It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

You know the world is in trouble when France is the one taking a hard line on Iran

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Yup, you guys are right.

To hell with negotiating with anyone. Ever.

Let's just bomb the # out of everyone and ask questions later.




It seems the world is bound and determined to annihilate itself, come hell or high water.

Y'all are going to get your wish soon enough... and while you're patting yourselves on the back, don't forget to kiss your sons and daughters goodbye.





posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 10:22 PM
link   
The real problem France has is that US companies are going to be first in the door to Iran. At some point they will get a promise of some percent of contracts down the road. However, that have just seen the US gei in the door first in India, Vietnam, Myanmar, and Cuba. They are going to want a piece of all those pies as well.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad
The real problem France has is that US companies are going to be first in the door to Iran. At some point they will get a promise of some percent of contracts down the road. However, that have just seen the US gei in the door first in India, Vietnam, Myanmar, and Cuba. They are going to want a piece of all those pies as well.

exactly what its about..what its ALWAYS been about.
a piece of the pie!
welcome to money planet.
always has been, and always will be about the profit margin.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
You are aware that the IAEA is the outfit that has historically had problems with enforcement right?

Why is there even any new "negotiations" going on?

... It must be something else.

Maybe like the sanctions and maybe the vested interests by at least 3 separate power groups in the pending natural gas pipelines.

Monitoring and Verification in Iran


New negotiations are going on because Obama is trying to change the policy on Iran. I'm sure some of this has to do with Obama trying to create a legacy but regime change is a failed policy. It did nothing in Cuba (something Obama also changed), it has done nothing in Iran, it actively made the Middle East worse. Maybe trying to strike a multinational deal can produce some better results. Can it actually make anything worse? Lets say Iran doesn't adhere to the deal... what have we actually lost? We're in the exact same position as we were before the deal, except we'll have concrete intelligence as to the amount of nuclear material Iran has, and their intent with that material.

Lets look at this another way. We can both agree that budgets, even the defense budget should be finite right? In a world of finite budgets, being able to accomplish our goals with less costly methods are a good thing, right? It costs less to strike a deal with Iran and if they adhere to it, that frees up more of our budget to deal with other groups like ISIS, NK, China, and others.
edit on 20-3-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   
double post
edit on 20-3-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Where is the assumption coming from that Obama is so desperate for a deal that he’s willing to accept anything that Iran demands? Could it be from one of our more unflenching, iron-fisted politicians like Johm Boehner, or Mitch McConnell? Our perhaps our good, and trusted friend, Mr, Netanyahu? Give me a friggin break. Many around here would place their fate in the hands of the devil before giving Obama a chance.

It kinda kills me how so many people seem to know so much about the status of the negotiations, almost as though they had a front row seat. It reminds me of all the sports analysts, and self-proclaimed sports gurus, out there licking their wounds on Monday, after losing all the bets they made on Sunday. It’s a matter of knowing just enough to be dangerous.

For all those who are dead set against even attempting a deal, I have to wonder why. What’s to lose by giving it a shot? And what’s to be gained by not? I’ve always thought that giving diplomacy a chance was step number one. And if diplomacy failed, then, and only then, would military options be considered. At least that’s how civilized nations roll. It wasn’t long ago that America was fed up with all our conflicts in the ME. The American people made it quite clear that boots on the ground was no longer an option. If no deal is struck, then Iran will continue on it’s current course, and at some point we will be sucked into another military conflict in the ME, with Mr, Netanyahu cheering us on from the comfort of his overstuffed easychair. And this one will make Iraq look like a piece of cake.

Frankly, I don’t blame Iran for wanting the bomb. They have good reason to be nervous. Between the US bombing and desimating every other country in the ME, and Netanyahu itching for a war, it seems to me they have a pretty strong argument for it. Moreso than most...



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 12:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
This is just wrong. First off, Iran has broken just about every deal they have made. Secondly, Iran knows Obama is desperate to do a deal just to defy those who disagree with him. Because it's a sin to disagree with Dear Leader. The same thing happened after the 2014 elections. Obama was determined to show everyone that he wont be stopped and he's still talking about that and that's why he mentioned mandatory elections.


Wait... it's a sin to disagree with Obama? How many people in DC right now have made a career out of disagreeing with everything he does? For that matter you have people here who would argue the sky is orange if Obama said it was blue. As far as breaking deals goes, of course they have. Know who else has broken every deal they've ever made? The US government, if you don't believe me try asking a Native American. The expectation in politics is that given enough time, every agreement will be broken. It's all a question of how long you can maintain it.

As far as mandatory elections go, it would never pass (and with good reason) so why bother talking about it.


Already a bad deal. The U.S. wanted 500-1500, then 4,000 now they're up to 6,000. There's a reason the U.S. only started out wanting between 500-1500.


So the US enters the deal, gives 1500 as their starting position to compromise from Iran's current 10,000 and we've reached a number that is about halfway between our number and theirs and you call that a bad deal? Are you sure you know what a compromise is?


THE U.S. BELIEVES IRAN'S MISSILE PROGRAM IS AIMED AT CREATING DELIVERY SYSTEMS FOR NUCLEAR WARHEADS!!!


Of course it is. It's not that different to change a missile from conventional to nuclear. If they're not developing nuclear weapons, the missiles will be designed to deliver chemical weapons. Being able to deliver your most potent weapons would be the basics of any delivery system.

The question of if we want them to have these delivery systems is a whole other debate. I don't think there's any justifiable reason to say they can't have short or medium range missiles, all nations are entitled to self defense. Long range is more of a question, but what right do we have to say they can't?

The odd thing with diplomacy though, the more power you have in one area, the more power you inevitably have in other areas. If we can establish some ties with Iran, that gives us leverage to make them stop the development of long range warheads. As it currently stands, regardless of the status of this round of talks with Iran we have no say in that matter. They can walk away from this deal and develop missiles or they can agree to this deal and develop missiles. They're separate issues right now.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   
If any countries do not want Iran to have nukes then show some balls and destroy your own nukes first then demand others not to have em.. Todays world country that do not have nukes or US/NATO as their pimp-daddy they can be invaded by many excuses, as we have seen in past decade many examples already.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Your post shows exactly why Obama's position is such a weak position. You said:


The question of if we want them to have these delivery systems is a whole other debate. I don't think there's any justifiable reason to say they can't have short or medium range missiles, all nations are entitled to self defense. Long range is more of a question, but what right do we have to say they can't?


We have every right to say that they can't when you're dealing with a country that's a state sponsor of terrorism. Iran has been a bad actor on the world stage and that's the reason why you even have negotiations in the first place. If Iran was just this peaceful nation as you portray them that just wants nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, why are we even having this debate? Why are world leaders even meeting to discuss Iran?

It's pie in the sky thinking. You want to bring up Native Americans to try and draw a moral equivalence between America and Iran is just as silly as Obama bringing up the Crusades while we're in a debate today about Radical Islam.

Is America perfect no, but our ideals of freedom and rights given to us by our Creator not Government are perfect as a guiding principle.

Like I said, if Iran was this peaceful country that wants to sing kumbayah with everyone and just wants nuclear energy for peaceful purposes as your so sure about, then why is there any debate at all? This is what Obama said:

If in fact what they claim is true, which is they have no aspiration to get a nuclear weapon, that in fact, according to their Supreme Leader, it would be contrary to their faith to obtain a nuclear weapon. If that is true, there should be the possibility of getting a deal.

This is just scary, head in the sand blindness coming from the President. I could see if this was being said by King Abdullah from Jordan, but we're dealing with the Mullah's in Iran. Of course you and Obama will probably try to draw some silly moral equivalence between Jordan and Iran, but again that's just head in the sand blindness.

That's just insanity. IF IN FACT???? Why should Obama even entertain such a silly notion coming from Iran?? It's not like you're dealing with Iran in a vacuum and you have no idea what Iran has been doing over the years.

If in fact it snows in Las Vegas today, people will have a snowball fight.

If in fact Kim Kardashian really wants to cancel her reality TV show, we should support her for President in 2016.

If in fact a U.F.O. carrying Aliens visits today around 6, I will buy them 2 for 5 fish sandwiches at Arby's.

It's simply idiotic to give Iran this leeway because of something this ridiculous. Here's more:


And so Iran has nothing to fear. They especially have nothing to fear because Obama is relying on Iran to help stymie the growth of ISIS in Iraq. That’s also why Obama seems to care little about Iranian-backed Bashar Assad’s continuing atrocities or the threats of Hezbollah against Israel. Obama has crafted Iran as a counterweight to Israel and Egypt in the region. All Obama asks in return for this kindness to Iran is that the mullahs wait to go nuclear until he leaves office. That’s a great bargain for the Iranian government, and they’re taking it with glee.


The Iranian Government knows Obama is desperate to do a deal and this is why top officials from Iran came out and said The White House is begging us to do a deal. Obama is more determined now especially after Bibi's address to Congress and now he's won the election. Obama doesn't like defiance. After the 2014 election he did everything to delegitimize those elections and he painted them in the light that the people who didn't vote is what really mattered and he did everything to show that he's still king Obama and you can't defy me. So he moved to illegal immigration after he spoke out against doing exactly what he did 25 times and he's still upset about that and this is why he talked about mandatory elections.

Obama doesn't take kindly to defiance, just ask Senator Menendez whose a Democrat that made the mistake of challenging king Obama on immigration and Iran and now the Feds are going after him for corruption.

The fact is, if Iran just wanted a peaceful nuclear energy program, why not import it? Why are they testing things like the ir-5 which will enrich uranium even faster which they say they have "disconnected."?


Iran currently has 19,000 centrifuges, 9,000 of which are running and 10,000 that are installed but not operating. Israel’s position is that Iran should have zero centrifuges. The reason is that if Iran truly needs enriched uranium for civilian purposes, it could import enriched uranium as do roughly 15 other countries, such as Canada, Mexico, and Spain. The Israeli position is in line with six UN Security Council resolutions that were adopted between 2006 and 2010, with the support of Russia and China. If Iran eliminated all of its centrifuges and then chose to build new centrifuges, the process would take four to five years. There would be ample time to detect Iran’s efforts to enrich uranium beyond what is needed for civilian purposes and to organize an international response.


There's more:


In addition to the number of centrifuges that Iran has, there is also the issue of the amount of enriched uranium that Iran has already stockpiled. With enough low-enriched uranium, Iran can make a final push to weapons-grade uranium for an atomic bomb. Robert Einhorn, the former special advisor for nonproliferation and arms control during the Obama administration, has calculated that if Iran uses 1,500 kilograms of low-enriched uranium and inserts it into 2,000 centrifuges, Iran will have one bomb’s worth of weapons-grade uranium in 12 to 14 months.4

But from what we know today about the impending nuclear deal, Iran will need much less time to “breakout” to a bomb. According to multiple press reports, Western negotiators have raised the ceiling for the number of centrifuges that Iran will be allowed to have: they have gone from 1,500 to 4,500, and they now appear to be ready to let the Iranians have 6,000 centrifuges.5 According to Einhorn’s calculations mentioned above, with 1,500 kilograms of enriched uranium and 6,000 centrifuges, Iran can produce enough weapons-grade uranium for an atomic bomb in six months.6


jcpa.org...

It looks like Obama is pulling the wool over people's eyes again. With Obamacare he assured people if they liked their insurance plan they could keep it but they knew that wasn't true. With the nuclear deal with Iran, Obama and others have decided to allow Iran to go nuclear in exchange for help with ISIS. Now it will just be about containing an Iranian nuclear power but Obama will assure the American people with a straight face that Iran will not get the bomb. This deal ensures they will.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Obama is calling them out. If they only want peaceful nuclear energy, then they should have no problem in signing a deal that prevents them from amassing the components for a nuclear weapon, correct? Obama has structured this so that if Iran backs out of the deal they are essentially saying they want nuclear weapons. That weakens their position, and strengthens our current position of regime change.


The fact is, if Iran just wanted a peaceful nuclear energy program, why not import it? Why are they testing things like the ir-5 which will enrich uranium even faster which they say they have "disconnected."?


Russia actually offered them that deal in the past. Iran denied it by saying they shouldn't have to put their energy production in the hands of another nation. Essentially, such a deal would make them Russia's b*itch. Given the way Putin has used his energy leverage over Europe, it's tough to say they were wrong in such an assessment.

Closer ties with Iran are a good thing, it lets us better keep tabs on them and it pushes them away from NK and China. I'm sure you know the proverb "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer". It applies here.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join