Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 73

Thread: Britain says no Iran deal 'better than a bad deal'

  1. #11
    Student Bethlehem Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Bethlehem, PA
    Last Seen
    03-10-16 @ 09:50 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    294

    Re: Britain says no Iran deal 'better than a bad deal'

    i think any deal will be a bad deal because iran won't hold their end of it

    they can't be trusted

  2. #12
    Sage
    ObamacareFail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Earth
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    10,425

    Re: Britain says no Iran deal 'better than a bad deal'

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    The unfettered access paet is what was missing from the deal with North Korea.

    Now we have a nuclear North Korea with a Mad Man on the throne.
    And soon will have a nuclear Iran....with enough oil wealth to threaten the entire middle east region and beyond. At least North Korea is working with limited resources. Our grandchildren, when they becomes adults, will be saying: Why did they not stop Iran?!

  3. #13
    Sage
    Higgins86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,202

    Re: Britain says no Iran deal 'better than a bad deal'

    A deal with Iran could also be dangerous in regards to ISIS and their infulence in the region. Any deal with Iran can easily be used by ISIS to rally other Sunni's to their cause.
    ‘This is not peace, it is an armistice for 20 years.’ (Ferdinand Foch. After the Treaty of Versailles, 1919).

  4. #14
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    18,261

    Re: Britain says no Iran deal 'better than a bad deal'

    Quote Originally Posted by Higgins86 View Post
    A deal with Iran could also be dangerous in regards to ISIS and their infulence in the region. Any deal with Iran can easily be used by ISIS to rally other Sunni's to their cause.
    LOL Like the Saudi's who ISIS has stated they will destroy?

  5. #15
    Sage
    Higgins86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,202

    Re: Britain says no Iran deal 'better than a bad deal'

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    LOL Like the Saudi's who ISIS has stated they will destroy?
    Iran are seen as a much bigger threat to Sunni's in the region than Saudi Arabia are, Iran's track record with the Sunni's isnt exactly great and if Sunni's in Iraq/ Syria see the west cutting a deal with Iran then that could stregthen's ISIS position.
    ‘This is not peace, it is an armistice for 20 years.’ (Ferdinand Foch. After the Treaty of Versailles, 1919).

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 07:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    61

    Re: Britain says no Iran deal 'better than a bad deal'

    Quote Originally Posted by ObamacareFail View Post
    Making a bad deal would certainly not be the first time the US has negotiated stupid deals. Until President Reagan came along, we were negotiating stupid treaties with the Soviets just for the sake of a given president or Secretar ay of State getting in front of the TV cameras and stating that a deal has been reached. It was Reagan that instituted the concept of "Trust but verify". The Obama administration has already proved that it does not neccesarily care about the verification aspect. Their response is: "But but but....we have intelligence". Not good enough. We should not sign any deal that does not include unfettered access to all nuke sites.
    While I have quite a bit of respect for the nuclear reduction treaties and initiatives signed by President Reagan (which, BTW, were HATED by conservatives at the time and referred to as "treasonous"), lets not simplify the process too much. Nuclear negotiations, especially ones with countries that are in the process of developing weapons, have far more variables and nuances than a throw-away phrase by St. Ronald of Tampico simply saying "trust but verify" (a phrase which Gorbachev found simultaneously annoying, humorous and innocuously simplistic). You can't simply impose the 1986 Soviet threat and nuclear world order on every little emerging state in 2015 and say "Reagan would have done it this way....." - that is the epitome of nonconstructive talk radio drivel.

    I really wish the GOP had a credible "Shadow Secretary of State" to talk about these rather important things, but the party seems quite content to beat up on Gays, Latin-American immigrants, Muslims and the warn us about the coming UN-takeover. But I digress........

    I agree that this is largely a terrible deal, pushed by a President and a failed Presidential candidate to cement some legacy of some sort. In 40 years, we will largely identify Presidents with the foreign affairs they ushered in, and I agree with you that this is a push to get "any deal" at the expense of the right deal.

  7. #17
    Sage
    ObamacareFail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Earth
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    10,425

    Re: Britain says no Iran deal 'better than a bad deal'

    [QUOTE=Eddie_V;1064765260]While I have quite a bit of respect for the nuclear reduction treaties and initiatives signed by President Reagan (which, BTW, were HATED by conservatives at the time and referred to as "treasonous"), lets not simplify the process too much. Nuclear negotiations, especially ones with countries that are in the process of developing weapons, have far more variables and nuances than a throw-away phrase by St. Ronald of Tampico simply saying "trust but verify" (a phrase which Gorbachev found simultaneously annoying, humorous and innocuously simplistic). You can't simply impose the 1986 Soviet threat and nuclear world order on every little emerging state in 2015 and say "Reagan would have done it this way....." - that is the epitome of nonconstructive talk radio drivel.

    I don't really care about Gorbachev's belittling the term, "trust but verify" or anyone else's efforts to do so. While international nuclear agreements are quite complicated, "trust but verify" is not in any way a throw away phrase. Without it, any agreement made is worth less then soiled toilet paper.

    I really wish the GOP had a credible "Shadow Secretary of State" to talk about these rather important things, but the party seems quite content to beat up on Gays, Latin-American immigrants, Muslims and the warn us about the coming UN-takeover. But I digress........
    Simply not true. Going against illegal immigration or a comprehensive immigration bill that does not include "border security first" is not beating up on Latin-American immigrants, or muslims. And we do need to be careful of which international treaties we sign that give up US soveriegnity at some level to the UN. And the act of defending the concept of marriage as between a man and a woman is not beating up on gays. We had been going by that definition of marriage since the founding of this country. It was Obama's original view as it was Clinton's. The recent change was for the sake of modern political correctness and politics.

    I agree that this is largely a terrible deal, pushed by a President and a failed Presidential candidate to cement some legacy of some sort. In 40 years, we will largely identify Presidents with the foreign affairs they ushered in, and I agree with you that this is a push to get "any deal" at the expense of the right deal.
    As were many of the original treaties made with the Soviets. The Soviets negotiated just as dishonestly as the Iranians are doing.

  8. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 07:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Britain says no Iran deal 'better than a bad deal'

    Iran talks to miss deadline: US.....

    Negotiators in Vienna for make-or-break nuclear talks with Iran are all "planning to stay past" a June 30 deadline to reach a deal, a US official said Sunday, echoing comments from Iran.

    "We've said that these talks could go beyond June 30th for a few days if we need some additional time," the senior administration official said......snip~

    https://news.yahoo.com/iran-fm-retur...112942312.html


    Gee.....now who would have seen this coming. Just a few more days. Team BO has always been saying this, huh?

  9. #19
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    18,261

    Re: Britain says no Iran deal 'better than a bad deal'

    Quote Originally Posted by Higgins86 View Post
    Iran are seen as a much bigger threat to Sunni's in the region than Saudi Arabia are, Iran's track record with the Sunni's isnt exactly great and if Sunni's in Iraq/ Syria see the west cutting a deal with Iran then that could stregthen's ISIS position.
    ISIS is the most pressing threat and Iran is on our side with them as well as the Saudi's. The whole region is so f-ed up that it is hard to tell our enemies from our friends.

  10. #20
    Sage
    Fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mentor Ohio
    Last Seen
    11-30-16 @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    10,541

    Re: Britain says no Iran deal 'better than a bad deal'

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    ISIS is the most pressing threat and Iran is on our side with them as well as the Saudi's. The whole region is so f-ed up that it is hard to tell our enemies from our friends.
    Hard to argue with that.

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •