SURPRISE!!...better be sitting down...Iran backs out of "Framework" "Deal"

[Derideo_Te]

That guy Ron Paul...er...Rand Paul was on Meet The Press this past Sunday, and he had an interesting take on the Iran thing.

He pointed out that Libya finally gave up on its nuclear weapons program and we STILL toppled the government two years later.

Okay, okay. We had a little help from some locals in pickup trucks, but nevertheless...

So it stands to reason, Ru Paul said, that Iran would not trust us to not topple them even if they gave up their nuclear wet dreams.

Libya and Iran are not that similar. Libya was far more fragmented and Ghadaffi had many enemies.

 

[g5000]

Meet the Press Transcript - May 17 2015 - NBC News

CHUCK TODD:

You know, you also imply in your book-- I thought it was a fascinating quote. And you were connecting Libya and Iran. And you say this: "The problem is, we've already sent the wrong message. The last time a leader gave up his desire for weapons of mass destruction, we bombed his country and took him out."


You're referring to Gaddafi, who gave up nuclear ambitions. And then, two years later, in a different administration, the Obama Administration, they ended up taking him out. You're implying that the Iranians shouldn't trust the United States in these negotiations, are you not?



SENATOR RAND PAUL:

I think it's more a criticism of Hillary Clinton because I think she should've thought through the repercussions of the invasion and toppling of Gaddafi. Because Hillary Clinton made the decision to do this, with President's Obama assent, what you end up having is-- is that now it does send a signal to Iran and it makes them question whether or not we will honestly be a good broker or a good negotiator with-- eliminating of nuclear weapons. Because Gaddafi did give up his nuclear ambition and was toppled anyway. So it's an-- it's an argument for not doing what we did in Libya.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"Obama stands firm" your article says, most likely using his golf clubs as a crutch, I'd wager.

 

[idb]

That guy Ron...er...Rand Paul was on Meet The Press this past Sunday, and he had an interesting take on the Iran thing.

He pointed out that Libya finally gave up on its nuclear weapons program and we STILL toppled the government two years later.

Okay, okay. We had a little help from some locals in pickup trucks, but nevertheless...

So it stands to reason, Ru Paul said, that Iran would not trust us to not topple them even if they gave up their nuclear wet dreams. Therefore, from their perspective it would be better to have The Bomb as a deterrent.

The US have openly declared themselves to be bad faith negotiators.
In fact, they sent a letter advising Iran of that fact.

 

[BlindBoo]

Everyone does in fact, not know that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

Not what I said. Everyone knows that is what Iran claims, not that everyone believes that it is true.

And you simply and swiftly made my point. So when they say, "our nuclear program is for peaceful purposes" how can anyone believe such a statement is true?

Regardless of what you believe it is what they say, and most everyone on the planet knows that is what they say. So when a reporter says Iran says it, they are not speaking for Iran or vouching for it's truthfulness.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Everyone does in fact, not know that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

Not what I said. Everyone knows that is what Iran claims, not that everyone believes that it is true.

And you simply and swiftly made my point. So when they say, "our nuclear program is for peaceful purposes" how can anyone believe such a statement is true?

Regardless of what you believe it is what they say, and most everyone on the planet knows that is what they say. So when a reporter says Iran says it, they are not speaking for Iran or vouching for it's truthfulness.

What are you talking about? What is this nonsense about "what they say?"

Are you insisting Iran is telling the truth? Or is the reporter lying about what Iran said?

Your argument is falling apart, if it hasn't already.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

If the deal is rejected, no sanctions are lifted.

There was no "deal"...what about can you guys not understand?
Obama promised to begin lifting sanctions this summer...even though no concrete deal was made.
You wait and see...some sanctions will be lifted without Iran lifting a finger.
Guarentee it.

 

[Rozman]

I guess that seals the deal....
Iran has no interest in building nukes...
Right Libs?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Obama promised to begin lifting sanctions this summer.

 

[BullKurtz]

Obozo won't allow the IDF to over-fly Iraq but the Israelis have other cards to play......like submarines that carry 16 nuke-tipped tactical cruise missiles...they can hit Iran's nuclear facilities and more important, decapitate the government:

The Dolphin 2-class are the largest submarines to have been built in Germany since World War II.[3] The Dolphin class boats are the most expensive single vehicles in the Israel Defense Forces and are considered among the most sophisticated and capable conventionally powered submarines in the world.[6] The Dolphin-class replaced the aging Gal-class submarines, which had served in the Israeli navy since the late 1970s. Each Dolphin-class submarine is capable of carrying a combined total of up to 16 torpedoes and SLCMs.[7] The cruise missiles have a range of at least 1,500 km (930 mi)[8] and are widely believed[9][5][10] to be equipped with a 200-kilogram (440 lb) nuclear warhead containing up to 6 kilograms (13 lb) of plutonium.[11][12] The latter, if true, would provide Israel with an offshore nuclear second strike capability

 

[idb]

Obozo won't allow the IDF to over-fly Iraq but the Israelis have other cards to play......like submarines that carry 16 nuke-tipped tactical cruise missiles...they can hit Iran's nuclear facilities and more important, decapitate the government:

The Dolphin 2-class are the largest submarines to have been built in Germany since World War II.[3] The Dolphin class boats are the most expensive single vehicles in the Israel Defense Forces and are considered among the most sophisticated and capable conventionally powered submarines in the world.[6] The Dolphin-class replaced the aging Gal-class submarines, which had served in the Israeli navy since the late 1970s. Each Dolphin-class submarine is capable of carrying a combined total of up to 16 torpedoes and SLCMs.[7] The cruise missiles have a range of at least 1,500 km (930 mi)[8] and are widely believed[9][5][10] to be equipped with a 200-kilogram (440 lb) nuclear warhead containing up to 6 kilograms (13 lb) of plutonium.[11][12] The latter, if true, would provide Israel with an offshore nuclear second strike capability

After all...decapitating the government worked out so well in Iraq.

 

[westwall]

Obama promised to begin lifting sanctions this summer.

"Iranian leaders have insisted in recent days that the punishing sanctions be lifted as soon as a written accord is signed, a position that the country’s foreign minister reinforced on Friday. Mr. Obama did not repeat past American assertions that sanctions would be removed only in phases as Tehran follows through on obligations to scale back its nuclear facilities."

"Instead, Mr. Obama suggested that negotiators seek a solution that would seem “more acceptable” to Iran’s political constituencies, while preserving leverage to force the government to abide by the deal. Rather than the timing and structure of sanctions relief, he said his priority was creating a system for reimposing the punitive measures if Iran is caught cheating."


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/18/u...-but-chides-senate-gop-over-nominee.html?_r=0

 

[Katzndogz]

obumble will just say that the inspection requirement is dropped.

 

[Spare_change]

...and just like so many said here, and were berated by Obama followers for saying so - Iran's Ayahtolla states he will not support any deal that includes UN inspections of nuke sites....which means of course he will support no deal at all.

Shocked, shocked I say!!!

Iran s leader says no to military inspections - CNN.com

Iran s leader rejects foreign access to military sites scientists Fox News

I, for one, am absolutely stunned!!! I had such faith in that superhero team of Kerry and Obama.

Woe is me!

 

[rightwinger]

So what do we lose?

We offered a way out of sanctions and they blew it

We are in the same situation we were before

 

[Zander]

The deal that Obama was trying to negotiate was actually a good deal for the US.

If this turns out to be true, it's a major foreign policy defeat for Obama.

How do you figure? Never mind no one knows what's in it. IT allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium and allowed the to develop a nuke within 5 years. And that's assuming they actually abided by the deal, which no one thinks they will.

The published "framework" was a very good way to keep the Iranians in check without having to go to war. Turns out the deal was actually too good to be true ......Here are the details as reported by the White House -https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/parametersforajointcomprehenisveplanofaction.pdf

 

[Rozman]

I'm sure Obama will adjust the deal to be more to Iran's liking....

 

[idb]

I'm sure Obama will adjust the deal to be more to Iran's liking....

"Negotiate" you mean?

 

[rightwinger]

Who do we blame?

Iranians who prefer sanctions or Republicans who tried to screw up the deal?

 

[S.J.]

Who do we blame?

Iranians who prefer sanctions or Republicans who tried to screw up the deal?

THERE IT IS! I knew some libtard would blame the Republicans. And RW continues his slide downward into the sewer with the rest of the sycophants.