data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3fd60/3fd60f9d3f2bd0c90f765dbc6339c3be4cceb708" alt="Ty Webb's avatar"
Ty Webb
Posts: 2,798
Oct 20, 2012 5:50pm
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5de44/5de44174ae648b06a4bee8c4183874c4fca0b9af" alt="believer's avatar"
believer
Posts: 8,153
Oct 20, 2012 5:59pm
Good to hear. But unless Ahmadinejad (well Khamenei at least) kisses Barry on the lips before election day, it doesn't mean squat.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/04c93/04c933abbd2c3213440d71f76897a4381974a720" alt="BGFalcons82's avatar"
BGFalcons82
Posts: 2,173
Oct 20, 2012 6:19pm
the Iranians have been "talking" for a decade. Nothing here. Move along.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3fd60/3fd60f9d3f2bd0c90f765dbc6339c3be4cceb708" alt="Ty Webb's avatar"
Ty Webb
Posts: 2,798
Oct 20, 2012 6:22pm
BGFalcons82;1300142 wrote:the Iranians have been "talking" for a decade. Nothing here. Move along.
But damnit.....if Romney had done it you would've been giddy
Have they EVER agreed to 1-on-1 sit down talks?
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Oct 20, 2012 6:24pm
It's nice, but really should have happened long ago.
It does seem the sanctions are impacting them, pretty hard.
But, what really matters is if the Iranians just use the talks to stall and stall. Or, will they be full of substance?
The heart of the matter is if Iran can enrich, and if so how much and to what level the IAEA has the ability to verify.
Devil is in the details and execution.
It does seem the sanctions are impacting them, pretty hard.
But, what really matters is if the Iranians just use the talks to stall and stall. Or, will they be full of substance?
The heart of the matter is if Iran can enrich, and if so how much and to what level the IAEA has the ability to verify.
Devil is in the details and execution.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/04c93/04c933abbd2c3213440d71f76897a4381974a720" alt="BGFalcons82's avatar"
BGFalcons82
Posts: 2,173
Oct 20, 2012 6:24pm
Newsflash...Romney won't be President for another 90 days.Ty Webb;1300147 wrote:But damnit.....if Romney had done it you would've been giddy
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Oct 20, 2012 6:25pm
Not formally, but off to the side in 2007 when talking about Iraq.Ty Webb;1300147 wrote:
Have they EVER agreed to 1-on-1 sit down talks?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/04c93/04c933abbd2c3213440d71f76897a4381974a720" alt="BGFalcons82's avatar"
BGFalcons82
Posts: 2,173
Oct 20, 2012 6:26pm
Stall, PTown??? They would never ever do that....
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3fd60/3fd60f9d3f2bd0c90f765dbc6339c3be4cceb708" alt="Ty Webb's avatar"
Ty Webb
Posts: 2,798
Oct 20, 2012 6:27pm
Romney won't be President everBGFalcons82;1300154 wrote:Newsflash...Romney won't be President for another 90 days.
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Oct 20, 2012 6:28pm
Yeah, exactly.BGFalcons82;1300157 wrote:Stall, PTown??? They would never ever do that....
They may be taking a page from the North Korean playbook. Provoke, talks, breakdown, calm, provoke, talks, breakdown, calm, repeat.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/04c93/04c933abbd2c3213440d71f76897a4381974a720" alt="BGFalcons82's avatar"
BGFalcons82
Posts: 2,173
Oct 20, 2012 6:36pm
The Iranians want a nuke more than anything else in the world. If they have to talk some more, wait some more, "negotiate" some more, and yes, stall some more, they will.ptown_trojans_1;1300159 wrote:Yeah, exactly.
They may be taking a page from the North Korean playbook. Provoke, talks, breakdown, calm, provoke, talks, breakdown, calm, repeat.
Once they get it, Israel will destroy it. Write it down.
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Oct 20, 2012 6:49pm
I wouldn't go that far.BGFalcons82;1300168 wrote:The Iranians want a nuke more than anything else in the world. If they have to talk some more, wait some more, "negotiate" some more, and yes, stall some more, they will.
Once they get it, Israel will destroy it. Write it down.
Do they want a nuke, I think so.
Would they use it? Hard to say.
The regime is actually pretty rational in the sense of they are interested in their own self preservation. Any weapon, they know, will result in their destruction.
Plus, one isn't enough. They need around 6-10 to have a real value to possible usage and retaliation impact.
And they need a delivery vehicle. Their current missiles do not have the range to load a nuke on them.
And, they still do not have the components to weaponize all the uranium (which the VP stated last week), and that often gets overlooked.
It's one thing to have the material. It is another to shrink it down into a warhead.
All that said. If Israel goes to destroy it, it will actually hurt them in the long run.
As, Iran will kick out all the IAEA, so no more inspections. And, Iran will move everything underground even more so, leading to a nuclear program where we have even less information on.
Adding to that, it may have a rally around the flag moment, where it may lead to the regime have more legitimacy.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5de44/5de44174ae648b06a4bee8c4183874c4fca0b9af" alt="believer's avatar"
believer
Posts: 8,153
Oct 20, 2012 6:53pm
The talks are irrelevant....just a stall tactic by Iran to buy time.
But the point of this thread is that Gibby's all excited because he thinks this is a last-minute homerun for Barry's re-election bid.
Sorry.....not happening.
But the point of this thread is that Gibby's all excited because he thinks this is a last-minute homerun for Barry's re-election bid.
Sorry.....not happening.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3fd60/3fd60f9d3f2bd0c90f765dbc6339c3be4cceb708" alt="Ty Webb's avatar"
Ty Webb
Posts: 2,798
Oct 20, 2012 6:55pm
If this had been a Republican President ....you all would be having a circle jerk
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Oct 20, 2012 7:00pm
Hmmmm....the appeaser that will defer to an impotent UN, or an unknown quantity in Romney. I guess Ahmadinejad doesn't like how the polls are trending, either.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/04c93/04c933abbd2c3213440d71f76897a4381974a720" alt="BGFalcons82's avatar"
BGFalcons82
Posts: 2,173
Oct 20, 2012 7:34pm
B I N G O!!gut;1300192 wrote:I guess Ahmadinejad doesn't like how the polls are trending, either.
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Oct 20, 2012 8:19pm
Where is the UN involved?gut;1300192 wrote:Hmmmm....the appeaser that will defer to an impotent UN, or an unknown quantity in Romney. I guess Ahmadinejad doesn't like how the polls are trending, either.
It is the EU plus the US that is imposing the sanctions that did force them to the table now.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Oct 20, 2012 8:59pm
Reaaaalllllyyyyyy? So the UN currently imposes no sanctions on Iran? The UN would not be a likely arbiter of Iran's compliance on any agreement reached?ptown_trojans_1;1300250 wrote:Where is the UN involved?
It is the EU plus the US that is imposing the sanctions that did force them to the table now.
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Oct 20, 2012 11:30pm
Most likely pretty accurate.gut;1300192 wrote:Hmmmm....the appeaser that will defer to an impotent UN, or an unknown quantity in Romney. I guess Ahmadinejad doesn't like how the polls are trending, either.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1eccb/1eccba6c772143b85b44eaea2e0460b6490f8072" alt="HitsRus's avatar"
HitsRus
Posts: 9,206
Oct 21, 2012 9:23am
Both the White House and Iran have denied that these reports are true.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/21/us-iran-nuclear-usa-idUSBRE89K05N20121021
/end of thread.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/21/us-iran-nuclear-usa-idUSBRE89K05N20121021
/end of thread.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5de44/5de44174ae648b06a4bee8c4183874c4fca0b9af" alt="believer's avatar"
believer
Posts: 8,153
Oct 21, 2012 9:53am
lolHitsRus;1300479 wrote:Both the White House and Iran have denied that these reports are true.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/21/us-iran-nuclear-usa-idUSBRE89K05N20121021
/end of thread.