RE: Deal reached with Iran (Full Version)

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



Message


Kirata -> RE: Deal reached with Iran (4/3/2015 12:05:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

So you prefer capitulation to negotiation, even though it's pretty clear that after all theses years of sanctions, no capitulation is going to occur.

Don't you ever get tired of telling people that what they said means something they didn't say?

K.





Aylee -> RE: Deal reached with Iran (4/3/2015 12:29:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The headline from the rightwing slobbering blog does not match the article, nor is it correct in any sense, the issue has never been that they must stop enriching uranium, they will continue to enrich uranium, there is no problem with that. They need it for their nuke plants.



Except it would be cheaper to purchase it from Russia or France.




DaddySatyr -> RE: Deal reached with Iran (4/3/2015 12:35:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


Don't you ever get tired of telling people that what they said means something they didn't say?

K.





Is there another way to properly straw-man an argument?



Michael




mnottertail -> RE: Deal reached with Iran (4/3/2015 12:38:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The headline from the rightwing slobbering blog does not match the article, nor is it correct in any sense, the issue has never been that they must stop enriching uranium, they will continue to enrich uranium, there is no problem with that. They need it for their nuke plants.



Except it would be cheaper to purchase it from Russia or France.


Yeah, it would be for us too. But we aint gonna do that. It might surprise you to know we don't want them getting to much into trading dangerous shit with Russia, (and for that matter France) where we know those guys are a little more than iffy for honesty, and where we may not have any control over it whatsoever. Our ally France has always been a little iffy.




Aylee -> RE: Deal reached with Iran (4/3/2015 1:03:21 PM)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/iranian-defector-us-negotiating-team-mainly-there-speak-iran-s-behalf_901776.html

Snip:

An Iranian journalist writing about the nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran has defected. In an interview Amir Hossein Motaghi, has some harsh words for his native Iran. He also has a damning indictment of America's role in the nuclear negotiations.

"The U.S. negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran's behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal," Motaghi told a TV station after just defecting from the Iranian delegation while abroad for the nuclear talks. The P 5 + 1 is made up of United States, United Kingdom, Russia, China, France, plus Germany.

End Snip. More at link above


Well there's the problem with our state department. They lie for other countries.

Diplomacy: The patriotic act of lying for one's country.




mnottertail -> RE: Deal reached with Iran (4/3/2015 1:16:36 PM)

Ja, whatever he said, cuz as a journalist, he's right there in the middle of the fray. Bet he knows what goes on in the NSA meetings, hes the note taker.

So, some opinion from some opinionista.



But ja, I though i read on some rightwing blog where those 5+ wanted us to send troops into Iran to clean this up while they were vacationing.





MercTech -> RE: Deal reached with Iran (4/3/2015 2:07:42 PM)

If my memory is right; it was before the fall of the Shah that the U.S. was training Iranians to be able to build and use modern weapons tech.
Carter lost to Reagan mainly over his handling of the crisis with Iran after the Khomeini regime took over.

I remember Iranian jet jockeys training in Pensacola. The female instructor in flight school had to have a Marine sergeant repeat everything she said before the Iranian students would take notes.
The Iranians were not allowed in the base club as they were forbidden alcohol. And the American trainees found it irritating the Iranian trainees got to use hashish in their barracks (it was officially ignored). Base security told to ignore any smells coming out of the Iranian student barracks. So many regulations ignored.




Lucylastic -> RE: Deal reached with Iran (4/3/2015 3:20:00 PM)

Humorous article about Obamas speech regarding the possible Iran deal and what he really wanted to say via" angry translator":)

Obama, Iran, and the unseen anger translator

By Steve Benen
For those hoping to see international diplomacy succeed, President Obama’s remarks yesterday at the White House were a welcome development – preliminary agreement is now in place to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

But listening to Obama’s address, it seemed if there was a text and a subtext. There’s the message we heard, coupled with the message lurking just below the surface.

The sketch comedy show “Key & Peele” has an amazing recurring bit in which Americans hear from Obama, played by Jordan Peele, and his “Anger Translator” Luther, played by Keegan Michael Key. The idea is simple: the president will state a simple truth, which Luther will then repeat in an aggressive, confrontational, no-holds-barred sort of way. (Here’s a sample.)

And while the president’s pitch yesterday was quite compelling, I also found myself looking for Luther, telling us what the president wishes he could have said.

There’s what Obama said ….
“Today, the United States – together with our allies and partners – has reached a historic understanding with Iran, which, if fully implemented, will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
… and there’s what Obama probably wanted to say:
“All of those folks who say they don’t want Iran to have nukes? They haven’t done anything. I did. You’re welcome.”
There’s what Obama said ….
“This has been a long time coming. The Islamic Republic of Iran has been advancing its nuclear program for decades.”
… and there’s what Obama probably wanted to say:
“I’m referring of course to all of those other presidents who were here before me. You know, those folks talked a lot without acting.”
There’s what Obama said ….
“By the time I took office, Iran was operating thousands of centrifuges, which can produce the materials for a nuclear bomb – and Iran was concealing a covert nuclear facility.”
… and there’s what Obama probably wanted to say:
“Let’s all pause to thank the Bush/Cheney administration. When we’re making a list of the messes I had to clean up, this one ranks pretty high.”
There’s what Obama said ….
“I made clear that we were prepared to resolve this issue diplomatically, but only if Iran came to the table in a serious way. When that did not happen, we rallied the world to impose the toughest sanctions in history – sanctions which had a profound impact on the Iranian economy.”
… and there’s what Obama probably wanted to say:
“I’m the one who got Iran to the table. I’m the one who imposed the toughest sanctions ever. I’m the one who brought Iran’s economy to its knees. Again, you’re welcome.”
There’s what Obama said ….
“Because of our diplomatic efforts, the world stood with us and we were joined at the negotiating table by the world’s major powers – the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China, as well as the European Union.”
… and there’s what Obama probably wanted to say:
“All that ‘leader of the free world’ stuff isn’t just rhetoric. We stepped up, the world followed, and unlike my critics, we defied the odds and got something historic done.”
There’s what Obama said ….
“Over a year ago, we took the first step towards today’s framework with a deal to stop the progress of Iran’s nuclear program and roll it back in key areas. And recall that at the time, skeptics argued that Iran would cheat, and that we could not verify their compliance and the interim agreement would fail.”
… and there’s what Obama probably wanted to say:
“I wonder, are Republicans ever right? I mean, really, ever? About anything? I’m starting to feel a little sorry for them.”
There’s what Obama said ….
“Instead, it has succeeded exactly as intended. Iran has met all of its obligations. It eliminated its stockpile of dangerous nuclear material. Inspections of Iran’s program increased.”
… and there’s what Obama probably wanted to say:
“Because I’m gracious, I’ll accept your apology.”
There’s what Obama said ….
“This deal is not based on trust; it’s based on unprecedented verification.”
… and there’s what Obama probably wanted to say:
“Remember the whole ‘trust but verify’ line Reagan borrowed from the Russians? This isn’t that – it’s tougher than that.”
There’s what Obama said ….
“If Congress kills this deal – not based on expert analysis, and without offering any reasonable alternative – then it’s the United States that will be blamed for the failure of diplomacy. International unity will collapse, and the path to conflict will widen.”
… and there’s what Obama probably wanted to say:
“All that talk about how concerned you are about America’s capacity to lead on the global stage? It’s put-up-or-shut-up time.”
There’s what Obama said ….
“The American people understand this, which is why solid majorities support a diplomatic resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue.”
… and there’s what Obama probably wanted to say:
“Hey, Republicans, you keep saying the public is on your side. That’s true, if by ‘your side’ you mean ‘my side.’”
There’s what Obama said ….
“We have an historic opportunity to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in Iran, and to do so peacefully, with the international community firmly behind us. We should seize that chance.”
… and there’s what Obama probably wanted to say:
“Let’s hope those who are always wrong don’t screw up this once-in-a-generation opportunity.”




tweakabelle -> RE: Deal reached with Iran (4/4/2015 4:57:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

So you prefer capitulation to negotiation, even though it's pretty clear that after all theses years of sanctions, no capitulation is going to occur.

Don't you ever get tired of telling people that what they said means something they didn't say?

K.



You were asked a straightforward question - are you in favour of the negotiations continuing? Your answer, or more accurately your non-answer dodged the question and instead treated us to some waffling about the alleged errors of "putting candy on the table".

As you declined to answer the question directly and state your position, it is left to the reader to infer your position. It is self evident that almost all negotiation involves putting 'candy' of one sort or another on the table, From one perspective it could be said that negotiations are all about how the 'candy' on the table can be shared by the participants. It would follow that no candy = no negotiations.

In the context of the Lausanne negotiations, declining to put something worthwhile on the negotiating table means forcing the Iranians to negotiate while offering nothing in return, a position that any one who has followed this issue would describe as unrealistic to the point of foolhardy. Sanctions have been in place for years without producing any change in Iranian behaviour. A failure to put 'candy' on the table ie to offer the Iranians something worthwhile in return for concessions is essentially demanding that the Iranians capitulate, something that they are obviously not going to do.

It would be nice if you answered questions directly and stated your position clearly - that way it wouldn't be left to others to divine your meaning and you wouldn't run the risk of having your position misinterpreted (if in fact you have a position - that your position mounts to something more substantial than a succession of empty negative noises about anything a black Democrat President might do). OTOH if you don't have a position worth communicating you might consider the advantages of remaining silent and letting people merely suspect you are a fool instead of proving the matter.




Kirata -> RE: Deal reached with Iran (4/4/2015 5:57:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

You were asked a straightforward question - are you in favour of the negotiations continuing? Your answer, or more accurately your non-answer dodged the question and instead treated us to some waffling about the alleged errors of "putting candy on the table".

On, I'm terribly sorry. Did I violate one of your rules by not having a firm opinion? I didn't realize it was required. If you would be kind enough to re-send that memo, I'll certainly give it the consideration it deserves.

K.






Kirata -> RE: Deal reached with Iran (4/4/2015 3:40:04 PM)



Translated version of Iran deal doesnt say what Obama claims it does
http://nypost.com/2015/04/04/translated-version-of-iran-deal-doesnt-say-what-obama-claims-it-does/

“Iran Agrees to Detailed Nuclear Outline,” The New York Times headline claimed on Friday. That found an echo in the Washington Post headline of the same day: “Iran agrees to nuclear restrictions in framework deal with world powers.” But the first thing to know about the highly hyped “historic achievement” that President Obama is trying to sell is that there has been no agreement on any of the fundamental issues that led to international concern about Iran’s secret nuclear activities and led to six mandatory resolutions by the United Nations Security Council and 13 years of diplomatic seesaw. All we have is a number of contradictory statements by various participants in the latest round of talks in Switzerland, which together amount to a diplomatic dog’s dinner.


Not encouraging.

K.





Politesub53 -> RE: Deal reached with Iran (4/4/2015 5:23:33 PM)

So the US and Iran have put out different statements to try and sell the deal back home. That doesnt mean the deal agreed by Iran isnt the same as the one the US agreed to. Not unless you had a copy yourself from the Ayatollah. [8|]

From your link The Iranian text opens by insisting that it has absolutely no “legal aspect” and is intended only as “a guideline for drafting future accords.”

Which was something I pointed out yesterday........ Ooopssss, I almost forgot to call you bozo.




Aylee -> RE: Deal reached with Iran (4/4/2015 5:26:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

So the US and Iran have put out different statements to try and sell the deal back home. That doesnt mean the deal agreed by Iran isnt the same as the one the US agreed to. Not unless you had a copy yourself from the Ayatollah. [8|]

From your link The Iranian text opens by insisting that it has absolutely no “legal aspect” and is intended only as “a guideline for drafting future accords.”

Which was something I pointed out yesterday........ Ooopssss, I almost forgot to call you bozo.


So. . . no deal has really been reached? It is more of a "maybe we will make a deal"?




Kirata -> RE: Deal reached with Iran (4/4/2015 5:27:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Ooopssss, I almost forgot to call you bozo.

Maybe time for a nap. You've been putting a lot of stress on that poor lone brain cell. [:)]

K.





Politesub53 -> RE: Deal reached with Iran (4/4/2015 5:32:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Ooopssss, I almost forgot to call you bozo.

Maybe time for a nap. You've been putting a lot of stress on that poor lone brain cell. [:)]

K.




It isnt me who thinks what was reached was a final day...... It was just a broad agreement, fuck knows how that is too hard for you to understand, but fail to understand it you surely do. Give me a call if you want to borrow my one brain cell to help you keep up.




Kirata -> RE: Deal reached with Iran (4/4/2015 6:35:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

It isnt me who thinks what was reached was a final day...... It was just a broad agreement, fuck knows how that is too hard for you to understand, but fail to understand it you surely do. Give me a call if you want to borrow my one brain cell to help you keep up.

You're making shit up again.

K.





Politesub53 -> RE: Deal reached with Iran (4/5/2015 5:04:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

So the US and Iran have put out different statements to try and sell the deal back home. That doesnt mean the deal agreed by Iran isnt the same as the one the US agreed to. Not unless you had a copy yourself from the Ayatollah. [8|]

From your link The Iranian text opens by insisting that it has absolutely no “legal aspect” and is intended only as “a guideline for drafting future accords.”

Which was something I pointed out yesterday........ Ooopssss, I almost forgot to call you bozo.


So. . . no deal has really been reached? It is more of a "maybe we will make a deal"?


No, read my post again...........And again and again and again. The deal has been reached the legal jargon will be complete for signatures by the end of June.




Politesub53 -> RE: Deal reached with Iran (4/5/2015 5:11:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

It isnt me who thinks what was reached was a final day...... It was just a broad agreement, fuck knows how that is too hard for you to understand, but fail to understand it you surely do. Give me a call if you want to borrow my one brain cell to help you keep up.

You're making shit up again.

K.




Ron already dealt with this. Sadly for you some of us can see through the bullshit you post.




tweakabelle -> RE: Deal reached with Iran (4/5/2015 7:41:35 AM)

Its OK polite, this is all par for the course.

Someone somewhere takes a step towards a peaceful resolution of outstanding issues and the US Right goes apoplectic. They don't really know what they are for, nor for the most part what they oppose but anything that might lead to peaceful better international relations (thereby diminishing the chances of them bombing some small country somewhere back to the Stone Age) has to be opposed hook line and sinker.....

....and then they wonder why people describe them as warmongers!




cloudboy -> RE: Deal reached with Iran (4/5/2015 7:53:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Its OK polite, this is all par for the course.

Someone somewhere takes a step towards a peaceful resolution of outstanding issues and the US Right goes apoplectic. They don't really know what they are for, nor for the most part what they oppose but anything that might lead to peaceful better international relations (thereby diminishing the chances of them bombing some small country somewhere back to the Stone Age) has to be opposed hook line and sinker.....

....and then they wonder why people describe them as warmongers!


It has now become a right-wing staple in the US to give Israel unconditional, unwavering support. This somehow dovetails with the need to both demonize a particular nation (IRAN) and the beliefs of the Christian Right. Oddly in the background is how IRAN is the only true fighting force on the ground capable of taking it to ISIS. Further in the background was how right wingers thought the IRAQ war would help improve the politics and stability of the Middle East. How did that turn out?




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625