majorspark;1710113 wrote:This will not stop until Iran is a nuclear armed nation. Barring unlikely military intervention by these so called "warmongers" Iran will become a nuclear armed nation. Its 1994 North Korea about to repeat itself. This will result in the promise of a US nuclear response to any nuclear attack on the gulf states allied with the US in order to convince them to not seek nuclear arms of their own. Just like South Korea and Japan who are fully capable of developing their own.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/04/korea.brink/



http://articles.latimes.com/1994-10-19/news/mn-52118_1_north-korea-s-nuclear-weapons-program

BoatShoes;1710347 wrote:And yet North Korea didn't go full blown for the bomb until after they were called part of the Axis of Evil and the United States invaded one of the members of the Axis of Evil preemptively because of their alleged weapons of mass destruction. If you invade states that don't have nuclear weapons and you don't want these states to try and make them, you're gonna have a bad time.

BoatShoes;1710347 wrote:Iran, despite the rhetoric of the leadership which is in no way reflective of the will of the Iranian people, has also acted much more rationally than North Korea over the last several decades. For instance they are parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and have consistently complied with the international atomic energy agency.

BoatShoes;1710347 wrote:And of course there is also the fact that the United States invasion of Iraq removed the power balance to Iran in the region in the first place.

BoatShoes;1710347 wrote:And of course there is also the fact that the United States invasion of Iraq removed the power balance to Iran in the region in the first place.

Cleveland Buck;1710377 wrote:

ptown_trojans_1;1710286 wrote: I'm not as sold as others that Iran is driving toward a bomb, but I am definitely very skeptical that they want nuclear power just for power sakes. It is a very nuanced view, one that Bibi and Israel apparently cannot understand.

QuakerOats;1710444 wrote:article from former obama advisor: 'obama needs to answer Mr. Netanyahu'

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/04/netanyahu-iran-nuclear-deal-ross/24362743/

ptown_trojans_1;1710457 wrote:... It is just we have to make sure we get the best deal possible.

Cleveland Buck;1710377 wrote:

Con_Alma;1710458 wrote:The best deal possible isn't good enough. The right deal for the U.S.and Israel has to be negotiated or other means must be used to keep a nuclear warhead from being developed by Iran.

BoatShoes;1710347 wrote:And yet North Korea didn't go full blown for the bomb until after they were called part of the Axis of Evil and the United States invaded one of the members of the Axis of Evil preemptively because of their alleged weapons of mass destruction. If you invade states that don't have nuclear weapons and you don't want these states to try and make them, you're gonna have a bad time.

Iran, despite the rhetoric of the leadership which is in no way reflective of the will of the Iranian people, has also acted much more rationally than North Korea over the last several decades. For instance they are parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and have consistently complied with the international atomic energy agency.

And of course there is also the fact that the United States invasion of Iraq removed the power balance to Iran in the region in the first place.

Cleveland Buck;1710377 wrote:

ptown_trojans_1;1710286 wrote:I'll set aside the political argument on whether it was right that Bibi made the speech, because it is pointless on here and is really not that big an issue big picture wise.
But, as to the this is not a good deal part of the speech, ok so you cite an article, good for you.
And centrifuges have grown over the past few years.
However, so far over the last year these talks have done a few things. They have halted Iranian enriching uranium up to 20% and they have taken the existing fuel that they had at 20% and is now being donwgraded/ blended back to 5% or used for other fuel purposes.
Also, the talks thus far have capped Iranian 5% uranium so for the first time in a while, the Iranian 5% stockpile is not growing.
So, without these talks, like Bibi wants, Iran would still have 20% enrichment and have more 5% uranium as well.

That right there is why some form of a deal is better than no deal. I would rather have still limited checks on Iran, with IAEA verification, than nothing, which is what Israel wants.
Israel tends to think that Iran will somehow eliminate every portion of its nuclear program. Short of an invasion that is simply not happening. The Supreme Leader has said enrichment is a fundamental right for Iran. They are not giving it up.

Now, I will say the deal does need to be fair, and Iran does need to open up on their shady shit. IAEA safeguards needs to be full, and maybe even the Additional Protocol before we loosen any sanctions. Also, we need to have Iran pledge and agree they will not enrich above 5%, and that the Heavy Water reactor at Arak does not come online. If they do not agree on those terms, then we can tinker with the sanctions a little, but will not loosen them at all.

I'm not as sold as others that Iran is driving toward a bomb, but I am definitely very skeptical that they want nuclear power just for power sakes. It is a very nuanced view, one that Bibi and Israel apparently cannot understand.

ptown_trojans_1;1710466 wrote:Sure, keep the sanctions up.
But, the best possible deal is how these things work.
Iran is going to continue to have the ability to enrich uranium. That fact is not going away. Iran will never agree to give it up. That ship has sailed.
So, from there we need to figure out a way to offer up a credible verification measure.
Honestly, Iran needs to sign the Additional Protocol, allow full on inspections and open up its military program to the IAEA like at Parchin.

Con_Alma;1710460 wrote:...to be continued. There will be more if needed to keep the U.S. both safe and a super power.

gut;1710612 wrote:lmao....would an utterly stupid and rigged chart.

Labor Participation is lower now than when Obama took office....one would think that was almost impossible since he came in near the bottom of a recession.

like_that;1710620 wrote:I am responding here, since the other thread is for pics/memes.

Cleveland Buck;1710377 wrote:

gut;1710628 wrote:Yeah, if a meme isn't funny then it should at least be truthful. But stupid memes could not spread without stupid people.

And LMAO, yet ANOTHER comparison vs. Bush.....I think the historically most notable things about Obama's presidency are going to be 1) He was black and 2) He wasn't Bush.

like_that;1710634 wrote:I wonder if liberals will stop talking about Bush 20 years from now.

jmog;1710477 wrote:lol, yup, those saints over in Iran have never hurt another nation...