|
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 10:18 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 10:16 xDaunt wrote: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.
We can stop being adversarial to Iran when it is longer advantageous to do so. There is no point being nice to a hostile nation that has actively worked to harm our interests. If Iran wants to stop being a bunch of dicks and join the international fold, I have no doubt that we'd reciprocate.
|
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.
On the flip side, the primary reason that the sanctions are working so well is that the Chinese and Russians are actually following them. If they start feeling that the west is being unreasonable or is just looking for an excuse to punish Iran, then they can seriously undermine the sanctions by themselves and there is not much we can do to stop them. The other possibility is that Iran decides that there is nothing they can do to remove the sanctions, so they go for a bomb anyway and then try and use it to get the sanctions removed.
Honestly, the Saudis and Israelis both would rather have Iran rot under the sanctions forever, but something like that is unlikely to work long term at all. If you say the sanctions are to achieve some aim, then you should accept that lessening them to achieve that aim is acceptable/expected.
|
On November 27 2013 10:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 10:18 HunterX11 wrote:On November 27 2013 10:16 xDaunt wrote: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. We can stop being adversarial to Iran when it is longer advantageous to do so. There is no point being nice to a hostile nation that has actively worked to harm our interests. If Iran wants to stop being a bunch of dicks and join the international fold, I have no doubt that we'd reciprocate.
So, uh, remember 9/11? It would have been pretty damn mutually advantageous to have their help fighting our common enemies, the Taliban and al-Qaeda, especially with a country that borders Afghanistan, and had a new reformist leader making conciliatory overtures to America. But our response was to call them part of the Axis of Evil. That's a huge part of why Iranians supported Ahmadinejad being such a clown on the world stage, precisely because when they tried to stop being a bunch of dicks, the response was a hearty "fuck you". Fortunately now both the U.S. and Iran have Presidents who are less interested in dick-waving, even though most of the opportunity for goodwill has already been wasted on both sides.
|
On November 27 2013 10:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 10:18 HunterX11 wrote:On November 27 2013 10:16 xDaunt wrote: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. We can stop being adversarial to Iran when it is longer advantageous to do so. There is no point being nice to a hostile nation that has actively worked to harm our interests. If Iran wants to stop being a bunch of dicks and join the international fold, I have no doubt that we'd reciprocate.
What. How... What...
You realise Iran hates us only because we did bad things to them right?
They have been fine with belonging to the international fold but we felt they were evil for overthrowing the dictator we put there.
|
United States43281 Posts
Maybe they didn't see the need to operate two embassies in the same city.
|
Canada11378 Posts
Eh. Maybe it's just my Mennonite roots, but I don't think the church should be pretending to be a state even if that's what many churches have been doing for centuries. If a few more weights of the state are thrown off the church, is that such a bad thing?
Had to look it up, but I had never really thought about it, but I guess Canada also has an embassy. But it only goes back to 1969
|
On November 27 2013 10:33 Falling wrote:Eh. Maybe it's just my Mennonite roots, but I don't think the church should be pretending to be a state even if that's what many churches have been doing for centuries. If a few more weights of the state are thrown off the church, is that such a bad thing? Had to look it up, but I had never really thought about it, but I guess Canada also has an embassy. But it only goes back to 1969
The Holy See is actually recognized as a sovereign entity independent of its land holdings in the Vatican City (which comprises most, but not all, of their holdings). They're just an observer in the UN, however. Really the main downside is just that it makes it easier for them to launder money and such, not that they have undue influence on world affairs.
|
Canada11378 Posts
On November 27 2013 10:35 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 10:33 Falling wrote:On November 27 2013 10:16 Introvert wrote:I was unaware that Vatican City was such a dangerous place! I wonder who thought up and proposed this maneuver? The Obama administration, in what’s been called an egregious slap in the face to the Vatican, has moved to shut down the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See — a free-standing facility — and relocate offices onto the grounds of the larger American Embassy in Italy. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/26/obamas-call-close-holy-see-embassy-slap-face-catho/ Eh. Maybe it's just my Mennonite roots, but I don't think the church should be pretending to be a state even if that's what many churches have been doing for centuries. If a few more weights of the state are thrown off the church, is that such a bad thing? Had to look it up, but I had never really thought about it, but I guess Canada also has an embassy. But it only goes back to 1969 The Holy See is actually recognized as a sovereign entity independent of its land holdings in the Vatican City (which comprises most, but not all, of their holdings). They're just an observer in the UN, however. Really the main downside is just that it makes it easier for them to launder money and such, not that they have undue influence on world affairs.
I realize that. The papal states used to be a lot larger too and a few popes ran around with armies. I just think every move away from being a state is a positive thing for the church even if it is done by another country and not by the Vatican itself.
|
On November 27 2013 10:31 KwarK wrote:Maybe they didn't see the need to operate two embassies in the same city.
That's not the reason they gave.
|
United States43281 Posts
On November 27 2013 10:42 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 10:31 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2013 10:16 Introvert wrote:I was unaware that Vatican City was such a dangerous place! I wonder who thought up and proposed this maneuver? The Obama administration, in what’s been called an egregious slap in the face to the Vatican, has moved to shut down the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See — a free-standing facility — and relocate offices onto the grounds of the larger American Embassy in Italy. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/26/obamas-call-close-holy-see-embassy-slap-face-catho/ Maybe they didn't see the need to operate two embassies in the same city. That's not the reason they gave.
They said they were concerned about the security of it and given the very limited value of a second embassy in a city where you already have one I'd be happy to agree that the risk, even if it was just a risk of papercuts, probably outweighed the gains.
|
On November 27 2013 10:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 10:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 10:18 HunterX11 wrote:On November 27 2013 10:16 xDaunt wrote: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: [quote] 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. We can stop being adversarial to Iran when it is longer advantageous to do so. There is no point being nice to a hostile nation that has actively worked to harm our interests. If Iran wants to stop being a bunch of dicks and join the international fold, I have no doubt that we'd reciprocate. What. How... What... You realise Iran hates us only because we did bad things to them right? They have been fine with belonging to the international fold but we felt they were evil for overthrowing the dictator we put there.
None of that matters. All that matters is the following. Iran and the US are presently adversaries. The US is the superpower that largely controls the international forum. Iran is a comparative nobody. Ergo, Iran has to proverbially suck US cock to get back into world affairs.
It's really that simple. It's not about bargaining. It's not about even exchange. And "morality" has nothing to do with it. It's pure power politics. Iran could have all sanctions lifted tomorrow and have limitless foreign capital stream into it if it simply abandoned its nuclear program, abandoned its terrorist ties, and made nice with the US voluntarily. Of course, Iran won't do this.
|
On November 27 2013 11:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 10:30 Gorsameth wrote:On November 27 2013 10:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 10:18 HunterX11 wrote:On November 27 2013 10:16 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. We can stop being adversarial to Iran when it is longer advantageous to do so. There is no point being nice to a hostile nation that has actively worked to harm our interests. If Iran wants to stop being a bunch of dicks and join the international fold, I have no doubt that we'd reciprocate. What. How... What... You realise Iran hates us only because we did bad things to them right? They have been fine with belonging to the international fold but we felt they were evil for overthrowing the dictator we put there. None of that matters. All that matters is the following. Iran and the US are presently adversaries. The US is the superpower that largely controls the international forum. Iran is a comparative nobody. Ergo, Iran has to proverbially suck US cock to get back into world affairs. It's really that simple. It's not about bargaining. It's not about even exchange. And "morality" has nothing to do with it. It's pure power politics. Iran could have all sanctions lifted tomorrow and have limitless foreign capital stream into it if it simply abandoned its nuclear program and made nice with the US voluntarily. Of course, Iran won't do this.
You do realize both the U.S. and Iran are both signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, right? Also in the space of just a few posts, you've forgotten about 9/11 again already! Simply choosing to bully everyone you can, always, because "it's really the simple" has consequences.
|
CBS has asked 60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan to take a leave of absence, along with her producer, after her recent story on the deadly 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was found to have multiple flaws. An internal report also found broader failings in how the news division handled the story. A summary of the report's findings was obtained by NPR on Tuesday.
News of Logan's leave of absence was relayed to staff in a memo from CBS News Chairman Jeff Fager, who is also the executive producer of 60 Minutes. In it, he also cited the "distinguished" work Logan and her colleague have done for CBS over the years.
Logan's report on the attack that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans was retracted within weeks of its airing on Oct. 27. It featured Dylan Davies, a security contractor who reportedly told a different version of events to 60 Minutes than he did to his employer and to the FBI.
In early November, Logan delivered an apology to viewers, saying, "The truth is that we made a mistake."
As NPR TV critic Eric Deggans wrote earlier this month, "There has also been criticism of 60 Minutes for not disclosing in its report that Davies' book is being published by a unit of Simon & Schuster — a part of the CBS media empire. Logan did not address that point."
Source
|
On November 27 2013 11:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 10:30 Gorsameth wrote:On November 27 2013 10:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 10:18 HunterX11 wrote:On November 27 2013 10:16 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. We can stop being adversarial to Iran when it is longer advantageous to do so. There is no point being nice to a hostile nation that has actively worked to harm our interests. If Iran wants to stop being a bunch of dicks and join the international fold, I have no doubt that we'd reciprocate. What. How... What... You realise Iran hates us only because we did bad things to them right? They have been fine with belonging to the international fold but we felt they were evil for overthrowing the dictator we put there. None of that matters. All that matters is the following. Iran and the US are presently adversaries. The US is the superpower that largely controls the international forum. Iran is a comparative nobody. Ergo, Iran has to proverbially suck US cock to get back into world affairs. It's really that simple. It's not about bargaining. It's not about even exchange. And "morality" has nothing to do with it. It's pure power politics. Iran could have all sanctions lifted tomorrow and have limitless foreign capital stream into it if it simply abandoned its nuclear program, abandoned its terrorist ties, and made nice with the US voluntarily. Of course, Iran won't do this.
And that attitude is why 2 planes flew into a couple of towers.
And people wonder why a large part of the world hates America's world politics.
|
On November 27 2013 11:13 HunterX11 wrote:
You do realize both the U.S. and Iran are both signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, right? Also in the space of just a few posts, you've forgotten about 9/11 again already! Simply choosing to bully everyone you can, always, because "it's really the simple" has consequences.
On November 27 2013 11:22 Gorsameth wrote:
And that attitude is why 2 planes flew into a couple of towers.
And people wonder why a large part of the world hates America's world politics.
As for 9/11 and other attacks against the US, do you really think that the terrorists will stop because we suddenly start trying to be nice to Muslim countries? The root mistake that both of you are making is presuming that other nations and peoples think and act with your liberal, western sensibilities.
Newsflash: They don't. History has shown this repeatedly.
|
Norway28716 Posts
When did Islamic terrorists attack western countries not involved in Muslim countries?
|
United States43281 Posts
On November 27 2013 11:38 Liquid`Drone wrote:
When did Islamic terrorists attack western countries not involved in Muslim countries?
In fairness, Danish journalists got threatened/attacked. Denmark isn't especially intrusive.
|
On November 27 2013 11:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 11:13 HunterX11 wrote:
You do realize both the U.S. and Iran are both signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, right? Also in the space of just a few posts, you've forgotten about 9/11 again already! Simply choosing to bully everyone you can, always, because "it's really the simple" has consequences. Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 11:22 Gorsameth wrote:
And that attitude is why 2 planes flew into a couple of towers.
And people wonder why a large part of the world hates America's world politics. As for 9/11 and other attacks against the US, do you really think that the terrorists will stop because we suddenly start trying to be nice to Muslim countries? The root mistake that both of you are making is presuming that other nations and peoples think and act with your liberal, western sensibilities. Newsflash: They don't. History has shown this repeatedly.
Newsflash pissing people off "because you can" has led to quite a few acts of terrorism in the past. Frankly your being idiotic, and from some of the previous discussions you've taken part in, I'd assume that you know you are actually being idiotic here.
The root mistake that you are making is that YOU think that other nations do not act rational. Their motivation might be different and they might base their decision on very different cultural backgrounds, but within that framework they usually act rational as well. You (as in the USA) have spent 30 years making an enemy of the Iran. Maybe you were correct, maybe you were wrong hindsight is as always 20/20, but what one can say without a doubt is that most of the enemies you are trying to fight were created by exactly that ham fisted approach you are currently advocating.
The time when the US could dictate international policy without China and Russia adding their 10 Cents has passed. With Iran at least appearing to be willing to compromise you had absolutely no choice but to meet them halfway. Any pure blockade by the US would only play into the hands of your true adversaries. Frankly Iran is and always has been a minor concern compared to Russia and China (or even North Korea).
On November 27 2013 11:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 11:38 Liquid`Drone wrote:
When did Islamic terrorists attack western countries not involved in Muslim countries?
In fairness, Danish journalists got threatened/attacked. Denmark isn't especially intrusive.
That incident (attacked? I remember quite vivid threats but maybe I've forgotten an actual attack, it was about 2 years ago right?) was provoked by a rather thoughtless comic of mohammed as a pedophile if my memory is still working. While we find that tasteless in our western sensibilities, believers of Islam considered that comic highly offensive.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning in any way shape or form the threats or any actual attacks because of a provocation like this, but if we want to get along maybe we shouldn't behave quite so offensively either.
Let's not rehash the entire debate about freedom of speech vs. religious rights of others though, it got pretty heated the last time if i remember it right.
|
On November 27 2013 11:38 Liquid`Drone wrote:
When did Islamic terrorists attack western countries not involved in Muslim countries?
India and Indonesia come to mind, but that is besides the point.
Feel free to explain how we are going to make the terrorists stop. My solution should be pretty obvious.
|
On November 27 2013 11:47 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2013 11:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 27 2013 11:13 HunterX11 wrote:
You do realize both the U.S. and Iran are both signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, right? Also in the space of just a few posts, you've forgotten about 9/11 again already! Simply choosing to bully everyone you can, always, because "it's really the simple" has consequences. On November 27 2013 11:22 Gorsameth wrote:
And that attitude is why 2 planes flew into a couple of towers.
And people wonder why a large part of the world hates America's world politics. As for 9/11 and other attacks against the US, do you really think that the terrorists will stop because we suddenly start trying to be nice to Muslim countries? The root mistake that both of you are making is presuming that other nations and peoples think and act with your liberal, western sensibilities. Newsflash: They don't. History has shown this repeatedly. Newsflash pissing people off "because you can" has led to quite a few acts of terrorism in the past. Frankly your being idiotic, and from some of the previous discussions you've taken part in, I'd assume that you know you are actually being idiotic here. The root mistake that you are making is that YOU think that other nations do not act rational. Their motivation might be different and they might base their decision on very different cultural backgrounds, but within that framework they usually act rational as well. You (as in the USA) have spent 30 years making an enemy of the Iran. Maybe you were correct, maybe you were wrong hindsight is as always 20/20, but what one can say without a doubt is that most of the enemies you are trying to fight were created by exactly that ham fisted approach you are currently advocating. The time when the US could dictate international policy without China and Russia adding their 10 Cents has passed. With Iran at least appearing to be willing to compromise you had absolutely no choice but to meet them halfway. Any pure blockade by the US would only play into the hands of your true adversaries. Frankly Iran is and always has been a minor concern compared to Russia and China (or even North Korea).
Hey, genius. Explain this: what is more rational than pursuing one's self-interest?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
