• 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

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,485
Reaction score
39,816
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
:lamo Well, that lasted about slightly less 72 hours.

Iranian officials say that the White House is misleading the public about the details of an interim nuclear agreement reached over the weekend in Geneva.

Iran and Western nations including the United States came to an agreement on the framework for an interim deal late Saturday night in Geneva. The deal has yet to be implemented
The White House released a multi-page fact sheet containing details of the draft agreement shortly after the deal was announced.
However, Iranian foreign ministry official on Tuesday rejected the White House’s version of the deal as “invalid” and accused Washington of releasing a factually inaccurate primer that misleads the American public....

Afkham and officials said that the White House has “modified” key details of the deal and released their own version of the agreement.
Iran’s right to enrich uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon, is fully recognized under the draft released by Tehran.
“This comprehensive solution would enable Iran to fully enjoy its right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the relevant articles of the NPT in conformity with its obligations therein,” the agreement reads, according to a copy released to Iranian state-run media.....




 
Quick, lift carpet, sweep, and phew back to something else to make the dictator look presidential.

Maybe his tax payer paid photographers can help?
 
Free Beacon?

Yeah no.
 
1463161_638703962838458_1041356968_n.png
 
:lamo Well, that lasted about slightly less 72 hours.





[/FONT][/COLOR]

I believe the Iranians more than our President, who is a big fat liar. And Kerry is a nincompoop.
 
:lamo Well, that lasted about slightly less 72 hours.

[/FONT][/COLOR]

I realize Obama has a credibility problem but I'm not sure I consider Iran to be a reliable source.

Assuming that indeed they are not going to keep on with the same old, there is a real reason this might be real.

Much as one may love Allah, money is a huge attractant. So, the question is whether the capitalistic instinct may restrain the dire religious impulses.

Iran needs a nuke like they need a hole in the head. There is no more useless investment a country can make. OTOH, they have the potential for a real economy. When you are a pariah (like Israel or South Africa), you learn how to do a lot of stuff on your own. Like cars, weapons and the like. So, they have a budding car industry and they could get rich what with the oil and a fairly high potential population (they do go to school and some study abroad.

Thats how we broke Russia down. With kindness. When their harebrained collective agricultural scheme failed, we sent them food and even then nascent capitalism began to coalesce. Look at them now. Lots of rich folks. Rich folks don't start unwinnable wars.

So hopefully the Iranian Secret Service will read my post and get the info to the right people.
 
I find it amazing that the hatred some people have for Obama exceeds their disdain for Iran. They would side with Iran over Obama.

They seem to have forgotten. It seems just like yesterday that these folks were saying we can't trust a lying Iran. (Which, I do believe is true.) No wait. That WAS yesterday!

That speaks volumes in and of itself.
 
I kind of thought of Albert Wohlstetter. I sometimes don't want to bring this one up, because many times I couldn't help but disapprove of his ultimate conclusions about numerous instances, nevertheless, I did continue to think of this.

Negotiations for an arms agreement usually carry with them a certain amount of euphoria about the ability to enforce even a vaguely worded agreement.

There have been several clear-cut violations of agreements on the peaceful uses of atomic energy and also violations of the nonproliferation treaty. These have been known to other parties to the atomic energy agreements, and in particular the United States government. And they have also been known to the IAEA. Compliance has not been pressed, nor in general has cheating been acknowledged for fear of jeopardizing past or future agreements. Instead, ambiguities have been used, even where interpretation is far-fetched, as equivocations in order not to disturb the inertia of bureaucracies.
 
Somebody needs to help me out with this. Why are we allowing Iran to enrich uranium at all? They have ONE nuclear reactor, none currently under construction nor the ability to produce fuel rods. The current one was built and is FUELED by Russia with the depleted fuel remaining Russian property. They have NO other reason for enrichment else munitions.
'Iran has a major project developing uranium enrichment capability. This program is heavily censured by the UN, since no commercial purpose is evident.'

Nuclear Power in Iran
 
:lamo Well, that lasted about slightly less 72 hours.

Nice. And here I was defending the attempt at diplomacy all over this website. :2wave:
 
ASSad and Putin had run their course for the GOP for now..
The GOP has a new friend in Iran, without looking at the agreement first..
 
Bush sold weapons to iran, links please?
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.
 
I believe the Iranians more than our President, who is a big fat liar. And Kerry is a nincompoop.

Partisanship makes strange bed fellows.
 
:lamo Well, that lasted about slightly less 72 hours.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Conservatives may be celebrating a wee bit on the early side. I clicked the link to the original story, and that News site, "Fars News" (never heard of 'em) had Iran's version of the deal, which you can see here.

The meat of the deal as seen in the White House's release still appears to be there. However, the article says that the Iranians were particular sticklers for details, and the informality of the White House's agreement is what's irking them.

In fact one of the reasons why negotiations between Iran and the G5+1 took so long pertained to the accuracy which was needed for choosing the words for the text of the agreement, Afkham said, explaining that the Iranian delegation was much rigid and laid much emphasis on the need for this accuracy.

So based on this story, at least, everyone seems to have lost their **** prematurely. Neither the White House nor Iran can be said to be dirty rotten liars quite yet (at least, not because of this story).
 
What is it about this story that's causing everybody to go full retard, arrive at a rigidly formed opinion about the treaty and all without reading the full article or the details of the treaty???

Christ!
 
Last edited:
I find it amazing that the hatred some people have for Obama exceeds their disdain for Iran. They would side with Iran over Obama.

They seem to have forgotten. It seems just like yesterday that these folks were saying we can't trust a lying Iran. (Which, I do believe is true.) No wait. That WAS yesterday!

That speaks volumes in and of itself.

They also expressed their love of Muammar Qadafi. Ronald Reagan is doing backflips in his grave.
 
There's a guy who knew how to deal with the Iranians -- sell them missiles

Hey, it's a free market opportunity. They'll need a delivery system for those nooks.
 
I find it amazing that the hatred some people have for Obama exceeds their disdain for Iran. They would side with Iran over Obama.

They seem to have forgotten. It seems just like yesterday that these folks were saying we can't trust a lying Iran. (Which, I do believe is true.) No wait. That WAS yesterday!

That speaks volumes in and of itself.

Who in blue blazes is siding with Iran over Obama? Barack Obama is an incompetent and a boob, and worst of all a bloody liberal, but he at least does have America's interests at heart. Those mullahs, on the other hand, would like to see us all convert to Islam or die. So I'm pretty sure we're all siding with Obama on this one. Doesn't mean we're not gonna take cracks at him, though.
 
Back
Top Bottom