So You Want to Have an INTELLIGENT Debate on Iran?

Go play checkers with the rest of the mouthbreathers. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Sure didn't take you long.

Did I call you any names? Or your butt buddy, Shanmless? You two are like turds in a sand pile. They show up sooner or later.

Because I only commented after LLDoofus's shit comment. I haven't read the article yet, so I decided not to comment on the thread until. Thought this might finally be a thread with some actual discussion until LLdoofus showed up with the same unsubstantiated puke that he spews in every other thread.

"Obaminable practiced "law"?"
He's obviously trying to start shit. I wouldn't expect you to call out your dick-daddy's inanity though, so I pretty much expected your comment. Originally Posted by shanm

I'm the OP. You came in name-calling and admitted you didn't read the article so you disrespected my wishes on both counts. You are 100% to blame if this thread goes south. If you are incapable of participating in a discussion on the same level as two ex-Secretaries of State, don't fuck it up for everyone else.

.

I'm the OP. You came in name-calling and admit you didn't read the article so you disrespected my wishes on both counts. You are 100% to blame if this thread goes south.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

^^^^^^^+100

#1: Obaminable-Kerry said there was "a deal" on a framework, and even posted the terms they claimed were discussed, with the statement I quoted right off the WH website.
#2: Kerry just said the Russians agreed with the statement about the U.S. position made by the U.S.
#3: The Iranians said the terms of the initial negotiations were not as publicized by the U.S. group.

That is no deal. That is no agreement. That is no "framework" for anything between the parties.

There is no "meeting of the minds" and when there is no "meeting of the minds" there is NO DEAL.

The Russians are thumbing their nose at Obaminable by "selling" a missile defense system to the Iranians ....in violation of the existing arms embargo, BEFORE there is a final deal. The Russians are attempting to change the bargaining position of the parties, by taking the military option off the table with a defense system. That reduces our bargaining power.

And what did Obaminable do about the "missile defense" system for the Europeans? He scrubbed it. Who was that to protect them against? One country would be Iran. Refusing to protect our allies while the Russians protect theirs.

I'm the OP.. Originally Posted by lustylad

Who gives a fuck?

You came in name-calling and admitted you didn't read the article so you disrespected my wishes on both counts. You are 100% to blame if this thread goes south Originally Posted by lustylad

I did say that I didn't read the article. And THAT IS WHY I didn't comment before LLIdiot's moronic post. If you're looking for someone to blame, look no further than the dipshit who posted the same recycled bullshit from the other threads. "Obaminable practiced law?"
Of course you won't call him out on his BS. That is why I don't give a fuck what you think.

Who gives a fuck?


I did say that I didn't read the article. And THAT IS WHY I didn't comment before LLIdiot's moronic post. If you're looking for someone to blame, look no further than the dipshit who posted the same recycled bullshit from the other threads. "Obaminable practiced law?"
Of course you won't call him out on his BS. That is why I don't give a fuck what you think. Originally Posted by shanm

You were instructed to read the article BITCH...

If you want to have a real discussion, then why don't you tell shammy to shut up?

LL does raise a valid point about whether the framework is a "deal" or a non-deal. Your previous point about "semantics" would apply here. Schultz/Kissinger don't get hung up on what you call it. If they waited until a final deal, it would be too late for their advice and opinions to influence the negotiations.


. Originally Posted by lustylad

They can both shut the fuck up.

They have the framework of a 'deal'. Arguing over what to call it is pointless and really serves no purpose other than to play gotcha. Oooh, he said we have a deal, we don't have a deal, etc.

This isn't semantics at all. How can we really be "over a barrel" if it is self-imposed? We don't HAVE to act like we are so war-averse. We don't HAVE to cave in just to keep the talks going. You claimed in other threads the Iranians stopped or slowed their nuclear program in 2003. If so, why do you think they did that? Because we were on their fucking doorstep pouring troops and weapons into Iraq, that's why. You also pointed out how many Iranians were educated in the US. That's how they are able to read us like a book, especially Obama and Kerry.

The reason there are 6 parties on our side of the table is because GWB wanted the Europeans to take a lead when the talks started 12 years ago. The Europeans have as much if not more at stake in stopping Iran from going nuclear as we do. And they needed to experience first-hand how the Iranians negotiate - so when the talks fail, they won't be sitting on the sidelines blaming us.

Of course, this P5+1 set-up gave the Iranians an opportunity to divide and conquer in the negotiations. If Kissinger or Schultz were involved, they would know how to neutralize this negotiating disadvantage.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

If we are over a barrel, how we got there isn't as important as the fact that we're there. If the europeans have as much at stake, they don't seem to be showing it. Bottom line, if one of the parties (Iran in this case) has no ultimate interest in a deal that hurts them in any way, they don't really have to capitulate. We are the ones asking for something. They are going to expect considerations in return for giving us what we're asking for. And even then, they can turn around and fuck us in the ass.

There are so many moving parts in this process. Each country has unique motivations apart from the common ones we share. I also don't really see how they're using a divide and conquer strategy. We are fairly uniform on what we want from the deal. We have all agreed on reduction of centrifuges as well as inspections. The sticking points seem to be the length of the deal and whether sanctions will all be lifted at the same time or over time. And those are issues Iran has with the deal.

Sure didn't take you long.

Did I call you any names? Or your butt buddy, Shanmless? You two are like turds in a sand pile. They show up sooner or later. Originally Posted by LexusLover

^^^^^^^+100

#1: Obaminable-Kerry said there was "a deal" on a framework, and even posted the terms they claimed were discussed, with the statement I quoted right off the WH website.
#2: Kerry just said the Russians agreed with the statement about the U.S. position made by the U.S.
#3: The Iranians said the terms of the initial negotiations were not as publicized by the U.S. group.

That is no deal. That is no agreement. That is no "framework" for anything between the parties.

There is no "meeting of the minds" and when there is no "meeting of the minds" there is NO DEAL.

The Russians are thumbing their nose at Obaminable by "selling" a missile defense system to the Iranians ....in violation of the existing arms embargo, BEFORE there is a final deal. The Russians are attempting to change the bargaining position of the parties, by taking the military option off the table with a defense system. That reduces our bargaining power.

And what did Obaminable do about the "missile defense" system for the Europeans? He scrubbed it. Who was that to protect them against? One country would be Iran. Refusing to protect our allies while the Russians protect theirs. Originally Posted by LexusLover

YOU started the bullshit in this thread, not me. YOU showed up like a turd in the litter box with your bullshit comment. I made a reasoned comment and you just had to come in here and drop a turd about Obaminable or some other bullshit. I think everyone would agree, can't we have ONE thread that you don't blow up with your bullshit? Just one.

There is a framework. You can continue to bicker about what it's called, but that's just fucking ridiculous. It all comes down to your desire to want to shit on Obama by being able to say he said there was a deal when there wasn't.

Parties have agreed on reducing centrifuges and inspections. How much of a reduction and how many inspections, that's to be worked out. Those are details. An agreement to reduce and allow inspections is a framework on which you hang the details of the deal.

Why is Obama the only one that Russia is thumbing their nose at? That effects Europe more than it does the US. Why don't you consider them to be thumbing their nose at Germany? France? Or any of the other nations in these talks?

Your myopic hatred of Obama clouds your ability to even see things clearly. You bring every thread back to Obama and try to place the blame squarely on him. Imagine actually having to negotiate a deal with these people. Just take a second, if you can, and imagine that. The complexity of it is beyond anything you can imagine. I guarantee it. And yet here who you are, bitching and moaning about whether a 'deal' is a 'deal'. You don't reach an agreement by getting hung up on what the motherfucker is called. Goddamn.

They have the framework of a 'deal'. Arguing over what to call it is pointless and really serves no purpose other than to play gotcha. Oooh, he said we have a deal, we don't have a deal, etc. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Actually, the discussion is senseless as to whether a deal (or framework or outline or whatever anyone wants to call it) is good or bad unless it is a "done deal" ... meaning the primary principles and goals of the agreements are agreed upon ... it appears they are not ....

Additionally, as I have heard the two primary areas of concern and disagreement are: (1) site access for verification and (2) consequences of a violation. A (3) may be "definitions" .... as to what activates or is considered a violation.

It has been expressed the Iranians are seeking restricted access or prohibiting access to certain sites and are objecting to any restrictions on building new sites, which indicates they want to play an Iraqi pea and shell game with their program .... and

the Iranians want a NEW U.N. resolution to re-activate sanctions, knowing that the Russians (or at least believing they will) will veto any such resolution.

As to your rant: I didn't make it about Obaminable. Obaminable and Kerry did, and do. Just like every friggin other thing it seems. They even announced Congress is not relevant to the discussions.

I'm listening to several different sides ... my disgust with Obaminable has nothing to do with my attitude about an agreement with the Iranians. It's not about him ... but he couldn't negotiate his ass out of wet paper bag .. and ... John Kerry is equally inept. So consult with Congress and have a discussion on how: to verify the program and impose punishment if they violate it. Get on the same page before the thing is signed....and speak with a unified voice, so the Iranians know they had better compromise. That's No. 1. One doesn't make a good deal from a position of weakness ... that's our image now.

This shit with Iraq went on for 12 friggin years. I don't want that with Iran.

You were instructed to read the article BITCH... Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

He and the Lexus Litter Box full of turds can both get the fuck out. They have the entire rest of the forum to piss and moan. Let us have ONE motherfucking thread that you don't infect with your bullshit.

Actually, the discussion is senseless as to whether a deal (or framework or outline or whatever anyone wants to call it) is good or bad unless it is a "done deal" ... meaning the primary principles and goals of the agreements are agreed upon ... it appears they are not ....

Additionally, as I have heard the two primary areas of concern and disagreement are: (1) site access for verification and (2) consequences of a violation. A (3) may be "definitions" .... as to what activates or is considered a violation.

It has been expressed the Iranians are seeking restricted access or prohibiting access to certain sites and are objecting to any restrictions on building new sites, which indicates they want to play an Iraqi pea and shell game with their program .... and

the Iranians want a NEW U.N. resolution to re-activate sanctions, knowing that the Russians (or at least believing they will) will veto any such resolution. Originally Posted by LexusLover

If it's senseless, your words, then WHY the fuck have you been talking about it for days??? If it's senseless to argue whether it's good or bad until it's done, WHY have you been shitting on it, calling Obama out, etc.??? WHY? You've just sabotaged your own argument.

The devil is in the details. It's a saying, because it's true. I've not read or seen anything about Iran wanting a UN resolution. Everything I've read has said they will not agree to a deal unless the sanctions are lifted immediately. Why would they take the chance of going to the UN? I'm going to need a link or something on that. That doesn't sound right. Russia WANTS the sanctions removed. Hell, they do business with them now, imagine if it was legitimate to do business with Iran. Why would Iran put Russia in the position of vetoing a UN resolution? That makes Russia look shittier than they already do. If they are allies, as you claim, why would they do that? Also, the missile defense systems they bartered for are not a violation of the current sanctions. Go figure.

Moscow and Washington are on the worst terms they've been on since the 80's. Before Putin came back into power, Medvedev had cut off Russia's sale of military hardware to Iran. Once Putin arrived again, that was out the door. The spigot was open again and they only see more opportunity as they move forward.

There is no "Iran Deal"! https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...ic-republic-ir

"Important implementation details are still subject to negotiation, and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed."

And Obaminable "practiced" law? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Actually, the discussion is senseless as to whether a deal (or framework or outline or whatever anyone wants to call it) is good or bad unless it is a "done deal" ... meaning the primary principles and goals of the agreements are agreed upon ... it appears they are not ....

Additionally, as I have heard the two primary areas of concern and disagreement are: (1) site access for verification and (2) consequences of a violation. A (3) may be "definitions" .... as to what activates or is considered a violation.

It has been expressed the Iranians are seeking restricted access or prohibiting access to certain sites and are objecting to any restrictions on building new sites, which indicates they want to play an Iraqi pea and shell game with their program .... and

the Iranians want a NEW U.N. resolution to re-activate sanctions, knowing that the Russians (or at least believing they will) will veto any such resolution.

As to your rant: I didn't make it about Obaminable. Obaminable and Kerry did, and do. Just like every friggin other thing it seems. They even announced Congress is not relevant to the discussions.
Originally Posted by LexusLover

BULLSHIT! In your own words, you certainly DID make it about Obama. It's RIGHT THERE in your post. He practiced law? Don't piss on my face and tell me it's raining.

Henry Kissinger and George Schultz aren't partisan?

Henry Kissinger and George Schultz aren't partisan? Originally Posted by timpage

It was a reasoned article that recognized the difficulty of getting a deal done. What more do you want? They're both old farts now, they don't have any axes to grind. What they do have is years of experience negotiating with foreign governments. It would be a bad idea to dismiss out of hand what they have to say on the matter.

As to your rant: I didn't make it about Obaminable. Obaminable and Kerry did, and do. Just like every friggin other thing it seems. They even announced Congress is not relevant to the discussions.
Originally Posted by WombRaider

Cut the bullshit motherfucker. Don't act all unsullied now and act surprised that this happened.His name isn't "Obaminable" and you damn well know that. Only your dipshit-in-arms lustyTurd is stupid enough to fall for this BS.
I don't care what anyone says, if you are being a smart ass, I'll call you out anytime, anywhere. Especially dipshits like you.
Stop trying to back all over the bullshit you posted earlier. It's pathetic. Purring like a cat doesn't work when you're ugly as a mole-rat.