• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

In Nuclear Talks, Iran Seeks to Avoid Specifics

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
34,698
Reaction score
19,179
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/25/w...-deal-while-iran-favors-general-one.html?_r=1

"If an agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear capability is reached by deadline in the next seven days, one thing may be missing: an actual written accord, signed by the Iranians."

An agreement that wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on...

I still hold out hope that the President isn't so stupid that he would accept such an agreement.
 
Iran does not want to come clean on their intentions and be specific in a "deal?" I'm completely shocked, anyone else?
 
Iran is stubborn? Oh well in that case forget the whole thing lets just bomb more stuff that always makes things better.
 
Iran is stubborn? Oh well in that case forget the whole thing lets just bomb more stuff that always makes things better.

Ah, the black and white world of Deuce. Not wanting the US to tie itself to an unenforceable diplomatic disaster is a call to bomb things? Sure, Deuce, sure....
 
Iran is stubborn? Oh well in that case forget the whole thing lets just bomb more stuff that always makes things better.

Wow...

One little wrinkle of objection to the negotiations and you figure war is next.

Does that come from knowing well your president and his real intentions, or fear that we are all right and you and he are wrong, that now that he's sold the farm war is inevitable?

You know don't you that congress cannot wage war...only the president?
 
Ah, the black and white world of Deuce. Not wanting the US to tie itself to an unenforceable diplomatic disaster is a call to bomb things? Sure, Deuce, sure....

Please. Don't act like the right wingers here are arguing from a point of nuance. No details of anything, but you already know it's a disaster. Sure, jm, sure.
 
Please. Don't act like the right wingers here are arguing from a point of nuance. No details of anything, but you already know it's a disaster. Sure, jm, sure.

Hah, I am quoting a New York Times article, Deuce. Are you saying I am not allowed to dislike the deal details as reported by the New York Times? Did I not say I hope Obama isn't as stupid as the NYT article depicts?
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/25/w...-deal-while-iran-favors-general-one.html?_r=1

"If an agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear capability is reached by deadline in the next seven days, one thing may be missing: an actual written accord, signed by the Iranians."

An agreement that wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on...

I still hold out hope that the President isn't so stupid that he would accept such an agreement.

This was linked in DP earlier today. If true, I really do not see how an accord could be reached in the near future.
Iran isn
 
This was linked in DP earlier today. If true, I really do not see how an accord could be reached in the near future.
Iran isn

And remember, we are rewarding Iran with $12 billion dollars for this. We are dolling it out in monthly payments until June. Iran isn't interested in anything but drawing out the negotiations until we have finished paying them, at which point they will break off talks.

They are working from the North Korean playbook.
 
And remember, we are rewarding Iran with $12 billion dollars for this. We are dolling it out in monthly payments until June. Iran isn't interested in anything but drawing out the negotiations until we have finished paying them, at which point they will break off talks.

They are working from the North Korean playbook.


It frightens me that you have to explain that to them.
 
It frightens me that you have to explain that to them.

It's a strategy that is ages old. Hell, it is a common tool of "community organizers".

1) Reach a vague agreement in principle with a politically motivated opponent.

2) Wait for the opponent to tie themselves to the deal by announcing the terms of the deal publically for political gain.

3) Counter-announce that the terms spelled out by your opponent publically with regard to your responsibilities are actually incorrect.

4) Your opponent will then state that they are going to drop their end of the bargain if you don't keep yours.

5) Announce that your opponent is backing away from the responsibilities they themselves admitted publically to agreeing to, and are the only verifiable terms of the agreement.

6) Your Opponent, not willing to look like they lost the negotiation, will then keep their end of the bargain, relieving you of obligation of keeping yours.


Repeat this as often as necessary until you achieve the goal your opponent didn't want you to achieve.
 
It's a strategy that is ages old. Hell, it is a common tool of "community organizers".

1) Reach a vague agreement in principle with a politically motivated opponent.

2) Wait for the opponent to tie themselves to the deal by announcing the terms of the deal publically for political gain.


3) Counter-announce that the terms spelled out by your opponent publically with regard to your responsibilities are actually incorrect.

4) Your opponent will then state that they are going to drop their end of the bargain if you don't keep yours.

5) Announce that your opponent is backing away from the responsibilities they themselves admitted publically to agreeing to, and are the only verifiable terms of the agreement.

6) Your Opponent, not willing to look like they lost the negotiation, will then keep their end of the bargain, relieving you of obligation of keeping yours.


Repeat this as often as necessary until you achieve the goal your opponent didn't want you to achieve.

All sides are politically motivated and do this. Therefore what you have posted is meaningless. It seems likely this is your negotiating strategy.
 
All sides are politically motivated and do this. Therefore what you have posted is meaningless. It seems likely this is your negotiating strategy.

No, they aren't. Iran's motivation is to get a nuclear weapon. If they weren't then we wouldn't need the negotiation.
 
No, they aren't. Iran's motivation is to get a nuclear weapon. If they weren't then we wouldn't need the negotiation.

No, their motivation is not to get a nuclear weapon. That is something that you want people to believe. Iran's motivation in these negotiations is to get relief from the sanctions. That motivation has a political element to it.
 
No, their motivation is not to get a nuclear weapon. That is something that you want people to believe. Iran's motivation in these negotiations is to get relief from the sanctions. That motivation has a political element to it.

Then why not pleasure the IAEA and the Security Council? The head of IAEA said the Iranians are not convincing his people.
 
Then why not pleasure the IAEA and the Security Council? The head of IAEA said the Iranians are not convincing his people.

They negotiations currently taking place are about finding a satisfactory solution to the problem. Iran is not motivated in these negotiations by trying to get a nuclear weapon. They are motivated by trying to get relief from sanctions.
 
Obviously Zarif is doing his best to cooperate while appeasing the nuts back home, just as Kerry is doing his best while trying to deal with the nuts back home. Seems both countries have some nuts that would like to derail the negotiations.

Iran’s top negotiator, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, has made it clear to his Western counterparts that keeping hard-liners in the country in check — including generals in the Revolutionary Guard Corps and powerful mullahs who dislike the idea of being limited by any accord — is a delicate art. His fear is that a deal that details Iranian compromises could give them an opening to scuttle a final deal.

From the op's link!
 
They negotiations currently taking place are about finding a satisfactory solution to the problem. Iran is not motivated in these negotiations by trying to get a nuclear weapon. They are motivated by trying to get relief from sanctions.

Thing is, that the Head of IAEA said the other day that Iran was not cooperating and that the IAEA cannot determine whether or not it is developing military capability. As there have been a number of things they were doing that IAEA said were only compatible with a weapons program, it sounds as though we are where we were 5 years ago.
 
No, their motivation is not to get a nuclear weapon. That is something that you want people to believe. Iran's motivation in these negotiations is to get relief from the sanctions. That motivation has a political element to it.

There motivation is to get the sanctions lifted while achieving their objective of obtaining the bomb, nobody is fooled by the genocidal thecorats who speak out of both sides of their mouths, claiming to want peaceful negotiations while demanding death to America, ****ing spare us.
 
Obviously Zarif is doing his best to cooperate while appeasing the nuts back home, just as Kerry is doing his best while trying to deal with the nuts back home. Seems both countries have some nuts that would like to derail the negotiations.

Nuts like the only real authority in Iran the Supreme Leader who holds all the cards and just demanded again for the death of America, spare us.
 
Nuts like the only real authority in Iran the Supreme Leader who holds all the cards and just demanded again for the death of America, spare us.

Spare yourself and don't read posts that expose your error. John Kerry no doubt told his counter part that he has the same nut jobs at home to deal with. Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!
 
Spare yourself and don't read posts that expose your error. John Kerry no doubt told his counter part that he has the same nut jobs at home to deal with. Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!

Once again comparing a bad joke repeating a 30 year old song parody to the dead serious call and a national holiday dedicated to death to America, spewing utter rubbish nothing more.
 
Once again comparing a bad joke repeating a 30 year old song parody to the dead serious call and a national holiday dedicated to death to America, spewing utter rubbish nothing more.

Not when you compare all John McCain's comments on Iran do you conclude it was just a joke!
 
Not when you compare all John McCain's comments on Iran do you conclude it was just a joke!

What ever you say sport, provide the quote where he in seriousness called for bombing Iran. :roll: Your comparison of a bad joke to serious calls for the annihilation of the United States is laughable.
 
Back
Top Bottom