Historic US-Iran nuclear deal could be taking shape

[Ulysses G.]

Completely wrong. You said the strike stopped Iraq's nuclear program in it's tracks. It didn't. Well, not if the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 were true.

Please stop the silly spin. You just said that the program in 2003 was a "complete lie" a few posts back. The Israeli strike DID stop Iraq's nuclear program. You have outwitted yourself.

[Scott]

An inflammatory post has been removed. I do not wish to be constantly reminding members to stay on topic and post in a civil manner.

[Publicus]

After Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld et al the neocon idiots are the terrorists America fears most.

If the neocons had brains they'd be even more dangerous than they already are..

[Chicog]

This is the problem with sanctions. The people they are aimed at rarely suffer because of them.

The idea I am sure is to try and create a rebellion in Iran - somewhat stupid when you need them to fight ISIS.

Being somewhat stupid is to believe the Shiites of Iran won't eventually end up fighting the Sunnis of ISIS anyway.

I'd rather an organised Iranian military were fighting them than a bunch of tribal rabble with AK47s.

Sheesh, I seem to have to be stating the obvious a lot recently.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Chicog

[Publicus]

If Iran is going to commit to fighting IS in whatever ways and Tehran and Washington can find ways to cooperate in the campaign then that would be good, to get out ahead of it all in that way. It would sure beat Tehran and Washington cussing one another as they have been the past 35 years.

[Ulysses G.]

Oh, I see you are covering yourself by claiming your statement was in regards to Israel bombing Iraq in the early 80's.

Covering myself? That is when Israel blew up Iraq's nuclear weapon and stopped their nuclear program in it's tracks. How is reporting what actually happened "covering myself"?

[Ulysses G.]

Saw the survey the other day that said sixty-something percent of Americans support boots on the ground to fight ISIL, which is only because they trust Prez Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton going forward.

Really? This is about as "honest" as the usual spin.

Washington (CNN)—Americans are increasingly unhappy with President Barack Obama's handling of ISIS, and a growing share of the nation believes that fight is going badly, according to a new CNN/ORC survey released Monday.

The CNN/ORC poll found 57% of Americans disapprove of how Obama is handling the threat posed by ISIS, a significant decline in support for the President over the past few months. In late September, that number was 49%.

Fifty-seven percent disapprove of his handling of foreign affairs more broadly, and 54% disapprove of how the President is handling terrorism. Another 60% rate Obama negatively on his handling of electronic national security.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/16/politics/cnn-poll-isis-obama-approval/

[Publicus]

Conflicting data, eh.

However....

Americans trust Prez Obama's use of the armed forces much more than they trust the Bush Family's personal use of the US military.

Sixty-three percent of Americans disapprove of how Netanyahu was invited to go to the US and to speak to the congress against the president in the Iran nuclear negotiations.

[Ulysses G.]

Au contraire. 59 percent of Americans support Netanyahu’s speech to Congress and only 23 percent oppose it.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[JDGRUEN]

After Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld et al the neocon idiots are the terrorists America fears most.

If the neocons had brains they'd be even more dangerous than they already are..

And - you actually think this post is on topic ? .. Ranting about Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld and neocons is so 2007... Is it possible for you to catch up with 2015 and talk about current international interplay ?

I see who is on call tonight.

Still, kindly don't stray from the topic by trying to focus on the poster.

Bush & Co and Iraq relate directly to the topic of the thread specifically and more broadly.

Only to Progressive Leftists does Bush, Cheney, et al ... make any real difference after six plus years of obama. When do Liberals and Leftist assign responsibility for obama's obsessive distraction with golf three days a week (asleep at the wheel) and his hatred for Israel come in to play? And when does obama's adoration and love for Islam matter as a possible cause for his tunnel vision to allow Iran to become a nuclear weapons power? When do you consider that obama is not looking out for the interests of America and Americans?.. .Do you actually believe that obama's actions are protecting America? ... If you do - what are you smoking?

[Scott]

Posts with aberrant spelling of politicians' names have been removed. Continue to do so and you will receive a suspension.

Numerous posts with nested quotes were also removed.

[Neurath]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Completely wrong. You said the strike stopped Iraq's nuclear program in it's tracks. It didn't. Well, not if the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 were true.

Please stop the silly spin. You just said that the program in 2003 was a "complete lie" a few posts back. The Israeli strike DID stop Iraq's nuclear program. You have outwitted yourself. alt=giggle.gif>

Two conditionals at once can be real tricky for some folks.

1. If there was a nuclear program in Iraq in 2003, then the strike on the nuclear facilities in 1981 did not stop Iraq's nuclear ambitions or abilities in their tracks - and therefore there's no reason to think it would work with Iran's nuclear facilities and ambitions.

2. If there was no nuclear program in Iraq in 2003, then the US Administration lied in saying that Iraq did have such a programs.

Notice the use of if/then conditional logic?

It's not unusual for ideologues to be blinded to the contradiction and inconsistency of their positions. Logic is not one of the idols of the tribe.

[joesanunu]

After Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld et al the neocon idiots are the terrorists America fears most.

If the neocons had brains they'd be even more dangerous than they already are..

And - you actually think this post is on topic ? .. Ranting about Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld and neocons is so 2007... Is it possible for you to catch up with 2015 and talk about current international interplay ?

I see who is on call tonight.

Still, kindly don't stray from the topic by trying to focus on the poster.

Bush & Co and Iraq relate directly to the topic of the thread specifically and more broadly.

Only to Progressive Leftists does Bush, Cheney, et al ... make any real difference after six plus years of obama. When do Liberals and Leftist assign responsibility for obama's obsessive distraction with golf three days a week (asleep at the wheel) and his hatred for Israel come in to play? And when does obama's adoration and love for Islam matter as a possible cause for his tunnel vision to allow Iran to become a nuclear weapons power? When do you consider that obama is not looking out for the interests of America and Americans?.. .Do you actually believe that obama's actions are protecting America? ... If you do - what are you smoking?

Thanks Hannity.

[Publicus]

For all the tough talkers here who are constantly claiming how Obama is a failed president.... Obama has no idea what he is doing, Obama is weak..... Blah blah blah.....

I have one question. What is the alternative to an attempted deal?

Target and completely destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Israel has done it twice and stopped two different nuclear weapons programs in their tracks.

You don't say.....

The evidence is that Saddam reconstructed his nuclear program then he himself decided it was in his interest to abandon it, which he did in 1995. It turned out to not have done him any good either way.

The Israeli attacks of 1981 were a temporary success and, as has been pointed out, that was done under the realities of that time. The current realities of the ME and region, and of the world, are radically different.

Iran for instance has a radically upgraded air defense system, most of which is Russian. The US can penetrate it, but at what consequence after the fact of some kind of strike....

At what consequence.....

Edited February 27, 2015 by Publicus

[Clutch]

It must be said again and again that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, nor has it made any decision to build such a weapon

Any sensible person will disregard anything else you have to say on the subject, after reading this.

The Israeli intelligence service,Mossad has said Iran does not have and is not building a nuclear weapon.

Netanyaho is a pathological liar,

The quotes below sum him up to a tee.

“I cannot bear Netanyahu. He’s a liar,” Nicolas Sarkozy said to President Obama, not realizing the mikes in front of them had been turned on before a news conference at the G-20 summit in Cannes last week.

“You’re fed up with him, what about me?” Obama replied. “I have to deal with him every day.”

[joesanunu]

What a scammer, that Netanyahu.

The US needs to pull out of there right away. Let them take care of themselves. If they want to hire the US as security. PAY!

[Publicus]

After Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld et al the neocon idiots are the terrorists America fears most.

If the neocons had brains they'd be even more dangerous than they already are..

And - you actually think this post is on topic ? .. Ranting about Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld and neocons is so 2007... Is it possible for you to catch up with 2015 and talk about current international interplay ?

I see who is on call tonight.

Still, kindly don't stray from the topic by trying to focus on the poster.

Bush & Co and Iraq relate directly to the topic of the thread specifically and more broadly.

Only to Progressive Leftists does Bush, Cheney, et al ... make any real difference after six plus years of obama. When do Liberals and Leftist assign responsibility for obama's obsessive distraction with golf three days a week (asleep at the wheel) and his hatred for Israel come in to play? And when does obama's adoration and love for Islam matter as a possible cause for his tunnel vision to allow Iran to become a nuclear weapons power? When do you consider that obama is not looking out for the interests of America and Americans?.. .Do you actually believe that obama's actions are protecting America? ... If you do - what are you smoking?

when does obama's adoration and love for Islam matter

When do you consider that obama is not looking out for the interests of America and Americans?.

The president's name is capitalized.

[Clutch]

[Chicog]

Another 60% rate Obama negatively on his handling of electronic national security.

Considering his seems to be about the only branch of government doing *anything* about cybersecurity, you really have to wonder about either the question or those answering it.

And having reading the limited scope of the question, I'd say it's the latter.

http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/02/26/the-white-house-establishes-a-new-agency-to-collect-cyber-security-intelligence/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/02/12/obama-to-sign-executive-order-on-cybersecurity-threats/

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/20/obama-cybersecurity-state-of-the-union-address-speech

[Ulysses G.]

For all the tough talkers here who are constantly claiming how Obama is a failed president.... Obama has no idea what he is doing, Obama is weak..... Blah blah blah.....

I have one question. What is the alternative to an attempted deal?

Target and completely destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Israel has done it twice and stopped two different nuclear weapons programs in their tracks.

You don't say.....

The evidence is that Saddam reconstructed his nuclear program then he himself decided it was in his interest to abandon it, which he did in 1995. It turned out to not have done him any good either way.

Despite all your double-talk, the 1981 strike by Israel prevented Iraq from ever developing a successful nuclear weapons program. How does an unsuccessful one even matter?

[Publicus]

Au contraire. 59 percent of Americans support Netanyahu’s speech to Congress and only 23 percent oppose it.

It is no surprise the poll cited in the post was done by a Republican who also consulted on the Netanyahu election campaign.

GOP pollster: Most Americans support Benjamin Netanyahu speech

A poll found that 59 percent of Americans support Netanyahu’s speech to Congress and only 23 percent oppose it

The poll — conducted by McLaughlin & Associates, a pollster that worked for former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) — found that 59 percent of Americans support Netanyahu’s speech to Congress and only 23 percent oppose, according to results obtained by POLITICO. McLaughlin & Associates CEO John McLaughlin has also advisedNetanyahu during his current reelection campaign

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/benjamin-netanyahu-congress-speech-poll-115305.html#ixzz3SzihNM6E

CNN/ORC poll: Majority of Americans oppose Netanyahu invite

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMERCaJ1yIM

We've been down this road before at this thread and I pointed this out before, but the energizer bunnies of the far right keep repeating themselves which all the same must be addressed.

[Chicog]

It seems that there is a long-standing and fundamental difference in opinion that probably cannot be overcome.

Yesterday, President Obama angered Netanyahu by — for the first time – stating as a matter of U.S. policy that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

President Obama acknowledged this disagreement today, saying “obviously there are some differences between us in the precise formulations and language, and that’s going to happen between friends.”

President Obama invited reporters into the Oval Office after he and Netanyahu had spoken one on one for more than an hour and a half. Their discussions went past the scheduled time allotted to the point that they canceled their working lunch.

Afterwards, the president spoke to reporters who had assembled in the Oval Office while Netanyahu addressed President Obama directly.

Netanyahu said that “while Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines, because these lines are indefensible, because they don’t take into account certain changes that have taken place on the ground, demographic changes that have taken place over the last 44 years.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/05/in-oval-office-bibi-offers-history-lessons-to-obama/

[Ulysses G.]

t>

Completely wrong. You said the strike stopped Iraq's nuclear program in it's tracks. It didn't. Well, not if the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 were true.

Please stop the silly spin. You just said that the program in 2003 was a "complete lie" a few posts back. The Israeli strike DID stop Iraq's nuclear program. You have outwitted yourself.

Two conditionals at once can be real tricky for some folks.

The 1981 strike by Israel prevented Iraq from ever developing a successful nuclear weapons program - which is all that matters. Is that clear enough for you?

[Ulysses G.]

Au contraire. 59 percent of Americans support Netanyahu’s speech to Congress and only 23 percent oppose it.

It is no surprise the poll cited in the post was done by a Republican who also consulted on the Netanyahu election campaign.

Only democrats do REAL polls. Everyone knows that.

[Publicus]

For all the tough talkers here who are constantly claiming how Obama is a failed president.... Obama has no idea what he is doing, Obama is weak..... Blah blah blah.....

I have one question. What is the alternative to an attempted deal?

Target and completely destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Israel has done it twice and stopped two different nuclear weapons programs in their tracks.

You don't say.....

The evidence is that Saddam reconstructed his nuclear program then he himself decided it was in his interest to abandon it, which he did in 1995. It turned out to not have done him any good either way.

Despite all your double-talk, the 1981 strike by Israel prevented Iraq from ever developing a successful nuclear weapons program. How does an unsuccessful one even matter?

Saddam reconstructed his nuclear program, then by the mid-1990s had decided to abandon it, along with his biological weapons program which was unaffected by the 1981 strike against Iran.

This is the historical record established in contradiction to the Bush-Cheney Words of Mass Deception in the leadup to the Iraq war which Benjamin Netanyahu fully supported.

The record shows that back then Netanyahu wanted to attack Iran too, which the uranium brained neocons of the Bush-Cheney years decided against. Netanyahu had to be restrained by -- believe it or not -- Darth Vader himself, i.e., George Bush's Dick Cheney.

[Ulysses G.]

In spite of the hype, there is no definitive evidence Iran is working to develop a nuclear weapon.

There is TONS of circumstantial evidence and that is enough to convict in a court of law. This agreement would most likely allow Iran enough centrifuges to make nuclear weapons, but not enough to provide power.

One element that’s fully expected in a long-term arrangement is a limit on the number and kinds of centrifuges Iran can use to enrich uranium. Former CIA deputy director Michael Morell said there’s an irony in that.

"If you are going to have a nuclear weapons program, 5,000 is pretty much the number you need," Morell, now a CBS analyst, said on Charlie Rose. "If you have a power program, you need a lot more. By limiting them to a small number of centrifuges, we are limiting them to the number you need for a weapon."

Our ruling

Morell said that it takes fewer centrifuges to make bomb-grade nuclear material than it does to supply fuel for a nuclear power plant and argued that the focus on centrifuges can go too far.

That argument aside, experts agreed that Morrell has his facts right. A power plant requires tons of fuel each year. A bomb requires about 25 kilograms of U-235 enriched to the 90 percent level. If an agreement limits Iran to about 9,000 centrifuges, that would be sufficient to produce enough bomb-grade material but would leave Iran well short of the capacity to generate fuel to power nuclear power plants.

We rate Morrell’s claim True.

[Neurath]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

t>

Completely wrong. You said the strike stopped Iraq's nuclear program in it's tracks. It didn't. Well, not if the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 were true.

Please stop the silly spin. You just said that the program in 2003 was a "complete lie" a few posts back. The Israeli strike DID stop Iraq's nuclear program. You have outwitted yourself. alt=giggle.gif>

Two conditionals at once can be real tricky for some folks.

The 1981 strike by Israel prevented Iraq from ever developing a successful nuclear weapons program - which is all that matters. Is that clear enough for you?

Your reasoning abilities sure are.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed. The topic is about US-Iran nuclear deal. It's not about Iraq.

[Publicus]

t>

Completely wrong. You said the strike stopped Iraq's nuclear program in it's tracks. It didn't. Well, not if the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 were true.

Please stop the silly spin. You just said that the program in 2003 was a "complete lie" a few posts back. The Israeli strike DID stop Iraq's nuclear program. You have outwitted yourself.

Two conditionals at once can be real tricky for some folks.

The 1981 strike by Israel prevented Iraq from ever developing a successful nuclear weapons program - which is all that matters. Is that clear enough for you?

1981 was more than 30 years ago.

Attacking Iran's nuclear facilities at this point in time and developments would likely unleash a global fury of reactions as a direct response, from an overt military response to a proliferation of sustained terrorist attacks. Diplomacy would be shattered and smashed, as would the existing tenuous and fragile peace that does exist.

Everyone knows this.

The United States would need to go to Defcon 3 or 2. What would Russia do? China? India, Pakistan?

Anyone who doubts it or would actually deny the reality of it must speak now or forever hold his peace.

[BKKBobby]

I ask the posters that prefer bombing nuclear facilities instead of talking and negotiating = Do you believe there will no blowback? Are your idea that Iran will be bombed into a submissive passive mouse? You dont believe there will be serious proxy wars and wars? Do you think the Iranians will be afraid of the highly unlikely use of a nuclear bomb against them even though they havnt used a nuclear bomb themselves, I mean after having been attacked by preemtive strikes. Do you think that they will be deterred by knowing that US and Israel has nukes? They wont, they know nukes wont be used unless Iran has used nukes, that deterrent doesnt work. You dont think that preemtive strikes to stop the nuclear program will end up in all sorts of trouble? If you bomb Iran in the morning, there are going to be blowbacks starting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon the same day. And thats just for starters. Iran isnt an easy nut to crack. Iraq had unlimited financial aid, military aid and satellite photos of Iranian positions. After 2 years of the war and for the last 6 years of the Iran-Iraq war he was on the defensive and asking for peace. If Iran was a "easy" target, USA/Israel would already attack. Its a very difficult situation that starts if they attack. Why attack other countries and finance/equip freedom fighters/terrorists for all these years when you could have attacked the worlds offical boogeyman?

Edited February 28, 2015 by BKKBobby