|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 27 2013 08:16 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 08:05 Acrofales wrote:On November 27 2013 08:03 IgnE wrote:On November 27 2013 07:48 Acrofales wrote:On November 27 2013 07:06 MoltkeWarding wrote:On November 27 2013 06:02 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2013 05:48 MoltkeWarding wrote:On November 27 2013 05:28 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2013 05:20 MoltkeWarding wrote:
What about overeating as a symptom of the boredom of the isolated individual in modern society? Addictions and unhealthy habits have a tendency of forming in an existential vacuum, and that may or may not be exacerbated by a condition where basic material needs have been saturated. Never have individuals been more connected to one another, nor had so much to engage their interest. Your idealisation of the past has no basis in reality. On the contrary, yesterday we all collectively agreed that we could have no useful discussion about freedom, because no one knows what it means, or to what it is supposed to relate. It may be true that most people in the world are still capable of maintaining a sense of locality to their expression, of placing their perceptions within the limitations of discrete experiences, but that is not the tendency towards which we are collectively marching. In the broad that we are more connected to each other is true in a brute, mathematical sense, but only by way of inflation. Take a look at Tocqueville's chapter on "Of Individualism In Democratic Countries." It is fairly prophetic nearly two centuries on. If words were food, your posts have already brought me dangerously close to daily caloric intake. If you don't see the use in having forum discussions or enjoy smugly pointing out smug, then you should probably attempt to put that burdensome syntax to use in something more productive. All of a life is a facade, life's a garden, dig it, etc. Of course I see the point. Why do you think I bother to use peoples' own reasoning against them? I merely twist other people's thoughts into poison. That is my way of being smug. You are such a garbage poster. Nothing you say has any meaning. You don't even quote the things you elude to, you never bother to frame an argument or show what you mean. You just lay on layer after layer of utter absurdity, claiming people feel more isolated than ever in the age of facebook and mass communication, that people feel more bored when they have the internet at their disposal if a hundred tv channels wasn't enough. It's just bullshit. Yes, some people feel isolated and adrift but that is not a modern condition, that is the human condition and the reason why our society has created the connectivity and content that it has. For every lonely person writing a blog about their life now there was a lonely guy a hundred years ago feeling the same way but with nobody reading his diary. Just total nonsense, like every other post you make. Actually, up to about three centuries back we do have some useful gauges of how ordinary people lived, and the relative vexations they experienced in their common lives in contrast to our own, because of the advance of the novel as a modern literary genre. We know that people used to fall in love differently, and make love differently as well. We know that their perception of time and the effects of the seasons upon their humours differed. We have a rich canvas upon which to play out our investigations. But as I have learned from our fellow Kwark, there is no need for any of that. We know exactly what a governess in Belle Epoque Rouen was like, without reading, and almost without thinking: they were exactly like us except they didn't play video games or take daily showers or use flush toilets. I am going to summarise this in a Kwark-thesis, so that everyone can understand: Boredom existed in 1913 as well as in 2013. The causes and manifestations of each however are not comparable, and therefore no qualitative equivalence can be established. The problem as we face it must be judged on its own gravity. Anyway, this is a very strange outburst from Kwark, since it does not relate to anything I have actually said. What matters though is not what he is saying but the attitude with which he says it. I believe Kwark feels that I am that prude in the bar who keeps blocking him when he is just trying to score. He doesn't see that I am trying to save him from scoring with a very ugly hag. Except that using Jane Austin as a reference for how people lived in the 18th century is about as useful as taking 50 shades of grey as an accurate representation of modern society. Boring people leading boring everyday lives didn't get written about then, just as they don't get written about now (although for some reason they do get televised in reality shows). And boring people leading boring everyday lives are the VAST majority of people. While I don't have the statistical evidence to back it up, and am still unsure about whether the average lower class citizen of Rwanda is better off now than he was 100 years ago, I am willing to take the evidence given by mcc and Johnny (which is actual data, rather than anecdotal evidence based on ficticious novels) and say that all around the world, the standard of living has improved. He's not talking about the standard of living. He's talking about the anomie and disillusionment within the modern world. He is making a valid point. Kwark's argument is borderline ridiculous, as he seems to be unaware of the widespread socio-structural changes that have occurred with the advent of modernity. Yes, people have 200 friends on facebook, but they also have fewer roots in the community in which they live and work. The nuclear family, a tiny, anomalous conception of family which had already replaced a larger conception of family beginning after WW2, is itself increasingly fragmented. People increasingly have to uproot themselves from their friends and communities multiple times in their life in order to go where employers are hiring. And traditional forms of social solidarity have been dissolved in place of commoditization of social transactions. This is an unproven hypothesis that is highly disputed, insofar as I know. I'm not sure what you think is unproven. Evidence for changes in family size, changes in career, emigration, etc. are pretty easily obtainable.
But the claim that this makes you less happy is unproven.
|
On November 27 2013 08:56 xDaunt wrote:Looks like the Iran deal is going to become a disaster sooner than I thought: Show nested quote +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.
“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, 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 told the Iranian press on Tuesday.
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.
“This comprehensive solution would involve a mutually defined enrichment programme with practical limits and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the programme,” the Iranian draft reads. “This comprehensive solution would constitute an integrated whole where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”
Iran’s objection to the deal raises new concerns about final stage talks meant to ensure that the deal is implemented in the next few weeks.
The White House confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon on Monday that the final details of the plan have yet to be worked out, meaning that Iran is not yet beholden to a six month freeze its nuclear activities.
“Technical details to implement the Joint Plan of Action must be finalized before the terms of the Plan begin,” a senior administration official told the Free Beacon. “The P5+1 and Iran are working on what the timeframe is.”
The White House could not provide additional details on the timeframe when approached by the Free Beacon on Tuesday.
As the details are finalized, Iran will have the ability to continue its most controversial enrichment program. This drew criticism from proponents of tough nuclear restrictions.
“The six month clock should have started early Sunday morning,” said former Ambassador Mark Wallace, the CEO of United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI). “If this is a serious agreement, the P5+1 must ensure that these negotiations do not become a tool for Iran to further increase its enrichment abilities.”
Christians United for Israel (CUFI) Executive Director David Brog said he fears that the White House may have been “played by the Iranians.”
“This may prove to be yet another worrisome sign that the Obama Administration was played by the Iranians,” Brog told the Free Beacon in a statement. “Their concessions were either illusory or meaningless, while ours will resuscitate the Iranian economy.”
The White House said in its fact sheet on the deal that it could release up to $7 billion dollars to Iran during the first phase of the agreement.
The United States additionally agreed to suspend “certain sanctions on gold and precious metals, Iran’s auto sector, and Iran’s petrochemical exports, potentially providing Iran approximately $1.5 billion in revenue,” according to the now disputed fact sheet.
Iran could earn another $4.2 billion in oil revenue under the deal.
Another “$400 million in governmental tuition assistance” could also be “transferred from restricted Iranian funds directly to recognized educational institutions in third countries to defray the tuition costs of Iranian students,” according to the White House.
While Iranian foreign ministry officials did not specify their precise disagreements with the White House, they insisted that “the Iranian delegation was much rigid and laid much emphasis on the need for this accuracy.” Source. Let me ask again: what exactly did we just buy from Iran?
Honestly most of the deal is going to be about face-saving on both sides rather than substantive details, since Iran has conceded to substantive monitoring of their nuclear program since, well, its inception. There's no real change in their nuclear program, just a change in their attitude toward the West: Ahmadinejad wanted to make having nuclear power be a "fuck you" to the West just like he wanted everything to be a "fuck you" to the West, whereas Rouhani doesn't.
|
On November 27 2013 09:20 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 08:56 xDaunt wrote:Looks like the Iran deal is going to become a disaster sooner than I thought: 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.
“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, 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 told the Iranian press on Tuesday.
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.
“This comprehensive solution would involve a mutually defined enrichment programme with practical limits and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the programme,” the Iranian draft reads. “This comprehensive solution would constitute an integrated whole where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”
Iran’s objection to the deal raises new concerns about final stage talks meant to ensure that the deal is implemented in the next few weeks.
The White House confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon on Monday that the final details of the plan have yet to be worked out, meaning that Iran is not yet beholden to a six month freeze its nuclear activities.
“Technical details to implement the Joint Plan of Action must be finalized before the terms of the Plan begin,” a senior administration official told the Free Beacon. “The P5+1 and Iran are working on what the timeframe is.”
The White House could not provide additional details on the timeframe when approached by the Free Beacon on Tuesday.
As the details are finalized, Iran will have the ability to continue its most controversial enrichment program. This drew criticism from proponents of tough nuclear restrictions.
“The six month clock should have started early Sunday morning,” said former Ambassador Mark Wallace, the CEO of United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI). “If this is a serious agreement, the P5+1 must ensure that these negotiations do not become a tool for Iran to further increase its enrichment abilities.”
Christians United for Israel (CUFI) Executive Director David Brog said he fears that the White House may have been “played by the Iranians.”
“This may prove to be yet another worrisome sign that the Obama Administration was played by the Iranians,” Brog told the Free Beacon in a statement. “Their concessions were either illusory or meaningless, while ours will resuscitate the Iranian economy.”
The White House said in its fact sheet on the deal that it could release up to $7 billion dollars to Iran during the first phase of the agreement.
The United States additionally agreed to suspend “certain sanctions on gold and precious metals, Iran’s auto sector, and Iran’s petrochemical exports, potentially providing Iran approximately $1.5 billion in revenue,” according to the now disputed fact sheet.
Iran could earn another $4.2 billion in oil revenue under the deal.
Another “$400 million in governmental tuition assistance” could also be “transferred from restricted Iranian funds directly to recognized educational institutions in third countries to defray the tuition costs of Iranian students,” according to the White House.
While Iranian foreign ministry officials did not specify their precise disagreements with the White House, they insisted that “the Iranian delegation was much rigid and laid much emphasis on the need for this accuracy.” Source. Let me ask again: what exactly did we just buy from Iran? Honestly most of the deal is going to be about face-saving on both sides rather than substantive details, since Iran has conceded to substantive monitoring of their nuclear program since, well, its inception. There's no real change in their nuclear program, just a change in their attitude toward the West: Ahmadinejad wanted to make having nuclear power be a "fuck you" to the West just like he wanted everything to be a "fuck you" to the West, whereas Rouhani doesn't.
Face saving is all well and good when there are no consequences for it. We just gave Iran $7 billion (and possibly another $4 billion), which will undermine the sanctions. More importantly, we threw our Israeli and Arab allies under the bus by even entering into this agreement. How much longer will it be before there's a general arms race in the Middle East now that everyone sees the void in power and influence that we're creating?
|
Iran seems like a better ally in the region than the Saudis.
|
United States43620 Posts
On November 27 2013 09:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 09:20 HunterX11 wrote:On November 27 2013 08:56 xDaunt wrote:Looks like the Iran deal is going to become a disaster sooner than I thought: 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.
“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, 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 told the Iranian press on Tuesday.
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.
“This comprehensive solution would involve a mutually defined enrichment programme with practical limits and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the programme,” the Iranian draft reads. “This comprehensive solution would constitute an integrated whole where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”
Iran’s objection to the deal raises new concerns about final stage talks meant to ensure that the deal is implemented in the next few weeks.
The White House confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon on Monday that the final details of the plan have yet to be worked out, meaning that Iran is not yet beholden to a six month freeze its nuclear activities.
“Technical details to implement the Joint Plan of Action must be finalized before the terms of the Plan begin,” a senior administration official told the Free Beacon. “The P5+1 and Iran are working on what the timeframe is.”
The White House could not provide additional details on the timeframe when approached by the Free Beacon on Tuesday.
As the details are finalized, Iran will have the ability to continue its most controversial enrichment program. This drew criticism from proponents of tough nuclear restrictions.
“The six month clock should have started early Sunday morning,” said former Ambassador Mark Wallace, the CEO of United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI). “If this is a serious agreement, the P5+1 must ensure that these negotiations do not become a tool for Iran to further increase its enrichment abilities.”
Christians United for Israel (CUFI) Executive Director David Brog said he fears that the White House may have been “played by the Iranians.”
“This may prove to be yet another worrisome sign that the Obama Administration was played by the Iranians,” Brog told the Free Beacon in a statement. “Their concessions were either illusory or meaningless, while ours will resuscitate the Iranian economy.”
The White House said in its fact sheet on the deal that it could release up to $7 billion dollars to Iran during the first phase of the agreement.
The United States additionally agreed to suspend “certain sanctions on gold and precious metals, Iran’s auto sector, and Iran’s petrochemical exports, potentially providing Iran approximately $1.5 billion in revenue,” according to the now disputed fact sheet.
Iran could earn another $4.2 billion in oil revenue under the deal.
Another “$400 million in governmental tuition assistance” could also be “transferred from restricted Iranian funds directly to recognized educational institutions in third countries to defray the tuition costs of Iranian students,” according to the White House.
While Iranian foreign ministry officials did not specify their precise disagreements with the White House, they insisted that “the Iranian delegation was much rigid and laid much emphasis on the need for this accuracy.” Source. Let me ask again: what exactly did we just buy from Iran? Honestly most of the deal is going to be about face-saving on both sides rather than substantive details, since Iran has conceded to substantive monitoring of their nuclear program since, well, its inception. There's no real change in their nuclear program, just a change in their attitude toward the West: Ahmadinejad wanted to make having nuclear power be a "fuck you" to the West just like he wanted everything to be a "fuck you" to the West, whereas Rouhani doesn't. Face saving is all well and good when there are no consequences for it. We just gave Iran $7 billion (and possibly another $4 billion), which will undermine the sanctions. More importantly, we threw our Israeli and Arab allies under the bus by even entering into this agreement. How much longer will it be before there's a general arms race in the Middle East now that everyone sees the void in power and influence that we're creating?
Wasn't the 7b theirs already and was just frozen because sanctions?
|
It was, but don't let that get in the way of xDaunt's point Kwark! Like I've already said, Iran is going to surprise a lot of folks as the lifting of sanctions begins to take effect, and the discomfort of the Saudi's and Israeli's will end up being the worst of it.
|
On November 27 2013 08:56 xDaunt wrote:Looks like the Iran deal is going to become a disaster sooner than I thought: Show nested quote +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.
“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, 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 told the Iranian press on Tuesday.
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.
“This comprehensive solution would involve a mutually defined enrichment programme with practical limits and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the programme,” the Iranian draft reads. “This comprehensive solution would constitute an integrated whole where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”
Iran’s objection to the deal raises new concerns about final stage talks meant to ensure that the deal is implemented in the next few weeks.
The White House confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon on Monday that the final details of the plan have yet to be worked out, meaning that Iran is not yet beholden to a six month freeze its nuclear activities.
“Technical details to implement the Joint Plan of Action must be finalized before the terms of the Plan begin,” a senior administration official told the Free Beacon. “The P5+1 and Iran are working on what the timeframe is.”
The White House could not provide additional details on the timeframe when approached by the Free Beacon on Tuesday.
As the details are finalized, Iran will have the ability to continue its most controversial enrichment program. This drew criticism from proponents of tough nuclear restrictions.
“The six month clock should have started early Sunday morning,” said former Ambassador Mark Wallace, the CEO of United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI). “If this is a serious agreement, the P5+1 must ensure that these negotiations do not become a tool for Iran to further increase its enrichment abilities.”
Christians United for Israel (CUFI) Executive Director David Brog said he fears that the White House may have been “played by the Iranians.”
“This may prove to be yet another worrisome sign that the Obama Administration was played by the Iranians,” Brog told the Free Beacon in a statement. “Their concessions were either illusory or meaningless, while ours will resuscitate the Iranian economy.”
The White House said in its fact sheet on the deal that it could release up to $7 billion dollars to Iran during the first phase of the agreement.
The United States additionally agreed to suspend “certain sanctions on gold and precious metals, Iran’s auto sector, and Iran’s petrochemical exports, potentially providing Iran approximately $1.5 billion in revenue,” according to the now disputed fact sheet.
Iran could earn another $4.2 billion in oil revenue under the deal.
Another “$400 million in governmental tuition assistance” could also be “transferred from restricted Iranian funds directly to recognized educational institutions in third countries to defray the tuition costs of Iranian students,” according to the White House.
While Iranian foreign ministry officials did not specify their precise disagreements with the White House, they insisted that “the Iranian delegation was much rigid and laid much emphasis on the need for this accuracy.” Source. Let me ask again: what exactly did we just buy from Iran?
That's a good question, but perhaps not the most important one considering the US, EU and UN can "halt payment" at will. Either way, what a bizarre turn of events. What does Iran gain from signing an agreement and disagreeing with it two days later? Makes no sense.
|
I think a lot of people overhype the "evil" of Iran. Sure they hate Israel but everyone in the region does (and i would even say with good reason). They are not inherently evil, they dislike the US because it was there puppet dicator they had to overthrow but other then that they dont seem to mind much either.
So they want a nuke. I would want a nuke if I lived near Israel, there a lose cannon. The US backing off always supporting Israel regardless of position might actually lead to move stability between the country's in the region.
|
On November 27 2013 09:48 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 08:56 xDaunt wrote:Looks like the Iran deal is going to become a disaster sooner than I thought: 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.
“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, 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 told the Iranian press on Tuesday.
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.
“This comprehensive solution would involve a mutually defined enrichment programme with practical limits and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the programme,” the Iranian draft reads. “This comprehensive solution would constitute an integrated whole where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”
Iran’s objection to the deal raises new concerns about final stage talks meant to ensure that the deal is implemented in the next few weeks.
The White House confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon on Monday that the final details of the plan have yet to be worked out, meaning that Iran is not yet beholden to a six month freeze its nuclear activities.
“Technical details to implement the Joint Plan of Action must be finalized before the terms of the Plan begin,” a senior administration official told the Free Beacon. “The P5+1 and Iran are working on what the timeframe is.”
The White House could not provide additional details on the timeframe when approached by the Free Beacon on Tuesday.
As the details are finalized, Iran will have the ability to continue its most controversial enrichment program. This drew criticism from proponents of tough nuclear restrictions.
“The six month clock should have started early Sunday morning,” said former Ambassador Mark Wallace, the CEO of United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI). “If this is a serious agreement, the P5+1 must ensure that these negotiations do not become a tool for Iran to further increase its enrichment abilities.”
Christians United for Israel (CUFI) Executive Director David Brog said he fears that the White House may have been “played by the Iranians.”
“This may prove to be yet another worrisome sign that the Obama Administration was played by the Iranians,” Brog told the Free Beacon in a statement. “Their concessions were either illusory or meaningless, while ours will resuscitate the Iranian economy.”
The White House said in its fact sheet on the deal that it could release up to $7 billion dollars to Iran during the first phase of the agreement.
The United States additionally agreed to suspend “certain sanctions on gold and precious metals, Iran’s auto sector, and Iran’s petrochemical exports, potentially providing Iran approximately $1.5 billion in revenue,” according to the now disputed fact sheet.
Iran could earn another $4.2 billion in oil revenue under the deal.
Another “$400 million in governmental tuition assistance” could also be “transferred from restricted Iranian funds directly to recognized educational institutions in third countries to defray the tuition costs of Iranian students,” according to the White House.
While Iranian foreign ministry officials did not specify their precise disagreements with the White House, they insisted that “the Iranian delegation was much rigid and laid much emphasis on the need for this accuracy.” Source. Let me ask again: what exactly did we just buy from Iran? That's a good question, but perhaps not the most important one considering the US, EU and UN can "halt payment" at will. Either way, what a bizarre turn of events. What does Iran gain from signing an agreement and disagreeing with it two days later? Makes no sense.
There not disagreeing with it. It looks like the details aren't decided yet and the US came with a version that makes them look like getting a decent deal and Iran just did the same. The truth will probably fall somewhere in the middle.
|
United States43620 Posts
On November 27 2013 09:49 Gorsameth wrote:
I think a lot of people overhype the "evil" of Iran. Sure they hate Israel but everyone in the region does (and i would even say with good reason). They are not inherently evil, they dislike the US because it was there puppet dicator they had to overthrow but other then that they dont seem to mind much either.
So they want a nuke. I would want a nuke if I lived near Israel, there a lose cannon. The US backing off always supporting Israel regardless of position might actually lead to move stability between the country's in the region.
They also don't like the way the US military murdered a bunch of Iranian civilians for literally no reason and then refused to apologise for it and then gave the officer in question a medal.
|
On November 27 2013 09:50 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 09:48 Sbrubbles wrote:On November 27 2013 08:56 xDaunt wrote:Looks like the Iran deal is going to become a disaster sooner than I thought: 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.
“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, 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 told the Iranian press on Tuesday.
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.
“This comprehensive solution would involve a mutually defined enrichment programme with practical limits and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the programme,” the Iranian draft reads. “This comprehensive solution would constitute an integrated whole where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”
Iran’s objection to the deal raises new concerns about final stage talks meant to ensure that the deal is implemented in the next few weeks.
The White House confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon on Monday that the final details of the plan have yet to be worked out, meaning that Iran is not yet beholden to a six month freeze its nuclear activities.
“Technical details to implement the Joint Plan of Action must be finalized before the terms of the Plan begin,” a senior administration official told the Free Beacon. “The P5+1 and Iran are working on what the timeframe is.”
The White House could not provide additional details on the timeframe when approached by the Free Beacon on Tuesday.
As the details are finalized, Iran will have the ability to continue its most controversial enrichment program. This drew criticism from proponents of tough nuclear restrictions.
“The six month clock should have started early Sunday morning,” said former Ambassador Mark Wallace, the CEO of United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI). “If this is a serious agreement, the P5+1 must ensure that these negotiations do not become a tool for Iran to further increase its enrichment abilities.”
Christians United for Israel (CUFI) Executive Director David Brog said he fears that the White House may have been “played by the Iranians.”
“This may prove to be yet another worrisome sign that the Obama Administration was played by the Iranians,” Brog told the Free Beacon in a statement. “Their concessions were either illusory or meaningless, while ours will resuscitate the Iranian economy.”
The White House said in its fact sheet on the deal that it could release up to $7 billion dollars to Iran during the first phase of the agreement.
The United States additionally agreed to suspend “certain sanctions on gold and precious metals, Iran’s auto sector, and Iran’s petrochemical exports, potentially providing Iran approximately $1.5 billion in revenue,” according to the now disputed fact sheet.
Iran could earn another $4.2 billion in oil revenue under the deal.
Another “$400 million in governmental tuition assistance” could also be “transferred from restricted Iranian funds directly to recognized educational institutions in third countries to defray the tuition costs of Iranian students,” according to the White House.
While Iranian foreign ministry officials did not specify their precise disagreements with the White House, they insisted that “the Iranian delegation was much rigid and laid much emphasis on the need for this accuracy.” Source. Let me ask again: what exactly did we just buy from Iran? That's a good question, but perhaps not the most important one considering the US, EU and UN can "halt payment" at will. Either way, what a bizarre turn of events. What does Iran gain from signing an agreement and disagreeing with it two days later? Makes no sense. There not disagreeing with it. It looks like the details aren't decided yet and the US came with a version that makes them look like getting a decent deal and Iran just did the same. The truth will probably fall somewhere in the middle.
How on earth can there be an agreement, and both presidents come out with a statement that they have reached an agreement, if the details aren't decided yet: that basically means that there is no agreement.
Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen (or actually happening right now).
EDIT: to clarify. It probably means the white house went and blabbed about things that are not agreed upon yet in this first draft. Which is to say that the hopeful news yesterday about this draft could be about as useful as Clinton stating halfway through the Camp David discussions on peace in Israel that they were making progress. It can all still blow up. And the chances of it all blowing up are bigger the more unfinished details get leaked to the press so the politicians having to actually reach a compromise get backed into a corner.
|
On November 27 2013 09:29 IgnE wrote:
Iran seems like a better ally in the region than the Saudis.
Tbh basically everyone looks like a better ally than the Saudis.
I mean i the Iran isn't exactly the most humanistic country on this planet, but they're better than the Arab Emirates.(I'm no middle eastern expert, but at least they seem to have some kind of electoral system and women are allowed to leave their house) And i don't get your "power void" thing xDaunt. Incorporating Iran into international affairs and letting them out of isolation achieves exactly the opposite thing.
Now we are sitting in a kind of void, because all the sanctions(and their weird leaders who provoked all the shit) have driven them into some kind of North-Korean "nope fuck you" mode. If the Iran could successfully get involved they'd probably create some stability around there. (It's a 80 million pop. country after all)
|
On November 27 2013 09:49 Gorsameth wrote:
I think a lot of people overhype the "evil" of Iran. Sure they hate Israel but everyone in the region does (and i would even say with good reason). They are not inherently evil, they dislike the US because it was there puppet dicator they had to overthrow but other then that they dont seem to mind much either.
So they want a nuke. I would want a nuke if I lived near Israel, there a lose cannon. The US backing off always supporting Israel regardless of position might actually lead to move stability between the country's in the region.
At this point it looks more like Iran wants a "virtual nuke" like Japan, i.e. the ability to build one quickly in the future. It's also worth noting that even North Korea gave their 90 days notification to withdraw from the NPT. At this point I don't see any better option than diplomacy to convince Iran not to build a nuke, and telling Iran they have to scrap their entire nuclear energy program n return for nothing or else face sanctions is not diplomacy: if anything, it's goading Iran into actually building a nuke.
It's already impractical to destroy their nuclear program with limited strikes, but it isn't really going to become any more impractical in the future if diplomacy fails, because they've already hardened their key sites. And they aren't going to announce a nuke by surprise because we would have at least a few months of notice once either Iran themselves tells the world they're building a nuke, or they stop adhering to IAEA inspections and non-diversion programs (or the least likely but I suppose possible third option of just building a nuke with the IAEA is watching without saying anything).
|
On November 27 2013 09:50 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 09:48 Sbrubbles wrote:On November 27 2013 08:56 xDaunt wrote:Looks like the Iran deal is going to become a disaster sooner than I thought: 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.
“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, 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 told the Iranian press on Tuesday.
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.
“This comprehensive solution would involve a mutually defined enrichment programme with practical limits and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the programme,” the Iranian draft reads. “This comprehensive solution would constitute an integrated whole where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”
Iran’s objection to the deal raises new concerns about final stage talks meant to ensure that the deal is implemented in the next few weeks.
The White House confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon on Monday that the final details of the plan have yet to be worked out, meaning that Iran is not yet beholden to a six month freeze its nuclear activities.
“Technical details to implement the Joint Plan of Action must be finalized before the terms of the Plan begin,” a senior administration official told the Free Beacon. “The P5+1 and Iran are working on what the timeframe is.”
The White House could not provide additional details on the timeframe when approached by the Free Beacon on Tuesday.
As the details are finalized, Iran will have the ability to continue its most controversial enrichment program. This drew criticism from proponents of tough nuclear restrictions.
“The six month clock should have started early Sunday morning,” said former Ambassador Mark Wallace, the CEO of United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI). “If this is a serious agreement, the P5+1 must ensure that these negotiations do not become a tool for Iran to further increase its enrichment abilities.”
Christians United for Israel (CUFI) Executive Director David Brog said he fears that the White House may have been “played by the Iranians.”
“This may prove to be yet another worrisome sign that the Obama Administration was played by the Iranians,” Brog told the Free Beacon in a statement. “Their concessions were either illusory or meaningless, while ours will resuscitate the Iranian economy.”
The White House said in its fact sheet on the deal that it could release up to $7 billion dollars to Iran during the first phase of the agreement.
The United States additionally agreed to suspend “certain sanctions on gold and precious metals, Iran’s auto sector, and Iran’s petrochemical exports, potentially providing Iran approximately $1.5 billion in revenue,” according to the now disputed fact sheet.
Iran could earn another $4.2 billion in oil revenue under the deal.
Another “$400 million in governmental tuition assistance” could also be “transferred from restricted Iranian funds directly to recognized educational institutions in third countries to defray the tuition costs of Iranian students,” according to the White House.
While Iranian foreign ministry officials did not specify their precise disagreements with the White House, they insisted that “the Iranian delegation was much rigid and laid much emphasis on the need for this accuracy.” Source. Let me ask again: what exactly did we just buy from Iran? That's a good question, but perhaps not the most important one considering the US, EU and UN can "halt payment" at will. Either way, what a bizarre turn of events. What does Iran gain from signing an agreement and disagreeing with it two days later? Makes no sense. There not disagreeing with it. It looks like the details aren't decided yet and the US came with a version that makes them look like getting a decent deal and Iran just did the same. The truth will probably fall somewhere in the middle.
Ah, ok I had misunderstood. The CNN article I was looking at is a bit misguiding + Show Spoiler +http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/23/world/meast/iran-nuclear-deal-details/ The White House late Saturday issued a detailed synopsis, or "fact sheet," of the six-month deal regarding Iran's nuclear program. followed by a button that reads "read the deal", as if you were actually looking at the deal and not at the white house fact sheet.
|
On November 27 2013 09:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 09:26 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 09:20 HunterX11 wrote:On November 27 2013 08:56 xDaunt wrote:Looks like the Iran deal is going to become a disaster sooner than I thought: 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.
“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, 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 told the Iranian press on Tuesday.
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.
“This comprehensive solution would involve a mutually defined enrichment programme with practical limits and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the programme,” the Iranian draft reads. “This comprehensive solution would constitute an integrated whole where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”
Iran’s objection to the deal raises new concerns about final stage talks meant to ensure that the deal is implemented in the next few weeks.
The White House confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon on Monday that the final details of the plan have yet to be worked out, meaning that Iran is not yet beholden to a six month freeze its nuclear activities.
“Technical details to implement the Joint Plan of Action must be finalized before the terms of the Plan begin,” a senior administration official told the Free Beacon. “The P5+1 and Iran are working on what the timeframe is.”
The White House could not provide additional details on the timeframe when approached by the Free Beacon on Tuesday.
As the details are finalized, Iran will have the ability to continue its most controversial enrichment program. This drew criticism from proponents of tough nuclear restrictions.
“The six month clock should have started early Sunday morning,” said former Ambassador Mark Wallace, the CEO of United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI). “If this is a serious agreement, the P5+1 must ensure that these negotiations do not become a tool for Iran to further increase its enrichment abilities.”
Christians United for Israel (CUFI) Executive Director David Brog said he fears that the White House may have been “played by the Iranians.”
“This may prove to be yet another worrisome sign that the Obama Administration was played by the Iranians,” Brog told the Free Beacon in a statement. “Their concessions were either illusory or meaningless, while ours will resuscitate the Iranian economy.”
The White House said in its fact sheet on the deal that it could release up to $7 billion dollars to Iran during the first phase of the agreement.
The United States additionally agreed to suspend “certain sanctions on gold and precious metals, Iran’s auto sector, and Iran’s petrochemical exports, potentially providing Iran approximately $1.5 billion in revenue,” according to the now disputed fact sheet.
Iran could earn another $4.2 billion in oil revenue under the deal.
Another “$400 million in governmental tuition assistance” could also be “transferred from restricted Iranian funds directly to recognized educational institutions in third countries to defray the tuition costs of Iranian students,” according to the White House.
While Iranian foreign ministry officials did not specify their precise disagreements with the White House, they insisted that “the Iranian delegation was much rigid and laid much emphasis on the need for this accuracy.” Source. Let me ask again: what exactly did we just buy from Iran? Honestly most of the deal is going to be about face-saving on both sides rather than substantive details, since Iran has conceded to substantive monitoring of their nuclear program since, well, its inception. There's no real change in their nuclear program, just a change in their attitude toward the West: Ahmadinejad wanted to make having nuclear power be a "fuck you" to the West just like he wanted everything to be a "fuck you" to the West, whereas Rouhani doesn't. Face saving is all well and good when there are no consequences for it. We just gave Iran $7 billion (and possibly another $4 billion), which will undermine the sanctions. More importantly, we threw our Israeli and Arab allies under the bus by even entering into this agreement. How much longer will it be before there's a general arms race in the Middle East now that everyone sees the void in power and influence that we're creating? Wasn't the 7b theirs already and was just frozen because sanctions?
Who cares? The whole purpose of sanctions is to deprive someone of money, property, or other interests that would otherwise be theirs. The $7 billion is money that Iran would not have gotten but for this agreement.
|
On November 27 2013 10:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 09:30 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2013 09:26 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 09:20 HunterX11 wrote:On November 27 2013 08:56 xDaunt wrote:Looks like the Iran deal is going to become a disaster sooner than I thought: 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.
“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, 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 told the Iranian press on Tuesday.
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.
“This comprehensive solution would involve a mutually defined enrichment programme with practical limits and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the programme,” the Iranian draft reads. “This comprehensive solution would constitute an integrated whole where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”
Iran’s objection to the deal raises new concerns about final stage talks meant to ensure that the deal is implemented in the next few weeks.
The White House confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon on Monday that the final details of the plan have yet to be worked out, meaning that Iran is not yet beholden to a six month freeze its nuclear activities.
“Technical details to implement the Joint Plan of Action must be finalized before the terms of the Plan begin,” a senior administration official told the Free Beacon. “The P5+1 and Iran are working on what the timeframe is.”
The White House could not provide additional details on the timeframe when approached by the Free Beacon on Tuesday.
As the details are finalized, Iran will have the ability to continue its most controversial enrichment program. This drew criticism from proponents of tough nuclear restrictions.
“The six month clock should have started early Sunday morning,” said former Ambassador Mark Wallace, the CEO of United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI). “If this is a serious agreement, the P5+1 must ensure that these negotiations do not become a tool for Iran to further increase its enrichment abilities.”
Christians United for Israel (CUFI) Executive Director David Brog said he fears that the White House may have been “played by the Iranians.”
“This may prove to be yet another worrisome sign that the Obama Administration was played by the Iranians,” Brog told the Free Beacon in a statement. “Their concessions were either illusory or meaningless, while ours will resuscitate the Iranian economy.”
The White House said in its fact sheet on the deal that it could release up to $7 billion dollars to Iran during the first phase of the agreement.
The United States additionally agreed to suspend “certain sanctions on gold and precious metals, Iran’s auto sector, and Iran’s petrochemical exports, potentially providing Iran approximately $1.5 billion in revenue,” according to the now disputed fact sheet.
Iran could earn another $4.2 billion in oil revenue under the deal.
Another “$400 million in governmental tuition assistance” could also be “transferred from restricted Iranian funds directly to recognized educational institutions in third countries to defray the tuition costs of Iranian students,” according to the White House.
While Iranian foreign ministry officials did not specify their precise disagreements with the White House, they insisted that “the Iranian delegation was much rigid and laid much emphasis on the need for this accuracy.” Source. Let me ask again: what exactly did we just buy from Iran? Honestly most of the deal is going to be about face-saving on both sides rather than substantive details, since Iran has conceded to substantive monitoring of their nuclear program since, well, its inception. There's no real change in their nuclear program, just a change in their attitude toward the West: Ahmadinejad wanted to make having nuclear power be a "fuck you" to the West just like he wanted everything to be a "fuck you" to the West, whereas Rouhani doesn't. Face saving is all well and good when there are no consequences for it. We just gave Iran $7 billion (and possibly another $4 billion), which will undermine the sanctions. More importantly, we threw our Israeli and Arab allies under the bus by even entering into this agreement. How much longer will it be before there's a general arms race in the Middle East now that everyone sees the void in power and influence that we're creating? Wasn't the 7b theirs already and was just frozen because sanctions? Who cares? The whole purpose of sanctions is to deprive someone of money, property, or other interests that would otherwise be theirs. The $7 billion is money that Iran would not have gotten but for this agreement.
And what's the point depriving someone of money, property, or other interests that would otherwise be theirs if not to get them to concede to certain demands, such as the ones laid out in the agreement? I think most opposition to this agreement has nothing to do with the details, and comes from a viewpoint that Iran is bad and therefore we should always do bad things to them (that's certainly Netanyahu's perspective lol). But that's no more mature than Ahmadinejad's view of America. The whole point of this agreement is to move away from the whole Bush/Ahmadinejad style of arrogant non-diplomacy.
|
|
|
On November 27 2013 10:09 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 10:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 09:30 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2013 09:26 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 09:20 HunterX11 wrote:On November 27 2013 08:56 xDaunt wrote:Looks like the Iran deal is going to become a disaster sooner than I thought: 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.
“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, 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 told the Iranian press on Tuesday.
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.
“This comprehensive solution would involve a mutually defined enrichment programme with practical limits and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the programme,” the Iranian draft reads. “This comprehensive solution would constitute an integrated whole where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”
Iran’s objection to the deal raises new concerns about final stage talks meant to ensure that the deal is implemented in the next few weeks.
The White House confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon on Monday that the final details of the plan have yet to be worked out, meaning that Iran is not yet beholden to a six month freeze its nuclear activities.
“Technical details to implement the Joint Plan of Action must be finalized before the terms of the Plan begin,” a senior administration official told the Free Beacon. “The P5+1 and Iran are working on what the timeframe is.”
The White House could not provide additional details on the timeframe when approached by the Free Beacon on Tuesday.
As the details are finalized, Iran will have the ability to continue its most controversial enrichment program. This drew criticism from proponents of tough nuclear restrictions.
“The six month clock should have started early Sunday morning,” said former Ambassador Mark Wallace, the CEO of United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI). “If this is a serious agreement, the P5+1 must ensure that these negotiations do not become a tool for Iran to further increase its enrichment abilities.”
Christians United for Israel (CUFI) Executive Director David Brog said he fears that the White House may have been “played by the Iranians.”
“This may prove to be yet another worrisome sign that the Obama Administration was played by the Iranians,” Brog told the Free Beacon in a statement. “Their concessions were either illusory or meaningless, while ours will resuscitate the Iranian economy.”
The White House said in its fact sheet on the deal that it could release up to $7 billion dollars to Iran during the first phase of the agreement.
The United States additionally agreed to suspend “certain sanctions on gold and precious metals, Iran’s auto sector, and Iran’s petrochemical exports, potentially providing Iran approximately $1.5 billion in revenue,” according to the now disputed fact sheet.
Iran could earn another $4.2 billion in oil revenue under the deal.
Another “$400 million in governmental tuition assistance” could also be “transferred from restricted Iranian funds directly to recognized educational institutions in third countries to defray the tuition costs of Iranian students,” according to the White House.
While Iranian foreign ministry officials did not specify their precise disagreements with the White House, they insisted that “the Iranian delegation was much rigid and laid much emphasis on the need for this accuracy.” Source. Let me ask again: what exactly did we just buy from Iran? Honestly most of the deal is going to be about face-saving on both sides rather than substantive details, since Iran has conceded to substantive monitoring of their nuclear program since, well, its inception. There's no real change in their nuclear program, just a change in their attitude toward the West: Ahmadinejad wanted to make having nuclear power be a "fuck you" to the West just like he wanted everything to be a "fuck you" to the West, whereas Rouhani doesn't. Face saving is all well and good when there are no consequences for it. We just gave Iran $7 billion (and possibly another $4 billion), which will undermine the sanctions. More importantly, we threw our Israeli and Arab allies under the bus by even entering into this agreement. How much longer will it be before there's a general arms race in the Middle East now that everyone sees the void in power and influence that we're creating? Wasn't the 7b theirs already and was just frozen because sanctions? Who cares? The whole purpose of sanctions is to deprive someone of money, property, or other interests that would otherwise be theirs. The $7 billion is money that Iran would not have gotten but for this agreement. And what's the point depriving someone of money, property, or other interests that would otherwise be theirs if not to get them to concede to certain demands, such as the ones laid out in the agreement? I think most opposition to this agreement has nothing to do with the details, and comes from a viewpoint that Iran is bad and therefore we should always do bad things to them (that's certainly Netanyahu's perspective lol). But that's no more mature than Ahmadinejad's view of America. The whole point of this agreement is to move away from the whole Bush/Ahmadinejad style of arrogant non-diplomacy.
The point of sanctioning Iran is to comparatively advance our interests by harming a geopolitical adversary. The ultimate goal of any state's foreign policy is advancing national self-interest. All other concerns are secondary.
|
On November 27 2013 10:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 10:09 HunterX11 wrote:On November 27 2013 10:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 09:30 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2013 09:26 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 09:20 HunterX11 wrote:On November 27 2013 08:56 xDaunt wrote:Looks like the Iran deal is going to become a disaster sooner than I thought: 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.
“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, 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 told the Iranian press on Tuesday.
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.
“This comprehensive solution would involve a mutually defined enrichment programme with practical limits and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the programme,” the Iranian draft reads. “This comprehensive solution would constitute an integrated whole where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”
Iran’s objection to the deal raises new concerns about final stage talks meant to ensure that the deal is implemented in the next few weeks.
The White House confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon on Monday that the final details of the plan have yet to be worked out, meaning that Iran is not yet beholden to a six month freeze its nuclear activities.
“Technical details to implement the Joint Plan of Action must be finalized before the terms of the Plan begin,” a senior administration official told the Free Beacon. “The P5+1 and Iran are working on what the timeframe is.”
The White House could not provide additional details on the timeframe when approached by the Free Beacon on Tuesday.
As the details are finalized, Iran will have the ability to continue its most controversial enrichment program. This drew criticism from proponents of tough nuclear restrictions.
“The six month clock should have started early Sunday morning,” said former Ambassador Mark Wallace, the CEO of United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI). “If this is a serious agreement, the P5+1 must ensure that these negotiations do not become a tool for Iran to further increase its enrichment abilities.”
Christians United for Israel (CUFI) Executive Director David Brog said he fears that the White House may have been “played by the Iranians.”
“This may prove to be yet another worrisome sign that the Obama Administration was played by the Iranians,” Brog told the Free Beacon in a statement. “Their concessions were either illusory or meaningless, while ours will resuscitate the Iranian economy.”
The White House said in its fact sheet on the deal that it could release up to $7 billion dollars to Iran during the first phase of the agreement.
The United States additionally agreed to suspend “certain sanctions on gold and precious metals, Iran’s auto sector, and Iran’s petrochemical exports, potentially providing Iran approximately $1.5 billion in revenue,” according to the now disputed fact sheet.
Iran could earn another $4.2 billion in oil revenue under the deal.
Another “$400 million in governmental tuition assistance” could also be “transferred from restricted Iranian funds directly to recognized educational institutions in third countries to defray the tuition costs of Iranian students,” according to the White House.
While Iranian foreign ministry officials did not specify their precise disagreements with the White House, they insisted that “the Iranian delegation was much rigid and laid much emphasis on the need for this accuracy.” Source. Let me ask again: what exactly did we just buy from Iran? Honestly most of the deal is going to be about face-saving on both sides rather than substantive details, since Iran has conceded to substantive monitoring of their nuclear program since, well, its inception. There's no real change in their nuclear program, just a change in their attitude toward the West: Ahmadinejad wanted to make having nuclear power be a "fuck you" to the West just like he wanted everything to be a "fuck you" to the West, whereas Rouhani doesn't. Face saving is all well and good when there are no consequences for it. We just gave Iran $7 billion (and possibly another $4 billion), which will undermine the sanctions. More importantly, we threw our Israeli and Arab allies under the bus by even entering into this agreement. How much longer will it be before there's a general arms race in the Middle East now that everyone sees the void in power and influence that we're creating? Wasn't the 7b theirs already and was just frozen because sanctions? Who cares? The whole purpose of sanctions is to deprive someone of money, property, or other interests that would otherwise be theirs. The $7 billion is money that Iran would not have gotten but for this agreement. And what's the point depriving someone of money, property, or other interests that would otherwise be theirs if not to get them to concede to certain demands, such as the ones laid out in the agreement? I think most opposition to this agreement has nothing to do with the details, and comes from a viewpoint that Iran is bad and therefore we should always do bad things to them (that's certainly Netanyahu's perspective lol). But that's no more mature than Ahmadinejad's view of America. The whole point of this agreement is to move away from the whole Bush/Ahmadinejad style of arrogant non-diplomacy. The point of sanctioning Iran is to comparatively advance our interests by harming a geopolitical adversary. The ultimate goal of any state's foreign policy is advancing national self-interest. All other concerns are secondary.
Or we could just be less adversarial? There's no inherent reason Iran has to be our adversary: while obviously there's a lot of bad blood, there are a lot of shared interests, too. Also, nuclear non-proliferation is pretty important since I think the long-term survival of the human race ranks higher than the interests of the American government.
|
Norway28747 Posts
On November 27 2013 08:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 08:30 IgnE wrote:On November 27 2013 08:21 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2013 08:18 IgnE wrote:On November 27 2013 08:13 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2013 08:03 IgnE wrote:On November 27 2013 07:48 Acrofales wrote:On November 27 2013 07:06 MoltkeWarding wrote:On November 27 2013 06:02 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2013 05:48 MoltkeWarding wrote:
[quote]
On the contrary, yesterday we all collectively agreed that we could have no useful discussion about freedom, because no one knows what it means, or to what it is supposed to relate. It may be true that most people in the world are still capable of maintaining a sense of locality to their expression, of placing their perceptions within the limitations of discrete experiences, but that is not the tendency towards which we are collectively marching.
In the broad that we are more connected to each other is true in a brute, mathematical sense, but only by way of inflation. Take a look at Tocqueville's chapter on "Of Individualism In Democratic Countries." It is fairly prophetic nearly two centuries on.
[quote]
Of course I see the point. Why do you think I bother to use peoples' own reasoning against them? I merely twist other people's thoughts into poison. That is my way of being smug. You are such a garbage poster. Nothing you say has any meaning. You don't even quote the things you elude to, you never bother to frame an argument or show what you mean. You just lay on layer after layer of utter absurdity, claiming people feel more isolated than ever in the age of facebook and mass communication, that people feel more bored when they have the internet at their disposal if a hundred tv channels wasn't enough. It's just bullshit. Yes, some people feel isolated and adrift but that is not a modern condition, that is the human condition and the reason why our society has created the connectivity and content that it has. For every lonely person writing a blog about their life now there was a lonely guy a hundred years ago feeling the same way but with nobody reading his diary. Just total nonsense, like every other post you make. Actually, up to about three centuries back we do have some useful gauges of how ordinary people lived, and the relative vexations they experienced in their common lives in contrast to our own, because of the advance of the novel as a modern literary genre. We know that people used to fall in love differently, and make love differently as well. We know that their perception of time and the effects of the seasons upon their humours differed. We have a rich canvas upon which to play out our investigations. But as I have learned from our fellow Kwark, there is no need for any of that. We know exactly what a governess in Belle Epoque Rouen was like, without reading, and almost without thinking: they were exactly like us except they didn't play video games or take daily showers or use flush toilets. I am going to summarise this in a Kwark-thesis, so that everyone can understand: Boredom existed in 1913 as well as in 2013. The causes and manifestations of each however are not comparable, and therefore no qualitative equivalence can be established. The problem as we face it must be judged on its own gravity. Anyway, this is a very strange outburst from Kwark, since it does not relate to anything I have actually said. What matters though is not what he is saying but the attitude with which he says it. I believe Kwark feels that I am that prude in the bar who keeps blocking him when he is just trying to score. He doesn't see that I am trying to save him from scoring with a very ugly hag. Except that using Jane Austin as a reference for how people lived in the 18th century is about as useful as taking 50 shades of grey as an accurate representation of modern society. Boring people leading boring everyday lives didn't get written about then, just as they don't get written about now (although for some reason they do get televised in reality shows). And boring people leading boring everyday lives are the VAST majority of people. While I don't have the statistical evidence to back it up, and am still unsure about whether the average lower class citizen of Rwanda is better off now than he was 100 years ago, I am willing to take the evidence given by mcc and Johnny (which is actual data, rather than anecdotal evidence based on ficticious novels) and say that all around the world, the standard of living has improved. He's not talking about the standard of living. He's talking about the anomie and disillusionment of a modern world. He is making a valid point. Kwark's argument is borderline ridiculous, as he seems to be unaware of the widespread socio-structural changes that have occurred with the advent of modernity. Yes, people have 200 friends on facebook, but they also have fewer roots in the community in which they live and work. The nuclear family, a tiny, anomalous conception of family which had already replaced a larger conception of family beginning after WW2, is itself increasingly fragmented. People increasingly have to uproot themselves from their friends and communities multiple times in their life in order to go where employers are hiring. And traditional forms of social solidarity have been dissolved in place of commoditization of social transactions. And you assume that this is new? And that there weren't issues with the world that it replaced? Here's something else that's not new, romanticisation of the rural idyll. It's a myth. You think people born farmers who were always going to be farmers didn't feel disillusioned with having a life of toil without any real choice or meaning? You think they didn't get lonely seeing the same small group of people all day every day? And that's before we even address the fact that the uprooting of people was far more severe, permanent and widespread two hundred years ago than it is today. I can drive across the country in a few hours to see a friend who moved away for work, or pick up the phone, or read his facebook updates and yet you look back to a time of mass migration to the cities from the country with no place to return to (booming population and more efficient farming, surplus people forced to leave the countryside) to make your point? It's total nonsense. Here's my thesis. Disillusionment, boredom and loneliness are part of the human condition. That's why things that kill our time, hold our interest and make us feel connected to others are so attractive to us and why we spend so much of our surplus productivity on them. We've gotten much better at it, we've created technological marvels that do it. We have never had it as good as this and if you think otherwise then you need to take off those rear facing rose tinted lenses. I don't think anyone yearns to go back to the 18th century. But it's total nonsense to say that we have it the best it can be. I don't think today is some Platonic ideal but it's the best we've come up with, certainly better than everything that came before it. Try spending a week without the internet, tv or radio, without reading anything but a handful of books you've read a dozen times before, without using a phone, and without talking to anyone who doesn't live within walking distance. That's how people used to live. It was shit. It was so shit we invented all those things to get away from it. There is a reason alcoholism was rampant, why England used to have a pub on every street and why drinking was the main form of leisure activity, it's because alcohol was the first big breakthrough humanity made in making life less shit. But surely you realize that no one is saying that the internet, books, or phones are the cause of modern anomie? Edit: and neither are they a panacea Moltke is implying that things used to be great and now aren't. He doesn't really argue because actually making a point is too hard, he just makes vague smug remarks about humours but with a general tone of "things aren't what they used to be". But he was suggesting, in his own worthless way, that people feel more isolated now than they did back then which is truly remarkable claim to make given the technological changes.
I'm sidetracking this a little, mostly because I was enjoying the discussion.
Moltke makes points all the time. I don't actually think its hard to understand what his point is, and you don't seem to have a hard time with it either - you just stated a very simplified version of it. Now, he is definitely prone to elevate his thoughts through references, like the mention of rerum novarum some pages back, and to be honest I usually find that very annoying because an argument should be able to stand on its own feet rather than gain validity due to authority. Somehow it's different with moltke though, because he makes it an artform, and it's just plain beautiful to behold. And the language comments? He writes beautiful prose and I'm intrigued by reading it, and it's weird to me to see guys like farvecola, who also writes beautifully and with very complex language, criticize moltke's beautiful and complex language.
But anyway, I love the interconnectivity of this era I happened to be born in. For me, coming from a middle-class family in the midst of Norway, to be able to share my thoughts and ideas with people from all around the world, for me to be able to siphon unto the accumulated wealth of human knowledge through moving my fingertips, for me to be able to travel mostly anywhere I want to any culture I want, or even enjoy fruits of many other cultures right outside my doorstep, represents an absolutely amazing development and it makes me feel like I won the lottery at birth - by time and location alone. That's me. However, this doesn't mean that detachment isn't a serious- or even growing "cause of unhappiness" in today's society. For one, kids nowadays often struggle with feeling of accomplishment and mastery - despite the fact that positive pedagogical theories are more widespread (and correctly so) - simply because they're not competing on a local playground anymore, but against every wonderkid on youtube. You're a smart, capable guy able to articulate yourself in a clear, concise manner, who is actually able to attain some feeling of accomplishment on a global stage, both in games and on a forum of this nature - but this is not the case for the vast majority of people. Local communities losing significance, and they absolutely have, is for many a bad experience. I recently read that 6 out of 10 Norwegian teenagers genuinely worry about not getting enough likes on their social media interactions, and worse, people who fuck up royally actually become global celebrities due to their fuckups.
Now, where moltke's account of the past is lacking is where he essentially ignores the enormous prevalence of real, actual poverty, illiteracy, starvation, deadly and deliberating disease, generations lost to war.. But he's already incredibly verbose, surely we must not force him to argue both sides of the discussion? And you, in opposition to him, make the same mistake imo, by ignoring that many of today's young genuinely do feel isolated in a way that would have been foreign to them 100 or more years ago. One big historical change which has happened over the past couple centuries is the "evolution of personal horizons", to phrase myself in a way that requires explanation. Basically, before, people assumed that life would continue to be how life is. Now, we expect life to continuously evolve into something better. It's more rare for life to evolve to something better, even in today's improved society, than it was for life to stay the same, in days of yore. This disillusionment which most people end up feeling at some points of their lives, some people continuously, is a great cause of actual unhappiness in people. I still think we're vastly better off, but we don't have to pretend that nothing has been lost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
