Iran agrees to Nuclear Talks

• Ty Webb

  

  http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/10/20/iran_agrees_to_nuclear_talks.html
• believer

  

  Good to hear. But unless Ahmadinejad (well Khamenei at least) kisses Barry on the lips before election day, it doesn't mean squat.
• BGFalcons82

  

  the Iranians have been "talking" for a decade. Nothing here. Move along.
• Ty Webb

  

  BGFalcons82;1300142 wrote:the Iranians have been "talking" for a decade. Nothing here. Move along.

  
  But damnit.....if Romney had done it you would've been giddy
  
  Have they EVER agreed to 1-on-1 sit down talks?
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  It's nice, but really should have happened long ago.
  It does seem the sanctions are impacting them, pretty hard.
  But, what really matters is if the Iranians just use the talks to stall and stall. Or, will they be full of substance?
  
  The heart of the matter is if Iran can enrich, and if so how much and to what level the IAEA has the ability to verify.
  
  Devil is in the details and execution.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Ty Webb;1300147 wrote:But damnit.....if Romney had done it you would've been giddy

  Newsflash...Romney won't be President for another 90 days.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Ty Webb;1300147 wrote:
  Have they EVER agreed to 1-on-1 sit down talks?

  Not formally, but off to the side in 2007 when talking about Iraq.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Stall, PTown??? They would never ever do that....
• Ty Webb

  

  BGFalcons82;1300154 wrote:Newsflash...Romney won't be President for another 90 days.

  Romney won't be President ever
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  BGFalcons82;1300157 wrote:Stall, PTown??? They would never ever do that....

  Yeah, exactly.
  
  They may be taking a page from the North Korean playbook. Provoke, talks, breakdown, calm, provoke, talks, breakdown, calm, repeat.
• BGFalcons82

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1300159 wrote:Yeah, exactly.
  
  They may be taking a page from the North Korean playbook. Provoke, talks, breakdown, calm, provoke, talks, breakdown, calm, repeat.

  The Iranians want a nuke more than anything else in the world. If they have to talk some more, wait some more, "negotiate" some more, and yes, stall some more, they will.
  
  Once they get it, Israel will destroy it. Write it down.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  BGFalcons82;1300168 wrote:The Iranians want a nuke more than anything else in the world. If they have to talk some more, wait some more, "negotiate" some more, and yes, stall some more, they will.
  
  Once they get it, Israel will destroy it. Write it down.

  I wouldn't go that far.
  Do they want a nuke, I think so.
  Would they use it? Hard to say.
  
  The regime is actually pretty rational in the sense of they are interested in their own self preservation. Any weapon, they know, will result in their destruction.
  
  Plus, one isn't enough. They need around 6-10 to have a real value to possible usage and retaliation impact.
  And they need a delivery vehicle. Their current missiles do not have the range to load a nuke on them.
  
  And, they still do not have the components to weaponize all the uranium (which the VP stated last week), and that often gets overlooked.
  It's one thing to have the material. It is another to shrink it down into a warhead.
  
  All that said. If Israel goes to destroy it, it will actually hurt them in the long run.
  As, Iran will kick out all the IAEA, so no more inspections. And, Iran will move everything underground even more so, leading to a nuclear program where we have even less information on.
  Adding to that, it may have a rally around the flag moment, where it may lead to the regime have more legitimacy.
• believer

  

  The talks are irrelevant....just a stall tactic by Iran to buy time.
  
  But the point of this thread is that Gibby's all excited because he thinks this is a last-minute homerun for Barry's re-election bid.
  
  Sorry.....not happening.
• Ty Webb

  

  If this had been a Republican President ....you all would be having a circle jerk
• gut

  Hmmmm....the appeaser that will defer to an impotent UN, or an unknown quantity in Romney. I guess Ahmadinejad doesn't like how the polls are trending, either.
• BGFalcons82

  

  gut;1300192 wrote:I guess Ahmadinejad doesn't like how the polls are trending, either.

  B I N G O!!
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  gut;1300192 wrote:Hmmmm....the appeaser that will defer to an impotent UN, or an unknown quantity in Romney. I guess Ahmadinejad doesn't like how the polls are trending, either.

  Where is the UN involved?
  It is the EU plus the US that is imposing the sanctions that did force them to the table now.
• gut

  ptown_trojans_1;1300250 wrote:Where is the UN involved?
  It is the EU plus the US that is imposing the sanctions that did force them to the table now.

  Reaaaalllllyyyyyy? So the UN currently imposes no sanctions on Iran? The UN would not be a likely arbiter of Iran's compliance on any agreement reached?
• jmog

  gut;1300192 wrote:Hmmmm....the appeaser that will defer to an impotent UN, or an unknown quantity in Romney. I guess Ahmadinejad doesn't like how the polls are trending, either.

  Most likely pretty accurate.
• HitsRus

  

  Both the White House and Iran have denied that these reports are true.
  http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/21/us-iran-nuclear-usa-idUSBRE89K05N20121021
  
  /end of thread.
• believer

  

  HitsRus;1300479 wrote:Both the White House and Iran have denied that these reports are true.
  http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/21/us-iran-nuclear-usa-idUSBRE89K05N20121021
  
  /end of thread.

  lol