Are you trying to suggest that the others aren't involved. Lol. Also, they all closed an interim deal in 2013, and they'll close this one too, if the obstructionists, the opponents of peace don't succeed in derailing it.
I don't know. But it sounded as though they were just following for the moment.
So, what are we negotiating for then? They don't have a nuclear program, according to Obama.
Oh, I see. Well their signatures will be on the final deal.
One can only hope that France and the UK persist in the though stance they had been following.
UK Prime Minister Cameron urges U.S. senators: no new Iran sanctions over nukes
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...no-new-iran-sanctions-nukes-article-1.2081762
They do, however, want to have intrusive and extensive inspections and rules. That further sanctions do not make sense at this point seems to be okay. If the talks fail, sanctions would be back on the table.
Yes, Obama has said that. So, with minimal differences, the P5+1 are on the same page.
G12 - 1 the RF is out.
G12 - 1 the RF is out.
Your continued whiny posts even about Democrats who see Obama's moves as insipid and naive are simply more proof that some will go to any lengths to defend this White Houses' stupidity and ideology. Congratulations!
They most certainly do have a nuclear program as acknowledged by Obama, and everybody else, including Iran. What they don't have as declared by both US and Israeli intelligence, is a nuclear weapon program, which is what the P5+1 seeks to ensure remains out of reach. Your hate of Obama has compromised any objectivity on this whatsoever.
:roll:
Yeah, double down on the idea that that darn Obama wants Iran to have a nuke. Clearly you are the level-headed one here!
Your hate for America doesn't give you Objectivity with your Cheerleading for Iran either. So save all that BS with those who Dump on Your MAN. Since you are defending the Putz!
He's the president of the United States. When he fails, Libya, Syria, Russia, I point it out. When he succeeds, Iran, Israel, I point it out. Because I have objectivity. In your blind rage of hatred for America's president, and all of his supporters you and the GOP children in congress seek to undermine US credibility, security and relationships. So low is your stoop that you would drool all over yourself at the prospect of a foreign leader disrespecting your own president. The language you use to describe our president, even if you disagree with his policy diminishes your own character or rather lack thereof.
Because paper promises never contain evil men. History tells us this, but the ignorant dont listen.
The president sent a New Years greeting to Iran and the blood pressure on the right is peaked, because they would have preferred that he sent bombs.
They would prefer he do something that would prevent Iran from making nuclear bombs. There is no indication that this negotiation will accomplish that.
And what indication is there that it won't, hmm? You've seen it, please share from your privileged perch.
the apparent US willingness to allow Iran to keep its weaponizing equipment and the temporary nature of the agreement in its current form. Do you have some indication that it will stop Iran from making nuclear bombs? Obviously not.
The point is, neither of us have seen it. But the president has stated that Iran will not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon program. Explain the wisdom of criticizing something you haven't even seen?
It's CAIR. It's like saying "Did you read that science article from the KKK??"
*Anti-CAIR* Defending America from the Council on American-Islamic Relations
Yes, but I don't believe him.
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?