Iran nuclear talks extended; Iranians meet key obligation

[Steely Dan]

Iran are already in breach of their agreed obligations in decommissioning nuclear material. What's the point of trying to sign an agreement when they are already not complying with the joint plan of action, which sets the groundwork for it?

http://www.thetower.org/2243-nuclear-experts-iran-failed-to-properly-convert-its-uranium-stockpile-violating-jpoa/

Edited July 2, 2015 by Steely Dan

[Steely Dan]

The latest fudge removes the IAEA right to inspect all Iranian sites whenever they want. The U.S team waive away this as a concern reasoning that the U.S would not grant anyone the right to get into every military site. So there it is an argument based on moral equivalence between Iran and the U.S, the left is really showing its true colors here. This alone should sink the deal once the implications are examined.

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sentence-could-doom-iran-deal_981294.html

Heaven forbid moral equivalence! We can't treat people the same way that we expect to be treated.

Indeed We are all the same genocidal religious maniacs with an Armageddon fixation. Thanks for articulating your lunacy and demonstrating the progressive left are mentally ill and shouldn't be trusted running a canteen let alone a Country.

[Jingthing]

The latest fudge removes the IAEA right to inspect all Iranian sites whenever they want. The U.S team waive away this as a concern reasoning that the U.S would not grant anyone the right to get into every military site. So there it is an argument based on moral equivalence between Iran and the U.S, the left is really showing its true colors here. This alone should sink the deal once the implications are examined.

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sentence-could-doom-iran-deal_981294.html

Heaven forbid moral equivalence! We can't treat people the same way that we expect to be treated.

Indeed We are all the same genocidal religious maniacs with an Armageddon fixation. Thanks for articulating your lunacy and demonstrating the progressive left are mentally ill and shouldn't be trusted running a canteen let alone a Country.

OK, it's over the top but still reflects this Iranian regime.

Which BTW ... is still a holocaust denying regime.

Iran with nuclear weapons?

Please. No!

(The last graphic with the bomb targeted at gay people is a clever touch.)

Yes, it is very nauseating when western "progressives" show such sympathy for the Iranian regime.

Of course I am aware the majority of Iranian young people want normalization and deserve normalization so they are victims of their own regime as well.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Jingthing

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

[Chicog]

What else could it be but for defense?

Offense. The Iranian Mullahs are perfectly happy to commit suicide to bring forth the 12th Mahdi. That is their religion and that is why the world would be crazy to allow them to develop nukes.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/15/iran-supreme-leader-the-shiite-islamic-messiah-is-coming-to-free-the-world/

Now we truly are entering the realms of farce.

It is a factual part of their religion and the Iranian government have done their own video on the 12th Mahdi that is available on YouTube.

It is religious mumbo jumbo and they are no more likely to commit state suicide than the US is.

And I think you know that.

[sdanielmcev]

Yes, and most of the attackers were Saudi.

Your point is what?

That the US invade countries they don't like. Can't you read?

The US didn't invade Saudi Arabia. What is your point? I can read just fine, but when you write nonsense that even a Jabberwocky cannot understand, anyones' comprehension fails.

What does their being Saudi have to do with the US invading Afghanistan to bring down their organization?

(I'm betting on a snide remark. That has nothing to do with the subject.)

[geriatrickid]

While the east is ' negotiating ' back in Iran's bunkers the work to build a nuclear weapon is going

on in earnest and triple speed, until Iran having a workable version of a nuclear weapon is a foregone

conclusion....

That would be fair...they could then defend themselves against a nuclear armed aggressor.

Everyone has a right to defend themselves, right?

Ahh so that explains why Pakistan and North Korea needed nuclear weapons.

[geriatrickid]

What else could it be but for defense? They are not stupid. They realize that a first strike would be suicide.

Anyway, the whole point of these talks is to have some control to prevent Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. If they fail, you would see an arms race in the Middle East to develop them, Israel attacking Iran and possibly Saudi, Iran retaliating by blocking Straits of Hormuz with the world suffering, Hezbollah raining missiles on Israel...a nightmare that no-one wants.

Jaw jaw is better than war war, as Churchill once said.

If it is for defense, why then threaten to target London or Copenhagen?

True or false, Iran has supplied HIzbollah a violent group which operates a state within the state of Lebanon. Where else does a country get off creating a state within a state as Iran has done?

True or False, Iran has provided weapons to Hamas in Gaza, weapons which have in turn been given to insurgents in the Northern Sinai.

True or False, Iran illegally occupies part of the UAE

True or False, Iranian Republican Guards are now deployed in Syria

There is no jaw jaw, just an attempt to convince the world there is talk, because it is becoming more apparent that something will need to be done about Iran. It is quite conceivable that once Obama is gone, there will be a change in ME policy. Syria will be allowed to be overthrown and Iran will move in to parts of Syria and Iraq. This will push the Gulf States to attack Iran. Egypt will participate and the USA and Nato will be forced to back the Gulf States. China and Russia will line up along side Iran. Iran will then fire its nukes at Israel and the EU.. France and the UK will incinerate Iran. Russia will move into parts of Iran.

Why delay the inevitable? Get rid of Iran now and be done with it.

[Chicog]

Yes, and most of the attackers were Saudi.

Your point is what?

That the US invade countries they don't like. Can't you read?

The US didn't invade Saudi Arabia. What is your point? I can read just fine, but when you write nonsense that even a Jabberwocky cannot understand, anyones' comprehension fails.

What does their being Saudi have to do with the US invading Afghanistan to bring down their organization?

(I'm betting on a snide remark. That has nothing to do with the subject.)

Once again: my point is that the US invades countries they don't like; and since Iran is high on their s--t-list, one assumes that they feel the need to have a more effective deterrent than Saddam or the Taliban had.

You seem to think that Afghanistan had to be invaded because it was solely responsible for 9/11, which is naive at best, since not only did Saudi citizens perpetrate the attack, but it is widely accepted that dissident Saudi money funded it.

You also seem to forget that America's "friend" Pakistan has not only harboured Taliban members but also OBL, yet amazingly they didn't merit the "shock and awe" treatment.

Personally I think it's a bigger risk giving a Sunni country a nuke than a Shi'a one - you generally don't get Shi'a suicide bombers, whereas the desire to meet their maker blowing up innocents seems easily engendered in our Sunni friends..

[Chicog]

True or False, Iran illegally occupies part of the UAE

False. The UAE lays claim to territory originally stolen from Iran under the British, and reclaimed by Iran from the British when they pulled out.

As of April 1873, the islands were reported as a dependency of the Persian Fars province to the British Resident, which the Resident acknowledged. In the period 1786-1835 the official British opinion, surveys, and maps identified the Tonbs as part of Langeh, subject to the government of the province of Fars. Chief among them were the works of Lt. John McCluer (1786), political counselor John Macdonald Kinneir (1813), and Lt. George Barns Brucks (1829).

[Ulysses G.]

Why delay the inevitable? Get rid of Iran now and be done with it.

Many of the Iranian people do not support the nutjobs in charge. That is the only reason that I can see, but I can see no objection to taking out their illegal nuclear program completely - and ASAP.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[sdanielmcev]

@chicog

Al-qeada, not Taliban. Based in Afghanistan, Not my naivete, Pakistan a "friend" of the US? Hardly. Try again.

[Chicog]

@chicog

Al-qeada, not Taliban. Based in Afghanistan, Not my naivete, Pakistan a "friend" of the US? Hardly. Try again.

So f%#@ing invade them then, they really are psychos with nukes.

[Publicus]

What else could it be but for defense?

Offense. The Iranian Mullahs are perfectly happy to commit suicide to bring forth the 12th Mahdi. That is their religion and that is why the world would be crazy to allow them to develop nukes.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/15/iran-supreme-leader-the-shiite-islamic-messiah-is-coming-to-free-the-world/

So it could appear the far out marginals in the USA will believe anyything they read, or have their own wild-eyed interpretation of it. It does seem safe to say the Daily Caller and those who read online right wing rags are the true believers of anything they can be pulled into reading. Next I'd guess Daily Caller might start selling online Mullah certificates so online preachers of immediate military strikes and war can sell the 12th Mahdi as a major justification of their view from deep celestial space.

Mullahs don't commit suicide, their true believer young male saps do.

[Chicog]

I think I'm within a few hundred Km of both Iran and Israel and I'd feel safer if they both had one.

I believe it's called MAD.

[SheungWan]

I think I'm within a few hundred Km of both Iran and Israel and I'd feel safer if they both had one.

I believe it's called MAD.

Anybody who spouts that formula is a few bulbs short of a light fitting.

[Scott]

The thread is not about Iraq and it is not about Israel. Numerous off-topic troll posts have been removed. Continue and you will receive a suspension.

[NeverSure]

So it could appear the far out marginals in the USA will believe anyything they read, or have their own wild-eyed interpretation of it.

You're such a sweet young man. Who taught you to be so diplomatic?

[Publicus]

So it could appear the far out marginals in the USA will believe anyything they read, or have their own wild-eyed interpretation of it.

You're such a sweet young man. Who taught you to be so diplomatic?

Owe almost all of it to William F. Buckley, Jr. It's his classic style to many of us regularly exposed to him at the time.

Aside from his evil influence on me during my six month experiment back then as a "sweet young man," I am constantly and positively aware of the following....

Thirty years after the overthrow of the monarchy, the ruling clerics, despite their extensive financial and organizational resources and consistent brutality in eliminating their secular opponents, have failed to create a religious order in the country. Iranians today appear to be less religious than the publics from other Islamic countries, and the trend in their value orientations is toward individualism, gender equality, democracy, and national identity.

https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/comparative_studies_of_south_asia_africa_and_the_middle_east/summary/v029/29.1.moaddel.html

We have far less to fear than certain among us want us to believe or pursue.

[Chicog]

I think I'm within a few hundred Km of both Iran and Israel and I'd feel safer if they both had one.

I believe it's called MAD.

Anybody who spouts that formula is a few bulbs short of a light fitting.

Sadly for you, history shows that nuclear weapons have only ever been used against countries that don't have them.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Chicog

[Ulysses G.]

History shows that nuclear weapons have only been used twice, within days of each other, when they were first invented. NO ONE else had them.

[SheungWan]

I think I'm within a few hundred Km of both Iran and Israel and I'd feel safer if they both had one.

I believe it's called MAD.

Anybody who spouts that formula is a few bulbs short of a light fitting.

Sadly for you, history shows that nuclear weapons have only ever been used against countries that don't have them.

History shows that nuclear weapons have only been used twice, within days of each other, when they were first invented. NO ONE else had them.

That's why his argument is a fake pass. The subtext is that some are not so much in favour of a deal between the USA and Iran but rather are wanting Iran to have a nuclear capability and in their dreams go to it. They are perfectly aware of the instability of the Islamists. It suits their 'bigger picture'. And we know what that is.

[Ulysses G.]

That's why his argument is a fake pass.

As per usual. Any excuse will do to give Islamic terrorists nukes.

[Chicog]

History shows that nuclear weapons have only been used twice, within days of each other, when they were first invented. NO ONE else had them.

So? I'm not wrong am I?

[Ulysses G.]

It was a pointless remark.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

A great article on what a mess this "deal" has turned into and why:


What’s left? A surrender document of the kind offered by defeated nations suing for peace. Consider: The strongest military and economic power on earth, backed by the five other major powers, armed with what had been a crushing sanctions regime, is about to sign the worst international agreement in U.S. diplomatic history.


How did it come to this? With every concession, Obama and Kerry made clear they were desperate for a deal. And they will get it. Obama will get his “legacy.” Kerry will get his Nobel. And Iran will get the bomb.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-worst-agreement-in-us-diplomatic-history/2015/07/02/960e8cf2-20e8-11e5-aeb9-a411a84c9d55_story.html?wprss=rss_charles-krauthammer

Edited July 3, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Jay Sata]

This is not about giving "Islamist terrorists" nukes.

Iran is negotiating with the five original nuclear members of the United Nations Security Council the USA, Britain, France, Russia and China plus Germany on a deal to lift crippling international sanctions in return for an agreement to keep their nuclear programme restricted to power generation.

Something that India,Pakistan,North Korea and Israel have not done.

Iran is not a land locked country that could be forced in to submission and indeed if they wanted to go down the path of having a nuclear armoury I am sure a deal can easily be done with Moscow or China in the current climate.

If I was running a Middle East country opposed to fundamentalist Islam I would be more concerned with the ISIS threat.

The so called worlds strongest military power is not capable of controlling the swarm of evil they released in an attempt to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction that never existed.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Scott

[Chicog]

It was a pointless remark.

So pointless that you couldn't resist responding.

[Jingthing]

Here's another perspective.

This is all above my pay grade, but I agree it seems inevitable that sooner or later Iran will get nuclear weapons and they definitely want them.

Nobody is really going to stop that permanently with military action ... only stalls.

So I reckon now the thing to do is prepare for the realities of an eventual new world with Iran having these weapons.

Here’s the straight dope about the emerging deal: It’s not a great deal. It was never going to be. Despite a series of U.N. Security Council resolutions since 2006 demanding Iran cease enrichment — because of gross violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty to which it’s a signatory — there was never a chance Iran would agree. Perhap military action could knock out its nuclear installations. Despite doubters’ pooh-poohing, America is actively preparing for such action. But Iran could rebuild in the space of three years. Only an invasion and occupation could stop it. The Iraq fiasco killed that option. As for an Israeli strike, it could gain a year at most. The current deal buys between 15 and 25 years. That’s not perfect, but it’s better than any other option.

Netanyahu and his allies insist that if America stood firm it could increase sanctions until Iran agreed to something better. But Russian and Chinese patience is wearing thin. If Obama hadn’t started these talks when he did in 2013 , the united sanctions front would have fallen apart and Iran would have resumed enrichment, full-speed. As it was doing before Obama’s talks, when Netanyahu was leading the charge.

Is Obama a master diplomat? Hardly. Did he blow it in Syria? Undoubtedly. But this deal is about as good as it ever could have been.

http://forward.com/opinion/311187/despite-smoke-and-mirrors/

Edited July 3, 2015 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

The important bit is Iran is a signatory to the NPT unlike the other countries I have mentioned.

Which they are VIOLATING. Wake up. Allowing the biggest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet to develop nukes is a lot more than a "distraction".