The Obama administration has extended their March 31st deadline for a nuke deal until Wednesday..
...as there are a few sticking points and a couple hurdles yet to overcome ...such as ...Iran wants to hold on to it's 18,000 centrifuges,,.. because Iran insist their enriched uranium is for energy purposes only.. so there is no need to reduce them
Iran is also saying,, since their breakout time is well over 20 years out.... they have no plans to export its enriched uranium stockpile...
..and because they don't trust IAEA inspectors ..they can't give them free-rein to investigate nuclear activity anywhere in the country esp. their secret nuclear facilities..
So,, due to these few stumbling blocks and to secure Obama's legacy the negotiations deadline has been extended to ...an April Fools Day..deadline ,deadline.
Not properly vetting a Presidential candidate is a horrible,,horrible thing to do ...
The Obama administration has extended their March 31st deadline for a nuke deal until Wednesday..
...as there are a few sticking points and a couple hurdles yet to overcome ...such as ...Iran wants to hold on to it's 18,000 centrifuges,,.. because Iran insist their enriched uranium is for energy purposes only.. so there is no need to reduce them
Iran is also saying,, since their breakout time is well over 20 years out.... they have no plans to export its enriched uranium stockpile...
..and because they don't trust IAEA inspectors ..they can't give them free-rein to investigate nuclear activity anywhere in the country esp. their secret nuclear facilities..
So,, due to these few stumbling blocks and to secure Obama's legacy the negotiations deadline has been extended to ...an April Fools Day..deadline ,deadline.
Not properly vetting a Presidential candidate is a horrible,,horrible thing to do ...
You know what Tonto said to the Lone Ranger,, when they were riding across the plains and a group of Indians in full warpaint were galloping toward them, tomahawks at the ready ?
You know what Tonto said to the Lone Ranger,, when they were riding across the plains and a group of Indians in full warpaint were galloping toward them, tomahawks at the ready ?
BEAKING : Iran on the verge of agreeing to a Nuclear agreement with the US.,,,President Obama has just offered Iran ...Obamacare and told them if they like their doctor, they will be able to keep their doctor ..
BEAKING : Iran on the verge of agreeing to a Nuclear agreement with the US.,,,President Obama has just offered Iran ...Obamacare and told them if they like their doctor, they will be able to keep their doctor ..
First off, any sort of two party negotiation is based on the good faith idea that both sides want to strike a deal and are willing to meet somewhere in the middle to reach that deal. The threat that either side could walk away when the demands cross a certain threshlold maintains the balance of power between the two parties involved.
When one party presents themselves as eager or overly enthusiastic to reach a deal, it also means they are less likely to walk away from the table. Which weakens their position in the negotiation considerably and predictably increases the likelihood of a less than optimal deal for the eager party.
Any savvy negotiator would recognize this early on in the discussions and use it to their advantage to ensure a better deal for themselves.
I believe a deal is possible for sure. It's this need to do it right now when the risk of a bad deal is considerable that concerns me greatly. John Kerry and President Obama have done absolutely nothing to earn my trust in their judgement. I believe we should use every tool we have to leverage them into a favorable deal for the rest of the world, not the President and Kerry's legacies.
First off, any sort of two party negotiation is based on the good faith idea that both sides want to strike a deal and are willing to meet somewhere in the middle to reach that deal. The threat that either side could walk away when the demands cross a certain threshlold maintains the balance of power between the two parties involved.
When one party presents themselves as eager or overly enthusiastic to reach a deal, it also means they are less likely to walk away from the table. Which weakens their position in the negotiation considerably and predictably increases the likelihood of a less than optimal deal for the eager party.
Any savvy negotiator would recognize this early on in the discussions and use it to their advantage to ensure a better deal for themselves.
I believe a deal is possible for sure. It's this need to do it right now when the risk of a bad deal is considerable that concerns me greatly. John Kerry and President Obama have done absolutely nothing to earn my trust in their judgement. I believe we should use every tool we have to leverage them into a favorable deal for the rest of the world, not the President and Kerry's legacies.
Looks like it's double overtime for Obama's April Fools deadline,deadline ..as negotiations falter... Monsieur Kerry extends the deadline,deadline ,deadline at Iran nuclear talks for another day.. as negotiations falter.
Deadline = the last day, hour, or minute that something will be accepted..something like an Obama red line ..it doesn't mean anything and Iran and the world now know it.
Looks like it's double overtime for Obama's April Fools deadline,deadline ..as negotiations falter... Monsieur Kerry extends the deadline,deadline ,deadline at Iran nuclear talks for another day.. as negotiations falter.
Deadline = the last day, hour, or minute that something will be accepted..something like an Obama red line ..it doesn't mean anything and Iran and the world now know it.
The way I would answer your question is "No deal is better than a bad deal" so me walking away would mean I would do nothing.
A better way to ask the question would be "So you would sit there and do nothing?" unless you count sitting around with your thumb up your azz doing something.
The way I would answer your question is "No deal is better than a bad deal" so me walking away would mean I would do nothing.
A better way to ask the question would be "So you would sit there and do nothing?" unless you count sitting around with your thumb up your azz doing something.
What is the relevance of your question in regards to me pointing out how we appear to be negotiating from position a self imposed weakness? Exactly, its not relevant.
Do you want me to say bomb the sh$t out of them? hehe sorry I don't think we should do that either.
Like anyone else with a rational take on the situation,
I'd take punitive actions for them not negotiating in good faith and wasting all this time...Make them remember why they wanted to make a deal in the first place. Make the noose tighter. You need specifics? Tough, I don't work for the state department. I see the game the way its played from a macro perspective and comment on it from there...
What is the relevance of your question in regards to me pointing out how we appear to be negotiating from position a self imposed weakness? Exactly, its not relevant.
Do you want me to say bomb the sh$t out of them? hehe sorry I don't think we should do that either.
Like anyone else with a rational take on the situation,
I'd take punitive actions for them not negotiating in good faith and wasting all this time...Make them remember why they wanted to make a deal in the first place. Make the noose tighter. You need specifics? Tough, I don't work for the state department. I see the game the way its played from a macro perspective and comment on it from there...
What is the relevance of your question in regards to me pointing out how we appear to be negotiating from position a self imposed weakness? Exactly, its not relevant.
Do you want me to say bomb the sh$t out of them? hehe sorry I don't think we should do that either.
Like anyone else with a rational take on the situation,
I'd take punitive actions for them not negotiating in good faith and wasting all this time...Make them remember why they wanted to make a deal in the first place. Make the noose tighter. You need specifics? Tough, I don't work for the state department. I see the game the way its played from a macro perspective and comment on it from there...
Iran has been dealing with unprecedented sanctions for a while now. When you say "punitive actions", what are you talking about? Can you give an example?
What is the relevance of your question in regards to me pointing out how we appear to be negotiating from position a self imposed weakness? Exactly, its not relevant.
Do you want me to say bomb the sh$t out of them? hehe sorry I don't think we should do that either.
Like anyone else with a rational take on the situation,
I'd take punitive actions for them not negotiating in good faith and wasting all this time...Make them remember why they wanted to make a deal in the first place. Make the noose tighter. You need specifics? Tough, I don't work for the state department. I see the game the way its played from a macro perspective and comment on it from there...
Iran has been dealing with unprecedented sanctions for a while now. When you say "punitive actions", what are you talking about? Can you give an example?
I love how the word choice of "unprecedented" is used.
It's used to convey strength when in reality it only means never done before or for the first time. Sure sounds like our current regime, no question there. But I digress
Have these "unprecedented" sanctions achieved there desired aim? I imagine they helped in bringing them to the table. But I bet we could go further. Make em pay for clowning us at these negotiations and it just might remind them why they sat down in the first place..
I just heard the big hang up right now is that they are demanding we lift the sanctions immediately after the deal is signed off on. Of course this would be insane for us to agree to. Sure sounds like what a lot of experts have been saying about not being about to trust these guys.
Again, I'm not a state department employee, I don't know what sort of options are available. My question to you is, do you see this has a "make a deal now, or war is inevitable situation? What is the benefit in striking a less than optimal deal right now, as opposed to being patient and making sure we get a good deal that can be trusted?
I love how the word choice of "unprecedented" is used.
It's used to convey strength when in reality it only means never done before or for the first time. Sure sounds like our current regime, no question there. But I digress
Have these "unprecedented" sanctions achieved there desired aim? I imagine they helped in bringing them to the table. But I bet we could go further. Make em pay for clowning us at these negotiations and it just might remind them why they sat down in the first place..
I just heard the big hang up right now is that they are demanding we lift the sanctions immediately after the deal is signed off on. Of course this would be insane for us to agree to. Sure sounds like what a lot of experts have been saying about not being about to trust these guys.
Again, I'm not a state department employee, I don't know what sort of options are available. My question to you is, do you see this has a "make a deal now, or war is inevitable situation? What is the benefit in striking a less than optimal deal right now, as opposed to being patient and making sure we get a good deal that can be trusted?
First,, I would increase sanctions before I even started to negotiate..after there effect kicked in ..I would be negotiating from a position of power ...taking maximum advantage of my strength. if the other side wasn't making progress toward a framework deadline ..then I would press them so much ( even more sanctions), that they would be the ones walking away or taking my deal.. ..No deal ,,then severe consequences..
First,, I would increase sanctions before I even started to negotiate..after there effect kicked in ..I would be negotiating from a position of power ...taking maximum advantage of my strength. if the other side wasn't making progress toward a framework deadline ..then I would press them so much ( even more sanctions), that they would be the ones walking away or taking my deal.. ..No deal ,,then severe consequences..
Iran has just stated that some issues are non-negotiable.. such as the obliteration of Israel.. U.S. is still mulling this new development in their talks.
Iran has just stated that some issues are non-negotiable.. such as the obliteration of Israel.. U.S. is still mulling this new development in their talks.
Remember when Reagan negotiated with Iran? They had Israel sell weapons (Hawk and TOW missiles etc) to Iran and then Reagan would re supply them. Take the money from the sale and secretly fund rebels in Nicaragua.
The Reagan administration was being investigated so what did they do? The administration destroyed the documents. 14 administration officials were indicted resulting in 11 convictions. They were all pardoned in the final days of George H W Bush's presidency. HW was Reagan's VP.
Remember when Reagan negotiated with Iran? They had Israel sell weapons (Hawk and TOW missiles etc) to Iran and then Reagan would re supply them. Take the money from the sale and secretly fund rebels in Nicaragua.
The Reagan administration was being investigated so what did they do? The administration destroyed the documents. 14 administration officials were indicted resulting in 11 convictions. They were all pardoned in the final days of George H W Bush's presidency. HW was Reagan's VP.
Give me an example of how you would increase sanctions. Give me an example of severe consequences.
Let's see if you have a clue.
I've already freely admitted those are details beyond my knowledge base. Posts #14 and 18 (I can do that because I can say those things and still rest assuredly you are no match for me in these arguments)
Why do you repeat the same questions over and over?
Why do you refuse to respond any of my points or prior posts?
Look's like someone is losing an argument once again...
Give me an example of how you would increase sanctions. Give me an example of severe consequences.
Let's see if you have a clue.
I've already freely admitted those are details beyond my knowledge base. Posts #14 and 18 (I can do that because I can say those things and still rest assuredly you are no match for me in these arguments)
Why do you repeat the same questions over and over?
Why do you refuse to respond any of my points or prior posts?
Look's like someone is losing an argument once again...
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.