RE: Iran agrees to one-on-one negotiations on nuke program

RE: Iran agrees to one-on-one negotiations on nuke program (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Owner59 -> RE: Iran agrees to one-on-one negotiations on nuke program (10/21/2012 9:08:54 AM)
The issue isn`t the unruly kids..... It`s how the adults deal with them..... bush....did things that made EVERYTHING worse......the way a bad parent would.....with unruly kids.....making them act worse. EVERYTHING bush did, stregnthened the hand of the fundies in Iran. bush made them more friends and got them more international support and after desaster-Iraq,eliminated their main foe and made the Iranians the most powerful military in the region. The President,with the help and COOPERATION of our friends,has in deed isolated the Iranians and made them agree. No one`s claiming any progress.....but at least we`re not ramping up for war(as the simpletons would have us),which would strengthen Iran`s hand.

TheHeretic -> RE: Iran agrees to one-on-one negotiations on nuke program (10/21/2012 9:13:57 AM)
Surely, comrades, you don't wish for Jones to come back!

kdsub -> RE: Iran agrees to one-on-one negotiations on nuke program (10/21/2012 9:16:15 AM)
Here is another scenario… Iran’s goal is to dominate Mideast politics both militarily and diplomatically. They plan to accomplish this by obtaining a nuclear capability. What stands in their way?…. Israel and the United States Two powerful enemies that have the ability one way or another of destroying this capability. What are they afraid of now?…. They are afraid that if Romney is elected the US will give Israel the OK to move on Iran…and they are not ready. What can they Do?… They can try to influence the US election and keep Obama in office because he has proven he will not give Israel the green light against them. At the same time negotiations with Obama’s administration will give them more time to develop their nuclear capability. Otherwise two birds with one stone. Let me say they may also be feeling citizen unrest over their economic situation and feel now is the time to negotiate with the US. The only problem with this is there is no benefit to Iran to do this. They can only get assurances that the US and Israel will not attack them. This puts them right back where they started after their economy is destroyed and they’ve spent billions on a failed program...Makes no sense to me. Butch

Owner59 -> RE: Iran agrees to one-on-one negotiations on nuke program (10/21/2012 9:16:27 AM)
Surely better than wishing for Gaddafi to come back..... [8\|]

Owner59 -> RE: Iran agrees to one-on-one negotiations on nuke program (10/21/2012 9:37:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Here is another scenario… Iran’s goal is to dominate Mideast politics both militarily and diplomatically. They plan to accomplish this by obtaining a nuclear capability. What stands in their way?…. Israel and the United States Two powerful enemies that have the ability one way or another of destroying this capability. What are they afraid of now?…. They are afraid that if Romney is elected the US will give Israel the OK to move on Iran…and they are not ready. What can they Do?… They can try to influence the US election and keep Obama in office because he has proven he will not give Israel the green light against them. At the same time negotiations with Obama’s administration will give them more time to develop their nuclear capability. Otherwise two birds with one stone. Let me say they may also be feeling citizen unrest over their economic situation and feel now is the time to negotiate with the US. The only problem with this is there is no benefit to Iran to do this. They can only get assurances that the US and Israel will not attack them. This puts them right back where they started after their economy is destroyed and they’ve spent billions on a failed program...Makes no sense to me. Butch Quite a few untrue assumptions there, Butch. The biggest and most dangerous.....apocalyptically dangerous of which......is that we or anyone can "destroy" Iran`s capability to make a usable nuke,anymore than we can/could with the soviets. The only way is through peaceful means.That doesn`t mean wash their feet(like the cons did with gaddaffi) and be nice. Destroying their economy and fucking up their money is not very nice or friendly. But it is affective. This is another big win for the President and his new ME approach. Something for which the cons are ~trying~ to bash him for and reverse."Back" to what,they won`t say. Their(and Mitt`s) criticisms aren`t specific or coherent, so they remain general and cryptic. Mitt`s gonna have his hands full on Monday. He got caught lying about and and abusing the Libya attack twice now,live on national TV.

kdsub -> RE: Iran agrees to one-on-one negotiations on nuke program (10/21/2012 9:55:38 AM)
quote: The biggest and most dangerous.....apocalyptically dangerous of which......is that we or anyone can "destroy" Iran`s capability to make a usable nuke,anymore than we can/could with the soviets. I'm afraid we will have to disagree. There is no doubt we can destroy their capability...it is only if we have the will... It will mean more dead American Boys and Girls but it is silly to think we do not have the ability to disarm them if we choose that route. quote: The only way is through peaceful means.That doesn`t mean wash their feet(like the cons did with gaddaffi) and be nice. Please tell me...has this ever happened before in negotiations with any Arab country? What makes you think it will work here? quote: Destroying their economy and fucking up their money is not very nice or friendly. But it is affective I agree and they have let it go too long now to suddenly say ...YOU WIN. Remember we are dealing with a theocracy where the leaders think losing face is an insult to God. Butch

Anaxagoras -> RE: Iran agrees to one-on-one negotiations on nuke program (10/21/2012 10:46:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras Owner, I was only pointing out that things aren't as fine between Bibi and Obama as you seemed to be suggesting. BTW I don't think Bibi openly criticised Obama for not meeting with him but if I'm wrong do you have a source for that? Show me where I ever suggested that? If your talking about Bibi... quote: "thanking Obama for refusing to meet him" That`s Bibi`s bullshit story. FYI....even Bibi doesn`t demand meetings with the POTUS. But yeah you're right that Bibi did thank the Obama administration for helping pressure the Egyptian government to stop the protestors sacking the Israeli Embassy in Egypt.

Owner59 -> RE: Iran agrees to one-on-one negotiations on nuke program (10/21/2012 11:13:00 AM)
No....the embassy was sacked. What the President`s phone call to our contacts in the Egyptian army did, was to rescue a handful of very brave and selfless Mossad agents, who oversaw and protected the evacuation by staying behind. And calling Bibi on trying to game our election is quite fair. His timing is dubious.

Anaxagoras -> RE: Iran agrees to one-on-one negotiations on nuke program (10/21/2012 11:22:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 And calling Bibi on trying to game our election is quite fair. His timing is dubious. No offense intended but what you are saying doesn't make complete sense. Either Bibi was grateful to Obama regarding "the war on terror" etc., or he is trying to upstage the US elections in favour of Romney. I also asked you where Bibi openly criticised Obama for not meeting him because you drew upon a quote suggesting that he did. Is there a source?

TheHeretic -> RE: Iran agrees to one-on-one negotiations on nuke program (10/21/2012 11:25:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 His timing is dubious.

Owner59 -> RE: Iran agrees to one-on-one negotiations on nuke program (10/21/2012 11:48:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 And calling Bibi on trying to game our election is quite fair. His timing is dubious. No offense intended but what you are saying doesn't make complete sense. Either Bibi was grateful to Obama regarding "the war on terror" etc., or he is trying to upstage the US elections in favour of Romney. I also asked you where Bibi openly criticised Obama for not meeting him because you drew upon a quote suggesting that he did. Is there a source? It`s complicated.....[:D] And it was Bibi`s sock-pupet...Mitt Romney and his ilk who were saying the President dissed Bibi....

spanknstrap -> RE: Iran agrees to one-on-one negotiations on nuke program (10/21/2012 11:53:01 AM)
It's probably more about Israel's next move.

Owner59 -> RE: Iran agrees to one-on-one negotiations on nuke program (10/21/2012 11:56:33 AM)
I have no doubt the President is playing good cop bad cop with them......[:D]

Anaxagoras -> RE: Iran agrees to one-on-one negotiations on nuke program (10/21/2012 12:20:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 And calling Bibi on trying to game our election is quite fair. His timing is dubious. No offense intended but what you are saying doesn't make complete sense. Either Bibi was grateful to Obama regarding "the war on terror" etc., or he is trying to upstage the US elections in favour of Romney. I also asked you where Bibi openly criticised Obama for not meeting him because you drew upon a quote suggesting that he did. Is there a source? It`s complicated.....[:D] And it was Bibi`s sock-pupet...Mitt Romney and his ilk who were saying the President dissed Bibi.... Well if you mean by complicated that it is strange then I would agree because one minute you diss Bibi (fair enough - not an uncommon view), next you cite him praising Obama presumably to big Obama up, then you say Romney is Bibi's sock-puppet so Bibi should be blamed for Romney's criticisms of Obama as if they came out of his mouth! Um... [8\|]

TheHeretic -> RE: Iran agrees to one-on-one negotiations on nuke program (10/21/2012 12:41:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras Well if you mean by complicated that it is strange then I would agree because one minute you diss Bibi (fair enough - not an uncommon view), next you cite him praising Obama presumably to big Obama up, then you say Romney is Bibi's sock-puppet so Bibi should be blamed for Romney's criticisms of Obama as if they came out of his mouth! Um... [8\|] Obamaheimers? [:D]

Owner59 -> RE: Iran agrees to one-on-one negotiations on nuke program (10/21/2012 1:05:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras Well if you mean by complicated that it is strange then I would agree because one minute you diss Bibi (fair enough - not an uncommon view), next you cite him praising Obama presumably to big Obama up, then you say Romney is Bibi's sock-puppet so Bibi should be blamed for Romney's criticisms of Obama as if they came out of his mouth! Um... [8\|] Obamaheimers? [:D] Well, Anaxagoras... Bibi would like to get back to the prior arrangement where we gave them scads of money while letting them tell us what our ME policy was going to be. Mitt literally promised such an arrangement again should he be elected during the charm offensive . Obama is using his influence to push the Israelis to make peace.Something bush wasn`t sincere about and from what he said in the now infamous 47% video,something Mitt has promised he won`t pursue. This is the main bone of contention between the two leaders. Can you imagine a well funded but malignant group of bad faith actors, meddling and exacerbating the civil war in Northern Ireland...hoping to prolong it and game it for their own advantage? That`s what our republicans are, in regard to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

mnottertail -> RE: Iran agrees to one-on-one negotiations on nuke program (10/21/2012 2:23:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow ..."The catch: they won't sit down until after the election is over..." I think this is the key. Hope and Change president is creating an illusion of being "flexible" before the next Dog and Pony show ("sometimes mistakenly referred as the debate"). Yah, jerk off material is about it. They are waiting till after the elections so they know who they are going to be negotiating with. They might get arms if a teabagger is elected, like they did from St. Wrinklemeat. If a democrat is reelected, then they might have a chance at easing of the blockade thingie. Treaties (and this would be a treaty, are Executive branch, with advise and consent of the Senate.) Why change dicks in the middle of a screw? vote for nixon in '72.

Anaxagoras -> RE: Iran agrees to one-on-one negotiations on nuke program (10/21/2012 4:37:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Well, Anaxagoras... Bibi would like to get back to the prior arrangement where we gave them scads of money while letting them tell us what our ME policy was going to be. Mitt literally promised such an arrangement again should he be elected during the charm offensive . Obama is using his influence to push the Israelis to make peace.Something bush wasn`t sincere about and from what he said in the now infamous 47% video,something Mitt has promised he won`t pursue. This is the main bone of contention between the two leaders. Can you imagine a well funded but malignant group of bad faith actors, meddling and exacerbating the civil war in Northern Ireland...hoping to prolong it and game it for their own advantage? That`s what our republicans are, in regard to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Indeed you should be concerned about meddling in your own affairs but I don't think it is as one-sided as you think. For example, Bush forced Israel to accept Hamas standing for election back in 2005. He forced Israel to stop a very lucrative high technology deal with China, and also pressed them to stop the 2006 Lebanon war before Hizbullah were routed.

Politesub53 -> RE: Iran agrees to one-on-one negotiations on nuke program (10/21/2012 4:51:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 They don't need U238 because we all know a dirty bomb is harmless, right Owner[;)] If Obama believes Iran holding on their nuke program is legit, he's as foolish as Clinton was believing the North Koreans. EVERYBODY knows this is just a farce to give the appearance of a win for the Obama camp 16 days before the election. No Rob, not everybody, just you Republicans. Iran has probably decided to do a deal with Obama as they are not keen on Mitt..... << Yep, thats sarcasm, and lots of it.

Owner59 -> RE: Iran agrees to one-on-one negotiations on nuke program (10/21/2012 5:15:16 PM)
A "dirty bomb" is no more affective than the explosive it`s used with and depends a lot of luck to be affective .....like no wind,precise location and folks breathing in the particles. Every Israeli has a gas mask.Short of that,a dirty bomb is NOT a WMD, any more than a rocket shell is. It`s nuclear devises were talking about and we shouldn`t allow the frightened simpletons to distract from that fact . Nukes don`t require precise placement,don`t give a fuck which way the wind blows and vaporize everything for square miles...... That....is what weapon of mass destruction means......mass destruction.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875