bud

what does the law say? under the NPT, it is very clear that iran has the right to enrich uranium. there is no limit on how much you are allowed to have. this is the case for other NPT signatories such as germany, japan, brazil, etc. who all have over 5% enriched uranium. "Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty." does iran have nuclear weapons or a nuclear weapons program? no it doesn't. all 16 u.s. intelligence agencies and the israeli intelligence community agree iran does not have a nuclear weapons program and has not even decided to produce nuclear weapons. they have not worked on weaponization. some bring up long range missiles, which are their right to have. some in israel, including netanyahu and the neo-cons, such as rumsfeld, have been making false prediction after false predictions about iran's nukes for 30 years. has iran tried to negotiate with p5+1 in the past? yes. in 2003, an iranian negotiating team, which was made up of very similar people who are in the current iranian negotiation team offered something very similar to what was agreed upon last week. unfortunately, bush was the president back then and the u.s. decided not to negotiate and only dictate what iran can or cannot have. washington post, 2006: Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces three years ago, an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table -- including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups. But top Bush administration officials, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse, belittled the initiative. Instead, they formally complained to the Swiss ambassador who had sent the fax with a cover letter certifying it as a genuine proposal supported by key power centers in Iran, former administration officials said. Last month, the Bush administration abruptly shifted policy and agreed to join talks previously led by European countries over Iran's nuclear program. But several former administration officials say the United States missed an opportunity in 2003 at a time when American strength seemed at its height -- and Iran did not have a functioning nuclear program or a gusher of oil revenue from soaring energy demand. result of bush's refusal to negotiate and instead threaten and implement more sanctions? iran went from a few dozen centrifuges in 2003 to over 18,000 in 2013. not only that, but their capabilities and technology has increased.

so there are no misunderstandings on what this deal is, here is a more detailed information on this first phase deal: Joint Plan of Action Elements of the First Phase Iranian actions: Convert half of its stockpile of uranium enriched to 20 percent to oxide form and downblend the remainder to an enrichment level of no more than five percent; suspend production of uranium enriched to above five percent; no further advances in nuclear activities at the Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant, the enrichment plant at Fordow and the Arak heavy water reactor; convert uranium enriched up to five percent produced during the six months to oxide form when the construction of the conversion facility is completed; no new enrichment facilities; research and development practices, including on enrichment, will continue under IAEA safeguards; no reprocessing of spent plutonium fuel or construction of any facility capable of reprocessing; and enhanced monitoring including, providing information to the IAEA on plans for nuclear sites and the Arak reactor, negotiating a safeguards approach for the Arak reactor, allow daily IAEA access to Natanz and Fordow, and allow managed access to centrifuge workshops and uranium mines and mills. P5+1 Actions: No new nuclear-related sanctions from the UN Security Council, the EU, and the U.S.; pause efforts to further reduce Iran’s oil sales and partial repatriation of frozen Iranian assets from oil sales; suspension of U.S. and EU sanctions on petrochemical exports and gold and precious metals; suspension of U.S. sanctions on Iran’s auto industry; supply and installation of spare parts for Iranian civil airplanes, including repairs and safety inspections; establish a financial channel for humanitarian goods using Iran’s oil revenues that are frozen abroad, which can also be used for tuition payments for Iranian student abroad and payment of Iran’s UN dues; and increase of the EU thresholds for non-sanctioned trade with Iran. Elements of a Comprehensive Solution An agreed upon duration; reflection of the rights and obligations of all NPT parties and IAEA Safeguards Agreements; lift all multilalteral and unilateral sanctions on nuclear-related measures; define Iran’s enrichment program with agreed upon limits resolve concerns about the Arak reactor; implement agreed up on transparency measures, including Iran’s ratification and implementation of the Additional Protocol of its safeguards agreement with the IAEA; cooperate on civil nuclear projects, including a light water reactor for power, research reactors, and nuclear fuel.

you should take responsibility and use the internet to learn about rumsfeld and his activities in the 90's. you'll understand then. iran didn't break the terms of any prior agreements in 2003, but i'm glad that you brought up 2003: In 2003, Iran approached the United States with an offer to talk about its nuclear program. The George W. Bush administration rejected the offer because it believed that the Iranian regime was weak, had been battered by sanctions, and would either capitulate or collapse if Washington just stayed tough. So there was no deal. What was the result? Iran had 164 centrifuges operating in 2003; today it has 19,000 centrifuges. Had the Geneva talks with Iran broken down, Iran would have continued expanding its nuclear program. Yes they are now under tough sanctions, but they were under sanctions then as well. link

you trust bibi's so-called intelligence report above everyone else's? including the u.s.'? several former heads of mossad and other israeli intelligence have come out in support of the negotiations. perhaps bibi has faulty intelligence or is lying. let history be the judge of that: 1992: Israeli member of parliament Binyamin Netanyahu predicts that Iran was “3 to 5 years” from having a nuclear weapon. 1992: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres predicts an Iranian nuclear warhead by 1999 to French TV. 1995: The New York Times quotes US and Israeli officials saying that Iran would have the bomb by 2000. 1998: Donald Rumsfeld tells Congress that Iran could have an intercontinental ballistic missile that could hit the US by 2003. link how is it an "alleged" interim agreement when it is an interim agreement that has been signed? where do you get that they can go from 5% to 20% within a matter of weeks? it is so irresponsible to make such comments. you just string together fantasies and expect people to believe you. you need to understand what the proposals are before writing about them and giving your opinion on them: Iran has agreed to halt any enrichment above 5 percent and neutralize any of its stockpile that is near-20 percent. Iran has also agreed to "unprecedented transparency and intrusive monitoring" of its nuclear program. In return, the U.S. and its partners have agreed to drop some of its sanctions, amounting to about $6 to $7 billion in relief. i did my thesis on the iran/iraq war. iranians using chemical weapons against kurds is news to me and probably anyone else who knows about iran and the war. can you verify this by posting a link? can you verify the following? iran ordered killing of thousands of iraqi civilians iran shot its own soldiers when they panicked and ran some of those are true, but killing jews and christians because of their religion is not. the iranian government accepts anyone who follows christianity or judaism. in fact, iran has the largest jewish population in the middle outside of israel. just in tehran, there are 19 synagogues. in fact: Iranian Jewish community holds rally in support of nuclear program ​you are desperately trying to paint a more extreme picture than there really is. you want extreme, then go to israel's bffs' country, saudi arabia. there is some truth to this, but not as extreme as you want to make it out to be. Just today, someone posted a link (with photos) that paints a more realistic picture of it's like in iran. i'm sharing this to inject reality into your obvious attempt at creating an image that doesn't exist. newsweek - iran not really. you need to read and understand the agreement, because it looks like you don't really understand what it is.

i enjoyed the following from ynet: Israel could have and should have declared victory. We said it was an international matter – and the world acted. A cautious victory, a victory whose value will be measured over time, a victory requiring a sober and alert observation of what is happening in Iran – but a victory. But Israel has been acting in recent days like an isolated, deceived and over-righteous country, which insists on snatching a loss from the jaws of victory. In an analogy to a different field, Netanyahu could have claimed to have scored a hard-pressed winning goal of 1:0 in the first match, but instead he laments that his fellow team members prevented him from scoring three goals.

i agree that racists should be dealt with. so should those who engage in defaming others and making irresponsible comments without being able to back up their claims. by the way, who are the anti-semites and can you point to specifics where they have shown anti-semitism? and i don't mean things that you hear in your head. i mean actual quotes from them.

you had a chance to give examples but you didn't. give examples.

not sure if there is any place to go after the following comment: Oh I know you Bud. I see people like you hide behind children who are used as your warriors. I have seen people like you use children, cripples, people with down's syndrome, pregnant women, to fight your battles.

i'm curious why you make this comment. does iran have a history of breaking deals? lying about their intentions? watching and reading some of the news, that's the impression that's given, but i've tried to find examples of why iran shouldn't be trusted, but i can't. perhaps you know.

usually when it comes to making a deal that have to do with complicated issues you're going to have different stages. there is a concrete deal as to what each side will be doing in this first stage: Iran has agreed to halt any enrichment above 5 percent and neutralize any of its stockpile that is near-20 percent. Iran has also agreed to "unprecedented transparency and intrusive monitoring" of its nuclear program. In return, the U.S. and its partners have agreed to drop some of its sanctions, amounting to about $6 to $7 billion in relief. the above looks pretty good, don't you think? immediate halt of enrichment above 5% and neutralizing any stockpile that is near 20% and transparency and frequent monitoring to make sure that iran has followed up on its part in the deal.

who said it's complete? baby steps. the west will ease up some sanctions and iran will be shutting down some of their programs and decrease some of the uranium they've enriched. they will also allow more inspections. by the way, when has iran broken a promise? you say, during other such deals like something like this has happened in the past. it hasn't. you should look into the deal instead of repeating talking points. regardless of what has happened in the past, it looks like iran's new government is ready to make a deal and they have the blessing of the supreme leader to do it. they have been nothing but open about their intentions and have done what they can to communicate that. there seems to be no advantage for those in power in iran to allow the sanctions to continue. it seems to be hurting their pocket books. from what has unfolded, my personal opinion is that they are ready to open up relations and to allow their economy to regain strength through trades.

what is there to say about them? it's a predictable statement from a government that no longer has any weight or respect in the international stage. harper and his people are zionist lapdogs always ready to read off of the israeli lobby statements.

with the deal that was signed in the early morning hours in geneva on sunday, the two sides managed to change course from the path to a disastrous war and onto a road that ends with concrete assurance that iran will never obtain nuclear weapons. though it is just an interim agreement, after thirty years of non-relations, the deal is historic. majority of the world backs what has transpired; diplomacy and a deal, while there are still those who are against it. stephen walt from foreign policy: There is something of a paradox in the ways that opponents and supporters of a deal approach the whole subject of Iran's nuclear program and the country's broader relations with the United States and other major powers. Opponents of a deal tend to believe that 1) Iran is governed by irrational and highly aggressive Shiite fanatics; 2) it is hellbent on getting a nuclear weapons capability; and 3) if Iran does get the bomb, it will have dramatic and overwhelmingly negative consequences for regional stability and world politics more generally. Given those (unwarranted) beliefs, you'd think hawks would be thrilled with this deal, insofar as it freezes Iran's current capabilities, will reduce the stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium (i.e., the stuff that could be enriched to weapons grade fairly quickly), and leaves all the truly significant sanctions in place. If the nuclear program is your big concern, then this is a great first step and a more far-reaching comprehensive deal would be even better. (The alternatives -- an unconstrained Iranian program or another Middle East war -- are clearly inferior.) By contrast, many who support the current deal believe that 1) Iran's leaders are rational individuals seeking to advance Iran's national interests; 2) Iran has not yet decided to seek a nuclear weapon and probably prefers a condition of nuclear latency to a fully developed nuclear arsenal; and 3) getting the bomb wouldn't transform Iran into a major world power overnight and certainly wouldn't enable it to threaten Israel or blackmail its neighbors. If this view is accurate, then a final deal on Iran's nuclear program -- i.e., one that scales back those elements that shorten the breakout period but leaves Iran with some enrichment capacity -- isn't that significant by itself, because Iran wasn't really seeking a weapon anyway and its getting a few bombs wouldn't have that big an impact on world politics. while those in the 'against diplomacy' side continue to make their case, it's more than likely that their real reason for not supporting diplomacy is not the threat of a nuclear iran, but the threat of iran's resurrection of power in the region. with a large amount of oil, a well-educated and sophisticated middle class and a stable and well-regulated banking system, iran can begin to dominate the region economically. instead of welcoming this, some of the countries who have benefited economically from iran's downfall, are in panic mode and are not ready to lose their piece of the pie. however, economics is not the only reason for this resistance. religion and culture is also at play here. arab sunni countries, led by saudi arabia and qatar do not want a shiite muslim country to gain power and influence. in the next 6 months, we will find out about the strength and influence of those who have been relying on the status quo; namely, the sunni arab states and israel, along with their supporters in congress and senate.

bibi and his warmongering friends have been saying iran will be going nuclear for over 2 decades. the guy is what people call, a liar: 1992: Israeli member of parliament Binyamin Netanyahu predicts that Iran was “3 to 5 years” from having a nuclear weapon. 1992: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres predicts an Iranian nuclear warhead by 1999 to French TV. 1995: The New York Times quotes US and Israeli officials saying that Iran would have the bomb by 2000. 1998: Donald Rumsfeld tells Congress that Iran could have an intercontinental ballistic missile that could hit the US by 2003. link here is bibi showing his proof: this clown should be sidelined. all he has on his side are the congressmen and senators who have been bought by the pro-israeli lobby groups.

well, there you have it. you must really know me. when a person is so out to lunch in their thought process, they're best not to be engaged. you're so ridiculous that, at this point, even noticing your posts on this forum seems like a waste. i doubt i'll be able to direct any more posts towards you after this.

i'm disgusted by a lot of things i see in some of the muslim countries. including the discrimination against women, homosexuals and other religions. fortunately, our government and no one here on this forum tries to excuse those laws and customs. unfortunately, our government and some people on this forum try to excuse and even justify the actions by israel and its discrimination against the palestinians. i think it's time for you to abandon tribalism and speak out against what zionism has become and how israel discriminates against palestinians. i think deep down, you would rather be righteous and good. it's just the tribalism and false sense of nationality that is keeping you from changing for the better.

all people should be treated equally. unfortunately, zionism doesn't believe in that. in order for zionism to achieve its goal, it is willing to violate other people's rights. in this case, the rights of palestinians and other minorities inside israel and also palestinians in the occupied territories. this is why zionism and other selfish ideologies that violate human rights should be eradicated. much like nazism in germany was and apartheid in south africa was. people who support inhumane ideologies such as zionism will continue to be confronted by those who want the best for our world.

sorry little buddy. you can type and type all you want, but hezbollah is considered as a legitimate group and is part of the lebanese government. the armed wing has been approved by the lebanese government as an armed organization and guarantees its right to liberate or recover occupied lands. they're not considered occupying lebanon as shady, erroneously declared before running off. As he usually does so that he doesn't need to face reality. your huffing and puffing and typing will not change things. you are fighting yet another battle against reality and facts.

rue does not believe in equality. his tribalism and blind nationalism does not permit him in seeing everyone as equals. this is why he apologizes for israel's violations of human rights against palestinians and minorities inside israel and in the occupied territories. this is why he becomes a hypocrite when he demands that other countries not be able to have nuclear weapons, while his tribe sits on hundreds of nukes.

thanks for adding nothing to the discussion.

your qualifications as compared to mine is a matter of opinion. but your qualification as compared to a u.s. president, u.s. congressman, u.s. senator and AIPAC heads is not a matter of opinion. they know better than you do. that said, if you had paid attention, we have been talking about AIPAC's influence on u.s. foreign policy. which is unmatched by any other lobby group.

i suppose you are more qualified to answer that than, bill clinton, u.s. congressmen, senators and even AIPAC heads.

you obviously are not paying attention if you are saying i refuse to acknowledge that an arab lobby exists. of course they exist. what i have said is that no one comes close to the israeli/zionist lobby when it comes to u.s. foreign policy, especially when it comes to the israeli/palestinian issues. i have given examples of this by providing the unmatched financial support that congressmen and senators receive from the israeli lobby. i have given an example of something that just happened recently, where the u.s. negotiation team for the israeli/palestinian issue is lead by two former AIPAC policy makers. i have given quotes from presidents, congressmen, senators and AIPAC members, backing up what i have been saying. that AIPAC's influence on u.s. government is unmatched. yet, you're still in denial.

your sensitivity is not an excuse for people not to call you on your tribalism and zealotry. we are all part of the human race and we all should treat each other with respect. what better way to make sure we do this by having human rights laws. unfortunately, israel continues to violate these human rights laws against the palestinians and other minority groups, simply because they are not jewish.

but they are a legitimate organization in lebanon. the lebanese government accepts them as such. you or even i may not like some of the things they've done, but we can't change the fact that they are a legitimate organization and legally accepted as a party in lebanon.