Kerry Fails Again-Iran Talks Extended-No Agreement In Sight

[houndawg]

So you agree that we should be negotiating, but you don't know any of the details, but its fun watching Obama/Kerry getting pwned by Iran. Got it.

Transparency...yay!

Feel free to provide details on the inspection agreement (you know the thing that has any hope of verifying Iranian compliance).

Er, you do realize they haven't negotiated that yet? I would assume it would involve inspectors on the ground? Like the ones that tried to tell us there weren't any WMD in Iraq?

They'll get nukes eventually no matter what, but that is more Israel's problem than ours.

[SDHornet]

Transparency...yay!

Feel free to provide details on the inspection agreement (you know the thing that has any hope of verifying Iranian compliance).

Er, you do realize they haven't negotiated that yet? I would assume it would involve inspectors on the ground? Like the ones that tried to tell us there weren't any WMD in Iraq?

They'll get nukes eventually no matter what, but that is more Israel's problem than ours.

That's kinda my point. This is being trumpeted by Obama as some great deal (you know, a once in a lifetime event), yet the details are not even ironed out yet.

And yes, not our problem.

[houndawg]

Er, you do realize they haven't negotiated that yet? I would assume it would involve inspectors on the ground? Like the ones that tried to tell us there weren't any WMD in Iraq?

They'll get nukes eventually no matter what, but that is more Israel's problem than ours.

That's kinda my point. This is being trumpeted by Obama as some great deal (you know, a once in a lifetime event), yet the details are not even ironed out yet.

And yes, not our problem.

Politicians blowing their horn? Who's a thunk it..

I still waiting for the haters to explain why it is better not to negotiate at all.

[houndawg]

Er, you do realize they haven't negotiated that yet? I would assume it would involve inspectors on the ground? Like the ones that tried to tell us there weren't any WMD in Iraq?

They'll get nukes eventually no matter what, but that is more Israel's problem than ours.

That's kinda my point. This is being trumpeted by Obama as some great deal (you know, a once in a lifetime event), yet the details are not even ironed out yet.

And yes, not our problem.

But, but, Bibi said its not a good deal......

[SDHornet]

That's kinda my point. This is being trumpeted by Obama as some great deal (you know, a once in a lifetime event), yet the details are not even ironed out yet.

And yes, not our problem.

But, but, Bibi said its not a good deal......

No one cares what he thinks. If this deal was so good then Obama wouldn’t need to spend so much time spinning it as a favorable deal and it wouldn’t have a problem getting ratified by Congress (assuming it ever gets that far, you know since neither side has really signed off on it and there are still a lot of details that need to be worked out).

[andy7171]

[youtube]https://youtu.be/Kos4VDQlRRk[/youtube]

[bluehenbillk]

I still waiting for the haters to explain why it is better not to negotiate at all.

Good point

[CID1990]

That's kinda my point. This is being trumpeted by Obama as some great deal (you know, a once in a lifetime event), yet the details are not even ironed out yet.

And yes, not our problem.

Politicians blowing their horn? Who's a thunk it..

I still waiting for the haters to explain why it is better not to negotiate at all.

Negotiate- nothing changes in Irans nuke program (and it must be real, right? otherwise what are we negotiating about on the first place?) and we release ALL sanctions, freeing up billions of dollars for them to pour into their numerous proxy wars

Dont negotiate- sanctions remain in place (obviously they are hindering something because the mullahs so desperately want them removed), Russia and China get no security council say in the matter (see the Duelfer report on Russias activities during the Iraq sanctions regime) and we pretty much maintain the status quo

In short, with this deal, Iran gets nukes with no consequences

without a deal, Iran still get nukes at a significant cost

[andy7171]

How about ratcheting up sanctions and walking away until the Iranians are will to bend on something.

[kalm]

Yeah…why in the world don't they trust us?

SEVEN THINGS YOU DIDN’T KNOW THE U.S. AND ITS ALLIES DID TO IRAN

It’s hard for some Americans to understand why the Obama administration is so determined to come to an agreement with Iran on its nuclear capability, given that huge Iranian rallies are constantly chanting “Death to America!” I know the chanting makes me unhappy, since I’m part of America, and I strongly oppose me dying……...

4. We were cool with Saudi Arabia giving Saddam $5 billion to build nukes during the Iran-Iraq war

You probably know that, after Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980, Iraq went all out (with our help) trying to make biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and actually used chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers. What you probably don’t know is that Saudi Arabia was funding Saddam’s nuclear program with billions of dollars, and the Reagan administration knew all about it and didn’t care.

To understand how this looks to Iran, remember that at least 0.75% of Iran’s total population died during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, the per capita equivalent today of 2.4 million Americans. For comparison’s sake, we still constantly talk about World War II — in which 400,000 Americans died, then 0.3% of our population — 70 years later.

5. U.S. leaders have repeatedly threatened to outright destroy Iran


It’s not just John McCain singing “bomb bomb bomb Iran.” Admiral William Fallon, who retired as head of CENTCOM in 2008, said about Iran: “These guys are ants. When the time comes, you crush them.” Admiral James Lyons Jr., commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet in the 1980s, has said we were prepared to “drill them back to the fourth century.” Richard Armitage, then assistant secretary of defense, explained that we considered whether to “completely obliterate Iran.” Billionaire and GOP kingmaker Sheldon Adelson advocates an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran — “in the middle of the desert” at first, then possibly moving on to places with more people.

Most seriously, the Obama administration’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review declared that we will not use nuclear weapons “against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations.” There’s only one non-nuclear country that’s plausibly not in this category. So we were saying we will never use nuclear weapons against any country that doesn’t have them already — with a single exception, Iran. Understandably, Iran found having a nuclear target painted on it pretty upsetting.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015 ... done-iran/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CID1990]

Yeah…why in the world don't they trust us?

SEVEN THINGS YOU DIDN’T KNOW THE U.S. AND ITS ALLIES DID TO IRAN

It’s hard for some Americans to understand why the Obama administration is so determined to come to an agreement with Iran on its nuclear capability, given that huge Iranian rallies are constantly chanting “Death to America!” I know the chanting makes me unhappy, since I’m part of America, and I strongly oppose me dying……...

4. We were cool with Saudi Arabia giving Saddam $5 billion to build nukes during the Iran-Iraq war

You probably know that, after Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980, Iraq went all out (with our help) trying to make biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and actually used chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers. What you probably don’t know is that Saudi Arabia was funding Saddam’s nuclear program with billions of dollars, and the Reagan administration knew all about it and didn’t care.

To understand how this looks to Iran, remember that at least 0.75% of Iran’s total population died during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, the per capita equivalent today of 2.4 million Americans. For comparison’s sake, we still constantly talk about World War II — in which 400,000 Americans died, then 0.3% of our population — 70 years later.

5. U.S. leaders have repeatedly threatened to outright destroy Iran


It’s not just John McCain singing “bomb bomb bomb Iran.” Admiral William Fallon, who retired as head of CENTCOM in 2008, said about Iran: “These guys are ants. When the time comes, you crush them.” Admiral James Lyons Jr., commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet in the 1980s, has said we were prepared to “drill them back to the fourth century.” Richard Armitage, then assistant secretary of defense, explained that we considered whether to “completely obliterate Iran.” Billionaire and GOP kingmaker Sheldon Adelson advocates an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran — “in the middle of the desert” at first, then possibly moving on to places with more people.

Most seriously, the Obama administration’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review declared that we will not use nuclear weapons “against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations.” There’s only one non-nuclear country that’s plausibly not in this category. So we were saying we will never use nuclear weapons against any country that doesn’t have them already — with a single exception, Iran. Understandably, Iran found having a nuclear target painted on it pretty upsetting.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015 ... done-iran/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes lets wring our hands over how we got here (debatable on certain fronts)

Im still not seeing a justification for supporting a state sponsor of terrorism

[kalm]

Yeah…why in the world don't they trust us?



https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015 ... done-iran/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes lets wring our hands over how we got here (debatable on certain fronts)

Im still not seeing a justification for supporting a state sponsor of terrorism

1) When history is less than flattering, it's hand wringing?

2) Who's calling for "support"? (And I agree)

3) Wait…are you referring to us or them?

[CID1990]

Yes lets wring our hands over how we got here (debatable on certain fronts)

Im still not seeing a justification for supporting a state sponsor of terrorism

1) When history is less than flattering, it's hand wringing?

2) Who's calling for "support"? (And I agree)

3) Wait…are you referring to us or them?

1. Why did you feel it necessary to point it out? Do you think everyone here needed the history lesson?

thanks for the "smartest man in the room" article,

but it is irrelevant

thats a common theme with you

[kalm]

1) When history is less than flattering, it's hand wringing?

2) Who's calling for "support"? (And I agree)

3) Wait…are you referring to us or them?

1. Why did you feel it necessary to point it out? Do you think everyone here needed the history lesson?

thanks for the "smartest man in the room" article,

but it is irrelevant

thats a common theme with you

I don't think we should support state sponsored terrorism either.

I like history and it's relevance.

[travelinman67]

Letter from Ayatollahs' nephew...

Dear President Obama,

Our country's negotiators are lying to you...

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2015/04/ ... lear-deal/

[Chizzang]

Letter from Ayatollahs' nephew...

Dear President Obama,

Our country's negotiators are lying to you...

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2015/04/ ... lear-deal/

That is a well written letter - whoever wrote it...
I'm not entirely convinced the nephew wrote it but whatever, its still excellent

[CID1990]

Letter from Ayatollahs' nephew...

Dear President Obama,

Our country's negotiators are lying to you...

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2015/04/ ... lear-deal/

That is a well written letter - whoever wrote it...
I'm not entirely convinced the nephew wrote it but whatever, its still excellent

I'm wondering why it would take a letter purportedly from an aytollah's nephew to convince us that Iran doesn't act in good faith.

Smart Power TM for the win

Maybe we should just send them a reset button

[andy7171]

So earlier yesterday I heard we are sending a carrier to the Gulf of Aden. Supposedly to block arms delivery already en route. This morning I hear its just to ensure safe shipping lanes.
What happens if one of these Iranians decides to pop off a couple shots at us floating around? Would we be able to shoot back? We know they can't even sink a barge. But are we supposed to just let them try? Why be there at all.

[houndawg]

So earlier yesterday I heard we are sending a carrier to the Gulf of Aden. Supposedly to block arms delivery already en route. This morning I hear its just to ensure safe shipping lanes.
What happens if one of these Iranians decides to pop off a couple shots at us floating around? Would we be able to shoot back? We know they can't even sink a barge. But are we supposed to just let them try? Why be there at all.

Ask their Iran's airline if we'll shoot back.

[andy7171]

So earlier yesterday I heard we are sending a carrier to the Gulf of Aden. Supposedly to block arms delivery already en route. This morning I hear its just to ensure safe shipping lanes.
What happens if one of these Iranians decides to pop off a couple shots at us floating around? Would we be able to shoot back? We know they can't even sink a barge. But are we supposed to just let them try? Why be there at all.

Ask their Iran's airline if we'll shoot back.

Would we, under this administration, be able to shoot back?

Better?

[kalm]

Ask their Iran's airline if we'll shoot back.

Would we, under this administration, be able to shoot back?

Better?

Judging by the people we've killed with drones, I'm gonna say yes.

[CID1990]

Would we, under this administration, be able to shoot back?

Better?

Judging by the people we've killed with drones, I'm gonna say yes.

I guarantee with 100% certainty that those ships are on close hold.

Not gonna jeopardize a legacy building foreign policy agreement over something as insignificant as another failed state being cannibalized.

[andy7171]

Would we, under this administration, be able to shoot back?

Better?

Judging by the people we've killed with drones, I'm gonna say yes.

It's going to sink the signature legacy deal though.

[kalm]

Judging by the people we've killed with drones, I'm gonna say yes.

I guarantee with 100% certainty that those ships are on close hold.

Not gonna jeopardize a legacy building foreign policy agreement over something as insignificant as another failed state being cannibalized.

So if we're fired on, Obama has ordered the ships to sit back and take it?

What a pussy.

[Chizzang]

That is a well written letter - whoever wrote it...
I'm not entirely convinced the nephew wrote it but whatever, its still excellent

I'm wondering why it would take a letter purportedly from an aytollah's nephew to convince us that Iran doesn't act in good faith.

Smart Power TM for the win

Maybe we should just send them a reset button

Who (what nation) acts "In good faith" ..?
We can rule out all of central and south america
We can rule out all of Asia
We can rule out all of the middle east



In good faith is a pipe dream sold from one idealist to another
Nations do as they see fit form and function based on their own internal politics and needs
To which we are not always privy

This ^ is why we sell arms to the Taliban
and bungle around behind closed doors
Ship arms to drug cartels
Iran Contra affair
Greek Financial crisis

Pick a scandal and I'll show you good faith in action