Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 73

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

  1. #21
    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'

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    Hard to argue with that.
    Heya Fletch. Well the Saud does have like 30k on their border with Iraq. I think they could go and take one of the border crossings away from Daesh. I think that would show us they are seriously committed to shutting Daesh down.

  2. #22
    Si vis pacem, para bellum
    Μολὼν λαβέ's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:04 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,646

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Maybe. That depends, of course, on what you call a bad deal. According to the Republicans in Congress, any deal made by a Democrat is ipso facto a bad deal.

    If there's a deal made that will keep Iran from getting a nuke, then it's a good deal IMO.
    The best deal that will keep Iran from getting a nuke is no deal.
    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Generalizations are stupid.
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Steel View Post
    The Second Amendment has nothing to do with guns.

  3. #23
    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

    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.
    You are referring to rudimentary inspection and compliance tasks, largely executed by the thousands of people that work at the US DTRA or one of several aligned agencies, often under the auspices of the UN IAEA. Saint Reagan did not invent the concept of post-treaty inspection, but borrowed (and overused) the "trust but verify" cliche from an obscure author. Not really a quantum leap in the history of negotiations or foreign affairs, I can assure you. There is a bit of a playbook for these things, and it is larger than a trite three word slogan. I would personally place a lot less emphasis on the trust part when dealing with Iranians. Either way, it is a historically useless and silly thing to evoke in the current negotiations.

    Quote Originally Posted by ObamacareFail View Post
    Simply not true. Going against illegal immigration or a comprehensive immigration bill that does not include "border security first"......

    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.....
    With all due respect, these sound like things that are probably quite important to you and for pandering to like minded people - but not to most Americans, who statistically do not share your opinions or concerns. In fact, these items routinely rank near the bottom of the list of important things for voters (hint hint.... the economy), and the combination of xenophobia, Strangelovian UN conspiracism and Evangelical-based social laws are rather off-putting to the voters under age 50 that will almost certainly put Hillary in the White House if that focus does not change.

  4. #24
    Sage
    ObamacareFail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Earth
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    10,426

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie_V View Post
    You are referring to rudimentary inspection and compliance tasks, largely executed by the thousands of people that work at the US DTRA or one of several aligned agencies, often under the auspices of the UN IAEA. Saint Reagan did not invent the concept of post-treaty inspection, but borrowed (and overused) the "trust but verify" cliche from an obscure author. Not really a quantum leap in the history of negotiations or foreign affairs, I can assure you. There is a bit of a playbook for these things, and it is larger than a trite three word slogan.
    Spin it anyway you like. It still boils down to ending the act of signing meaningless treaties that we knew the soviets would violate before the ink on the agreement was dry. Reagan was willing to stand up and walk out on a point, rather then just letting it go for the sake of getting a treaty...any treaty to flash in front of the press.

    I would personally place a lot less emphasis on the trust part when dealing with Iranians. Either way, it is a historically useless and silly thing to evoke in the current negotiations.
    Personally, I would cease negotiating with the Iranians at all until they start acting likes adults and show at least a modicum of common sense. We look rather stupid sitting at the table with them while they are still shouting "Death to America" and threatening to wipe Israel off the map. The only type of negotiations the rogue terrorist state of Iran understands or takes seriously are serious economic sanctions and threats of force. At this point they are merely playing the west for fools....biding for more time and a lightening of sanctions for basically nothing in return.



    With all due respect, these sound like things that are probably quite important to you and for pandering to like minded people - but not to most Americans, who statistically do not share your opinions or concerns. In fact, these items routinely rank near the bottom of the list of important things for voters (hint hint.... the economy), and the combination of xenophobia, Strangelovian UN conspiracism and Evangelical-based social laws are rather off-putting to the voters under age 50 that will almost certainly put Hillary in the White House if that focus does not change.
    With all due respect, I do not recognize you as speaking for most Americans. over or under the age of 50. And I think the only chance in hell that Hillary will be president is if the GOP nominates another old fart RINO to run against her. And even then, Hillary is not a sure thing. She lacks the campaign skills, the charisma, and the mental health to make a good run for president. Sniper fire in Bosnia indeed!

  5. #25
    Sage
    Higgins86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    England
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,206

    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.
    It's a tightrope though mate, if this deal is seen to be soft on Iran then many in the region will be looking over their shoulder.
    ‘This is not peace, it is an armistice for 20 years.’ (Ferdinand Foch. After the Treaty of Versailles, 1919).

  6. #26
    Sage
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    7,837

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    The rest of us knew this weeks, if not months, ago. We should have walked away...
    ..... and do what?

  7. #27
    Holy Crap!
    Red Crow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Hawaii, USA
    Last Seen
    12-06-15 @ 10:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,429

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Simpleχity View Post
    Britain says no Iran deal 'better than a bad deal'



    Agreed. No deal is indeed preferable to a bad deal. Two days remain until the 30 June deadline. My greatest fears remain red-line concessions to Tehran, and a final product that is laced with language deficiency and inexactitude.
    Obama extended the deadline again, he is begging Iran to take the deal full of goodies like money and technology, he wants to help them. What a guy! He is so nice...
    Catch me if you can.

  8. #28
    A sinister place...
    OrphanSlug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,818

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

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    ..... and do what?
    Continue with isolation and bottom up punishments? (What is the alternative, as a bad deal where Iran gets all they want does nothing for us.)
    "Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety, and the government answers by taking rights away from good people." - Penn Jillette.

  9. #29
    Gradualist
    TheDemSocialist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in the Midwest
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,308
    Blog Entries
    7

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Simpleχity View Post
    Britain says no Iran deal 'better than a bad deal'



    Agreed. No deal is indeed preferable to a bad deal. Two days remain until the 30 June deadline. My greatest fears remain red-line concessions to Tehran, and a final product that is laced with language deficiency and inexactitude.
    It seems they wont meet the deadline: Nuclear talks seem to miss June 30 deadline
    They say it will only be a couple deals past the June 30th deadline will either a deal or no final deal will be announced. Im gonna keep my fingers crossed for a deal.
    Just a democratic-socialist in the heartland of America.CHECK OUT MY TUMBLR(BLOG)HERE "Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression, and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

  10. #30
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,462

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

    Britain says no Iran deal 'better than a bad deal'
    really?

    then there will be two results:
    1. continued sanctions; and
    2. continued nuclear development without the west having an opportunity to curb/monitor those developments*

    *unless the west proposes to go to war. are we willing to incur the very substantial costs of a war in iran, recognizing that anything but a toppling of the government will only delay the development of a nuclear capacity ... if iran truly seeks that objective. a war would assure it

    do we want a proxy war with the russians in the background, supplying arms and intelligence ... and a nuclear umbrella to iran? especially when the iranians are very pro-western and well educated with respect to the balance of the region. why push them into putin's sphere of influence

    such a war would also drive up the price of oil. that would not be a good thing for a fragile world economy on the mend

    let's examine the house of saud's self interests. that sunni state certainly does not want a shiite adversary to acquire nuclear weapons capacity. it would have to do the same ... would we then oppose such a development?
    and certainly, during this time of surplus oil on the international market, the saudis must oppose the prospect that the international embargo against iran would be ended, allowing freshly available iranian oil to push the price of oil even lower, while also acquiring a significant portion of saudi arabia's market share

    why would iran want nuclear arms? to establish parity with an always threatening nuclear equipped israel. require israel to relinquish its nuclear arsenal and the justification for iran's nuclear weapons development evaporates. of course, israel enjoys its present hegemony in the region and will not willingly relinquish it. only the USA has the means to effect that change. that is the negotiation we should now be pursuing

    Military Strike Analysis | Iran Intelligence

    Iran Military Strength
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    Quote Originally Posted by BrewerBob View Post
    The Democrats couldn't be more tone deaf if they had their eardrums incinerated with a hot poker.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Why confuse things with facts?

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •