Iran Nuclear Deal: Tehran, World Powers Agree to Historic Pact

  • metta

    Posts: 39090

    Jul 14, 2015 7:24 AM GMT
    Iran Nuclear Deal: Tehran, World Powers Agree to Historic Pact



    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iran-nuclear-talks/iran-nuclear-deal-n390461?cid=sm_fc
  • metta

    Posts: 39090

    Jul 14, 2015 4:26 PM GMT



    https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/iran-deal
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2015 4:34 PM GMT
    This "deal" is about as abject a surrender as Munich was in 1938. Here's LCR's take on this latest cave-in:

    This morning, the Obama administration announced it had reached a nuclear deal with Iran that reportedly includes immediate lifting of sanctions, ends the ban on weapons sales to Tehran, limited facility inspections, and allows Iran to dramatically expand its military.

    "Log Cabin Republicans has long held the position that any deal with Iran that does not include consideration of human rights abuses against women, religious minorities, and gays is a bad deal. This is a bad deal,” Log Cabin Republicans National Executive Director Gregory T. Angelo stated. “Secretary Kerry has achieved nothing more than the most modest of concessions, while Iran will continue to kill gay people and people merely suspected of being gay, all the while moving ever-closer to nuclear weaponization. Log Cabin Republicans shares the grave concerns about this deal expressed by our allies in Congress, and will continue to stand in solidarity with our gay brethren in Iran and Israel — even if the Obama Administration will not.”


    Can't wait to hear what HRC and the other gay Democrat sycophants have to say about this one. Is it even on their gaydar?
  • metta

    Posts: 39090

    Jul 15, 2015 1:26 AM GMT
    Opinions About The Iran Deal Are More About Obama Than Iran

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/opinions-about-the-iran-deal-are-more-about-obama-than-iran/?ex_cid=538fb
  • metta

    Posts: 39090

    Jul 15, 2015 1:38 AM GMT
    $2 gas likely to return after Iran nuclear deal


    http://myfox8.com/2015/07/14/2-gas-likely-to-return-after-iran-nuclear-deal/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2015 5:17 AM GMT
    Republican Lawmakers Vow Fight to Derail Nuclear Deal



    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/congress-iran-nuclear-deal.html?_r=0
  • metta

    Posts: 39090

    Jul 15, 2015 2:31 PM GMT
    ^
    No surprise there....they want war...I'm sure that money from Sheldon Adelson and the defense industry is pushing them as well.






    "The agreement marks a moment of success for the affirmation of steady diplomacy, the international rule of law, mutual respect, simultaneous political concessions and the shunning of hysteria from regional parties."

    "Israel and Saudi Arabia tried hard but failed to derail or significantly change the Iran negotiations, making this an important marker for future diplomacy in the Middle East."

    "This break in that pattern allows Washington to pursue a wider range of policies that are less shaped by Israeli and Saudi concerns and that better serve the interests of the U.S. as well as the peoples of the region. The Middle East and the rest of the world can only celebrate if the U.S. stops blindly submitting to the exaggerated fears and extremist policies of two ideologies — Israeli expansionist Zionism and Saudi Arabian hard-line Wahhabism — that have been directly involved in some of the region’s most troubling legacies for the past half-century."



    http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/7/the-iran-agreement-marks-a-new-era-for-the-middle-east.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2015 7:32 PM GMT
    metta8 said^
    No surprise there....they want war...I'm sure that money from Sheldon Adelson and the defense industry is pushing them as well.


    That is patently absurd. And, a check of gasbuddy.com shows that CA gas prices are rising after hitting recent lows a few weeks ago.

    [Remainder of blathering happy talk deleted.]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2015 7:37 PM GMT
    metta8 saidOpinions About The Iran Deal Are More About Obama Than Iran

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/opinions-about-the-iran-deal-are-more-about-obama-than-iran/?ex_cid=538fb


    And why not? "It's all about me" from Obama's perspective, so why shouldn't the criticism be equally focused? This poseur is nothing more than a personality cult personified. OTOH, it IS possible to criticize the programs and ideas someone stands for w/o criticizing the man, but in this case, lacking any real positive substance and refusing to take personal responsibility as Obama does, both approaches are in order.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2015 8:15 PM GMT
    MGINSD said
    And why not? "It's all about me" from Obama's perspective, so why shouldn't the criticism be equally focused? This poseur is nothing more than a personality cult personified.


    That's pretty rich, given the Right are still worshiping at the altar of Ronald Reagan, who (with the possible exception of JFK) is the nearest thing to a personality cult the US presidency has seen in the last 70 years.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2015 9:08 PM GMT
    metta8 said^
    No surprise there....they want war...I'm sure that money from Sheldon Adelson and the defense industry is pushing them as well.
    If you believed someone who said before that an acceptable deal required access to all sites with a minimum of notice, but now says it doesn't matter, you have to ask yourself - Doesn't that validate what others said, namely, they wanted a deal, even a bad deal, at all costs? And didn't telegraphing that so obviously greatly weaken their negotiating position?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2015 1:55 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    metta8 said^
    No surprise there....they want war...I'm sure that money from Sheldon Adelson and the defense industry is pushing them as well.
    If you believed someone who said before that an acceptable deal required access to all sites with a minimum of notice, but now says it doesn't matter, you have to ask yourself - Doesn't that validate what others said, namely, they wanted a deal, even a bad deal, at all costs? And didn't telegraphing that so obviously greatly weaken their negotiating position?

    For those who are championing the deal, metta8 in particular, is my question too difficult or painful to answer?
  • metta

    Posts: 39090

    Jul 16, 2015 2:08 AM GMT
    I have not read the actual deal. But I want this country to do what we can to minimize the risk of needing to go into another war. IMO, War should only be used as a last resort. There are very powerful people in this country that are pushing for the US to go to war with Iran. And from what I have read about the deal so far, I think that this deal with Iran is a good start. We will get no where treating them like savages, or people that are less than us. Of course, it would have been great to get more human rights protections in there but hopefully more can be done in that area in the near future.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=192&v=OLhV3JRWKUM

    Deserves to be repeated: icon_smile.gif

    "The agreement marks a moment of success for the affirmation of steady diplomacy, the international rule of law, mutual respect, simultaneous political concessions and the shunning of hysteria from regional parties."

    "Israel and Saudi Arabia tried hard but failed to derail or significantly change the Iran negotiations, making this an important marker for future diplomacy in the Middle East."

    "This break in that pattern allows Washington to pursue a wider range of policies that are less shaped by Israeli and Saudi concerns and that better serve the interests of the U.S. as well as the peoples of the region. The Middle East and the rest of the world can only celebrate if the U.S. stops blindly submitting to the exaggerated fears and extremist policies of two ideologies — Israeli expansionist Zionism and Saudi Arabian hard-line Wahhabism — that have been directly involved in some of the region’s most troubling legacies for the past half-century."


    http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/7/the-iran-agreement-marks-a-new-era-for-the-middle-east.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2015 2:19 AM GMT
    metta8 saidI have not read the actual deal. But I want this country to do what we can to minimize the risk of needing to go into another war. IMO, War should only be used as a last resort. There are very powerful people in this country that are pushing for the US to go to war with Iran. And from what I have read about the deal so far, I think that this deal with Iran is a good start. We will get no where treating them like savages, or people that are less than us....

    I am pointing out a serious problem or inconsistency with people saying unfettered access to all locations, including military locations, was an absolute requirement. Now these people do not consider it a requirement.

    Even if you did read the entire deal, what I said is summarized on several sites. But you are not willing to say negative things about the deal or raise concerns because you did not read it, but you are willing to say positive things about the deal, even though you did not read it.

    Inconsistency? Possibly hypocrisy?

    By the way, some have said this will lead to a nuclear arms race in the mid-east, leading to increased destabilization and a greater potential for war. This assessment goes squarely against your goal of minimizing the risk of war. Whether you agree or not, the assessments are serious and the whole issue deserves serious reflection instead of one-sided cheer leading, especially when you say you have not read the deal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2015 4:55 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    socalfitness saidBut you are not willing to say negative things about the deal or raise concerns because you did not read it, but you are willing to say positive things about the deal, even though you did not read it.

    Inconsistency? Possibly hypocrisy?


    And you're surprised?

    metta8 did respond before, and I try to keep my comments civil to encourage discussion. The question stands about rote, automatic cheerleading versus a serious discussion per the points I raised above.
  • metta

    Posts: 39090

    Jul 16, 2015 5:51 AM GMT
    "Inspectors will be able to access any suspicious location. Put simply, the organization responsible for the inspections, the IAEA, will have access where necessary, when necessary. That arrangement is permanent." - President Obama


    At 3:45min.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=192&v=OLhV3JRWKUM
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2015 12:36 PM GMT
    metta8 said"Inspectors will be able to access any suspicious location. Put simply, the organization responsible for the inspections, the IAEA, will have access where necessary, when necessary. That arrangement is permanent." - President Obama


    At 3:45min.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=192&v=OLhV3JRWKUM

    That's not true. Inspectors will have to ask and the Iranians are free to refuse. Then there is a disposition process that the Iranians are part of. The process can be drawn out for a period of time, so even if Iran ultimately agrees, they will have time to prepare for any inspections.

    I guess if you are still going to take at face value what he says after all this time, I can't say much.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2015 12:53 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    metta8 said"Inspectors will be able to access any suspicious location. Put simply, the organization responsible for the inspections, the IAEA, will have access where necessary, when necessary. That arrangement is permanent." - President Obama


    At 3:45min.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=192&v=OLhV3JRWKUM

    That's not true. Inspectors will have to ask and the Iranians are free to refuse. Then there is a disposition process that the Iranians are part of. The process can be drawn out for a period of time, so even if Iran ultimately agrees, they will have time to prepare for any inspections.

    I guess if you are still going to take at face value what he says after all this time, I can't say much.


    ^^^^^

    Yeah, that's the problem. It sure sounds good

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=192&v=OLhV3JRWKUM

    but it's a bit difficult to believe this president given what's transpired over the last six years
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2015 3:44 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    socalfitness said
    metta8 said"Inspectors will be able to access any suspicious location. Put simply, the organization responsible for the inspections, the IAEA, will have access where necessary, when necessary. That arrangement is permanent." - President Obama


    At 3:45min.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=192&v=OLhV3JRWKUM

    That's not true. Inspectors will have to ask and the Iranians are free to refuse. Then there is a disposition process that the Iranians are part of. The process can be drawn out for a period of time, so even if Iran ultimately agrees, they will have time to prepare for any inspections.

    I guess if you are still going to take at face value what he says after all this time, I can't say much.


    ^^^^^

    Yeah, that's the problem. It sure sounds good

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=192&v=OLhV3JRWKUM

    but it's a bit difficult to believe this president given what's transpired over the last six years

    Not only that, but what he said is not consistent with what is in the plan. It's just another example of him lying but this time the evidence is clear.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2015 5:06 PM GMT
    I feel it necessary to retract and correct one of my earlier posts, in which I said that this "deal" - read "fuck story" or "shit show" - was "about an abject a surrender as Munich was in 1938." Actually, it's far worse. One of the few benefits of Munich was that it gave the Allies time to rearm, but this deal gives Iran even more time to develop its nuclear weapons - and please don't tell me it won't. There is absolutely nothing good about this deal for the interests of the US and the western democracies at all; it's only beneficiary is Iran, as shown by the gleeful demonstrations greeting its accomplished liars on their return to Teheran.
  • metta

    Posts: 39090

    Jul 16, 2015 6:12 PM GMT
    ^

    http://newamericamedia.org/2015/07/how-iran-won-the-vienna-accords-by-agreeing-to-stop-what-it-never-was-doing.php

    very interesting article. Thanks for posting that.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2015 6:46 PM GMT
    metta8 said^

    http://newamericamedia.org/2015/07/how-iran-won-the-vienna-accords-by-agreeing-to-stop-what-it-never-was-doing.php

    very interesting article. Thanks for posting that.


    Yes, indeed. If true, very reminiscent of President Reagan's "Star Wars" bluff. But unlike this issue, we won on that one. icon_sad.gif
  • metta

    Posts: 39090

    Jul 24, 2015 6:39 AM GMT
    Senate's Iran Hearing Reveals How Bad Senators Are At Hearings
    But hey. They got some headlines for themselves.


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/senate-iran-hearing_55b1418ce4b07af29d57ec76
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2015 2:46 PM GMT
    Did Obama and Kerry at least manage to get the 4 prisoners released as part of the deal?
  • metta

    Posts: 39090

    Jul 24, 2015 6:10 PM GMT