France nukes deal with Iran

[Trajan]

You know, it takes real work to get yourself in a position where in Russia is seen as the peacekeeper/broker, Iran gets to backhand us with our own phrase, make us look weak, ineffectual and France like the Duke......

I have to say though, I am actually surprised Rouhani said this, its clearly antagonistic, rude and meant as a jibe, if he wants sanctions lowered further its best not to twist anyone's tail, but, hes probably calculated that Obama is so desperate for any kind of a 'win', he'll come right back for more.


Iran’s Rouhani Says Uranium Enrichment ‘Red Line’
By AP / Nasser Karimi Nov. 10, 2013


(TEHRAN, Iran) — Iranian officials said Sunday the country made progress with world powers during “serious” talks over Tehran’s nuclear program, but insisted the nation cannot be pushed to give up uranium enrichment as negotiations move into tougher ground over ways to ease Western concerns that Iran could one day develop atomic weapons.

The remarks on enrichment repeat past declarations on the country’s “right” to produce nuclear fuel, which is a key element of the talks over its scope. But President Hassan Rouhani and his top envoys seek to assure hard-line critics that Iran will not make sweeping concessions in the negotiations, which ended without agreement in Geneva early Sunday and are scheduled to resume next week.




Read more: Iran’s Rouhani Says Uranium Enrichment ‘Red Line’ | TIME.com Iran?s Rouhani Says Uranium Enrichment ?Red Line? | TIME.com

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's good to see France step up and take leadership now that the US has shown it has sold out and no longer is up to a world leadership role, and France will replace the US as Israel's best ally most likely.

Israel will not allow Iran a viable nuclear weapon. If denied a bunker buster bomb by the US they can use a battlefield nuclear weapon as a last resort, so this could make things a lot more dangerous, and out of desperation and the removal of the best option by the US, the BBB.

Somehow, I don't think that the Zionists what an ally whose foriegn minister once said, "It's this shitty little country Israel that is causing all the problems in the world." (If only our politicians were so clear-sighted.)

Here's the reality- The Zionists don't have the balls to take out Iran by itself, they are trying to goad us into doing it for them.

There's also no reason for the Mullahs to give up their nukes.

Saddam gave up his nukes, and they killed him.
Qadafy gave up his nukes, and they killed him, too.

Tell me something, if Bush lied about Saddam and WMDs, when did he have nukes? As for Qaddafi, the "they" that killed him was Obama after he decided that it was bettter to follow France than lead.

 

[Kondor3]

It's good to see France step up and take leadership now that the US has shown it has sold out and no longer is up to a world leadership role, and France will replace the US as Israel's best ally most likely.

Well, maybe France can step-up in a Placeholder Role, until January 20, 2017, anyway.

The cold, hard truth of the matter is that the French haven't got the muscle or staying power to slip into the role permanently, but, as a placeholder... maybe.

But... you're right... it's good to see France re-growing some long-lost spine.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's good to see France step up and take leadership now that the US has shown it has sold out and no longer is up to a world leadership role, and France will replace the US as Israel's best ally most likely.

Israel will not allow Iran a viable nuclear weapon. If denied a bunker buster bomb by the US they can use a battlefield nuclear weapon as a last resort, so this could make things a lot more dangerous, and out of desperation and the removal of the best option by the US, the BBB.

Somehow, I don't think that the Zionists what an ally whose foriegn minister once said, "It's this shitty little country Israel that is causing all the problems in the world." (If only our politicians were so clear-sighted.)

Here's the reality- The Zionists don't have the balls to take out Iran by itself, they are trying to goad us into doing it for them.

There's also no reason for the Mullahs to give up their nukes.

Saddam gave up his nukes, and they killed him.
Qadafy gave up his nukes, and they killed him, too.

You consider Israel destroying osirak as a voluntary act of saddam?

Facts have no impact on Joe, his universe isn't built on reality.

 

[georgephillip]

"US Secretary of State John Kerry countered claims France had torpedoed nuclear talks with Iran, saying the six world powers 'signed off' on a deal, but Iran wasn’t ready to accept it. Tehran and the UN nuclear watchdog agreed on a roadmap for cooperation.

"Kerry delivered his comments in Abu Dhabi on Monday following rampant speculation behind why marathon talks between the P5+1 - the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany - and Iran on Saturday failed to produce an agreement."

Why do you suppose the spokesman for the Greatest Purveyor of Violence in the World refuses to "sign off" on his country's unspoken demand of regime change in Tehran?

http://rt.com/news/kerry-iran-nuclear-deal-532/

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"US Secretary of State John Kerry countered claims France had torpedoed nuclear talks with Iran, saying the six world powers 'signed off' on a deal, but Iran wasn’t ready to accept it. Tehran and the UN nuclear watchdog agreed on a roadmap for cooperation.

"Kerry delivered his comments in Abu Dhabi on Monday following rampant speculation behind why marathon talks between the P5+1 - the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany - and Iran on Saturday failed to produce an agreement."

Why do you suppose the spokesman for the Greatest Purveyor of Violence in the World refuses to "sign off" on his country's unspoken demand of regime change in Tehran?

http://rt.com/news/kerry-iran-nuclear-deal-532/

Kerry? Isn't he the guy that said Assad was the best hope for stability and peace in the Mid-East? Then, a few months later, wasn't he ready to bomb them? Then he thought that Russia was the best hope for peace in the Mid-East? Why should I believe anything he says?

 

[georgephillip]

"US Secretary of State John Kerry countered claims France had torpedoed nuclear talks with Iran, saying the six world powers 'signed off' on a deal, but Iran wasn’t ready to accept it. Tehran and the UN nuclear watchdog agreed on a roadmap for cooperation.

"Kerry delivered his comments in Abu Dhabi on Monday following rampant speculation behind why marathon talks between the P5+1 - the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany - and Iran on Saturday failed to produce an agreement."

Why do you suppose the spokesman for the Greatest Purveyor of Violence in the World refuses to "sign off" on his country's unspoken demand of regime change in Tehran?

http://rt.com/news/kerry-iran-nuclear-deal-532/

Kerry? Isn't he the guy that said Assad was the best hope for stability and peace in the Mid-East? Then, a few months later, wasn't he ready to bomb them? Then he thought that Russia was the best hope for peace in the Mid-East? Why should I believe anything he says?

Don't forget "count every vote", Kerry in 2004.
I'm not clear on why anyone would believe anything that particular rich-bitch says.
It isn't that everything he says is a lie; however, everything he says could just easily be a lie as otherwise.
Time to FLUSH the DC toilet of ALL Republicans AND Democrats, starting in 2014.
Let the courts sort 'em out.

 

[Lipush]

For us red lines aren't crossable, either.

 

[Trajan]

well, someones got to stand tall.....

 

[JoeB131]

It's good to see France step up and take leadership now that the US has shown it has sold out and no longer is up to a world leadership role, and France will replace the US as Israel's best ally most likely.

Israel will not allow Iran a viable nuclear weapon. If denied a bunker buster bomb by the US they can use a battlefield nuclear weapon as a last resort, so this could make things a lot more dangerous, and out of desperation and the removal of the best option by the US, the BBB.

Somehow, I don't think that the Zionists what an ally whose foriegn minister once said, "It's this shitty little country Israel that is causing all the problems in the world." (If only our politicians were so clear-sighted.)

Here's the reality- The Zionists don't have the balls to take out Iran by itself, they are trying to goad us into doing it for them.

There's also no reason for the Mullahs to give up their nukes.

Saddam gave up his nukes, and they killed him.
Qadafy gave up his nukes, and they killed him, too.

Tell me something, if Bush lied about Saddam and WMDs, when did he have nukes? As for Qaddafi, the "they" that killed him was Obama after he decided that it was bettter to follow France than lead.

Oookay, first take your anti-Crazy pills.

Second- go back to 1991, where part of the peace agreement was that Saddam had to give up his nuclear program. Which he did. And inspectors were horrified to find he was probably a year or two from a bomb.

And then you had a decade of crippling sanctions.

And then we went in and killed him. Because Bush lied about him still having weapons in 2003.

And, yeah, I agree, getting in the middle of Libya's civil war was all kinds of stupid.

 

[Trajan]

merged

 

[georgephillip]

For us red lines aren't crossable, either.

Unlike Green Lines?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Somehow, I don't think that the Zionists what an ally whose foriegn minister once said, "It's this shitty little country Israel that is causing all the problems in the world." (If only our politicians were so clear-sighted.)

Here's the reality- The Zionists don't have the balls to take out Iran by itself, they are trying to goad us into doing it for them.

There's also no reason for the Mullahs to give up their nukes.

Saddam gave up his nukes, and they killed him.
Qadafy gave up his nukes, and they killed him, too.

Tell me something, if Bush lied about Saddam and WMDs, when did he have nukes? As for Qaddafi, the "they" that killed him was Obama after he decided that it was bettter to follow France than lead.

Oookay, first take your anti-Crazy pills.

Second- go back to 1991, where part of the peace agreement was that Saddam had to give up his nuclear program. Which he did. And inspectors were horrified to find he was probably a year or two from a bomb.

And then you had a decade of crippling sanctions.

And then we went in and killed him. Because Bush lied about him still having weapons in 2003.

And, yeah, I agree, getting in the middle of Libya's civil war was all kinds of stupid.

UN resolution 686 and 687 forbade Iraq from having any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, not just nukes. Iraq's nuclear program was destroyed in 1981, by Israel.

Since the UN inspectors kept reporting multiple violations of both those resolutions, and others, Bush decided to go back into Iraq and deal with it. The WMD charge was, at best, a way for idiots to claim he lied.

 

[georgephillip]

Obama was trying to sell out all security interest in the Middle East, destroy Israel, and walk back another promise, all in the name of making a legacy deal for the history books. France, of all countries, said no.

France.

What does that say about the state of US foreign policy?

Not to worry though, Obama got a Nobel Prize for something, even if no one knows what it was.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/world/iran-nuclear-talks.html?hpw&rref=world&_r=1&

Obama doesn't hold Israel to the same standards as Iran anymore than Bush, Clinton, Carter or Reagan did.

"The Middle East nuclear weapon free zone (MENWFZ) is a proposed agreement similar to other Nuclear-weapon-free zones in other regions.

"Steps towards the establishment of such a zone began in the 1960s led to a joint declaration by Egypt and Iran in 1974 which resulted in a General Assembly resolution (broadened in 1990 to cover weapons of mass destruction)...[citation needed]"

"Israel is the only Mideast country believed to have a nuclear arsenal, which was developed in the 1960s.[2]

"Israel has been unwilling to discuss nuclear demilitarization except in the context of a comprehensive peace settlement including Palestinian issues and all of Israel’s neighbors, such as Syria and Iran.[3]

"Israel maintains a veil of 'studied ambiguity' ('amimut'), which Avner Cohen calls 'opacity,'[2] about its nuclear arsenal, and has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.[4]

"In December 2012, the United Nations General Assembly voted 176-6 in favor of a non-binding resolution calling on Israel to place its nuclear program under IAEA safeguards and join the NPT.

"Israel responded that the UN body 'has lost all its credibility regarding Israel with these types of routine votes that are ensured passage by an automatic majority and which single out Israel.'"

Israel and the US have no credibility to condemn Iranian nuclear ambitions in the Middle East since both countries never miss a chance to miss a chance at meaningful peace negotiations in that part of the world.

Middle East nuclear weapon free zone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Has Israel ever used the nuclear weapons they may, or may not, have? Do you think that anyone would be safe if Iran had nukes? If the answer to either, or both, of those questions is no, then I don't see whatever point you are trying to make.

My point is that Israel has proven itself a greater threat to peace in the Middle East by what it has done in the last 65 years and also by what it has not done:

"Israel is not a signatory to the 1970 Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, the main objective of which is to is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology.

"Despite near-universal acknowledgement that Tel Aviv maintains a powerful nuclear arsenal, Israeli officials promote a position claiming their government will 'not be the first country to introduce weapons into the Middle East.'

"The Middle East's only democracy possesses as many as 400 nuclear warheads, along with various ways to deliver them. It is also one of four countries known to have nuclear weapons that are not recognized as Nuclear Weapons States by the NPT. The others are India, North Korea and Pakistan.

"Israel follows a policy known as 'nuclear opacity,' which it sees as a deterrent against its neighbors."

Israel rejects UN call for nuclear transparency ? RT News

Israeli opacity isn't confusing to its neighbors; if the Persians had nuclear weapons and the ability to strike Tel Aviv, I doubt if Bibi and his French poodles would be yapping about regime change in Tehran.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obama doesn't hold Israel to the same standards as Iran anymore than Bush, Clinton, Carter or Reagan did.

"The Middle East nuclear weapon free zone (MENWFZ) is a proposed agreement similar to other Nuclear-weapon-free zones in other regions.

"Steps towards the establishment of such a zone began in the 1960s led to a joint declaration by Egypt and Iran in 1974 which resulted in a General Assembly resolution (broadened in 1990 to cover weapons of mass destruction)...[citation needed]"

"Israel is the only Mideast country believed to have a nuclear arsenal, which was developed in the 1960s.[2]

"Israel has been unwilling to discuss nuclear demilitarization except in the context of a comprehensive peace settlement including Palestinian issues and all of Israel’s neighbors, such as Syria and Iran.[3]

"Israel maintains a veil of 'studied ambiguity' ('amimut'), which Avner Cohen calls 'opacity,'[2] about its nuclear arsenal, and has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.[4]

"In December 2012, the United Nations General Assembly voted 176-6 in favor of a non-binding resolution calling on Israel to place its nuclear program under IAEA safeguards and join the NPT.

"Israel responded that the UN body 'has lost all its credibility regarding Israel with these types of routine votes that are ensured passage by an automatic majority and which single out Israel.'"

Israel and the US have no credibility to condemn Iranian nuclear ambitions in the Middle East since both countries never miss a chance to miss a chance at meaningful peace negotiations in that part of the world.

Middle East nuclear weapon free zone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Has Israel ever used the nuclear weapons they may, or may not, have? Do you think that anyone would be safe if Iran had nukes? If the answer to either, or both, of those questions is no, then I don't see whatever point you are trying to make.

My point is that Israel has proven itself a greater threat to peace in the Middle East not only by what it has done in the last 65 years and also by what it has not done:

"Israel is not a signatory to the 1970 Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, the main objective of which is to is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology.

"Despite near-universal acknowledgement that Tel Aviv maintains a powerful nuclear arsenal, Israeli officials promote a position claiming their government will 'not be the first country to introduce weapons into the Middle East.'”

"The Middle East's only democracy possesses as many as 400 nuclear warheads, along with various ways to deliver them. It is also one of four countries known to have nuclear weapons that are not recognized as Nuclear Weapons States by the NPT. The others are India, North Korea and Pakistan.

"Israel follows a policy known as 'nuclear opacity,' which it sees as a deterrent against its neighbors."

Israel rejects UN call for nuclear transparency ? RT News

Israeli opacity isn't confusing to its neighbors; if the Persians had nuclear weapons and the ability to strike Tel Aviv, I doubt if Bibi and his French poodles would be yapping about regime change in Tehran.

Your point is that you are a deluded maniac? I already knew that, but thanks for pointing it out for the newer posters.

 

[georgephillip]

"The following is a list of United Nations resolutions that concern both Israel and Palestine and bordering states such as Lebanon. The Human Rights Council has adopted more resolutions condemning Israel than it has all other states combined."

Not sure where Iran places on the above list.

List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Kondor3]

"...The Human Rights Council has adopted more resolutions condemning Israel than it has all other states combined..."

If there were more Jews and fewer Arabs on the Council I'm sure that would add-up differently.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"The following is a list of United Nations resolutions that concern both Israel and Palestine and bordering states such as Lebanon. The Human Rights Council has adopted more resolutions condemning Israel than it has all other states combined."

Not sure where Iran places on the above list.

List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Human Rights council is famous for only caring about human rights in non Islamic countries.

 

[JoeB131]

[

UN resolution 686 and 687 forbade Iraq from having any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, not just nukes. Iraq's nuclear program was destroyed in 1981, by Israel.

Since the UN inspectors kept reporting multiple violations of both those resolutions, and others, Bush decided to go back into Iraq and deal with it. The WMD charge was, at best, a way for idiots to claim he lied.

Guy, nobody went in because he had chemical weapons, the cutting edge weapon of 1914.

We went in because Bush said he was making nukes and was going to give them to Al Qaeda.

Bush lied. Young men and women died.

But, hey, at least he didn't lie about a blow job!!!!!!!!

 

[georgephillip]

"...The Human Rights Council has adopted more resolutions condemning Israel than it has all other states combined..."

If there were more Jews and fewer Arabs on the Council I'm sure that would add-up differently.

Conversely, had not 650,000 Jews inflicted their nation by force of arms upon 1.2 million Arabs in Mandate Palestine of 1948, none of the following would have necessarily occurred:

"As of 2013, Israel had been condemned in 45 resolutions by the Council since its creation in 2006 - the Council had resolved almost more resolutions condemning Israel than on the rest of the world combined.

"The 45 resolutions comprised almost half (45.9%) of all country-specific resolutions passed by the Council, not counting those under Agenda Item 10 (countries requiring technical assistance).[49]

"By April 2007, the Council had passed nine resolutions condemning Israel, the only country which it had specifically condemned.[50] Toward Sudan, a country with human rights abuses as documented by the Council's working groups, it has expressed 'deep concern.'.[50]

"The council voted on 30 June 2006 to make a review of alleged human rights abuses by Israel a permanent feature of every council session.

"The Council's special rapporteur on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is its only expert mandate with no year of expiry.

"The resolution, which was sponsored by Organisation of the Islamic Conference, passed by a vote of 29 to 12 with five abstentions. Human Rights Watch urged it to look at international human rights and humanitarian law violations committed by Palestinian armed groups as well.

"Human Rights Watch called on the Council to avoid the selectivity that discredited its predecessor and urged it to hold special sessions on other urgent situations, such as that in Darfur.[51]"

United Nations Human Rights Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia