- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 94,358
- Reaction score
- 82,737
- Location
- Barsoom
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Thu July 9, 2015
Washington (CNN)President Barack Obama believes the chances of getting a nuclear agreement with Iran are now "below 50-50," according to a top Democratic senator who attended a closed-door meeting with the President Tuesday night. "He said in the course of the negotiations he's been more optimistic, less optimistic. And he said that the chances at this point are below 50-50," said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Assistant Democratic Leader and a close ally of Obama's.
The comments lowering expectations for a deal curbing Iran's nuclear program come after negotiations on a final deal have already blown through two deadlines and seem likely to go past a third on Friday. Another lawmaker briefed on the negotiations explained to CNN that the administration has been taken aback by last-minute Iranian refusals to give ground on revealing the past military dimensions of the program and their insistence on lifting missile restrictions.
Damn, there go the chances for Peace Prizes all around.
Simpleχity;1064803691 said:Obama: Chances of an Iran nuclear deal now lower than 50-50
If Iran's nuclear program were always and exclusively only for peaceful purposes, there would be no reason for the Iranians to resist complying with the bolded above so ferociously.
It seems to me our negotiating teams, led by John Kerry, have been woefully naïve when it comes to who they are meeting with. From my experience in working with people from that part of world, there really is little to negotiate. It usually comes down to an understanding of how much tolerance there will be when an agreement is violated. Every agreement I have ever had with business people from the Middle East carries this unwritten, but spoken, understanding. They know it, and respect it.
The cat is out of the bag. Iran will have offensive and defensive nukes. It's foolish to think otherwise. The negotiations should be centered on an understanding of what the response will be should they be used, or sold. Outside of that, all this effort is really a waste of time.
It will be sad if the Iran deal does not fall through, although I would hope that Obama would receive some credit for walking away from a bad deal, especially from the conservative commentators who have lambasted him for "trying to give Iran the bomb" or "wanting a bad deal."
It will be sad if the Iran deal does not fall through, although I would hope that Obama would receive some credit for walking away from a bad deal, especially from the conservative commentators who have lambasted him for "trying to give Iran the bomb" or "wanting a bad deal."
The only problem is that we have been paying Iran billions of dollars a month to sit at the table with us.
The only problem is that we have been paying Iran billions of dollars a month to sit at the table with us. If the negotiation ends with no agreement and business as usual we will have done nothing but make the Iranian regime wealthier. The only way the Obama administration could have come out ahead in this negotiation is if they brokered an enforceable deal with Iran that would prevent them from building a nuclear weapon. That was never likely not going to happen, however, so if the negotiation falls through then sending $12 billion to Iran as a precondition for joining in this farce would be the lasting legacy.
We haven't paid them. We've released assets that were previously frozen. It was money that already belonged to them that we seized that we are agreeing to release if they sit at the table.
That's not the same thing as paying them.
Exactly. I've been listening to "Obama will give away anything and do anything for a nuclear deal" for months now. If he wanted it that badly, that he didn't even care what he was giving away, we'd already have a deal.
I'll be interested in hearing how many of them will fess up to being wrong, lol.
Translation: "We didn't give them a po-tay-to, we gave them a po-tah-to!"
It seems that everyone who said this was foolish and Obama is an idiot is correct. Let's get it right here. The Iranians are so unwilling to give absolutely anything, that Obama can't even make a bad deal, which is the only deal that could possibly be made here.
You don't see a difference between me taking 100 dollars out of your wallet and then giving it back to you and me taking a hundred dollars out of my wallet and giving it to you?
You don't see the difference between withholding $12 billion dollars from the world's largest funder of international terrorism and releasing $12 billion dollars to the world's largest funder of international terrorism?
Obama could make a bad deal. Very easily. Right now they are only balking at giving up the history of the program. He's stepping away for a better deal.
You guys are laughable. Not only are negotiations bad, but they can't possibly be good, lol.
Damn. You're right. And Kerry already bought the frame. Just damn. Where's James Taylor?
You don't see a difference between me taking 100 dollars out of your wallet and then giving it back to you and me taking a hundred dollars out of my wallet and giving it to you?
I see the difference. But neither of those are the same as "paying" them 12 billion dollars. I'm not saying it's a great idea to release the money, but either way it's not a payment.
Also, I don't know if your statement that they are the worlds largest funder of terrorism is accurate. If we are going by "lets not give money to people who fund terrorists" then we should suspend all activity with Saudi Arabia and Qutar.
Oh puh-leeese. Did they have the $12 billion before the negotiations? No. Do they have the $12 billion now? Yes. Your attempt at splitting hairs is noted.
It seems to me our negotiating teams, led by John Kerry, have been woefully naïve when it comes to who they are meeting with. From my experience in working with people from that part of world, there really is little to negotiate. It usually comes down to an understanding of how much tolerance there will be when an agreement is violated. Every agreement I have ever had with business people from the Middle East carries this unwritten, but spoken, understanding. They know it, and respect it.
The cat is out of the bag. Iran will have offensive and defensive nukes. It's foolish to think otherwise. The negotiations should be centered on an understanding of what the response will be should they be used, or sold. Outside of that, all this effort is really a waste of time.
The only problem is that we have been paying Iran billions of dollars a month to sit at the table with us. If the negotiation ends with no agreement and business as usual we will have done nothing but make the Iranian regime wealthier. The only way the Obama administration could have come out ahead in this negotiation is if they brokered an enforceable deal with Iran that would prevent them from building a nuclear weapon. That was never likely not going to happen, however, so if the negotiation falls through then sending $12 billion to Iran as a precondition for joining in this farce would be the lasting legacy.
Exactly. I've been listening to "Obama will give away anything and do anything for a nuclear deal" for months now. If he wanted it that badly, that he didn't even care what he was giving away, we'd already have a deal.
I'll be interested in hearing how many of them will fess up to being wrong, lol.
It seems to me that this administration is daydreaming while at the wheel.
It seems that everyone who said this was foolish and Obama is an idiot is correct. Let's get it right here. The Iranians are so unwilling to give absolutely anything, that Obama can't even make a bad deal, which is the only deal that could possibly be made here.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?