ptown_trojans_1;1716515 wrote:Yeah, Iran, under IAEA safeguards that are being worked out.
What did you think Iran would give up all of its enrichment? That was never an option.

And really, this is not an unprecedented move, it was already common knowledge. Israel and nukes is the worst kept secret in the Middle East.
It did nothing to change the region.

you do realize that when history writes this chapter, these are all bad decisions.

HitsRus;1716531 wrote:Petulance at best...Chicago style underworld politics most likely....the veiled threat. At least that is what the Israelis are taking it as.

You really think the DOD FOIA Office got directions from the West Wing? Boy, you have way more faith in the way a bureaucracy functions than I.
I'm still waiting on FOIAs I put in from 2007.

Spock;1716550 wrote:you do realize that when history writes this chapter, these are all bad decisions.

On the FOIA, history suggests this is nothing more than normal. Nuke secrets have been released on Israel every year for the last 30 some years.

On Iran, hard to say, but if a deal is worked and it does bring Iran into the fold in terms of the IAEA.
Look folks, Iran is not going to give up the ability to enrich uranium. If you accept that fact, then you can work out the details of verification.

ptown_trojans_1;1716568 wrote:........ then you can work out the details of verification.

That'll work.


Keep moving along ...

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/u-s-caves-to-key-iranian-demands-as-nuke-deal-comes-together/



Just incredible. obama makes Jimmy Carter look like George Washington.

QuakerOats;1716708 wrote:That'll work.


Keep moving along ...

QuakerOats;1716711 wrote:http://freebeacon.com/national-security/u-s-caves-to-key-iranian-demands-as-nuke-deal-comes-together/



Just incredible. obama makes Jimmy Carter look like George Washington.

At this point anything that allows Iran to continue to enrich will be ripped apart and criticized the conservatives. So, whatever, details and technical specs be damned.

...as it should be.

President Obama in 2009: "Iran’s Underground Nuke Facility Inconsistent With Peaceful Program."

Acknowledging and agreeing to allow an "inconsistent with a peaceful program" to continue whether they are not willing to give up enrichment or not should be ripped apart and criticized.

Con_Alma;1716716 wrote:President Obama in 2009: "Iran’s Underground Nuke Facility Inconsistent With Peaceful Program."

Acknowledging and agreeing to allow an "inconsistent with a peaceful program" to continue whether they are not willing to give up enrichment or not should be ripped apart and criticized.

Then let's just skip all these steps and go ahead and bomb the hell out of them
That is apparently the only option that will satisfy people.

That's Jon Bolton's view to a T.

I'm open to hearing some meaningful dialogue working towards an agreement's to deterrence of further enrichment as opposed to what we're hearing now.

Con_Alma;1716724 wrote:That's Jon Bolton's view to a T.

I open to hearing some meaningful dialogue working towards an agreement's to deterrence of further enrichment as opposed to what we're hearing now.

That's the thing, short of bombing, Iran is not going to give up enrichment.
They have stated it is their fundamental right under peaceful use of atomic energy.
We have tried offers over the years where the Russians or French will enrich for Iran and turn the uranium back over for power. But, Iran has declined all those offers.

The enrichment argument is irrelevant in my mind. What is more important are the details of any verification regime.
But, again, details be damned. Anything Obama does is bad.

It is indeed "the thing"... and it is their right....and we should not allow it to continue.....so what's next on the negotiation table?

I couldn't care less if it's Obama or Ronald Reagan doing the negotiation. The enrichment needs to be stopped.

I'd rather have the support of the Saudis, Egyptians and Israelis than to allow the continueation of the enrichment...underground...so long as it's inspected based upon agreed upon terms.

This is a State who continues to back a variety of terrorists activities and we're going to base our negotiations on their fundamental right under peaceful use of atomic energy. I'm not willing to take the risk that all of their other actions aren't indicative of their willingness to someday change that peaceful use to one that's detrimental to the citizens of the U.S. and it's allies....especially when Iran's Supreme Leader is recently cataloged as screaming, "Death To America".

With regards to those who deem, "Anything Obama does is bad", I would suggest that Mr. President hasn't exactly worked hard on presenting a leadership persona that's desirable to not only his adversarial constituents but maybe more importantly his adversarial associates in the legislative branch.

The point of it is, how freaking naive can you be "negotiating" with people who want "Death to America"? Negotiation involves trust and a reasonable belief that the people who you are doing business with are going to actually comply to the terms of whatever is agreed to.
We seen this before... And I fully expect the same cat and mouse games that we observed with the Norks and Sadaam Hussein.

HitsRus;1716762 wrote:The point of it is, how freaking naive can you be "negotiating" with people who want "Death to America"? Negotiation involves trust and a reasonable belief that the people who you are doing business with are going to actually comply to the terms of whatever is agreed to.
We seen this before... And I fully expect the same cat and mouse games that we observed with the Norks and Sadaam Hussein.

Obama is just trying to accomplish something, anything, for his legacy. He'll be remembered mostly as the POTUS who went on a lot of talk shows, gave a lot of speeches and attended a lot of fundraisers while basically ignoring the job.

And Cuba. Give him credit for Cuba.

HitsRus;1716762 wrote:The point of it is, how freaking naive can you be "negotiating" with people who want "Death to America"? Negotiation involves trust and a reasonable belief that the people who you are doing business with are going to actually comply to the terms of whatever is agreed to.
We seen this before... And I fully expect the same cat and mouse games that we observed with the Norks and Sadaam Hussein.

So, don't talk to them at all. Ok, then other than bombing, how are you solving the problem?

Con_Alma;1716732 wrote:I'd rather have the support of the Saudis, Egyptians and Israelis than to allow the continueation of the enrichment...underground...so long as it's inspected based upon agreed upon terms.

This is a State who continues to back a variety of terrorists activities and we're going to base our negotiations on their fundamental right under peaceful use of atomic energy. I'm not willing to take the risk that all of their other actions aren't indicative of their willingness to someday change that peaceful use to one that's detrimental to the citizens of the U.S. and it's allies....especially when Iran's Supreme Leader is recently cataloged as screaming, "Death To America".

There we agree. Yes, it does depend on the details of the verification which is what I have been saying the whole damn time.

ptown_trojans_1;1716793 wrote:There we agree. Yes, it does depend on the details of the verification which is what I have been saying the whole damn time.

I was using your words there. I f you re-read my sentence I stated I would rather have the support of allies than inspections with agreed upon terms.

ptown_trojans_1;1716792 wrote:So, don't talk to them at all. Ok, then other than bombing, how are you solving the problem?

Why do you say other than bombing? Everything should be on the table. Aren't diplomatic efforts more effective when the realistic possibility of military action are backing your position?

I'm asking you what is there to negotiate if allowing them to continue to enrich isn't agreeable?

^^^^ This.

Con_Alma;1716843 wrote:Why do you say other than bombing? Everything should be on the table. Aren't diplomatic efforts more effective when the realistic possibility of military action are backing your position?

I'm asking you what is there to negotiate if allowing them to continue to enrich isn't agreeable?

Really? Ok.
Everything is on the table. The option to strike is a stated option, albeit, a last one.
What are they negotiating? The limits to enrichment for sanctions relief.
Essentially, under the status quo (so no deal) Iran enriches as much uranium as possible and enriches up 20 %, (most of the way to 90% or useable for a bomb).

The deal now, or the particulars, allows Iran to enrich uranium below 20%, so for power, with IAEA safeguards in place. They are also talking about limiting or shutting down Arak, which is a heavy water facility and could be dual use, meaning could be used for weapons.

In exchange for limits or assurances that Iran will not enrich beyond 10%, the EU and US will start to east sanctions.
Those assurances will be verified by the IAEA, who has been verifying Iran since 2004.
Also, some of the angles being discussed are also whether Iran should come clean about past areas where it concealed portions of the program, and whether Iran should adhere to the Additional Protocol with the IAEA.

Reading reports, it seems they have a basic agreement, but over the last few days, all the technical details are being discussed.

Like I said, all aspects of the deal are in the details. The details, verification regime, will Iran admit past faults, and will they adhere to the Additional Protocol will decide if this is a good deal or bad deal.
Iran is going to enrich uranium no matter what. That ship sailed long ago, back in 2006. Now, it is all about ensuring they do not go above 10% uranium and/ or reprocess the uranium for weapons.

What do you mean by "really"??

If the option to strike is in fact an option ...even as a last resort as it should be...why do you imply that it's not by using words such as "other than bombing"? It is and must remain an influencing piece of the negotiations.

The percentage or amount Iran enriches uranium isn't what our allies nor what opponents of these negotiations want. It doesn't matter if it's their right nor if they are limited to using it for power nor if there are inspections ensuring such activities. That's not an acceptable deal and if such terms go before congress as the Constitution defines, it won't be accepted.

The ship hasn't sailed. It can be completely stopped and it should be. There's not indication based on Iran's current and past actions that there's any benefit to the U.S. or the world in allowing any uranium to be enriched by this country. None.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/237294-iran-deal-takes-shape

Anyone calling for war on a message board should be drafted and sent in first.

Has anyone called for war? I can't find it on here.