• 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!

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

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
93,583
Reaction score
81,656
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Britain says no Iran deal 'better than a bad deal'

28 Jun, 2015

VIENNA: No nuclear deal between Iran and world powers is better than a "bad deal", Britain's foreign minister said on Sunday as he arrived for talks just days before a deadline for an accord. "We still have very big challenges if we are going to be able to get this deal done," Philip Hammond told reporters in Vienna. "I have said many times before and I will say it again today, no deal is better than a bad deal. There are red lines that we cannot cross and some very difficult decisions and tough choices are going to have to be made by all of us," he said.

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.
 
Simpleχity;1064764096 said:
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.

That no deal is better than a bad one is trivial stuff and the Brits are not stupid. But since it is the thing that anyone would have to say, especially, if they wanted to deal a bad deal, I am not at ease.
 
The rest of us knew this weeks, if not months, ago. We should have walked away...
 
Simpleχity;1064764096 said:
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.

Sounds pretty non controversial. Does anyone here think a bad deal would be better?
 
Sounds pretty non controversial. Does anyone here think a bad deal would be better?

Agreed, but it is more than that. It is the rhetoric from their leadership on top of it being a bad deal, the whole fiasco dealing with Iran screams to walk away.
 
Sounds pretty non controversial. Does anyone here think a bad deal would be better?

The President? Not sure that there is any deal he would find unacceptable. Same is true of most democrats in congress.
 
The President? Not sure that there is any deal he would find unacceptable. Same is true of most democrats in congress.

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.
 
Simpleχity;1064764096 said:
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.

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.
 
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.



I thought the Republicans were campaigning to give the Big 0 Fast track Authority on the trade deal.

I thought it was the Dems holding things hostage.

Was I turned around on the Party ID of the supporters and blockers?
 
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.

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

they can't be trusted
 
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?!
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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-returning-tehran-nuclear-talks-media-112942312.html


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

Heya Fletch. :2wave: 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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom