• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obumble and Kerry, Folding like a Tent on Iran

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Anything that let's them Do Nothing is Obama's style.
Is his failure on Iran worse than his Immigration one?
Kerry is a stuffed shirt enjoying his faux-relevance/importance as Secretary of State.

Iran on the Nuclear Edge

Official leaks suggest the U.S. is Making Ever More Concessions
Feb. 27, 2015 6:44 p.m. ET
WSJ
Iran on the Nuclear Edge - WSJ

Secretary of State John Kerry told Congress this week that no one should pre-judge a nuclear deal with Iran because only the negotiators know what’s in it. But the truth is that the framework of an accord has been emerging thanks to Administration leaks to friendly journalists. The leaks suggest the U.S. has already given away so much that any deal on current terms will put Iran on the cusp of nuclear-power status. The latest Startling detail is Monday’s leak that the U.S. has conceded to Iran’s demand that an agreement would last as little as a decade, perhaps with an additional five-year phase-out. After that Iran would be allowed to build its uranium enrichment capabilities to whatever size it wants. In theory it would be forbidden from building nuclear weapons, but by then all sanctions would have long ago been lifted and Iran would have the capability to enrich on an industrial scale. On Wednesday Mr. Kerry denied that a deal would include the 10-year sunset, though he offered no details

The sunset clause fits the larger story of how far the U.S. and its allies have come to satisfy Iran’s demands. The Administration originally insisted that Iran should not be able to enrich uranium at all.
Later it mooted a symbolic enrichment capacity of perhaps 500 centrifuges.
Last July people close to the White House began talking about 3,000.

By October the Los Angeles Times reported that Mr. Kerry had raised the ceiling to 4,000.
Now it’s 6,000, and the Administration line is that the number doesn’t matter; only advanced centrifuges count. While quality does matter, quantity can have a quality all its own. The point is that Iran will be allowed to retain what amounts to a nuclear-weapons industrial capacity rather than dismantle all of it as the U.S. first demanded.

Mr. Kerry also says that any deal will have intrusive inspections, yet he has a habit of ignoring Iran’s noncompliance with agreements it has already signed. Last November he insisted that “Iran has lived up” to its commitments under the 2013 interim nuclear agreement.
[.......]​
 
Last edited:
WSJ OPINION - Not interested
 
WSJ OPINION - Not interested
Then Don't post.
If you feel it's off, say WHY.
Don't Troll my string Please.
WSJ is a credible source even if shading to the Right.
It simply can't be dismissed out of hand.


EDIT: Yet More String Sabotage below.
NO TOPICAL CONTENT.
0-fer-2
 
Last edited:
Then Don't post.
If you feel it's off, say WHY.
Don't Troll my string Please.
WSJ is a credible source even if shading to the Right.
It simply can't be dismissed out of hand.
It is still opinion and as far as I know the WSJ opinion page leans far right, plus I didn't take this thread as serious discourse with Obumble in the thread title. bye

EDIT: BTW, if I want access to the whole article I would need to subscribe.
 
Last edited:
Then Don't post.
If you feel it's off, say WHY.
Don't Troll my string Please.
WSJ is a credible source even if shading to the Right.
It simply can't be dismissed out of hand.


EDIT: Yet More String Sabotage below.
NO TOPICAL CONTENT.
0-fer-2

Maybe you should find actual concrete reporting instead of just looking for people who are saying what you want to hear, then people might take your thread seriously. It is hard to take echo chamber thinking seriously.
 
It is still opinion and as far as I know the WSJ opinion page leans far right, plus I didn't take this thread as serious discourse with Obumble in the thread title. bye

EDIT: BTW, if I want access to the whole article I would need to subscribe.
So in the string started Immediately before mine on this board. A mere 7 Minutes...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-media/218132-bill-oreilly-lied-his-book-killing-kennedy.html

YOU change Headline:
""The O'Reilly tapes: Phone recordings raise new questions about JFK story""
TO
"Bill O'Reilly Lied In His Book "Killing Kennedy"

So you Subjectively MODIFY a headline to "Lied" where the story did Not, (and expect to be taken seriously), but criticize me for "Obumble."
Pretty damn Ironic/Hypocritical.

and as always, Redress adds NOTHING but petty personal nonsense.

Sill NO TOPICAL Responses Here, just Partisan Sabotage/TROLLING!
Can you guys Really Wipe out a whole page by Emptily Dissing an MSM News source?
I bet you can/do.
Whose next?
 
Last edited:
Anything that let's them Do Nothing is Obama's style.
Is his failure on Iran worse than his Immigration one?
Kerry is a stuffed shirt enjoying his faux-relevance/importance as Secretary of State.

Iran on the Nuclear Edge

Official leaks suggest the U.S. is Making Ever More Concessions
Feb. 27, 2015 6:44 p.m. ET
WSJ
Iran on the Nuclear Edge - WSJ

Secretary of State John Kerry told Congress this week that no one should pre-judge a nuclear deal with Iran because only the negotiators know what’s in it. But the
[.......]​


Sounds like Pelosi talking about ACA. How did that turn out?
 
So in the string started Immediately before mine on this board. A mere 7 Minutes...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-media/218132-bill-oreilly-lied-his-book-killing-kennedy.html

YOU change Headline:
""The O'Reilly tapes: Phone recordings raise new questions about JFK story""
TO
"Bill O'Reilly Lied In His Book "Killing Kennedy"

So you Subjectively MODIFY a headline to "Lied" where the story did Not, (and expect to be taken seriously), but criticize me for "Obumble."
Pretty damn Ironic/Hypocritical.

and as always, Redress adds NOTHING but petty personal nonsense.

Sill NO TOPICAL Responses Here, just Partisan Sabotage/TROLLING!
Can you guys Really Wipe out a whole page by Emptily Dissing an MSM News source?
I bet you can/do.
Whose next?
In the forum Bias in the Media, I'm not required to have the same thread title as the article. Also if you followed the story you would see he did lie, there are not two ways about it. So I made a thread title which speaks the truth.

There is not one thing I like about President Bush, but I wouldn't use a stupid name for him. Got it!
 
and as always, Redress adds NOTHING but petty personal nonsense.

Sill NO TOPICAL Responses Here, just Partisan Sabotage/TROLLING!
Can you guys Really Wipe out a whole page by Emptily Dissing an MSM News source?
I bet you can/do.
Whose next?

Commenting on the fact your source is an opinion piece in not personal. Instead of complaining that people are not responding as you hoped, you might think about why. Just a thought. Probably work better than throwing a fit...
 
Anything that let's them Do Nothing is Obama's style.
Is his failure on Iran worse than his Immigration one?
Kerry is a stuffed shirt enjoying his faux-relevance/importance as Secretary of State.

Iran on the Nuclear Edge

Official leaks suggest the U.S. is Making Ever More Concessions
Feb. 27, 2015 6:44 p.m. ET
WSJ
Iran on the Nuclear Edge - WSJ

Secretary of State John Kerry told Congress this week that no one should pre-judge a nuclear deal with Iran because only the negotiators know what’s in it. But the truth is that the framework of an accord has been emerging thanks to Administration leaks to friendly journalists. The leaks suggest the U.S. has already given away so much that any deal on current terms will put Iran on the cusp of nuclear-power status. The latest Startling detail is Monday’s leak that the U.S. has conceded to Iran’s demand that an agreement would last as little as a decade, perhaps with an additional five-year phase-out. After that Iran would be allowed to build its uranium enrichment capabilities to whatever size it wants. In theory it would be forbidden from building nuclear weapons, but by then all sanctions would have long ago been lifted and Iran would have the capability to enrich on an industrial scale. On Wednesday Mr. Kerry denied that a deal would include the 10-year sunset, though he offered no details

The sunset clause fits the larger story of how far the U.S. and its allies have come to satisfy Iran’s demands. The Administration originally insisted that Iran should not be able to enrich uranium at all.
Later it mooted a symbolic enrichment capacity of perhaps 500 centrifuges.
Last July people close to the White House began talking about 3,000.

By October the Los Angeles Times reported that Mr. Kerry had raised the ceiling to 4,000.
Now it’s 6,000, and the Administration line is that the number doesn’t matter; only advanced centrifuges count. While quality does matter, quantity can have a quality all its own. The point is that Iran will be allowed to retain what amounts to a nuclear-weapons industrial capacity rather than dismantle all of it as the U.S. first demanded.

Mr. Kerry also says that any deal will have intrusive inspections, yet he has a habit of ignoring Iran’s noncompliance with agreements it has already signed. Last November he insisted that “Iran has lived up” to its commitments under the 2013 interim nuclear agreement.
[.......]​

I will grant you that the Administrations negotiations with Iran have a distinctly sinking feel to them.
 
Remember. Iran is a year away from getting nukes.

According to Israel, it's been that way since at least 2007.

Time to start living in reality.

The reality is that cusp status is almost as bad as the real thing. It is true that we could wipe them out in a head on clash, before they could realize the weapon. But that is not the point. The point is how nuclear wars can develop. And one such path is via an escalation of a regional conflict, which would allow the sides to build a nuke.
 
Commenting on the fact your source is an opinion piece in not personal. Instead of complaining that people are not responding as you hoped, you might think about why. Just a thought. Probably work better than throwing a fit...

Oh, oh!

I'll play - because the WSJ just an opinion that was embraced by the OP because he agreed with it?

Because the OP is irritated that everyone else has a conflicting opinion that conflicts with his view of the world?

What do I win??
 
Who is Obumble? It might be a great topic, but why bother?
 
Anything that let's them Do Nothing is Obama's style.
Is his failure on Iran worse than his Immigration one?
Kerry is a stuffed shirt enjoying his faux-relevance/importance as Secretary of State.

So we're back to Iran being the Big Boogieman huh?

What should be done about Iran? Are you advocating preemptive strikes? Are you suggesting the USofA should openly engage in war with Iran?

What's your point in all this hububbery?

Bang - you're now president of the USofA. Do something about Iran.
Now, tell us what you'd do.
 
The funny thing is, the GOP had a longstanding argument that we should never even TALK to Iran, much less negotiate things.

And now that it looks like the leader of the other party is coming close to a deal ensuring Iran wont get nukes (and will have a closer relationship with the US than in the past) Israel is going nuts and the GOP is taking their money and yelling 'disaster'. Its killing them to know that once again, they have been wrong, and once again, the current administration is about to fix a longstanding problem.
 
In the forum Bias in the Media, I'm not required to have the same thread title as the article. Also if you followed the story you would see he did lie, there are not two ways about it. So I made a thread title which speaks the truth.

There is not one thing I like about President Bush, but I wouldn't use a stupid name for him. Got it!
In EVERY Forum except BN one is allowed to change the Title.
You did.
I did.
You however were hypocritical about it.
Got it?
You also posted NO TOPICAL Content.
Got it?

Commenting on the fact your source is an opinion piece in not personal. Instead of complaining that people are not responding as you hoped, you might think about why. Just a thought. Probably work better than throwing a fit...
Again...
I posted a serious MSM Source, the WSJ.
It Cannot be dismissed out of hand just because it is an 'opinion' piece.
(and it cites other sources such as the liberal LA Times within)
I posted in GP Instead of BN Because it Was an Opinion piece, not allowed there but it is Here.
Got it?
Please post ON TOPIC instead of personal grudge posts.
Thank you All again.


BACK on that Topic.
The details Revealed in My OP article, were precisely the ones Kerry does Not want Netanyahu revealing in his speech to Congress.
They're Embarrassing to him.

That's the Gist of the whole thing.

ie
https://www.google.com/webhp?source...pv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=kerry details&es_th=1

ie
Kerry warns Netanyahu against revealing Iran talks details
http://www.timesofisrael.com/kerry-warns-netanyahu-against-revealing-iran-talks-details/
 
Last edited:
Again...
I posted a serious MSM Source, the WSJ.
It Cannot be dismissed out of hand just because it is an opinion piece.
(and it cites other sources such as the liberal LA Times within)
I posted in GP Instead of BN Because it Was an Opinion piece, not allowed there.
Got it?
Please post ON TOPIC instead of personal grudge posts.
Thank you All again.


Your source, and the fact that it is an opinion piece, is a valid part of the topic. Don't like people dismissing opinion pieces that are one sided and often deceptive, don't use opinion piece sources. Complaining about people pointing out flaws with your source is not going to get you anywhere, and you have been known to criticize sources yourself. We call that hypocrisy...
 
In EVERY Forum except BN one is allowed to change the Title.
You did.
I did.
You however were hypocritical about it.
Got it?
You also posted NO TOPICAL Content.
Got it?
You are correct every thread in BN is required to use the same title as the article. As you can plainly see Bias in the Media is not BN.
 

Attachments

  • BreakingNews.webp
    BreakingNews.webp
    64.2 KB · Views: 30
Anything that let's them Do Nothing is Obama's style.
Is his failure on Iran worse than his Immigration one?
Kerry is a stuffed shirt enjoying his faux-relevance/importance as Secretary of State.

Iran on the Nuclear Edge

Official leaks suggest the U.S. is Making Ever More Concessions
Feb. 27, 2015 6:44 p.m. ET
WSJ
Iran on the Nuclear Edge - WSJ

Secretary of State John Kerry told Congress this week that no one should pre-judge a nuclear deal with Iran because only the negotiators know what’s in it. But the truth is that the framework of an accord has been emerging thanks to Administration leaks to friendly journalists. The leaks suggest the U.S. has already given away so much that any deal on current terms will put Iran on the cusp of nuclear-power status. The latest Startling detail is Monday’s leak that the U.S. has conceded to Iran’s demand that an agreement would last as little as a decade, perhaps with an additional five-year phase-out. After that Iran would be allowed to build its uranium enrichment capabilities to whatever size it wants. In theory it would be forbidden from building nuclear weapons, but by then all sanctions would have long ago been lifted and Iran would have the capability to enrich on an industrial scale. On Wednesday Mr. Kerry denied that a deal would include the 10-year sunset, though he offered no details

The sunset clause fits the larger story of how far the U.S. and its allies have come to satisfy Iran’s demands. The Administration originally insisted that Iran should not be able to enrich uranium at all.
Later it mooted a symbolic enrichment capacity of perhaps 500 centrifuges.
Last July people close to the White House began talking about 3,000.

By October the Los Angeles Times reported that Mr. Kerry had raised the ceiling to 4,000.
Now it’s 6,000, and the Administration line is that the number doesn’t matter; only advanced centrifuges count. While quality does matter, quantity can have a quality all its own. The point is that Iran will be allowed to retain what amounts to a nuclear-weapons industrial capacity rather than dismantle all of it as the U.S. first demanded.

Mr. Kerry also says that any deal will have intrusive inspections, yet he has a habit of ignoring Iran’s noncompliance with agreements it has already signed. Last November he insisted that “Iran has lived up” to its commitments under the 2013 interim nuclear agreement.
[.......]​

Why do anything substantive when you can kick the can down the road?
 
So we're back to Iran being the Big Boogieman huh?

What should be done about Iran? Are you advocating preemptive strikes? Are you suggesting the USofA should openly engage in war with Iran?

What's your point in all this hububbery?

Bang - you're now president of the USofA. Do something about Iran.
Now, tell us what you'd do.

To prevent Iran from getting nukes, it may indeed take a strike. Israel is 2 and 0 for that. We should help.
 
Back
Top Bottom