• 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!

Iran: White House Lying About Details of Nuke Deal

:) hard to link to an iHeartRadio podcast ;) however in the future maybe Google is your friend :)



:shrug: there is nothing wrong with using Right Wing sites, any more than there is with citing left wing sites or think tanks.

What's wrong with linking to overtly right and left wing sources is that you often find that the meat of the story is bull****.

Many a thread I had to sadly abandon the idea of starting because I couldn't find a link to a legitimate or corroborating source.
 
Did you bother reading the article or the initial article it was cited from or the White House comments?

“What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action (the title of the Iran-powers deal), and this fact sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the name of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true,” Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham said on Tuesday.

Yeah, we saw that. It doesn't go into any detail on what the nature of those differences are. All we have is someone's statement, not any kind of understanding of the facts beneath it.
 
:) hard to link to an iHeartRadio podcast ;)

Sounds like a personal problem.

however in the future maybe Google is your friend

I did. No dice.



:shrug: there is nothing wrong with using Right Wing sites, any more than there is with citing left wing sites or think tanks.

Yes, there is. Right wing and left wing sites are classified as such because they purposely mislead people with out of context quotes, unsubstantiated rumors or flat out wrong information.
 
Both Presidents, Bush father and Bush son, made ​​similar mistakes. Bush father stopped our troops in Kuwait, although there was a great opportunity, even then destroy Saddam regime. Bush's son did not go further in Iran, which at the time was very convenient between the two our major forces in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

LOL No war is convenient, especially one against a country like Iran. You seem to enjoy invading sovereign nations. Do you think we are like the Nazi's?
 
Reuters is reporting (some other outlets as well) that some Iranian officials, including Zarif the foreign minister, have been making comments that look like hedging on portions of the deal like ceasing work on the Arak Lightwater Reactor. They have apparently been saying that construction will continue but that no more nuclear fuel will be introduced and no new installations constructed. This has sparked considerable confusion.

Iran says to continue building at Arak nuclear site despite deal | Reuters
 
The Free Beacon is merely citing the comments made by Iranian government representatives posted in an Iranian newspaper.
Farsnews

Iranian newspapers are read by the Iranian people. These statements were made for their benefit only. Saving face is an important part of Iran's propaganda ministers. The fact that the right is falling for it too only demonstrates their radical partisanship. It is a disgrace.
 
Reuters is reporting (some other outlets as well) that some Iranian officials, including Zarif the foreign minister, have been making comments that look like hedging on portions of the deal like ceasing work on the Arak Lightwater Reactor. They have apparently been saying that construction will continue but that no more nuclear fuel will be introduced and no new installations constructed. This has sparked considerable confusion.

Iran says to continue building at Arak nuclear site despite deal | Reuters

Thanks for this.

However, nuclear expert Mark Hibbs of the Carnegie Endowment think-tank said Zarif's statement seemed to be an attempt to reassure anti-Western hardliners in Iran that the Arak project will survive diplomacy with the powers.

"It doesn't matter whether Iran is doing excavation work or civil construction work around the reactor," Hibbs said.

"What matters for now is that there is no fuel production and testing, that there is no installation at the reactor. Freezing much more than that might be seen by hardliners as total suspension of the project and therefore unacceptable."

For the next few weeks or months deciphering fact from the noise that comes with saving face may be impossible.
 
Iranian newspapers are read by the Iranian people. These statements were made for their benefit only. Saving face is an important part of Iran's propaganda ministers. The fact that the right is falling for it too only demonstrates their radical partisanship. It is a disgrace.
There are more than a few concerned nations that arent exactly sold on the 'deal'. And its rather comical that you insist that the Iranians cant be trusted in what they say and yet you celebrate an agreement based on what they say.

How many years now have they been playing this cat and mouse game while even the current administration is convinced they are deceptive in their intent at the development of nuclear weapons?

Oh...and as to who is being truthful...
"On Tuesday Abbas Araqchi, Iran's top nuclear negotiator told Trend magazine in Azerbaijan that 'Iran's uranium enrichment right cannot be granted or limited by another countries.'

And Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, insisted on Monday that the Geneva accord won't affect operations at his nation’s major nuclear sites.

'Work at the Arak reactor will continue,' Salehi said. '[Uranium] enrichment to 5 percent will continue. Research and development will continue. All our exploration and extraction activities will continue. There are no activities that won’t continue."

He announced on Tuesday that Iran's enrichment program will actually increase, and added that construction of the heavy-water reactor at Arak – which the U.S. believes is one component of a plutonium production facility – will continue as before."

Followed by...

"Asked to react to Iran's claim that the White House changed key elements of the agreement for public consumption, she said 'I don’t have any particular response to these reports.'

But she acknowledged that 'domestic enrichment' would likely be part of 'a limited, tightly constrained and intensively monitored civilian nuclear program' that the West would negotiate with Iran over the next six months."
 
Last edited:
Did you bother reading the article or the initial article it was cited from or the White House comments?

“What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action (the title of the Iran-powers deal), and this fact sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the name of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true,” Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham said on Tuesday.

Yes, I read the article where it originated. It shows the the Iranian version. Wheres the contradiction?
 
There are more than a few concerned nations that arent exactly sold on the 'deal'. And its rather comical that you insist that the Iranians cant be trusted in what they say and yet you celebrate an agreement based on what they say.

How many years now have they been playing this cat and mouse game while even the current administration is convinced they are deceptive in their intent at the development of nuclear weapons?

The problem is you don't know what's official and what isn't. Somewhere in Iran there is an Iran Debate Politics with an Iranian Vancemack and and Iranian CPWill (etc.) and they're furiously typing away, "Ha! Michelle Bachman say deal is off! American imperialist liars, deal is fake!" *











*When making a racist impersonation of another language, it's easiest to just omit "the."
 
The problem is you don't know what's official and what isn't. Somewhere in Iran there is an Iran Debate Politics with an Iranian Vancemack and and Iranian CPWill (etc.) and they're furiously typing away, "Ha! Michelle Bachman say deal is off! American imperialist liars, deal is fake!" *

*When making a racist impersonation of another language, it's easiest to just omit "the."

Iranians aren't stupid enough to speak out too openly in IDP.
 
The problem is you don't know what's official and what isn't. Somewhere in Iran there is an Iran Debate Politics with an Iranian Vancemack and and Iranian CPWill (etc.) and they're furiously typing away, "Ha! Michelle Bachman say deal is off! American imperialist liars, deal is fake!" *
*When making a racist impersonation of another language, it's easiest to just omit "the."
Actually...the problem is both parties have been proven to be liars and we dont know WHO to trust. However, if you scoot over to the article cited in the London media, suddenly you see the White House officials stating that yes, in fact there WILL be SOME enrichment...but it will be closely monitored...

honest!
 
Actually...the problem is both parties have been proven to be liars and we dont know WHO to trust. However, if you scoot over to the article cited in the London media, suddenly you see the White House officials stating that yes, in fact there WILL be SOME enrichment...but it will be closely monitored...

honest!

Link?
 
Yes, I read the article where it originated. It shows the the Iranian version. Wheres the contradiction?
Start with the enrichment of uranium. The part where the US talking point said no enrichment, the Iranian statement was that there would be no impeding enrichment and it would in fact increase, and finish off with the White House rep stating...well...a bit...a bit...
 
Iran says Obama administration lied about details of nuclear deal, but the White House insists 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' | Mail Online

Asked to react to Iran's claim that the White House changed key elements of the agreement for public consumption, she said 'I don’t have any particular response to these reports.'

But she acknowledged that 'domestic enrichment' would likely be part of 'a limited, tightly constrained and intensively monitored civilian nuclear program' that the West would negotiate with Iran over the next six months.

Again...do you TRUST either parties to be honest?

Cuz if you do...Ive got some healthcare plans I can sell you...and you can keep them no matter what...honest...
 
Iran says Obama administration lied about details of nuclear deal, but the White House insists 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' | Mail Online

Asked to react to Iran's claim that the White House changed key elements of the agreement for public consumption, she said 'I don’t have any particular response to these reports.'

But she acknowledged that 'domestic enrichment' would likely be part of 'a limited, tightly constrained and intensively monitored civilian nuclear program' that the West would negotiate with Iran over the next six months.

Again...do you TRUST either parties to be honest?

Cuz if you do...Ive got some healthcare plans I can sell you...and you can keep them no matter what...honest...

Aaaaand it links back to that same Fars site.

Got anything else? Something that doesn't just link back to the same Fars News article?
 
I trust my Canadian government and our Foreign Affairs Minister on these matters since we've had a pretty long history of distrust of the Iranian regime since the mid-70s. For what it's worth, the Canadian government opposes the deal and believes that the sanctions in place are working and should be allowed to continue to work and cripple the Iranian economy until such time as they are serious about change.
 
Aaaaand it links back to that same Fars site.

Got anything else? Something that doesn't just link back to the same Fars News article?
there are three different news sites listed, 2 of which site WH representative (and I have offered the quote) which concedes that...well...gosh...you know...maybe there really ISNT a prohibition on enrichment and all... Your rebuttal is 'nuh UH!!!'

I ask again...dont dance...just be direct. DO YOU TRUST EITHER PARTY TO BE HONEST?
 
Actually...the problem is both parties have been proven to be liars and we dont know WHO to trust. However, if you scoot over to the article cited in the London media, suddenly you see the White House officials stating that yes, in fact there WILL be SOME enrichment...but it will be closely monitored...

honest!

By the way, the Iranians' own release of the treaty specifically states

• Iran announces that it will not enrich uranium over 5% for the duration of the 6 months.

• Beginning when the line for conversion of UF6 enriched up to 5% to UO2 is ready, Iran has decided to convert to oxide UF6 newly enriched up to 5% during the 6 month period, as provided in the operational schedule of the conversion plant declared to the IAEA.

• No new locations for the enrichment.

None of which differs from our own release, so far as I can tell.
 
there are three different news sites listed, 2 of which site WH representative (and I have offered the quote) which concedes that...well...gosh...you know...maybe there really ISNT a prohibition on enrichment and all... Your rebuttal is 'nuh UH!!!'

There wasn't a ban on enrichment to begin with, only on enrichment over 5%.
 
there are three different news sites listed, 2 of which site WH representative (and I have offered the quote) which concedes that...well...gosh...you know...maybe there really ISNT a prohibition on enrichment and all... Your rebuttal is 'nuh UH!!!'

I ask again...dont dance...just be direct. DO YOU TRUST EITHER PARTY TO BE HONEST?

"Nuh-uhhhhhh" with snot and tears flying everywhere.
 
"Nuh-uhhhhhh" with snot and tears flying everywhere.

Er...well, yes, but in all fairness I'm having horrible allergy attacks. Pollen, you know.
 
Back
Top Bottom