• 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

Cardinal said:
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.
Click to expand...
Secretary of State John Kerry said on Monday that 'there is no right to enrich' uranium in the Geneva agreement. 'We do not recognize a right to enrich.'

So...another Obama administration official 'lied'?

Really tough to answer that 'trust' question, isnt it?
 
VanceMack said:
Secretary of State John Kerry said on Monday that 'there is no right to enrich' uranium in the Geneva agreement. 'We do not recognize a right to enrich.'

So...another Obama administration official 'lied'?

Really tough to answer that 'trust' question, isnt it?
Click to expand...

LINK!

jesus christ...
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Link? And if so, maybe next time you should use CNN instead of a right wing site. It'll save you some time.




If you don't want to get called out for using Right Wing sites, don't use Right Wing sites. :)
Click to expand...

Got it, so everyone should use Left Wing sites to get straight answers of how Obama is telling us the truth.
 
Cardinal said:
LINK!

jesus christ...
Click to expand...
No...not 'Him'...but I understand the confusion...

The link has been provided to you on at least 2 occasions now.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Link? And if so, maybe next time you should use CNN instead of a right wing site. It'll save you some time.
Click to expand...
CNN is not sо bad as MSNВC, but worsens rapidly and soon their abominations will reach European CNN level. All decent people already left. Stay only
despite monsters.
 
VanceMack said:
No...not 'Him'...but I understand the confusion...

The link has been provided to you on at least 2 occasions now.
Click to expand...

If you took just a minute to find a more reputable source we could have avoided over two pages of this nonsense.

Kerry on Iran: ‘We do not recognize a right to enrich’

Yes, this is a significant break from the White House release. It would appear that the White House did get overly excited about its release of the deal.
 
Cardinal said:
If you took just a minute to find a more reputable source we could have avoided over two pages of this nonsense.

Kerry on Iran: ‘We do not recognize a right to enrich’

Yes, this is a significant break from the White House release. It would appear that the White House did get overly excited about its release of the deal.
Click to expand...
I see. I provided 3 sources, you provided none, finally the one you did provide after the fact concurred with the three I provided...and somehow the confusion was 'my fault'.

Or you could have just said...."huh...OK yeah...my bad...I was wrong. Sorry."
 
VanceMack said:
I see. I provided 3 sources, you provided none, finally the one you did provide after the fact concurred with the three I provided...and somehow the confusion was 'my fault'.

Or you could have just said...."huh...OK yeah...my bad...I was wrong. Sorry."
Click to expand...

Yes, it's your fault for providing crap sources. If I link to The National Enquirer and there is something of validity to the story then I'm not going to blame anyone for dismissing it. If you find something in a crap website, it's your duty to track it down to a more reputable source. That practice eliminates well over half the stories that ultimately turn out to be uncorroborated.

As for what I'm "wrong" about, all I've done in this thread is show that the claims in this thread are made up of 90% noise and no real understanding of the facts. And when something factual was finally uncovered I accepted it instantaneously.
 
VanceMack said:
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...
Click to expand...

Go to the al fars link you posted and go to the bullet points. That is the Iranian gov release. I can't see the contradiction.
 
Obama released 7 billion dollars, lifted sanctions and left American citizens in Iranian prisons, all for nothing.
 
Cardinal said:
Yes, it's your fault for providing crap sources. If I link to The National Enquirer and there is something of validity to the story then I'm not going to blame anyone for dismissing it. If you find something in a crap website, it's your duty to track it down to a more reputable source. That practice eliminates well over half the stories that ultimately turn out to be uncorroborated.

As for what I'm "wrong" about, all I've done in this thread is show that the claims in this thread are made up of 90% noise and no real understanding of the facts. And when something factual was finally uncovered I accepted it instantaneously.
Click to expand...
Oddly enough, all those sources you describe as crap sources reported the 'facts' that you finally acknowledge. Not a whole lot of mainstream media sources are...hell you had to go looking for your own independent confirmation. What that just might indicate is that while one of those sites certainly has a right bias, the other didnt and they ALL offered a factual representation that isnt being covered by the mainstream. It also very clearly demonstrated how desperate people are to cling to ANYTHING to support their bias.

You were 'wrong' about everything. But to your credit...at least you have the stones to admit it.
 
apdst said:
Obama released 7 billion dollars, lifted sanctions and left American citizens in Iranian prisons, all for nothing.
Click to expand...
Well...not 'nothing'. I mean...there IS still a pretense of a reduction in enrichment and a promise to talk again in six months...so...
 
apdst said:
Obama released 7 billion dollars, lifted sanctions and left American citizens in Iranian prisons, all for nothing.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? Obama gets plenty of Koolaid toasts for coming up with a brilliant diplomatic solution, gets another reason to bash the "hawks" in the GOP and gets more campaign cash from the left.
 
VanceMack said:
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."
Click to expand...

Again I believe those statements made by the Atomic Energy Organization are propaganda aimed at domestic bolstering the notion that Iran has not lost anything in the agreement. If they are true then there is no agreement at all. You seem to think the negotiators are all liars and it is the Iran State propaganda minister that is the only truthful person on the planet.
Iran will not get anything until they live up to the terms of the agreement posted by the Whitehouse. Maybe they really won't but then there will be no lifting of the sanctions.
The Whitehouse never claimed that agreement would stop all enrichment only that no new centrifuges would be installed and their stockpile of 20% uranium would be diluted to lower levels.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
Yes, it's your fault for providing crap sources. If I link to The National Enquirer and there is something of validity to the story then I'm not going to blame anyone for dismissing it. If you find something in a crap website, it's your duty to track it down to a more reputable source. That practice eliminates well over half the stories that ultimately turn out to be uncorroborated.

As for what I'm "wrong" about, all I've done in this thread is show that the claims in this thread are made up of 90% noise and no real understanding of the facts. And when something factual was finally uncovered I accepted it instantaneously.
Click to expand...

It was the The Enqiirer that busted Jihn Edwards.
 
VanceMack said:
Oddly enough, all those sources you describe as crap sources reported the 'facts' that you finally acknowledge. Not a whole lot of mainstream media sources are...hell you had to go looking for your own independent confirmation. What that just might indicate is that while one of those sites certainly has a right bias, the other didnt and they ALL offered a factual representation that isnt being covered by the mainstream. It also very clearly demonstrated how desperate people are to cling to ANYTHING to support their bias.

You were 'wrong' about everything. But to your credit...at least you have the stones to admit it.
Click to expand...

Crap sources often do have facts in them, but there also frequently tend to be omissions as well as exaggerations. Which is why you should make a habit of following the story to its non-crap source. Get a few beers in me and I could talk for an hour about astrophysics, and some of what I spout might even be factual. Fact of the matter is you'd have to be a fool to cite my rant as a valid, respectable source.

So I'm "wrong" because I wanted actual facts and not the noise and blustering 90% of this thread was offering up. Interesting definition of "wrong" you have there.
 
Ben K. said:
Go to the al fars link you posted and go to the bullet points. That is the Iranian gov release. I can't see the contradiction.
Click to expand...

There are now three different stories from three different sides.

John Kerry: "There is no inherent right to enrich," Kerry said on ABC's "This Week." "And everywhere in this particular agreement it states that they could only do that by mutual agreement, and nothing is agreed on until everything is agreed on."

Kerry on Iran: ‘We do not recognize a right to enrich’

The White House release: Dilute below 5% or convert to a form not suitable for further enrichment its entire stockpile of near-20% enriched uranium before the end of the initial phase.

Fact Sheet: First Step Understandings Regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran

Iran release: From the existing uranium enriched to 20%, retain half as working stock of 20% oxide for fabrication of fuel for the TRR. Dilute the remaining 20% UF6 to no more than 5%. No reconversion line.

Text: Interim nuclear agreement between Iran and six powers | Reuters

I'm personally deeming this story dead until the treaty has been signed.
 
Cardinal said:
Crap sources often do have facts in them, but there also frequently tend to be omissions as well as exaggerations. Which is why you should make a habit of following the story to its non-crap source. Get a few beers in me and I could talk for an hour about astrophysics, and some of what I spout might even be factual. Fact of the matter is you'd have to be a fool to cite my rant as a valid, respectable source.

So I'm "wrong" because I wanted actual facts and not the noise and blustering 90% of this thread was offering up. Interesting definition of "wrong" you have there.
Click to expand...
Funny...turned out you had the actual facts all along.

I get that sometimes crap sources are just that. Having been through a doctoral program and working with University researchers I tend to take a lot of 'sources' with a grain of salt. People look for and find what they want to find. I just think its funny how quickly people would say things like "Iran cant be trusted" when A-your agreement depends on 'trust' and sure enough, the Iranian history is not very trustworthy but also B-Its not like the current administration has a history of being honest and forthright about ANYTHING for the last 5 years.
 
cpwill said:
Well, the point is that it really doesn't matter who is lying - the fact remains that the Iranians are going to "interpret" any deal that is struck as allowing them to continue to do exactly what they are doing, and the administration is going to "interpret" any deal that is struck to allow them to try to sell themselves as a success story to the American people. Who is actually correct here is sort of immaterial.
Unless, of course, you are an autocratic regime interested in the ultimate guarantee that you will not get a hole in your head ;).
Click to expand...

So what would you have done instead? Do you disagree with my theory that a financially stable Iran is unlikely to be problematic? Would we be better off not having negotiated at all and would that have modified any ambitions they had/have?

Autocratic or not, there are other autocratic countries that already have nukes. Not a joyous thing but it has already happened.

I see no value in them assembling one nuclear weapon. All that does is put them back on the **** list again. So, spending all that money, losing their trade possibilities doesn't seem like good investment. They may be crazy but are they stupid as well?

What exactly can you do with a nuke? Other than Japan, what situations have nukes ever won or lost a war? And we have thousands of sophisticated ones vs. Iran's homemade single shot one (which I guess NK has similar).

-------

This has nada to do with liberalism. This is foreign policy. If I were President, I'd have approached Iran years ago. They owe us an apology but we owe them one also. It';s worth a try and we have very little to lose and more to gain if we can normalize Iran.

Just my free-floating opinion...
 
Born Free said:
Got it, so everyone should use Left Wing sites to get straight answers of how Obama is telling us the truth.
Click to expand...

No, in fact if you use left wing sources you're going to be subjected to my same criticism.
 
apdst said:
IOW, you're going to bitch about ANY source that's presented...
Click to expand...

Are you really going to cop out this soon? You've given my one source we both know is trash and still just links back to the main source.

Fact is you're just going to keep posting right wing sites and then complain when I call them out for being right wing sites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom