Bad news. We reached a peaceful deal with Iran that will prevent them from getting the bomb. What a disgrace....negotiating a peace deal. Only a weak leader would do such a thing. Obama clearly supports terrorism by reaching such a deal. It's only a matter of time before this peace deal backfires and Iran arms ISIS and Al-queda with nukes, and we all die. A strong leader like Putin would increase tensions with more animosity, and never work towards peace wth these animals. Where's Putin and Netanyahu when you need them?
In all seriousness, I'm glad our hard work paid off. Lets hope both sides hold up their end of the bargain.
Yeah, but the Republicans will vote it down in Congress which will mean... Actually, it will mean nothing.
i wouldn't call it a deal myself. nothing has been signed and final framework hasn't even been agree'd to.
Mission Accomplished!
Mission Accomplished!
Maybe they should have sent in Mr. Phelps from the get-go! 😉
Seriously I think it is a chance at peace. Iran being allowed to still produce uranium just not to enrichment (purity) levels needed to make a nuclear bomb is the world community saying okay, you can have peaceful nuclear energy; but if they covertly do anything else, we know that they will be aligned with Russia and China and then we will be effed. Some think that is too much of a gamble, but trust gets earned one step at a time. As one newsman pointed out, at least with the deal, inspectors can go in there, without a deal, they can't look at anything. That is something to consider.
[Edited on 4/2/2015 by gina]
el porko was so flustered about this he had to go to commercial to compose himself.
Damn funny listening to him sputter and grasp for words after the speech was broadcast.
I'm sure mccain and graham are not pleased with having one less chance to start a war noone but haliburton and tea bagging loons want.
I'm sure mccain and graham are not pleased with having one less chance to start a war noone but haliburton and tea bagging loons want.
There isn't even a deal that has been finalized yet and there is a good chance still that one won't happen so people should just chill out. If this deal does happen and it is followed as explained it is a very good deal.
The only other option will be bombing and the experts say that at best we can set them back 5 years and if Israel do it themselves maybe 3 years and then they will be right back where they are now. If there is any collateral damage during such bombing then we turn into the bad guys and galvanize the Iranian people against us and unite them with their government.
If anyone thinks more and tougher sanctions will work keep dreaming. They will dig in and speed up their nuke program if we were to increase sanctions and that is if we even could. In order for sanctions to work we need the same cooperation from a bunch of other countries some which we don't like and that don't like us. Very doubtful those countries continue to sanction and increase sanctions if they feel a good deal was passed up and from what I understand most if not all of those countries think of this if it is finalized as described as a very good deal, much better than originally expected and much better than how the Republicans are trying to spin it.
I'm sure mccain and graham are not pleased with having one less chance to start a war noone but haliburton and tea bagging loons want.
If you've been around this site for any length of time you'd know that we usually spell it as "noone".
Because 
If you've been around this site for any length of time you'd know that we usually spell it as "noone".
Because
That was the reissue after he got famous. I prefer the original release:
OMG this is terrible news! Guess this means the Nuculer, as G. Dubya would say, Apocalypse is right around the corner. Would love to stay and chat but I have to start digging my bomb shelter in the back yard. 😛
[Edited on 4/3/2015 by Bill_Graham]
Bob1964 is killing me.
HAHAHAHAHAA!!!
Peter no one....that is hilarious.
el porko was so flustered about this he had to go to commercial to compose himself.
Damn funny listening to him sputter and grasp for words after the speech was broadcast.
I'm sure mccain and graham are not pleased with having one less chance to start a war noone but haliburton and tea bagging loons want.
Probably enough to make el porko start doctor shopping again? Pills, pills...he needs pills!
el porko was so flustered about this he had to go to commercial to compose himself.
Damn funny listening to him sputter and grasp for words after the speech was broadcast.
I'm sure mccain and graham are not pleased with having one less chance to start a war noone but haliburton and tea bagging loons want.
Probably enough to make el porko start doctor shopping again? Pills, pills...he needs pills!
Is that a problem in Costa Rica? I thought he lived in Costa Rica now.
i wouldn't call it a deal myself. nothing has been signed and final framework hasn't even been agree'd to.
When the final framework has been agreed to and the deal gets signed, I still wouldn't call it a deal because it won't be worth the paper it's written on.
The sanctions had crippled their economy. Can't have that.
"Negotiating" with Iran. My God.
Negotiating with Iran worked for Reagan. He just gave them weapons for hostages. Today we would call that capitulating to the terrorist but I don't see you denigrating Reagan.
Nowadays I guess Reagan would just shut out the middle man and sell Iran nuclear weapons.
Alloak - Iran is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet. They have been negotiating deals far longer than America has been a country. That is how diplomacy works.
Your statement: ""Negotiating" with Iran. My God." Shows ignorance and naivety.
Do you prefer another war?
Negotiating with Iran worked for Reagan. He just gave them weapons for hostages. Today we would call that capitulating to the terrorist but I don't see you denigrating Reagan.
Nowadays I guess Reagan would just shut out the middle man and sell Iran nuclear weapons.
Alloak - Iran is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet. They have been negotiating deals far longer than America has been a country. That is how diplomacy works.
Your statement: ""Negotiating" with Iran. My God." Shows ignorance and naivety.
Do you prefer another war?
Alloak, do you prefer the guns or butter approach? You can even do a little catering for pizza to stimulate the economy.
i wouldn't call it a deal myself. nothing has been signed and final framework hasn't even been agree'd to.
When the final framework has been agreed to and the deal gets signed, I still wouldn't call it a deal because it won't be worth the paper it's written on.
The sanctions had crippled their economy. Can't have that.
"Negotiating" with Iran. My God.
Then what would you propose? The sanctions may have damaged their economy, but they were going to develop nukes anyway. So a deal has been reached that would allow thorough inspections. If they renege on the deal, the sanctions come back.
I'm curious to hear what those opposed to this think should be done.
You know very well what it is.
john mccain and company would want to go all out bombs away.
Negotiating with Iran worked for Reagan. He just gave them weapons for hostages. Today we would call that capitulating to the terrorist but I don't see you denigrating Reagan.
Nowadays I guess Reagan would just shut out the middle man and sell Iran nuclear weapons.
Alloak - Iran is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet. They have been negotiating deals far longer than America has been a country. That is how diplomacy works.
Your statement: ""Negotiating" with Iran. My God." Shows ignorance and naivety.
Do you prefer another war?
I wish I shared your optimism. However, it did little to sway my opinion. I'm not sure who the naïve one is here.
quote:
Negotiating with Iran worked for Reagan. He just gave them weapons for hostages. Today we would call that capitulating to the terrorist but I don't see you denigrating Reagan.Nowadays I guess Reagan would just shut out the middle man and sell Iran nuclear weapons.
Alloak - Iran is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet. They have been negotiating deals far longer than America has been a country. That is how diplomacy works.
Your statement: ""Negotiating" with Iran. My God." Shows ignorance and naivety.
Do you prefer another war?
I wish I shared your optimism. However, it did little to sway my opinion. I'm not sure who the naïve one is here.
In this day and age it is hard to be optimistic. Let's face it, the United States tortures foreign prisoners and spies and our allies. I'm sure there is some kind of music forum in Iran where some fan of that Iranian band has just written, "Negotiating" with America? My God.
But isn't diplomacy where these kinds of things start? You still haven't answered about preferring war instead.
This one might be a war where we actually have to make sacrifices and send our children and grand children to be perhaps maimed and killed. Are you willing to make that commitment?
20 yrs ago they said it would be 5 yrs. this isn't a bad framework. if it can be verified and fulfilled then maybe its a place to begin. if it can't i believe everything those who disagree with the deal will like what is there also. i think its still to early to tell.
The framework of this deal may look okay to some of us from the comfortable shores of America, but Israel certainly isn't pleased, and they have a huge stake in what happens in the middle east. Just this week the commanding general of Iran's Revolutionary Guard said "The destruction of Israel is non negotiable". Israel has a problem with Iran and on going nuclear development. Iran had a secret location it did not disclose to us, we had to find out through our own intelligence efforts. If Israel even thinks Iran is working on anything to do with weaponry they are likely to bomb Iran no matter what we do. That would be very bad news for all of us. Verification and transparency will be the key to this deal.
Do the imposed sanctions really hurt the one who can make the nukes or just the common folk who struggle?
I would think lifting such should help the overall economy and general public.
Periodic inspections may or maynot reviel the production of Uranium.
full text of deal.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/iran-nuclear-deal-text_n_6995618.html
Below are the key parameters of a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear program that were decided in Lausanne, Switzerland. These elements form the foundation upon which the final text of the JCPOA will be written between now and June 30, and reflect the significant progress that has been made in discussions between the P5+1, the European Union, and Iran. Important implementation details are still subject to negotiation, and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. We will work to conclude the JCPOA based on these parameters over the coming months.
Enrichment
Iran has agreed to reduce by approximately two-thirds its installed centrifuges. Iran will go from having about 19,000 installed today to 6,104 installed under the deal, with only 5,060 of these enriching uranium for 10 years. All 6,104 centrifuges will be IR-1s, Iran's first-generation centrifuge. Iran has agreed to not enrich uranium over 3.67 percent for at least 15 years. Iran has agreed to reduce its current stockpile of about 10,000 kg of low-enriched uranium (LEU) to 300 kg of 3.67 percent LEU for 15 years. All excess centrifuges and enrichment infrastructure will be placed in IAEA monitored storage and will be used only as replacements for operating centrifuges and equipment. Iran has agreed to not build any new facilities for the purpose of enriching uranium for 15 years. Iran's breakout timeline - the time that it would take for Iran to acquire enough fissile material for one weapon - is currently assessed to be 2 to 3 months. That timeline will be extended to at least one year, for a duration of at least ten years, under this framework. Iran will convert its facility at Fordow so that it is no longer used to enrich uranium Iran has agreed to not enrich uranium at its Fordow facility for at least 15 years. Iran has agreed to convert its Fordow facility so that it is used for peaceful purposes only - into a nuclear, physics, technology, research center. Iran has agreed to not conduct research and development associated with uranium enrichment at Fordow for 15 years. Iran will not have any fissile material at Fordow for 15 years. Almost two-thirds of Fordow's centrifuges and infrastructure will be removed. The remaining centrifuges will not enrich uranium. All centrifuges and related infrastructure will be placed under IAEA monitoring. Iran will only enrich uranium at the Natanz facility, with only 5,060 IR-1 first-generation centrifuges for ten years. Iran has agreed to only enrich uranium using its first generation (IR-1 models) centrifuges at Natanz for ten years, removing its more advanced centrifuges. Iran will remove the 1,000 IR-2M centrifuges currently installed at Natanz and place them in IAEA monitored storage for ten years. Iran will not use its IR-2, IR-4, IR-5, IR-6, or IR-8 models to produce enriched uranium for at least ten years. Iran will engage in limited research and development with its advanced centrifuges, according to a schedule and parameters which have been agreed to by the P5+1. For ten years, enrichment and enrichment research and development will be limited to ensure a breakout timeline of at least 1 year. Beyond 10 years, Iran will abide by its enrichment and enrichment R&D plan submitted to the IAEA, and pursuant to the JCPOA, under the Additional Protocol resulting in certain limitations on enrichment capacity.
Inspections and Transparency
The IAEA will have regular access to all of Iran's nuclear facilities, including to Iran's enrichment facility at Natanz and its former enrichment facility at Fordow, and including the use of the most up-to-date, modern monitoring technologies. Inspectors will have access to the supply chain that supports Iran's nuclear program. The new transparency and inspections mechanisms will closely monitor materials and/or components to prevent diversion to a secret program. Inspectors will have access to uranium mines and continuous surveillance at uranium mills, where Iran produces yellowcake, for 25 years. Inspectors will have continuous surveillance of Iran's centrifuge rotors and bellows production and storage facilities for 20 years. Iran's centrifuge manufacturing base will be frozen and under continuous surveillance. All centrifuges and enrichment infrastructure removed from Fordow and Natanz will be placed under continuous monitoring by the IAEA. A dedicated procurement channel for Iran's nuclear program will be established to monitor and approve, on a case by case basis, the supply, sale, or transfer to Iran of 3 certain nuclear-related and dual use materials and technology - an additional transparency measure. Iran has agreed to implement the Additional Protocol of the IAEA, providing the IAEA much greater access and information regarding Iran's nuclear program, including both declared and undeclared facilities. Iran will be required to grant access to the IAEA to investigate suspicious sites or allegations of a covert enrichment facility, conversion facility, centrifuge production facility, or yellowcake production facility anywhere in the country. Iran has agreed to implement Modified Code 3.1 requiring early notification of construction of new facilities. Iran will implement an agreed set of measures to address the IAEA's concerns regarding the Possible Military Dimensions (PMD) of its program.
Reactors and Reprocessing
Iran has agreed to redesign and rebuild a heavy water research reactor in Arak, based on a design that is agreed to by the P5+1, which will not produce weapons grade plutonium, and which will support peaceful nuclear research and radioisotope production. The original core of the reactor, which would have enabled the production of significant quantities of weapons-grade plutonium, will be destroyed or removed from the country. Iran will ship all of its spent fuel from the reactor out of the country for the reactor's lifetime. Iran has committed indefinitely to not conduct reprocessing or reprocessing research and development on spent nuclear fuel. Iran will not accumulate heavy water in excess of the needs of the modified Arak reactor, and will sell any remaining heavy water on the international market for 15 years. Iran will not build any additional heavy water reactors for 15 years.
Sanctions
Iran will receive sanctions relief, if it verifiably abides by its commitments. U.S. and E.U. nuclear-related sanctions will be suspended after the IAEA has verified that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear-related steps. If at any time Iran fails to fulfill its commitments, these sanctions will snap back into place. The architecture of U.S. nuclear-related sanctions on Iran will be retained for much of the duration of the deal and allow for snap-back of sanctions in the event of significant non-performance. All past UN Security Council resolutions on the Iran nuclear issue will be lifted simultaneous with the completion, by Iran, of nuclear-related actions addressing all key concerns (enrichment, Fordow, Arak, PMD, and transparency). However, core provisions in the UN Security Council resolutions - those that deal with transfers of sensitive technologies and activities - will be re-established by a new UN Security Council resolution that will endorse the JCPOA and urge its full implementation. It will also create the procurement channel mentioned above, which will serve as a key transparency measure. Important restrictions on conventional arms and ballistic missiles, as well as provisions that allow for related cargo inspections and asset freezes, will also be incorporated by this new resolution. A dispute resolution process will be specified, which enables any JCPOA participant, to seek to resolve disagreements about the performance of JCPOA commitments. If an issue of significant non-performance cannot be resolved through that process, then all previous UN sanctions could be re-imposed. U.S. sanctions on Iran for terrorism, human rights abuses, and ballistic missiles will remain in place under the deal.
Phasing
For ten years, Iran will limit domestic enrichment capacity and research and development - ensuring a breakout timeline of at least one year. Beyond that, Iran will be bound by its longer-term enrichment and enrichment research and development plan it shared with the P5+1. For fifteen years, Iran will limit additional elements of its program. For instance, Iran will not build new enrichment facilities or heavy water reactors and will limit its stockpile of enriched uranium and accept enhanced transparency procedures. Important inspections and transparency measures will continue well beyond 15 years. Iran's adherence to the Additional Protocol of the IAEA is permanent, including its significant access and transparency obligations. The robust inspections of Iran's uranium supply chain will last for 25 years. Even after the period of the most stringent limitations on Iran's nuclear program, Iran will remain a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits Iran's development or acquisition of nuclear weapons and requires IAEA safeguards on its nuclear program. (Reporting By Paul Grant)
Remarks on the Deal
Do you believe they will give up one third of the centrifuges they now have and go down from 19,000 to 6,104?
I am doubtful.
Of those 6,104 only 5,060 will be enriching uranium for ten years. This is allowing them to enrich uranium, since they are allowed to enrich uranium, if they hide the other centrifuges, how will we know? Just because they aren't installed, does that mean if they are enriched and hidden that they cannot become online in a short amount of time?
The extra centirfuges will be placed in IAEA monitored storage.
Okay they can give up some centrifuges and make new ones, the IAEA will be watching what was given to them, not what is being secretly done elsewhere.
They agree not to enrich uranium over 3.67% for 15 years.
THEN WHAT?
They agree not to build any new facilities for 15 years.
THEN WHAT?
Right now it would only take 2-3 months for them to develop enough material to make nuclear weapons.
Are they really willing to give that up?
Convert the Fordow facility and only use Natanz?
Sure they can convert Fordow, and build something else covert, underground, shield it somehow or they can make nice with their neighbors in Russia who are not on the deal and use some of their facilities.
They agree to remove 1,000 centrifuges from Natanz and put them in storage under IAEA monitoring?
If they do, they may have or develop another place to have their centrifuges. They did not spend all the time, money and energy to just give their centrifuges away to the IAEA. Why would they?
Surveillance - they agree to all this surveillance?
What country would do that unless they had an ally who will let them use their country.
Redesign their plutonium reactor in Arak.
What do you think they built it for in the first place?
All these energy folks do not know Islamic prophecy. The guided one, the Mahdi will be coming from Iran, his mission is to lead massive groups of people to Islam. These people will eventually start going towards Jerusalem. While he will be martyred along the way, the movement of people will not turn back, anymore than those 2 million who took over Tahrir Square did. Muslims are fed up with the situation between Palestine and Israel and eventually every Muslim 200 million of them will be marching to Jerusalem. Jesus will be going there also with his small group of followers. He will be called a terrorist with 70,000 troops looking for him because the anti-Christ will be inhabiting the temple in Jerusalem misleading the world.
Iranians know these things, they all wait for their Mahdi. Are they now going to be the bitch of the West and her allies and agree to give up what they have worked for all these years? Not likely in my opinion.
[Edited on 4/5/2015 by gina]
No Iran deal could convert Republicans
Reagan has accelerated the moral disarmament of the West by elevating wishful thinking to the status of political philosophy."
— George F. Will, 1987, on the United States' nuclear weapons negotiations with the Soviet Union.
Amid all the criticism of President Barack Obama's proposed agreement with Iran on its nuclear facilities, it's worth keeping in mind that some people just can't stomach the idea of arms control. They see it as a trap, a delusion, a form of appeasement and a slow-motion surrender to evil.
They do not hope for good agreements. They hope for no agreements. Considering their opinions on this deal is like asking vegans to review a steak house: A negative response is predetermined.
Ronald Reagan began as one of those people. When Jimmy Carter signed the second Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty with the Soviets, Reagan used his daily radio commentaries to highlight its alleged defects. During his 1980 campaign, he vowed to scrap the treaty.
SALT II wasn't ratified under Carter. When he came into office, Reagan did something unexpected: He didn't push for ratification of the accord, but he did scrupulously abide by it. The critic became the custodian.
What he apparently discovered upon taking office and hearing from experts in the government is that the treaty was a net benefit for the United States. Once he was personally responsible for the security of the American people and our European allies, Reagan changed his mind.
So he abided by SALT because he had an interest in persuading the Soviets to do likewise. By the time it expired in 1985, he was working with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to achieve additional curbs on nuclear weapons.
Reagan evolved on the issue, but most conservatives did not. When he signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1987, Free Congress Foundation founder Paul Weyrich said he told the president that "nothing that he was saying made any sense." William F. Buckley's National Review called the accord "catastrophic." The treaty was approved anyway — and the West somehow went on to win the Cold War.
If conservatives vilified an arms-control agreement approved by Reagan, whom they revere, it's not astonishing to find them vilifying one approved by Obama, whom they despise. But the charges leveled against Obama's deal with Tehran are no more convincing than the ones made against Reagan's deal with Moscow.
U.S. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., objected because of Iran's "long history of covert nuclear weapons-related activities, support of terrorism and its current role in destabilizing the region." Sneered U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., "Neville Chamberlain got a better deal from Adolf Hitler."
If the best analogy you can find is 77 years old, maybe it's time to read up on events that have transpired since then. The reason Kirk and others ignore more recent history, like the 1980s, is that it provides no support for what they insist on believing.
One complaint is that the accord fails to solve problems it was not designed to solve. Iran does many things we don't like — much as the Soviet Union did in 1987. Gorbachev was still making war in Afghanistan and maintaining totalitarian regimes throughout Eastern Europe. But getting a troublemaking enemy to take steps that make it less fearsome is something to welcome, not abhor.
There is one big difference between Reagan's arms agreements and this one. The Soviets were allowed to have thousands of nuclear weapons. The Iranians are allowed to have zero.
So Iran supports terrorism, aids Syria's Bashar Assad, trains Shiite militias in Iraq and meddles in Yemen? Well, better it should undertake such mischief without nukes than with them.
If Iran were a model of responsible behavior, we wouldn't be so worried about its potential to acquire the bomb. It's precisely because we find the Tehran government untrustworthy and destabilizing that we want to deny it an atomic arsenal.
The question is not whether the agreement works miracles to soften the hearts of the Iranian rulers. It's whether it curtails their ability to harm us and our allies through specific requirements we can verify and enforce. If so, it will greatly enhance the credibility of arms control.
The critics are haunted by two nightmare scenarios. The first is that Obama has made a bad deal with Iran. The second is that he's made a good one.
Bad news. We reached a peaceful deal with Iran that will prevent them from getting the bomb. What a disgrace....negotiating a peace deal. Only a weak leader would do such a thing. Obama clearly supports terrorism by reaching such a deal. It's only a matter of time before this peace deal backfires and Iran arms ISIS and Al-queda with nukes, and we all die. A strong leader like Putin would increase tensions with more animosity, and never work towards peace wth these animals. Where's Putin and Netanyahu when you need them?
In all seriousness, I'm glad our hard work paid off. Lets hope both sides hold up their end of the bargain.
In what universe is this a " a peaceful deal with Iran that will prevent them from getting a bomb"? Please explain how this is 1. a deal 2. will prevent Iran from getting a bomb. I am very interested to hear. And if you think only Fox News and Republicans think this is an unmitigated disaster you haven't read very much.
There isn't even a deal that has been finalized yet and there is a good chance still that one won't happen so people should just chill out. If this deal does happen and it is followed as explained it is a very good deal.
The only other option will be bombing and the experts say that at best we can set them back 5 years and if Israel do it themselves maybe 3 years and then they will be right back where they are now. If there is any collateral damage during such bombing then we turn into the bad guys and galvanize the Iranian people against us and unite them with their government.
If anyone thinks more and tougher sanctions will work keep dreaming. They will dig in and speed up their nuke program if we were to increase sanctions and that is if we even could. In order for sanctions to work we need the same cooperation from a bunch of other countries some which we don't like and that don't like us. Very doubtful those countries continue to sanction and increase sanctions if they feel a good deal was passed up and from what I understand most if not all of those countries think of this if it is finalized as described as a very good deal, much better than originally expected and much better than how the Republicans are trying to spin it.
I wonder if, when Iran is a nuclear power, which is likely to happen, and the rest of the Middle East has gone nuclear as well, if you will be willing to concede that perhaps this wasn't such a good idea. I promise if peace breaks out allover I will concede my fears were misplaced. I think thsat is exceedingly unlikely.
