Iran story being ignored

[JustRalph]

I just wonder if the people of Israel are ignoring this? How about the Government of Israel? Being lulled to sleep while Iran keeps on keepin on, could be dangerous. But eventually Obama will draw a red line. I'm sure. No worries.



http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/22/politics/iran-us-nuclear/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

"Zarif told CNN Chief National Security Correspondent Jim Sciutto that terminology used by the White House to describe the agreement differed from the text agreed to by Iran and the other countries in the talks -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany.

"The White House version both underplays the concessions and overplays Iranian commitments" under the agreement that took effect Monday, Zarif said in Davos, Switzerland, where he was attending the World Economic Forum.
As part of the accord, Iran was required to dilute its stockpile of uranium that had been enriched to 20%, well above the 5% level needed for power generation but still below the level for developing a nuclear weapon.

In addition, the deal mandated that Iran halt all enrichment above 5% and "dismantle the technical connections required to enrich above 5%," according to a White House fact sheet issued in November after the initial agreement was reached.

Zarif accused the Obama administration of creating a false impression with such language. *****Where I come from, that's called lying.

"The White House tries to portray it as basically a dismantling of Iran's nuclear program. That is the word they use time and again," he said, urging Sciutto to read the actual text of the agreement. "If you find a single, a single word, that even closely resembles dismantling or could be defined as dismantling in the entire text, then I would take back my comment."

He repeated that "we are not dismantling any centrifuges, we're not dismantling any equipment, we're simply not producing, not enriching over 5%."

[tucker6]

I just wonder if the people of Israel are ignoring this? How about the Government of Israel? Being lulled to sleep while Iran keeps on keepin on, could be dangerous. But eventually Obama will draw a red line. I'm sure. No worries.



http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/22/politics/iran-us-nuclear/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

"Zarif told CNN Chief National Security Correspondent Jim Sciutto that terminology used by the White House to describe the agreement differed from the text agreed to by Iran and the other countries in the talks -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany.

"The White House version both underplays the concessions and overplays Iranian commitments" under the agreement that took effect Monday, Zarif said in Davos, Switzerland, where he was attending the World Economic Forum.
As part of the accord, Iran was required to dilute its stockpile of uranium that had been enriched to 20%, well above the 5% level needed for power generation but still below the level for developing a nuclear weapon.

In addition, the deal mandated that Iran halt all enrichment above 5% and "dismantle the technical connections required to enrich above 5%," according to a White House fact sheet issued in November after the initial agreement was reached.

Zarif accused the Obama administration of creating a false impression with such language. *****Where I come from, that's called lying.

"The White House tries to portray it as basically a dismantling of Iran's nuclear program. That is the word they use time and again," he said, urging Sciutto to read the actual text of the agreement. "If you find a single, a single word, that even closely resembles dismantling or could be defined as dismantling in the entire text, then I would take back my comment."

He repeated that "we are not dismantling any centrifuges, we're not dismantling any equipment, we're simply not producing, not enriching over 5%."
I read in the news that Obama had fixed the Iran problem, so I have no more concern about that part of the world ... :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

I just wonder if the people of Israel are ignoring this? How about the Government of Israel? Being lulled to sleep while Iran keeps on keepin on, could be dangerous. But eventually Obama will draw a red line. I'm sure. No worries.



http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/22/politics/iran-us-nuclear/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

"Zarif told CNN Chief National Security Correspondent Jim Sciutto that terminology used by the White House to describe the agreement differed from the text agreed to by Iran and the other countries in the talks -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany.

"The White House version both underplays the concessions and overplays Iranian commitments" under the agreement that took effect Monday, Zarif said in Davos, Switzerland, where he was attending the World Economic Forum.
As part of the accord, Iran was required to dilute its stockpile of uranium that had been enriched to 20%, well above the 5% level needed for power generation but still below the level for developing a nuclear weapon.

In addition, the deal mandated that Iran halt all enrichment above 5% and "dismantle the technical connections required to enrich above 5%," according to a White House fact sheet issued in November after the initial agreement was reached.

Zarif accused the Obama administration of creating a false impression with such language. *****Where I come from, that's called lying.

"The White House tries to portray it as basically a dismantling of Iran's nuclear program. That is the word they use time and again," he said, urging Sciutto to read the actual text of the agreement. "If you find a single, a single word, that even closely resembles dismantling or could be defined as dismantling in the entire text, then I would take back my comment."

He repeated that "we are not dismantling any centrifuges, we're not dismantling any equipment, we're simply not producing, not enriching over 5%."
So you choose to believe the representative of an enemy state over your own government. There is a word for people like that.

Zarif says that the White House uses the word dismantling time and again in their fact sheet. They actually use it only one time; in connection with the enrichment of uranium. Nothing is said about dismantling Iran's total nuclear program in the fact sheet.

It is true that the word "dismantle" does not appear in the "Joint Plan of Action." That is irrelevant. The "Joint Plan of Action" is four pages long. Do you really believe that is the entirety of the agreement. Their are almost certainly hundreds if not thousands of pages on the technicalities.

Zarif is playing politics. As are you.

ETA: Think of the "Joint Plan of Action" as the synopsis of a novel. Every word of the novel is not in the synopsis. Every word of the agreement is not in the JPA.

[boxcar]

So you choose to believe the representative of an enemy state over your own government. There is a word for people like that.

Zarif says that the White House uses the word dismantling time and again in their fact sheet. They actually use it only one time; in connection with the enrichment of uranium. Nothing is said about dismantling Iran's total nuclear program in the fact sheet.

It is true that the word "dismantle" does not appear in the "Joint Plan of Action." That is irrelevant. The "Joint Plan of Action" is four pages long. Do you really believe that is the entirety of the agreement. Their are almost certainly hundreds if not thousands of pages on the technicalities.

Zarif is playing politics. As are you.

ETA: Think of the "Joint Plan of Action" as the synopsis of a novel. Every word of the novel is not in the synopsis. Every word of the agreement is not in the JPA.

Well...if the "agreement" is anywhere near the size the ObamaCare bill was, the solution is easy. Everyone can stop bickerin' and fightin' and all the parties should just sign the darn thing so that they can find out what's really in it. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar
P.S. An appropriate name for this verbose "agreement" could be called "War and Peace...The Sequel".

[JustRalph]

So you choose to believe the representative of an enemy state over your own government. There is a word for people like that.


Here's what I believe, since you brought it up.

Your prez is a feckless fool who is tap dancing his way through foreign policy, while singing a song that everything is fine and dandy. While Kerry stands off to the side imploring that we pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

The fact that the "enemy state" feels comfortable enough to act this way is proof this admin is full of fools.

When Israel has had enough, they will fix this problem. Btw, they have been more than patient. At what point do they get dragged into the fools well with Barry O?

[burnsy]

Lets invade Iran......that'll show em all.............:lol: That's way better than trying to save lives, many of them our own and who knows how many trillion more.......we can just print more money........

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost
So you choose to believe the representative of an enemy state over your own government. There is a word for people like that.

So you call them an enemy state, yet defend the complete failure Obama has made there? You should be outraged at this complete failure by Kerry and Obama.

And us, I would believe the Iranians over Obama ANY damn day.
that word you alluded to is "intelligent."

Obama is a pathological liar. Your question is a paradox - do we believe the head of an enemy state, of the enemy head of our state?

[Robert Goren]

Here's what I believe, since you brought it up.

Your prez is a feckless fool who is tap dancing his way through foreign policy, while singing a song that everything is fine and dandy. While Kerry stands off to the side imploring that we pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

The fact that the "enemy state" feels comfortable enough to act this way is proof this admin is full of fools.

When Israel has had enough, they will fix this problem. Btw, they have been more than patient. At what point do they get dragged into the fools well with Barry O?They will put al Queda in power in a bunch of middle eastern states, if they try. That maybe in Israel's best interest, but it sure in the hell is not in ours. We win only if al Queda and Iran are fighting each other. The idiots on the right are so busy hating everything Obama to figure this out. The idiots on the right have forgotten who flew planes into our skyscrapers and Pentagon and who was talking to a bunch grade school kids when they did. :rolleyes:

[Tom]

The idiots on the right have forgotten who flew planes into our skyscrapers and Pentagon and who was talking to a bunch grade school kids when they did.

And who could have killed the master mind a couple of times and did not.
And we also remember to held American hostage for over 400 days....and who sponsors terrorism today.

Seriously, did you lose a bet?
Do you have a quota of stupid things to post to get even?

[fast4522]

Gents, lets just put up a big old map and let this scroll off until we decide to reach in and retrieve it with the I told you so.

[mostpost]

]And who could have killed the master mind a couple of times and did not.[/B]
And we also remember to held American hostage for over 400 days....and who sponsors terrorism today.

Seriously, did you lose a bet?
Do you have a quota of stupid things to post to get even?
You are obviously referring to George W. Bush who had bin Laden trapped at Tora Bora in December of 2001 and failed to send in troops to kill or capture him, instead choosing to start a war against Saddam Hussein who had no connection to 9/11.

In August of 1998 President Bill Clinton received intelligence that bin Laden would be at meeting of Al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan. At 3 AM EDT on August 20, 1998 cruise missiles were launched against the camp where the meeting was taking place. Several Al Qaeda leaders were killed, but bin Laden was not among them. It was never clear if bin Laden had never been there, had been there but left shortly before the attack or was there but somehow escaped injury.

Also in 1998 Clinton entered into an agreement with Pakistan's president that sixty Pakistani commandos would search for and kill bin Laden in Afghanistan or Pakistan. A few months later there was a coup in Pakistan and the deal was aborted by the new government.

So the score in the kill bin Laden attempts stands at:
Clinton 2 (both failed)
Obama 1 (a success)
Bush 0

[riskman]

So you choose to believe the representative of an enemy state over your own government. There is a word for people like that..

You are way over the top with this comment. Ugh !

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17xoa6bbainybpng/ku-xlarge.png

[tucker6]

You are obviously referring to George W. Bush who had bin Laden trapped at Tora Bora in December of 2001 and failed to send in troops to kill or capture him, instead choosing to start a war against Saddam Hussein who had no connection to 9/11.

In August of 1998 President Bill Clinton received intelligence that bin Laden would be at meeting of Al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan. At 3 AM EDT on August 20, 1998 cruise missiles were launched against the camp where the meeting was taking place. Several Al Qaeda leaders were killed, but bin Laden was not among them. It was never clear if bin Laden had never been there, had been there but left shortly before the attack or was there but somehow escaped injury.

Also in 1998 Clinton entered into an agreement with Pakistan's president that sixty Pakistani commandos would search for and kill bin Laden in Afghanistan or Pakistan. A few months later there was a coup in Pakistan and the deal was aborted by the new government.

So the score in the kill bin Laden attempts stands at:
Clinton 2 (both failed)
Obama 1 (a success)
Bush 0
so you give Clinton credit for trying and failing, but you give Bush none for trying and failing? As for Obama's "success", I doubt he had much to do with finding Bin Laden. In fact, one could easily say and be correct in stating that the eventual killing of Bin Laden was due to the terrorist intelligence gathering apparatus set up under Bush.

[Robert Goren]

so you give Clinton credit for trying and failing, but you give Bush none for trying and failing? As for Obama's "success", I doubt he had much to do with finding Bin Laden. In fact, one could easily say and be correct in stating that the eventual killing of Bin Laden was due to the terrorist intelligence gathering apparatus set up under Bush.Give it a rest! Nobody but the hard core Bush apologists are buying that bit of political spin.

[tucker6]

Give it a rest! Nobody but the hard core Bush apologists are buying that bit of political spin.
You deny reality? I hate Bush and still give him some of the credit. Only a political hack would not be gracious enough to acknowledge that a victory is made up of decisions from both sides over a long period of time. Failure cuts the same way.

[OntheRail]

It is true that the word "dismantle" does not appear in the "Joint Plan of Action." That is irrelevant. The "Joint Plan of Action" is four pages long. Do you really believe that is the entirety of the agreement. Their are almost certainly hundreds if not thousands of pages on the technicalities.


Must be just another case of "If you like your plan... you can keep your plan... Period. A simple misuse of language... by Slicky O.

[Tom]

You are obviously referring to George W. Bush who had bin Laden trapped at Tora Bora in December of 2001 and failed to send in troops to kill or capture him, instead choosing to start a war against Saddam Hussein who had no connection to 9/11.

Your understanding of history is at best appalling.
You are just wrong here.
Who re-wrote it for you?

[tucker6]

Your understanding of history is at best appalling.
You are just wrong here.
Who re-wrote it for you?
Robert Goren

[mostpost]

Your understanding of history is at best appalling.
You are just wrong here.
Who re-wrote it for you?
There are may sources detailing how bin Laden was trapped at Tora Bora and escaped because American authorities failed to provide adequate forces. This is one of the best.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/the-battle-tora-bora
Some of the highlights:
US aircraft spent several days bombing bin Laden's position at Tora Bora.

Morale among Al Qaeda fighters was very low.

Gary Berntsen ran CIA operations in Afghanistan
.
On Dec. 3, 2001 acting on intelligence provided by his operatives in the Tora Bora area, Berntsen sent a request to his CIA superiors at Langley. The CIA passes the request on to US military officials in Afghanistan. General Tommy Franks was supreme commander.

Berntsen requested 800 elite fighters to attack bin Laden's stronghold and cut of any escape routes.

Beginning the last week in November Brigadier General James Mattis, head of the Marines in Afgahnistan, repeatedlu requested permission to send his 1200 troops to Tora Bora.

Franks denied all requests, stating that he preferred the US to have a "light footprint" in the area.

In the end, considerably less than 100 United States Military and CIA personnel were involved in the ground fighting at Tora Bora.

In the meantime, back in Washington, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
instructed the general (Franks) to “dust off” the Pentagon’s blueprint for an Iraq invasion and brief him in a week’s time. This came at a time (late November) when Franks and his staff were already working seven days a week, sixteen hours a day. Complying with this order certainly damaged the ability to conduct the battle at Tora Bora.

add to all this the many statements by Bush, Cheney and other administration figures that bin Laden was not important, that they really did not think about him and that Bush disbanded the bin Laden task force that Clinton had set up, and I think it is obvious that Bush did not do much to capture or kill bin Laden.

[dartman51]

They will put al Queda in power in a bunch of middle eastern states, if they try. That maybe in Israel's best interest, but it sure in the hell is not in ours. We win only if al Queda and Iran are fighting each other. The idiots on the right are so busy hating everything Obama to figure this out. The idiots on the right have forgotten who flew planes into our skyscrapers and Pentagon and who was talking to a bunch grade school kids when they did. :rolleyes:


al Queda????? What al Queda???? I thought they were decimated, and on the run. Or didn't you get the memo from the master? :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

so you give Clinton credit for trying and failing, but you give Bush none for trying and failing? As for Obama's "success", I doubt he had much to do with finding Bin Laden. In fact, one could easily say and be correct in stating that the eventual killing of Bin Laden was due to the terrorist intelligence gathering apparatus set up under Clinton and ignored by Bush.
FTFY
It was William Jefferson Clinton who set up the CIA task force which monitored the whereabouts and activities of Osama bin Laden. A task force that George W. Bush quietly disbanded in the mid 2000's.

Of course, after bin Laden was killed, some former Bush officials tried to spin that he was located due to information obtained through waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques authorized during the Bush administration.

According to them, detainees gave up the information that bin Laden used a "trusted courier" to communicate with his lieutenants in Al Qaeda. The claim was that the information was obtained after the detainees were subjected to water boarding and other enhanced techniques. However, people like John McCain, Leon Panetta and those involved directly in the interrogations maintain that information was obtained during traditional, non coercive interrogations and that waterboarding resulted in false and misleading information, including several false identifications of the alleged courier.

It was only in 2010 that a wiretap on a suspected terrorist revealed the true identity. That person was kept under surveillance and eventually lead the CIA to the compound at which bin Laden was hiding. Some months of surveillance confirmed bin Laden's presence and the raid took place.

[JustRalph]

From CNN

“Why can’t they share with all of us what the Iranians themselves know,” Blitzer asked. “If [Iranian President] Rouhani and [Foreign Minister] Zarif know the text, why can’t the American public know the text?”

Miller agreed, saying the White House withholding the text, “is only going to create the perception that in fact there’s something in the deal the administration is hiding.” …

Blitzer noted, “I’d like to see if the word ‘dismantle’ is in that text.”


The most transparent administration in history is keeping the text of the deal secret. It's a signed, done deal. Open the shades. Shed some light on this folly. Let the American public see what you negotiated. Come on man!

Meanwhile the Iranians proclaim they gave up nothing.........I'm starting to believe them.......

[fast4522]

JR,
I commend you for staying on subject, now if only those communists could stay out of those Bush's like the Rev. once said. I doubt those documents will ever see the light of day, but think more sanctions may be the best prescription for better transparency.

[classhandicapper]

I'm still trying to figure out why this is my problem and why we are sending arms and/or financial aid to just about every player in these disputes in an attempt to bribe them or scare them into not killing each other (at least in those cases we actually don't want them to kill each other) . Really, at what point do we finally just get energy independent, tell them what we think is right/best, and then tell them they are all on their own?

[JustRalph]

http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2014/09/07/iran-stonewalling-un-on-nukes/

Iran not playing along.........still

I'm sure all the turmoil in the world has helped their cause. Keeping them off the front page. They are toiling away I'm certain.....this could be a very serious oversight

[HUSKER55]

They will put al Queda in power in a bunch of middle eastern states, if they try. That maybe in Israel's best interest, but it sure in the hell is not in ours. We win only if al Queda and Iran are fighting each other. The idiots on the right are so busy hating everything Obama to figure this out. The idiots on the right have forgotten who flew planes into our skyscrapers and Pentagon and who was talking to a bunch grade school kids when they did. :rolleyes:

AS OPPOSED TO WHAT...BO'S 57 STATES, PASSING LEGISLATION WITHOUT READING IT...going to a church that starts out "GOD-DAM AMERICA"


tell us RG, who on face of this planet respects this white house? If you are a staunch democrat that is fine but blind obedience will get you sooner or later.

[thaskalos]

You deny reality? I hate Bush and still give him some of the credit. Only a political hack would not be gracious enough to acknowledge that a victory is made up of decisions from both sides over a long period of time. Failure cuts the same way.

You give Bush more than enough credit when you mention him in the same sentence with Clinton.

[thaskalos]

I'm still trying to figure out why this is my problem and why we are sending arms and/or financial aid to just about every player in these disputes in an attempt to bribe them or scare them into not killing each other (at least in those cases we actually don't want them to kill each other) . Really, at what point do we finally just get energy independent, tell them what we think is right/best, and then tell them they are all on their own?

Right. After all...the USA has a long history of "leaving other countries alone"... :rolleyes:

[Tom]

Which Clinton?
The child predator Clinton or the Embassy murderer Clinton?

Nice family - covers all the basis of evil and depravity.

[hcap]

Lets invade Iran......that'll show em all.............:lol: That's way better than trying to save lives, many of them our own and who knows how many trillion more.......we can just print more money........I think the PA righties should all get together for one big SING ALONG led by.....

y2kyXN4ZVQg

Maybe they were the few who were in the audience who sat and cheered for this idiot :sleeping: :sleeping:

[Robert Goren]

Reliving this old thread is fun. How things have changed in a few months. Iran was our biggest threat. Now our biggest threat (in the opinion of the right) is ISIS. They are also Iran's biggest threat. In another few months, it will be some new group, in the mean time Iran and the Republican Guard will still be there. Trying pick a winner out these Radical Islamic groups is an exercise in futility. Fighting one is just helping the others.

[PaceAdvantage]

That's why we all have to convert to Islam...it's the only way for there to be world peace Robert...lol

[Tom]

Reliving this old thread is fun. How things have changed in a few months. Iran was our biggest threat. Now our biggest threat (in the opinion of the right) is ISIS. They are also Iran's biggest threat. In another few months, it will be some new group, in the mean time Iran and the Republican Guard will still be there. Trying pick a winner out these Radical Islamic groups is an exercise in futility. Fighting one is just helping the others.

Guess what?
Wrong again.

Believe it or not, some people can entertain more than one thought at a time.
ISIS is the immediate threat, but no one has forgotten that Obama has failed to make any strides in stopping Iran from going nuclear.

We just have other options open there - Israel is not afraid to do what Obama is unwilling to do.