Imminent Nuclear Deal Between Washington and Tehran!!!

[howarewegoingtopay]

Nov 12, 2013 15:12:37 GMT -5 douger said:

The administration stomps its feet and threatens to hold its breath.

The White House Tuesday warned lawmakers mulling tougher sanctions on Iran that thwarting US diplomacy could leave President Barack Obama little option but to use military force against Tehran's nuclear program.

"The American people do not want a march to war," spokesman Jay Carney said, in a significant stiffening of US rhetoric towards opponents of a proposed interim agreement with Tehran on Capitol Hill.

Military action? We've gone from opposition to a crap agreement to war as one of the few remaining options?

Don't bluff, Barry. You're no good at it.

What better way to distract from the failure of Obamacare?

[drjohnnyfever]

Nov 12, 2013 15:12:37 GMT -5 douger said:

The administration stomps its feet and threatens to hold its breath.

The White House Tuesday warned lawmakers mulling tougher sanctions on Iran that thwarting US diplomacy could leave President Barack Obama little option but to use military force against Tehran's nuclear program.

"The American people do not want a march to war," spokesman Jay Carney said, in a significant stiffening of US rhetoric towards opponents of a proposed interim agreement with Tehran on Capitol Hill.

Military action? We've gone from opposition to a crap agreement to war as one of the few remaining options?

Don't bluff, Barry. You're no good at it.

Well barry is a neo-con (neo-lib?)....it's what they do.

[Moses]

Nov 12, 2013 16:43:55 GMT -5 drjohnnyfever said:

Nov 12, 2013 15:12:37 GMT -5 douger said:

The administration stomps its feet and threatens to hold its breath.

Military action? We've gone from opposition to a crap agreement to war as one of the few remaining options?

Don't bluff, Barry. You're no good at it.

Well barry is a neo-con (neo-lib?)....it's what they do.

Remember that hit song "contort yourself"?

[Ravenchamp]

Nov 12, 2013 16:39:30 GMT -5 howarewegoingtopay said:

Nov 12, 2013 15:12:37 GMT -5 douger said:

The administration stomps its feet and threatens to hold its breath.

Military action? We've gone from opposition to a crap agreement to war as one of the few remaining options?

Don't bluff, Barry. You're no good at it.

What better way to distract from the failure of Obamacare?

wag the dog just like Billy Bob did when he bombed an asprin factory , it distracted away from the blue dress stains

[douger]

Why France said no?

Though few people remember nowadays, in 1967, Paris occupied much the same position that Washington occupies now with respect to Israel: Not only was France Israel’s chief arms supplier and Security Council patron, but it was the only country willing to supply Israel with essential equipment such as fighter jets. Israel’s air force fought the Six-Day War with French Mirages; only the following year, in 1968, did America for the first time agree to sell it Phantom jets.

Consequently, Charles de Gaulle had every reason to think that when he spoke, Israel would listen. And the French president’s message in 1967 was unequivocal: Under no circumstances must Israel launch a preemptive strike; if it did, it could kiss French patronage goodbye. Israel heard the message loud and clear–and preempted anyway. Facing what it deemed an existential threat, it decided that even the loss of its sole military supplier was the lesser evil.

France knows that today, Israel deems Iran’s nuclear program an existential threat. France also knows that Israel would probably risk less by defying the Obama administration than it did by defying France in 1967: De Gaulle severed the military relationship completely, refusing even to deliver planes and gunboats Israel had already paid for, at a time when Israel had no assurance that Washington would fill the gap; today, given Israel’s strong support in Congress, a similarly total American arms embargo seems unlikely. As a result, France may understand what Washington seems not to: that utterly disregarding Israel’s concerns about Iran could push it to preempt despite its patron’s objections, just as it did in 1967.

This also explains why France was particularly opposed to a provision allowing Iran to continue building its heavy-water reactor in Arak. Once the reactor is finished and ready to go online, Iran could turn the switch before an attack could be mounted, so Israel is unlikely to wait until it gets to that point. Thus if the goal is to prevent an Israeli attack, halting progress at Arak is critical.