received? KV might welcome it but that's for different reasons.

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:What Israel? Doesn't exist. (At least according to most Arab nations officially)

How well do you think creating a new SriLankan country in or around WB/Orissa and relocating all non-tamilian Srilankans will be received? KV might welcome it but that's for different reasons.

Maybe you should read a bit about the history of TransJordan and Palestine  in the 1920s, and Greece and Turkey in 1921 and hey even India and Pakistan in 1947 and 1971.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Let  us hear your new approach...

What's wrong with the proposed approach

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:....How can anyone trust any agreement with a totalitarian and that too an iSlamic government.

************
Rouhani has struck up a more conciliatory tone and made the lifting sanctions against his country a priority.

Despite the sanctions, Iran today has 19,000 centrifuges and is building more advanced ones, according to Mark Hibbs, a nuclear policy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Most world powers believe that Iran could not realistically build a usable bomb in less than a year, Hibbs said.
************

US is saying exactly what they were saying about PakiSaitanis in early 90s.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Let  us hear your new approach...

What's wrong with the proposed approach

Netanyahu says is best:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Let  us hear your new approach...

What's wrong with the proposed approach

Netanyahu says is best:

That's right! parasite Israel & bibi will have an unbiased opinion on this. American foreign policy should always be driven by Israeli statesman.

BTW, Israeli stock market is saying the opposite of their country's leader.

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Let  us hear your new approach...

What's wrong with the proposed approach

Netanyahu says is best:

That's right! parasite Israel & bibi will have an unbiased opinion on this. American foreign policy should always be driven by Israeli statesman.

BTW, Israeli stock market is saying the opposite of their country's leader.

Why this Kolaveri towards Israel, Comrade Confuzzled?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:What's wrong with the proposed approach

Netanyahu says is best:

That's right! parasite Israel & bibi will have an unbiased opinion on this. American foreign policy should always be driven by Israeli statesman.

BTW, Israeli stock market is saying the opposite of their country's leader.

Why this Kolaveri towards Israel, Comrade Confuzzled?

I've always been consistent with my views on Israel Mr.Hells-the-Tbagger

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Netanyahu says is best:

That's right! parasite Israel & bibi will have an unbiased opinion on this. American foreign policy should always be driven by Israeli statesman.

BTW, Israeli stock market is saying the opposite of their country's leader.

Why this Kolaveri towards Israel, Comrade Confuzzled?

I've always been consistent with my views on Israel Mr.Hells-the-Tbagger

I doubt an idealistic commie like you will see what happens next. Iran will buy time and develop it's nuclear weapons. Saudi will want in to counter it and your old object of sympathy Pakistan will oblige them.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:That's right! parasite Israel & bibi will have an unbiased opinion on this. American foreign policy should always be driven by Israeli statesman.

BTW, Israeli stock market is saying the opposite of their country's leader.

Why this Kolaveri towards Israel, Comrade Confuzzled?

I've always been consistent with my views on Israel Mr.Hells-the-Tbagger

I doubt an idealistic commie like you will see what happens next. Iran will buy time and develop it's nuclear weapons. Saudi will want in to counter it and your old object of sympathy Pakistan will oblige them.

I realize that in your ideal world, one should always be living in delusional-insecure-la-la-land and should ignore the fact that this deal is good for only 6-months and will be nullified should Iran fail to adhere to any of the below.

• Halt enrichment of uranium above 5% purity. (Uranium enriched to 3.5-5% can be used for nuclear power reactors, 20% for nuclear medicines and 90% for a nuclear bomb.)
• "Neutralise" its stockpile of near-20%-enriched uranium, either by diluting it to less than 5% or converting it to a form which cannot be further enriched
• Not install any more centrifuges (the machines used to enrich uranium)
• Leave half to three-quarters of centrifuges installed in Natanz and Fordo enrichment facilities inoperable (Read our guide to Iran's nuclear facilities)
• Not build any more enrichment facilities
• Not increase its stockpile of 3.5% low-enriched uranium
• Halt work on the construction of its heavy-water reactor at Arak, not attempt to produce plutonium there (an alternative to highly enriched uranium used for an atomic weapon)
• Provide daily access to Natanz and Fordo sites to IAEA inspectors and access to other facilities, mines and mills
• Provide "long-sought" information on the Arak reactor and other data

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:....How can anyone trust any agreement with a totalitarian and that too an iSlamic government.

************
Rouhani has struck up a more conciliatory tone and made the lifting sanctions against his country a priority.

Despite the sanctions, Iran today has 19,000 centrifuges and is building more advanced ones, according to Mark Hibbs, a nuclear policy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Most world powers believe that Iran could not realistically build a usable bomb in less than a year, Hibbs said.
************

US is saying exactly what they were saying about PakiSaitanis in early 90s.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:....How can anyone trust any agreement with a totalitarian and that too an iSlamic government.

************
Rouhani has struck up a more conciliatory tone and made the lifting sanctions against his country a priority.

Despite the sanctions, Iran today has 19,000 centrifuges and is building more advanced ones, according to Mark Hibbs, a nuclear policy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Most world powers believe that Iran could not realistically build a usable bomb in less than a year, Hibbs said.
************

US is saying exactly what they were saying about PakiSaitanis in early 90s.

this deal has short term make-chicago-pols-look-good and long term disaster written all over it

Hellsangel wrote:Oh yes! Not withstanding the fact that 5% enrichment is 80% of the task, the Iranians are honorable people who will honor their end of the bargain just like the Pakis and the North Koreans.

Hellsangel wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:....How can anyone trust any agreement with a totalitarian and that too an iSlamic government.

************
Rouhani has struck up a more conciliatory tone and made the lifting sanctions against his country a priority.

Despite the sanctions, Iran today has 19,000 centrifuges and is building more advanced ones, according to Mark Hibbs, a nuclear policy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Most world powers believe that Iran could not realistically build a usable bomb in less than a year, Hibbs said.
************

US is saying exactly what they were saying about PakiSaitanis in early 90s.

this deal has short term make-chicago-pols-look-good and long term disaster written all over it

And you can see the Messiah koolaid drinkers gush over it.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:....How can anyone trust any agreement with a totalitarian and that too an iSlamic government.

************
Rouhani has struck up a more conciliatory tone and made the lifting sanctions against his country a priority.

Despite the sanctions, Iran today has 19,000 centrifuges and is building more advanced ones, according to Mark Hibbs, a nuclear policy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Most world powers believe that Iran could not realistically build a usable bomb in less than a year, Hibbs said.
************

US is saying exactly what they were saying about PakiSaitanis in early 90s.

this deal has short term make-chicago-pols-look-good and long term disaster written all over it

And you can see the Messiah koolaid drinkers gush over it.

and you solution is to attack Iran or maintain status quo? I guess both are 1000 times better than current short-term deal so we won't piss off Israel.

Iran deal is riskier than meets the eye By YAAKOV LAPPIN
11/25/2013 06:41

Nuclear accord struck in Geneva takes high, unnecessary risks; rests on shaky foundations that could possibly lead to collapse of sanctions regime; Iran can be expected to spend next 6 month trying to divide int'l powers. Geneva nuclear talks, November 24, 2013.

At first glance, the deal struck by Iran and the international community in Geneva is merely a first step toward a final arrangement, which, in theory, can force Iran to move back from the nuclear brink.

The Geneva deal appears to carry some welcome amendments, such as a cessation of Iranian work at the Arak heavy water reactor, the introduction of daily IAEA inspections at Iranian nuclear sites, and the neutralization of Iran’s stockpile of 20-percent enriched uranium.


But upon closer inspection, the deal, though better than the first draft floated this month, takes high and unnecessary risks, and rests on shaky foundations that might just end up collapsing, bringing international sanctions down with them.

The White House has provided assurances that the few sanctions eased in this deal can be restored, and vowed to keep the pressure on Iran, presenting the arrangement as a risk-free, six-month test of Iran’s true intentions.

But if the next round of diplomacy hits an impasse, it is far from certain that the international community or the US will rush to recognize the failure, or respond by adding more sanctions against Iran.

The biting sanctions that pushed Iranians to vote for President Hassan Rouhani, and which convinced Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to negotiate more seriously, rest on an international coalition, itself made up of a wide range of countries that have diverging strategic, political and economic interests.

Iran can be expected to spend the next six months trying to divide this shaky coalition, and, aided by the lifting of some sanctions, will seek to whet the appetite of firms from around the world, to lure them back to do valuable business with it in the future.

Today it remains unclear how the White House would respond if the second stage of diplomacy with Iran fails. The US’s military deterrence is deflated, and the Obama administration’s credibility is too badly damaged in the region to cause either Riyadh or Jerusalem to trust the White House’s assurances.

A lack of firm international resolve in responding to failed talks would spell the beginning of the end of the sanctions regime, and leave Iran with its nuclear program intact.

The sanctions might crumble, but Iran would be left with all of its centrifuges in place, and an international recognition of its “right” to produce low-enriched uranium, which it obtained through Sunday’s Geneva deal.

In Jerusalem, there is one fundamental formula that trumps all others when it comes to Iran. If faced with two choices, either accepting an Iran with the bomb, or bombing Iran, Israel will always choose the latter.

A nuclear Iran, together with Iran’s trans-national terrorism and proxy networks, and the regional arms race that will surely follow, will be many times more dangerous to Israel’s well-being than an attack on Iranian nuclear sites.

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:....How can anyone trust any agreement with a totalitarian and that too an iSlamic government.

************
Rouhani has struck up a more conciliatory tone and made the lifting sanctions against his country a priority.

Despite the sanctions, Iran today has 19,000 centrifuges and is building more advanced ones, according to Mark Hibbs, a nuclear policy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Most world powers believe that Iran could not realistically build a usable bomb in less than a year, Hibbs said.
************

US is saying exactly what they were saying about PakiSaitanis in early 90s.

this deal has short term make-chicago-pols-look-good and long term disaster written all over it

And you can see the Messiah koolaid drinkers gush over it.

and you solution is to attack Iran or maintain status quo? I guess both are 1000 times better than current short-term deal so we won't piss off Israel.

Enjoy your 6 months. That will be like the Nov 30 deadline. An ever moving target.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:this deal has short term make-chicago-pols-look-good and long term disaster written all over it

And you can see the Messiah koolaid drinkers gush over it.

and you solution is to attack Iran or maintain status quo? I guess both are 1000 times better than current short-term deal so we won't piss off Israel.

Enjoy your 6 months. That will be like the Nov 30 deadline. An ever moving target.

typical rightwing cop-out

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:And you can see the Messiah koolaid drinkers gush over it.

and you solution is to attack Iran or maintain status quo? I guess both are 1000 times better than current short-term deal so we won't piss off Israel.

Enjoy your 6 months. That will be like the Nov 30 deadline. An ever moving target.

typical rightwing cop-out

That is a cop out? Your Messiah driven by (ever sinking) opinion polls - check the latest - desperately wants to leave a legacy. All of them will be short-sighted, half-assed and end up causing a lot more trouble, like this one here.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:and you solution is to attack Iran or maintain status quo? I guess both are 1000 times better than current short-term deal so we won't piss off Israel.

Enjoy your 6 months. That will be like the Nov 30 deadline. An ever moving target.

typical rightwing cop-out

That is a cop out? Your Messiah driven by (ever sinking) opinion polls - check the latest - desperately wants to leave a legacy. All of them will be short-sighted, half-assed and end up causing a lot more trouble, like this one here.

Communism and Messiah-giri don't go hand in hand, thought I needed to point that out.

truthbetold wrote:What harm will befall if the deal allows a six.month window of.negotiations?

truthbetold wrote:Look at it another way. the much bad mouthed sanctions bought them begging to the table. instead of taking a negative view bused purely on politics, if you look objectively, the elected govt of us along with rest of the world feels it is a chance for negotiations. the elected leader has the responsibility to take risks to grab an opportunity. Is he going succeed? we do not know. but Kerry did the prudent thing to give peace a chance with adequate precautions.
republican opposition is more political and out of jealousy.
Israel is not an unbiased stakeholder in this discussion.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:With Israel vehemently opposed to the deal - on the advise of SaamiYaar - the deal may be face a huge challenge in Congress when it comes to lifting of sanctions. They will set tough milestones for slow retraction of sanctions.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:also, the reps will use this to hit Barack Hussain Obama deeper after Obamacare debacle.