Supafly
Retired Mod
See? We all live and learn - you just learned a new little sumthing.
U.S. Caves to Iranian Demands
- Thread starter sean miguel
- Start date
See? We all live and learn - you just learned a new little sumthing.
We have a nuclear deal, and we see if the republicans continue with their anti Iran Nuclear Deal rhetoric? The U.S. public is against another war, so Hillary should still be in good position for the 2016 elections.
BioDefenseGrad
Banned
Israelis have opined to the media that Israel should nuke Iran and Germany. The blast and fallout would kill hundreds of millions of Europeans, likely destroying the birthplace of Western civilization in the process. So maybe they should give up their nuclear weapons too? Let's not forget that Germany is now an ally of Israel, but there's a notion among Israelis that later generations should be punished for the sins of the past.
No country in the Middle East is responsible enough to be trusted with nuclear weapons.
Haartez is one of most respected news organization in Israel.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...emium-1.650355
Iran nuclear framework agreement: Not a bad deal
In contrast to the messages conveyed in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech at Congress, the Israeli government’s public position over the last two years and the Pavlovian response that came out of Jerusalem on Thursday night, the framework agreement is not a bad deal at all. In-depth examination of the details shows that the deal includes many positive aspects that preserve Israeli security interests and answer some of Jerusalem’s concerns.
Iran perhaps scored some victories in terms of the narrative. Its rights, as it sees them, were respected by the world powers, and Iran can declare that its nuclear facilities won’t be closed, that uranium enrichment will continue, and that the humiliating sanctions will be lifted. But the world powers made significant achievements of their own.
The framework agreement levels many restrictions on the Iranian nuclear program in the coming years. The Israeli government’s claims that in a decade, Iran’s nuclear program will be normalized in the eyes of the world, and that the Islamic Republic could then do as it wishes, have turned out to be baseless.
Correct, the limitations on the number of centrifuges Iran will be allowed to operate will expire in 10 years’ time. It would have been preferable if that timeframe was longer. However, over the next 15 years, Iran won’t be able to enrich uranium past 3.5 percent, and at that level, it cannot be used for nuclear weapons. The most the Iranians could do with such uranium would be to use it for peaceful purposes, or leave it in storage, collecting dust.
Also, the tight, invasive oversight of Iran’s nuclear program as defined by the framework, which will certainly be fleshed out in the final agreement, includes allowing UN inspectors into every Iranian nuclear facility, as well as uranium mines and storage facilities for a period of between 20 and 25 years.
One positive aspect of the agreement is that Iran agreed to sign and ratify the additional protocol of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows the UN to conduct surprise inspections at any facility suspected of housing nuclear activity. The significance is that it will be very difficult for Iran to develop a nuclear program in secret, and if it tries to do so, it will likely be uncovered. Attempts to limit or obstruct inspectors would constitute a gross violation of the agreement, which could lead to reinstatement of the international sanctions.
The agreement includes stipulations that are less easy for Israel to swallow, like the permission to continue research and development of advanced centrifuges, or the removal of economic sanctions and the sanctions leveled by the UN Security Council.
Israel will have a hard time fighting this agreement, or portraying it as bad. One of the reasons for this is that it’s clear to anyone that reads the agreement will understand that if Iran indeed upholds it, the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon will be severely reduced over the next two decades, at least. Also, it is now clear that the military strike that Netanyahu was pushing for will not be able to achieve the same things as the agreement. It’s doubtful if Netanyahu, who tried to enlist Congress’ support against the agreement, will be able to find 13 Democratic senators who would vote against Obama.*
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...emium-1.650355
Iran nuclear framework agreement: Not a bad deal
In contrast to the messages conveyed in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech at Congress, the Israeli government’s public position over the last two years and the Pavlovian response that came out of Jerusalem on Thursday night, the framework agreement is not a bad deal at all. In-depth examination of the details shows that the deal includes many positive aspects that preserve Israeli security interests and answer some of Jerusalem’s concerns.
Iran perhaps scored some victories in terms of the narrative. Its rights, as it sees them, were respected by the world powers, and Iran can declare that its nuclear facilities won’t be closed, that uranium enrichment will continue, and that the humiliating sanctions will be lifted. But the world powers made significant achievements of their own.
The framework agreement levels many restrictions on the Iranian nuclear program in the coming years. The Israeli government’s claims that in a decade, Iran’s nuclear program will be normalized in the eyes of the world, and that the Islamic Republic could then do as it wishes, have turned out to be baseless.
Correct, the limitations on the number of centrifuges Iran will be allowed to operate will expire in 10 years’ time. It would have been preferable if that timeframe was longer. However, over the next 15 years, Iran won’t be able to enrich uranium past 3.5 percent, and at that level, it cannot be used for nuclear weapons. The most the Iranians could do with such uranium would be to use it for peaceful purposes, or leave it in storage, collecting dust.
Also, the tight, invasive oversight of Iran’s nuclear program as defined by the framework, which will certainly be fleshed out in the final agreement, includes allowing UN inspectors into every Iranian nuclear facility, as well as uranium mines and storage facilities for a period of between 20 and 25 years.
One positive aspect of the agreement is that Iran agreed to sign and ratify the additional protocol of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows the UN to conduct surprise inspections at any facility suspected of housing nuclear activity. The significance is that it will be very difficult for Iran to develop a nuclear program in secret, and if it tries to do so, it will likely be uncovered. Attempts to limit or obstruct inspectors would constitute a gross violation of the agreement, which could lead to reinstatement of the international sanctions.
The agreement includes stipulations that are less easy for Israel to swallow, like the permission to continue research and development of advanced centrifuges, or the removal of economic sanctions and the sanctions leveled by the UN Security Council.
Israel will have a hard time fighting this agreement, or portraying it as bad. One of the reasons for this is that it’s clear to anyone that reads the agreement will understand that if Iran indeed upholds it, the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon will be severely reduced over the next two decades, at least. Also, it is now clear that the military strike that Netanyahu was pushing for will not be able to achieve the same things as the agreement. It’s doubtful if Netanyahu, who tried to enlist Congress’ support against the agreement, will be able to find 13 Democratic senators who would vote against Obama.*
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
All the more reason to exercise whatever control over them we can. There's an old saying...."Keep you friends close and your enemies closer".
Excellent find and the commentary is spot-on. I'd rep you if the rep police would let me, spacearrow. :thumbsup:
BioDefenseGrad
Banned
I wonder when it will become a matter of discussion among the GOP/republican leaning mainstream just how much of a problem the NeoCons (really Zionists within the GOP) are for the party.
Despite being considered the party of big business, the GOP is at an organizational disadvantage to the Democrats, with demographic decline and an incredibly hostile center-Left media compounding it.
Enter a group of people who have hijacked the party and pushed through policies and legislative stunts that have done damage to the GOP brand.
Let's not forget that people like Sheldon Adelson are one issue Republicans who work to undermine the GOP on matters important to the base.
It will become a matter of discussion after the GOP finishes its autotopsy on why it lost in 2016.
The GOP is being hijacked by a narrow group of people who are out of step with the Republican base and who do not care about the long-term or even short-term viability of the GOP.
Despite being considered the party of big business, the GOP is at an organizational disadvantage to the Democrats, with demographic decline and an incredibly hostile center-Left media compounding it.
Enter a group of people who have hijacked the party and pushed through policies and legislative stunts that have done damage to the GOP brand.
Let's not forget that people like Sheldon Adelson are one issue Republicans who work to undermine the GOP on matters important to the base.
It will become a matter of discussion after the GOP finishes its autotopsy on why it lost in 2016.
The GOP is being hijacked by a narrow group of people who are out of step with the Republican base and who do not care about the long-term or even short-term viability of the GOP.
Thanks for the exposition. Did you post this in the wrong thread?
BioDefenseGrad
Banned
No.
I think the Republican party's problem are much more than that.
It think the party's not homogenous enough to stand as it is now and that there will come a time when they will have to decide what they really stand for and what changes in their policies are they ready to do in order to adapt to the changing demographics.
But to me, the most important question they will have to answer is wether they become a conservative party that would stand against abortion, gay-rights, assisted-suicide, etc. or are they gonna accept to move on on these issue to focus on socio-economic issues, establishing the GOP as "liberal" (in the economic sense of the word) party.
And if the GOP win the white house in 2016 and hold both houses of congress, yeah, they'll be some serious soul-searching.
there'll
True, If they wi 2016, what I desccribed won't happen.
But what if a "moderate" republican is elected and he's perceived by the most conservative part of the GOP as "weak" on issues such as immigration, gay rights or abortion ? Imagine someone like Chris Christie is elected and he wanna legalize same-sex unions (but not same-sex weddings) on the federal level. A large part of the GOP could vote "No" but a part of the Democrats could vote "Yes" and the law could be passed thanks to democrats and despite of the most conservative republicans...
Or congress could vote a bill that would be quite tough on immigration and a president like Jeb Bush would be in trouble 'cause passing such a bill could make him lose a large part of the latino votes he would need to be re-elected but vetoing the bill could start a political crisis...
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
A very astute observation. The republican party seems to be so disjointed right now that I'm not sure there is any single candidate that would be a consensus choice for the vast majority of the party faithful to rally behind. I would love to see a unifying entity rise to the top because that would mean the party has embraced centrist and populist positions on most of the critical issues. Don't see it happening to be honest.
The democrat party has been hijacked by far left wing nuts and it hasn't hurt them in national elections the past two go-rounds. Don't believe me? Look no farther than Al Sharpton visiting the White House 80 plus times in 6 years stategizing and bending the president's ear. I probably should just talk lap dances with Dino and forget the politics section because around here all conservatives are evil and stupid and liberals are going to save the world. The nature of this board being mainly pornography I should not be surprised that Reagan conservatives don't post here much.
I often wonder what the draw is to this board for people like Jagger because he seems as straight laced as they come and I almost find it hard to believe he even views porn. I guess all wingnut politicians are fine as long as they are your wing nuts.
The worst part is the left seem to not even realize how far on the fringe some of their politicians are.
I often wonder what the draw is to this board for people like Jagger because he seems as straight laced as they come and I almost find it hard to believe he even views porn. I guess all wingnut politicians are fine as long as they are your wing nuts.
The worst part is the left seem to not even realize how far on the fringe some of their politicians are.
Little Red Wagon Repairman
MFOMBSoPGA
I haven't had a lap dance in a strip club for years but I'm more than willing to compare notes about cheap hookers in flea-bag motels.
I haven't tried that yet. I guess they are no more risky for disease than a stripper with daddy issues looking to squeeze money out of every wallet that walks into the joint.Dino Velve 917909 said:
Little Red Wagon Repairman
MFOMBSoPGA
Lemon Drop has daddy issues. He died in the Civil War. She's a better than average GILF hooker who likes to remember how much 5 20s used to buy and hasn't raised her rates since then. I like putting my wiener inside of her pussy and getting some Russian at the same time. Her holes are starting to shift and move around so when you put it in her baby hole she can almost take you to Greece.
I often wonder what the draw is to this board for people like Jagger because he seems as straight laced as they come and I almost find it hard to believe he even views porn.
I often wonder is why a surprisingly high percentage of OCSMs are conservatives/republicans. How does that make any sense??
The worst part is the left seem to not even realize how far on the fringe some of their politicians are.
And the right does? :1orglaugh
Look no farther than Al Sharpton visiting the White House 80 plus times in 6 years stategizing and bending the president's ear.
I wonder if Putin fanboy Giuliani is aware of how those numbers break down.
Of his roughly 80 visits exactly five have been one on one visits with Obama. Five.
20 have been with staff members or senior advisors.
The rest have all been as a guest at large events/ceremonial occasions.
"To cite this number to show that Sharpton is a 'close adviser' is an exaggeration": Washington Post Fact Checker
We DO know for a fact that Bernie Kerik was a close advisor (not to mention business partner and close personal friend) of Giuliani's. That's no exaggeration.
What's that old expression about glass houses and throwing stones?
I often wonder is why a surprisingly high percentage of OCSMs are conservatives/republicans. How does that make any sense??
The worst part is the left seem to not even realize how far on the fringe some of their politicians are.
And the right does? :1orglaugh
Look no farther than Al Sharpton visiting the White House 80 plus times in 6 years stategizing and bending the president's ear.
I wonder if Putin fanboy Giuliani is aware of how those numbers break down.
Of his roughly 80 visits exactly five have been one on one visits with Obama. Five.
20 have been with staff members or senior advisors.
The rest have all been as a guest at large events/ceremonial occasions.
"To cite this number to show that Sharpton is a 'close adviser' is an exaggeration": Washington Post Fact Checker
We DO know for a fact that Bernie Kerik was a close advisor (not to mention business partner and close personal friend) of Giuliani's. That's no exaggeration.
What's that old expression about glass houses and throwing stones?
The Republican leadership is hardly far right. Compare them to Democrat leadership and if you still feel that way then we should just cut bait. What a lobbyist wouldn't do to have meetings with senior advisers even if that is true.
So Obama doesn't take Al's phone calls huh?
Nice try. Sell it to someone else.
So Obama doesn't take Al's phone calls huh?
Nice try. Sell it to someone else.
You obviously don't know what is the Left. Someone like Elisabeth Warren barely qualifies as a moderate leftist, a social-democrat, like Tony Blair was and like Matteo Renzi is.Blue Countach said:
If you wanna know what true hard-left is, look at what Alexis Tsipras ran on
Depends on who you're talking about. Guys such as Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio aren't far right. But people such as Ted Cruz or Mike Huckabee are.
Similar threads
