Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 02, 2015, 05:23:35 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
85095 Posts in 2266 Topics by 1068 Members
Latest Member: cdenny
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]

 on: February 24, 2015, 12:15:39 PM 
Started by G M - Last post by Crafty_Dog

 on: February 24, 2015, 11:59:17 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog

 on: February 24, 2015, 11:27:46 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
GENEVA—The U.S. and Iran are exploring a nuclear deal that would keep Tehran from amassing enough material to make a bomb for at least a decade, but could then allow it to gradually build up its capabilities again.

Such a deal would represent a significant compromise by the U.S., which had sought to restrain Tehran’s nuclear activities for as long as 20 years. Tehran has insisted on no more than a 10-year freeze.

The possible compromise on the table appears closer to Tehran’s timeline. While it would add some years in which the Iranian nuclear program continues to be closely monitored and constrained, Iran would be able to increase its capacity to enrich uranium, and thus get closer to bomb-making capability again.

Critics in Congress and in Israel quickly attacked the prospect of a 10-year time frame as inadequate.

After four days of talks in Geneva, a senior U.S. official on Monday said there had been welcome progress toward a deal, while giving no specifics about its timeline.

The U.S. has been pushing for a freeze that would establish a period of time during which Iran would remain at least 12 months away from being able to fuel an atomic bomb—a so-called breakout period. Asked if Iran must accept that breakout period through the lifetime of an accord, the person signaled that may not be necessary.

“We have always said that we would have a one-year breakout time for a double-digit number of years and that remains the case,” the official said.

That suggests a period of as little as 10 years. When pressed, the official declined to elaborate.  Such a compromise could allow Iran to portray the major restrictions on its nuclear program at home as lasting only 10 years—an upper limit Iranian officials have mentioned before. Iran says its nuclear program is a purely civilian, peaceful one.  
It also could break the impasse over how many centrifuges—machines for enriching uranium—Tehran would be allowed under a deal. If Iran can expand its activities, it could start with fewer centrifuges and then be allowed to operate more over time.  The U.S. and its global partners could argue that Tehran’s activities will remain under significant international oversight and with some constraints for much longer.

U.S. lawmakers have said they’re going to closely scrutinize any agreement with Tehran and try to force a vote in Congress on it. A deal that allows Tehran to maintain a sizable capacity to enrich uranium, and to eventually be freed to pursue a broader nuclear program, is expected to face fierce opposition.  The Obama administration maintains that it doesn’t need congressional approval for the deal because it isn’t a treaty, although Congress would have to vote to lift some of the sanctions it has imposed on Iran over the years.

Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) said in an interview that a 10-year time frame wasn’t long enough to truly curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

“If you’re going to do all of this and then just end up with a 10-year agreement, you just really haven’t accomplished near what people had hoped,” said Mr. Corker, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Such a time frame would be “very concerning,” he added. “About the time they’re beginning to do what they should be doing, they’d be out from under the regime.”

The Israeli government has been a leading critic of the talks, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday warned were destined to end in a “dangerous” deal.
On Monday, Israeli Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz said Israel considers the negotiations “totally unsatisfactory” because it would allow Iran to be “extremely close” to a “dangerous breakout program.”  Referring to the latest suggested compromise, he said, “for a 10-year delay [in Iran’s nuclear program] you are sacrificing the future of Israel and the U.S., and the future of the world.”

Mr. Netanyahu will travel to Washington next week to make his case against the diplomacy. He is due to deliver a speech to Congress on March 3, at the same time U.S. and Iranian diplomats will be back in Europe seeking to advance work on a deal. The two sides are aiming to complete a framework deal by late March and have a full, detailed agreement by a June 30 deadline.

U.S. lawmakers have threatened to impose fresh sanctions on Iran if the March deadline is missed—a step that could scuttle the diplomacy.

The talks in Geneva were attended by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and, for the first time, by U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. They met Sunday evening and Monday with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and the head of Iran’s atomic agency Ali Akbar Salehi.

Both sides said the expansion of the negotiations to other top-level officials aimed at cutting through the remaining complex issues.

“These were very serious, useful and constructive discussions. We have made some progress though we still have a long way to go,” the senior U.S. official said.

Mr. Zarif was quoted by Iranian state media as saying: “We have made progress on some topics to some extent, but there is still a long way to go before reaching a final deal.”

Russia’s deputy foreign minister and chief Iran negotiator, Sergei Ryabkov, reflected a palpable sense of optimism around the decade long talks. “Confidence is growing a deal can be reached,” he said.

Iran negotiates over the future of its nuclear program with the U.S., France, the U.K., Germany, Russia and China.

Western officials said a phased structure could apply in other areas as well, such as when international sanctions on Iran will be lifted, or when Iran could resume nuclear research. Still, Western diplomats insisted that real differences remained.

The concerns about Iran’s research work are a threat to any agreement on the enrichment issue. If Tehran is able to develop far more powerful centrifuges, Iran would be able to produce enough nuclear material for a bomb in less than a year.  

“The U.S. has gone a long way” toward accepting Iran’s position, said David Albright, who heads the Institute for Science and International Security, a think tank that has advised Congress. “If they don’t address these issues in some way, then this deal isn’t doable.”

—Joshua Mitnick in Tel Aviv and Michael R. Crittenden in Washington contributed to this article.

Write to Laurence Norman at
Popular on WSJ


 on: February 24, 2015, 11:20:40 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
"As neither reason requires, nor religion permits the contrary, every man living in or out of a state of civil society, has a right peaceably and quietly to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience." --Samuel Adams, A State of the Rights of the Colonists, 1772

 on: February 24, 2015, 11:18:46 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog

 on: February 24, 2015, 01:04:26 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog

Also worth noting is that the FCC chairman is refusing to post the 150 pages of regulations that he is proposing (a four page summary only) for comment. When I was an attorney in Washington DC I had occasion to become familiarized with the Administrative Procedure Act. This would sure seem to me a violation; the APA was designed to meet the Constitutional questions that came with the development of bureaucracy, a fourth branch of government with both quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial qualities.

In other words, the requirement of Due Process is what is at stake here, This most recent manifestation of a certain type of lawlessness from Team Obama carries heavy consequences: It may well be that the aspiring omnipotent state is about to take yet another big step towards the reification of its dream of total control.

 on: February 24, 2015, 12:31:52 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
Good idea GM.  Let's do that:

Three Saudi Options
Posted: 23 Feb 2015 09:50 AM PST
Saudi Arabia sees ISIS as an existential threat.  It has a reason to be scared, ISIS is a Wahabi jihad with updated technologies (social media) and techniques (open development).   That means when push comes to shove, Saudi troops will either a) turn tail and run or b) join up in droves.  To avoid this, the Saudis might attempt something radical:
1.   Build a completely useless multi-billion dollar wall around the country. Oh wait, they are already doing that.
2.   Ramp support for al Qaeda.  Optimally, a big al Qaeda on a western target would force the US to fully engage ISIS, since ISIS is a physical target and al Qaeda isn't.  Was al Qaeda's attack on Charlie Hebdo (and the Jewish deli) a Saudi funded endeavor to start the process?
3.   Hire western mercenaries to push ISIS around.  Erik Prince has been trying to sell this option for years and is waiting in the wings to get it going.  A few billion spent this way might be sufficient to turn the tide on ISIS.

The Middle East doesn't Matter Anymore
Posted: 23 Feb 2015 09:15 AM PST
Back in 2003, the US was headed towards complete dependence on foreign oil.  Additionally, the demand for energy (particularly from China) was growing far faster than production, which meant an energy price spike was inevitable. 
Of course, this could be avoided if another big source of oil was found and exploited.  However, based on existing production technology, the only big fields left untapped were in Iraq, but due to sanctions (limiting production to 2m barrels a day, far less than the 8 m bpd projected to be possible).
The result was inevitable.  The US invaded Iraq to free up production (that's largely why the fields were secured in the first couple of days of the invasion), but it screwed up.  The national security "brain-trust"  didn't anticipate that the Iraqi guerrillas would disrupt this production so effectively (I covered this in detail on this blog and in my book).  The result?  Iraq produced less oil, for years after the invasion, than it did under sanctions.
That loss of production in combination with disruption caused by Nigerian guerrillas (who copied the success of the Iraqis), produced an energy crunch that drove the global economy into a massive recession.  Worse, this recession became a decade long depression due to the disruption caused by the banks and hedge funds we allow to hack the global financial system. 
One of the benefits of this oil crunch was that high prices spurred technological innovation that led to an upheaval in the US energy system over the last decade.  New technology has enabled US oil and natural gas production to boom. Not only that, this tech enables energy production to scale industrially -- that's a big change if you understand the implications. 
The most immediate benefit of a return to US energy autonomy has been lower natural gas, oil, and gasoline prices (autonomy that will only grow as solar zooms). However, there's other benefits that should be obvious too.  Since the US isn't dependent on Middle Eastern energy anymore, US national security policy will be decoupled from Middle Eastern conflicts.  Like it or not, this is inevitable. 
What does this mean?
   If the US does get involved in Middle East conflicts it's due to outdated policy and doctrine.
   Nobody in the West will do anything to stop the spread of ISIS (as a humanitarian crisis it rates well below Rwanda). 
   Saudi Arabia is going to get desperate to get the US to intervene.  It sees ISIS as an existential threat.  How will it do that?  I've got some ideas...

 on: February 23, 2015, 09:10:13 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ccp
This is getting weirder by the day.  Now he is being sued for discrimination by some Black organization for "looking the other way" when Time Warner and Comcast
allegedly discriminate against Black owned media.   It couldn't be their product doesn't sell.  It is of course because they are black owned.   Of course.  So let me try to get this straight.   We have a street thug shaking down companies to pay him off so he doesn't call them racists.  Yet he himself is a total goes around accusing anything that breathes and is white racist.   Then we have another Black group calling him a discriminator because he doesn't call the companies they claim are discriminating them as racist.

And I would assume because this group now suing him cannot be called racist (his usual offensive move) because they are black.  Are they hiring Black or Jewish lawyers.   cheesy

******Rev. Al Sharpton Being Sued $20 Billion in Racial Discrimination Lawsuit

By Robert Hoggard -
Feb 23, 2015
Allegedly, Rev. Al Sharpton, founder and president of National Action Network, is being sued $20 billion dollars by the National Association of African-American Owned Media, a California limited liability company; and Entertainment Studios Networks, Inc., a California corporation.

Mediate reports, “Comcast and Time Warner Cable were served with a lawsuit from a group of African-American media owners seeking $20 billion — yes, “billion,” with a “b” — for discriminatory practices, and alleges that Al Sharpton and his organizations received big money to look the other way.”

The Hollywood Reporter writes, “Even though the FCC hasn’t yet ruled on the proposed merger between Comcast and Time Warner Cable, one group has already filed a lawsuit claiming at least $20 billion in damages from the way the two giants allegedly discriminate against black-owned media.”

The Hollywood Reporter also reports that “Sharpton objects that the budget for National Action Network is not even $4 million, and as for his MSNBC show, he believes he has the most successful show in the 6 p.m. hour at MSNBC, that ‘the numbers speak for themselves.’ The lawsuit seems to count Sharpton’s reported $750,000 annual salary at MSNBC as part of the $3.8 million and leverages past criticism of the noted civil rights leader that’s rooted in him allegedly turning an eye and forgoing boycotts and protests on corporations upon receiving monetary contributions to the National Action Network.”

Sources tell The Buzz that perhaps Rev. Al plans to share with the press these looming accusations specifically. His show “Politics Nation” airs every evening at 6pm.

The 30 some page lawsuit against Rev. Al, Comcast/Time Warner, N.A.A.C.P, and others which is seeking a trial can be viewed here.*****

 on: February 23, 2015, 09:05:06 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog

The URL for Part Two can be found in Part One.

 on: February 23, 2015, 08:53:15 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ccp
"Well, she is right about one thing: Obama is anti-Semitic"

I agree but,

1)   That wouldn't have been why she would have been ousted.   She is incompetent.

2)   She is not really Jewish.   She is a Democrat.

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!