• 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!

E.U. and Iran Announce Framework for Nuclear Deal

MMC said:
Not quite.....BO was resisting those sanctions. Underlined takes you to that link showing where BO had difficulties.


Finally, a few notes on President Obama's Rose Garden remarks, after which he took no questions: He gave a short history lesson about recent US-Iranian relations, correctly stating that stepped-up sanctions hurt Iran's economy and forced them to the negotiating table. He didn't mentioned that he'd strenuously resisted those very sanctions. This is a reflection on his judgment. Obama went on to claim that the current interim agreement has worked flawlessly, despite cynics' complaints when it was unveiled. This brag ignores an inconvenient little "mishap" that we oughtn't worry about.....snip~

Menendez livid at Obama team

That mishap is shown too.
Click to expand...
The sanctions were pushed by Obama. What he didn't agree to was the specific wording in the amendment. The fact is, Obama and the administration has worked through the UN to institute very broad and sweeping sanctions. Congress didn't do that.
Corker said Congress dragged Obama "kicking and screaming" to put sanctions on Iran | PolitiFact

Congress speaks for the United States but Obama is the one that has to win over partners. A US only sanction on Iran is meaningless. It was Obama that brought in other countries and got support to institute the sanctions that now are credited to bringing Iran to the table.



"The Obama administration has supported tougher sanctions against Iran consistently," Jeffrey said. "But on this or any other issue it will push for maximum flexibility with the Congress. Thanks to that pushing, it got authority to waive or suspend sanctions based on either countries' reducing oil imports, or a presidential national security waiver — not yet used, but probably necessary to uphold the ‘First Step’ (Geneva) agreement. Without — repeat — without these modifications, to the initial congressional effort, it would have been much more difficult to mobilize the international community."
Click to expand...
 
Anthony60 said:
That's a given, we do too. The Iranian people want that regime gone. Everyone except Obama that is.
Click to expand...

That's funny. You think Obama is the only one on earth that's not interested in Iranian regime change? Btw, Iran has called for Israeli regime change as well, though the nut bars call it erasing the nation.
 
Montecresto said:
That's funny. You think Obama is the only one on earth that's not interested in Iranian regime change? Btw, Iran has called for Israeli regime change as well, though the nut bars call it erasing the nation.
Click to expand...

Well, at least you agree they are nuts. Obama stood bye and refused to back the people in 2009 when there was some "unrest". But, he is at the ready to unclench our terrible fist and give the regime a life line. Won't deal with the people when they need help, but he's there to make a nuke deal with the dictatorship. I'm just going by his actions, since what he says is worthless.
 
iliveonramen said:
The sanctions were pushed by Obama. What he didn't agree to was the specific wording in the amendment. The fact is, Obama and the administration has worked through the UN to institute very broad and sweeping sanctions. Congress didn't do that.
Corker said Congress dragged Obama "kicking and screaming" to put sanctions on Iran | PolitiFact

Congress speaks for the United States but Obama is the one that has to win over partners. A US only sanction on Iran is meaningless. It was Obama that brought in other countries and got support to institute the sanctions that now are credited to bringing Iran to the table.
Click to expand...



So much for BO peeps words and anything he had to say. Do you think you can get him out of his own words here now?


WaPo: The Iran deal is a cave — by Obama’s own standards


The Washington Post editorial board embarrassed itself yesterday, but today they score a direct hit on Barack Obama and the deal he cut to escape the vigilance required to contain Iran. The editors remind readers about the principles that the US — and Obama himself — insisted on having in any deal with Tehran to end sanctions over their nuclear-weapons program. Even off of Obama’s own demands, made just three years ago, yesterday’s agreement in principles is an unmitigated defeat:


WaPo: The Iran deal is a cave — by Obama’s own standards « Hot Air
 
Last edited:
Anthony60 said:
Well, at least you agree they are nuts. Obama stood bye and refused to back the people in 2009 when there was some "unrest". But, he is at the ready to unclench our terrible fist and give the regime a life line. Won't deal with the people when they need help, but he's there to make a nuke deal with the dictatorship. I'm just going by his actions, since what he says is worthless.
Click to expand...

Yes, the guys claiming that Iran's call for Israeli regime change are calling for the inhalation of the nation of Israel are nuts. And what was Obama suppose to do with Iran in 2009, interfere in a sovereign nations internal affairs. Hasn't there been enough interference in USFP?
 
MMC said:
So much for BO peeps words and anything he had to say. Do you think you can get him out of his own words here now?


WaPo: The Iran deal is a cave — by Obama’s own standards


The Washington Post editorial board embarrassed itself yesterday, but today they score a direct hit on Barack Obama and the deal he cut to escape the vigilance required to contain Iran. The editors remind readers about the principles that the US — and Obama himself — insisted on having in any deal with Tehran to end sanctions over their nuclear-weapons program. Even off of Obama’s own demands, made just three years ago, yesterday’s agreement in principles is an unmitigated defeat:


WaPo: The Iran deal is a cave — by Obama’s own standards « Hot Air
Click to expand...

Nope, he didn't reach the kind of agreement that he stated in a political debate in 2012. If the agreement is adhered to though, we're better off than we would be now. That's progress.
 
Montecresto said:
Yes, the guys claiming that Iran's call for Israeli regime change are calling for the inhalation of the nation of Israel are nuts. And what was Obama suppose to do with Iran in 2009, interfere in a sovereign nations internal affairs. Hasn't there been enough interference in USFP?
Click to expand...

Just a little support for them, that's all. He could have stated that we support the people of Iran and their desire for freedom from an oppressive government.

But let's face it, he doesn't exactly believe in that kind of thing. He's for fundamental change here, not over there.
 
iliveonramen said:
Nope, he didn't reach the kind of agreement that he stated in a political debate in 2012. If the agreement is adhered to though, we're better off than we would be now. That's progress.
Click to expand...



Yeah, "IF".....huh, and IF a frog had wings. It wouldn't hit its ass every time it hops. Yet it doesn't.....and Iran has proved nothing, to show it has changed it's ways.

"What"......some smiles and some denial, and they changed for the better? Cmon ILOR.....You don't really believe that do you?
 
MMC said:
Yeah, "IF".....huh, and IF a frog had wings. It wouldn't hit its ass every time it hops. Yet it doesn't.....and Iran has proved nothing, to show it has changed it's ways.

"What"......some smiles and some denial, and they changed for the better? Cmon ILOR.....You don't really believe that do you?
Click to expand...

If the agreement isn't adhered to it's null and void. it's the same situation we are currently in....
 
Simpleχity;1064492928 said:
Lol. C'mon MMC. Ed Morrissey (Captain Ed) is a very conservative blogger/columnist.
Click to expand...


:lamo Cmon Simplexity.....even Capt Ed knows how to read what WAPO's entire Editorial Board prints up. They aren't very conservative over there, are they?
read2.gif





The proposed accord will provide Iran a huge economic boost that will allow it to wage more aggressively the wars it is already fighting or sponsoring across the region. Whether that concession is worthwhile will depend in part on details that have yet to be agreed upon, or at least publicly explained. For example, the guidance released by the White House is vague in saying that U.S. and European Union sanctions “will be suspended after” international inspectors have “verified that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear related steps.” Exactly what steps would Iran have to complete, and what would the verification consist of?

The agreement is based on a theoretical benchmark: that Iran would need at least a year to produce fissile material sufficient for a weapon, compared with two months or less now. It remains to be seen whether the limits on enrichment and Iran’s stockpile will be judged by independent experts as sufficient to meet that standard.....snip~


Obama
By Editorial Board April 2 at 6:11 PM
 
Last edited:
Anthony60 said:
Just a little support for them, that's all. He could have stated that we support the people of Iran and their desire for freedom from an oppressive government.

But let's face it, he doesn't exactly believe in that kind of thing. He's for fundamental change here, not over there.
Click to expand...

As he should be, he's the president of America, not Iran.
 
iliveonramen said:
If the agreement isn't adhered to it's null and void. it's the same situation we are currently in....
Click to expand...

What about the part about the agreement.....that is based on a theoretical benchmark that Iran is breaking out in a year and not 2-3 months? Did you note how they played with that framework understanding?
 
soot said:
What is the Iranian agenda?
Click to expand...

Money for their military and legitimacy of the government to their people. Billions and billions and billions of dollars for expansionism and to declare victory over the USA and Jews of Israel.

What is being negotiated is what concessions the USA and West will make to the Islamic reborn Persian Empire as the soon overwhelming dominate power in the M.E.

The real story is that Iran so kicked the ass of the USA in the M.E. by exporting terrorism, revolution and chaos that the USA's president acting like a timid dictator afraid of a fight surrendered to Iran over the open objection of the elected representatives of the American people (Congress).
 
iliveonramen said:
If the agreement isn't adhered to it's null and void. it's the same situation we are currently in....
Click to expand...

Exactly. Diplomacy vs war, I'll take diplomacy and stability. This is a good thing, and I am confident that Iran will be held to the conditions.
 
Anthony60 said:
Our president should be for fundamental change here, but not for fundamental change in a dictatorial regime??? Whoa!
Click to expand...

Correct. It's not the role of a US president to go about the world removing governments and installing puppets, much as they seem to enjoy the sport, regardless of party.
 
Montecresto said:
Correct. It's not the role of a US president to go about the world removing governments and installing puppets, much as they seem to enjoy the sport, regardless of party.
Click to expand...

So, what would you replace our fundamentals with? A dictatorship, to match the ones he does not support getting rid of?
 
joko104 said:
Money for their military and legitimacy of the government to their people. Billions and billions and billions of dollars for expansionism and to declare victory over the USA and Jews of Israel.

What is being negotiated is what concessions the USA and West will make to the Islamic reborn Persian Empire as the soon overwhelming dominate power in the M.E.

The real story is that Iran so kicked the ass of the USA in the M.E. by exporting terrorism, revolution and chaos that the USA's president acting like a timid dictator afraid of a fight surrendered to Iran over the open objection of the elected representatives of the American people (Congress).
Click to expand...

Heya Joko. :2wave: What funny are those sitting here thinking that Iran wont be conducting war. That opening up Iran for business is going to stop them from increasing their aid to those they have fighting proxy wars. While at the same time.....still look to sponsor terrorism against the Great Satan.

Funny how while negotiating they still managed to get off some aid to the Shia in Yemen. While calling us for assistance with Air Strikes in Iraq on ISIS in Tirkrit, huh.
 
MMC said:
What about the part about the agreement.....that is based on a theoretical benchmark that Iran is breaking out in a year and not 2-3 months? Did you note how they played with that framework understanding?
Click to expand...

The stories keep changing, and now Iran has come out and said we are lying about certain parts of the agreement - not a really great way to inspire confidence about this! Are they saying just we are lying, or are they also including the other countries involved in the negotiations?

Has the Ayatollah made an announcement - apparently he has the final word on whether this agreement is good for Iran or not. I had originally thought it was Iran that wanted an agreement, and the sanctions lifted - but it's sounding more and more like it was us that wanted it, and the whole world, including the UN, was saying NO, it is a bad idea! Whose idea was it to try and get an agreement now, after years of sanctions that were placed on them because they didn't abide by earlier agreements? WTH?
 
Anthony60 said:
So, what would you replace our fundamentals with? A dictatorship, to match the ones he does not support getting rid of?
Click to expand...

Not a fan of dictators. We have a monopolised (by the d and r) political system, that's fundamentally flawed, perhaps we'll see an independent president one day.
 
polgara said:
The stories keep changing, and now Iran has come out and said we are lying about certain parts of the agreement - not a really great way to inspire confidence about this! Are they saying just we are lying, or are they also including the other countries involved in the negotiations?

Has the Ayatollah made an announcement - apparently he has the final word on whether this agreement is good for Iran or not. I had originally thought it was Iran that wanted an agreement, and the sanctions lifted - but it's sounding more and more like it was us that wanted it, and the whole world, including the UN, was saying NO, it is a bad idea! Whose idea was it to try and get an agreement now, after years of sanctions that were placed on them because they didn't abide by earlier agreements? WTH?
Click to expand...



Cmon now Lady P.....Iran did not say we lied. They say we know how to spin.
michaelj.gif


Well, I have asked why should we listen to this mamamamysharona, as how long will he be as the EyesAToldYa? :2razz:
 
MMC said:
Cmon now Lady P.....Iran did not say we lied. They say we know how to spin.
michaelj.gif


Well, I have asked why should we listen to this mamamamysharona, as how long will he be as the EyesAToldYa? :2razz:
Click to expand...

I honestly thought I heard him say we have not told the truth on parts of the agreement, and he listed them. I guess I need more coffee, or a trip to the audiologist.... :slapme:
 
MMC said:
Cmon now Lady P.....Iran did not say we lied. They say we know how to spin.
michaelj.gif


Well, I have asked why should we listen to this mamamamysharona, as how long will he be as the EyesAToldYa? :2razz:
Click to expand...

We don't have to listen to him, but apparently his people do, and he doesn't like us very much. I watched the speech he made, and he does know how to whip them into a frenzy. Propaganda group think works, but we already knew that, didn't we?
 
polgara said:
We don't have to listen to him, but apparently his people do, and he doesn't like us very much. I watched the speech he made, and he does know how to whip them into a frenzy. Propaganda group think works, but we already knew that, didn't we?
Click to expand...

Yep.....we did. Its like a framework understanding, huh. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom