Kerry says Iran deal is close

[Gulo Blue]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24908005?ocid=socialflow_twitter_bbcworld

US Secretary of State John Kerry has told the BBC that none of the differences between world powers and Iran over its nuclear programme are big enough to prevent agreement.

He said they came "extremely close" to a deal at the weekend in Geneva.

But he said the rest of the world had to be certain that Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapons programme.

Three days of negotiations ended without a breakthrough, but diplomats will meet again on 20 November.

"We were very, very close actually, extremely close," Mr Kerry said.

 

[Sbee]

fox news reports "Obama administration caves to Iranian demands, adheres to his muslim faith"

 

[Gulo Blue]

fox news reports "Obama administration caves to Iranian demands, adheres to his muslim faith"

Nice. You could write for them. They decided to go with:

"The coming betrayal of Israel"

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/11/12/coming-betrayal-israel/

Of course, that's the opinion page, so it doesn't count against their news credibility, right?

 

[Michchamp]

right.

 

[Monster]

Okay. I"m too lazy to make a new thread, but I have a question. First off, I haven't done a ton of research into this deal, so all I know is what I've seen on the news. From what I know, Iran agrees to allow more inspections, while disabling their ability to create weapons from their Nuclear technology but are allowed to continue with peaceful nuclear technology. In return, some sanctions on them are lifted, giving the country some financial breathing room. If they're found to be deceptive and not complying with the agreement, sanctions will be replaced with something even tougher.

I realize that Iran hasn't been a country that the world could trust for quite some time, but this agreement seems quite fair to me and could even spark an eventual peace between Iran and Israel if all conditions are met.

So, why the fuck is Israel so against this? Despite their problems in the past, I don't think there's a chance that this could end up being bad for Israel. Fox news and GOP lawmakers are mostly against it as well. I really don't understand the problem that is taking place. It seems that this agreement is low risk/high reward.

Again, what is the problem with this deal? And if I am reading the situation correctly, why the Hell is everyone so against it?

 

[Gulo Blue]

Great news. Inspections work.

 

[Sbee]

i think our allies in the region don't trust Iran, they think Iran will just evade inspectors and shock the world with nuclear capability. saudi arabia does not like this deal

 

[jwlcosu]

i think our allies in the region don't trust Iran, they think Iran will just evade inspectors and shock the world with nuclear capability. saudi arabia does not like this deal

They're not trusting us so much these days either.

 

[Michchamp]

...

Again, what is the problem with this deal? And if I am reading the situation correctly, why the Hell is everyone so against it?

Fox & the GOP are against it because... OBAMACARE.

the Israeli government is against it because they are against any action that doesn't leave one of their Muslim neighbors a smoldering ruin.

Saudi Arabia doesn't like it because Iran is a major political rival and this does not leave them a smoldering ruin. in the event there is no outside power controlling the Persian Gulf (currently us) Iran will control it.

 

[byco42]

Fox & the GOP are against it because... OBAMACARE.

the Israeli government is against it because they are against any action that doesn't leave one of their Muslim neighbors a smoldering ruin.

Saudi Arabia doesn't like it because Iran is a major political rival and this does not leave them a smoldering ruin. in the event there is no outside power controlling the Persian Gulf (currently us) Iran will control it.

Surprised you have no comment on the nature and evils of theocratic government somewhere in this "assessment."

 

[Michchamp]

Surprised you have no comment on the nature and evils of theocratic government somewhere in this "assessment."

well, I wouldn't defend them or agree with them if I was an Iranian citizen.

but that's always kind of a false analogy presented to people who oppose bombing Iran, that if you're not FOR bombing them, you must be defending all they stand for, which is bogus.

Glenn Greenwald wrote a column once on that, how the only time the war-mongerer wing of the GOP cares about gay rights or women's rights is when they're using them to justify bombing some other country.

the Iranian people should determine who rules them, just as the American people should do the same with their own government. opposing unnecessary war is the greatest good, as war is the most destructive and despicable conduct nations can conduct.

as an American, the Iranian theocracy is a much more remote threat to my freedom of thought and speech than the Fundies here are.

 

[tinselwolverine]

but that's always kind of a false analogy presented to people who oppose bombing Iran, that if you're not FOR bombing them, you must be defending all they stand for, which is bogus.

Glenn Greenwald wrote a column once on that, how the only time the war-mongerer wing of the GOP cares about gay rights or women's rights is when they're using them to justify bombing some other country.

Is there currently a single US policy/lawmaker who seriously is calling for the imminent bombing of Iran?

Or anybody like that among our western allies?

 

[byco42]

well, I wouldn't defend them or agree with them if I was an Iranian citizen.

And you'd be jailed at minimum.

but that's always kind of a false analogy presented to people who oppose bombing Iran, that if you're not FOR bombing them, you must be defending all they stand for, which is bogus.

I must be the exception. I can separate the citizens from the ruling body that enslaves it.

Glenn Greenwald wrote a column once on that, how the only time the war-mongerer wing of the GOP cares about gay rights or women's rights is when they're using them to justify bombing some other country.

I thought it was over oil that the US went to war with Iraq. What other countries has this cadre justified bombing recently to reform the ways that gays and women are abused in them?

the Iranian people should determine who rules them, just as the American people should do the same with their own government. opposing unnecessary war is the greatest good, as war is the most destructive and despicable conduct nations can conduct.

The Iranian people are a long way from self-determination, without the luxury of dissent. And we are distancing ourselves from self-determination. I can't think of a war that was ever "necessary," only "essential to conclude as soon as possible." We don't even do that right these days.

as an American, the Iranian theocracy is a much more remote threat to my freedom of thought and speech than the Fundies here are.

There are no more geographical boundaries that can prevent the abridgement of your freedom. I'm stunned that you don't recognize that.

 

[Michchamp]

...

I must be the exception. I can separate the citizens from the ruling body that enslaves it.

...


The Iranian people are a long way from self-determination, without the luxury of dissent. And we are distancing ourselves from self-determination. I can't think of a war that was ever "necessary," only "essential to conclude as soon as possible." We don't even do that right these days.


There are no more geographical boundaries that can prevent the abridgement of your freedom. I'm stunned that you don't recognize that.

you seem to believe this crap about us going to war to deliver other people "freedom" and "preserve our freedoms." I don't.

as well as the ludicrous idea that "smart bombs" minimize the impact of war on civilians. If we were to go to war, our military would do a piss poor job of separating the Iranian government from the people. the fact that you can... great, but if you're cheering on the war, it really doesn't matter.

no army in history ever gave a shit about the freedom of speech or the freedom to assemble, habeus corpus, or the due process of law, and the US military is no different.

the idea that there are hordes of enemies at our borders looking to abridge my rights is delusional.

 

[Michchamp]

Is there currently a single US policy/lawmaker who seriously is calling for the imminent bombing of Iran?

Or anybody like that among our western allies?

Maybe none have recently said anything like that, but over the passed decade, I can think of a couple senators off the top of my head... Joe Lieberman, and John McCain in particular, and they haven't come out and unequivocally and retracted those statements.

lots of pundits in magazines, think tanks and even some newspapers considered "respectable" more or less have too.

to my knowledge, no Iranian politician as significant as a US Senator has called for their government to bomb the US. And even all those statements where Ahmenijad claimed to want to destroy Israel, or whatever, were revealed to be based on selective translations and quotations of what he really said.

This isn't a defense of the Iranian government, but it's plain to see that if we were to bomb them, we would be unjustifiably the aggressor. it takes a pretty one-sided view of the circumstances to believe a nation like Iran - literally ringed with US military bases - is the one behaving aggressively.

but hey, most americans do, even ones that have a degree from Michigan, like Byco, to say nothing of the mouth-breathers like jdilco. shows you the power of our propaganda.

 

[byco42]

you seem to believe this crap about us going to war to deliver other people "freedom" and "preserve our freedoms." I don't.

So the Revolutionary, Civil and Second World Wars were exercises in futility.

as well as the ludicrous idea that "smart bombs" minimize the impact of war on civilians. If we were to go to war, our military would do a piss poor job of separating the Iranian government from the people. the fact that you can... great, but if you're cheering on the war, it really doesn't matter.

I "cheer" not for war, or even think it's ever the best course of action.

no army in history ever gave a shit about the freedom of speech or the freedom to assemble, habeus corpus, or the due process of law, and the US military is no different.

That's why armies are supposed to be subject to its citizens.

the idea that there are hordes of enemies at our borders looking to abridge my rights is delusional.

You missed the significance of the term "geographical boundaries." And it doesn't take a "horde." If took a handful of them to fundamentally alter our society in 2001.

 

[Michchamp]

So the Revolutionary, Civil and Second World Wars were exercises in futility.


...


You missed the significance of the term "geographical boundaries." And it doesn't take a "horde." If took a handful of them to fundamentally alter our society in 2001.

in those conflicts, the military was a means to an end, formed after civilian decisions to intervene. and you have to set those against the War of 1812, all the Indian Wars, all the interventions in Latin America, the Spanish American War, the Mexican American War, the Boxer Rebellion, the Vietnam War, and the Iraq war...all of which were fought solely to advance commercial interests &oppress others, and the latter two which appear to be more of a military run amok, than anything else.

9/11 altered our society because the creeps in the White House wanted it to. It could've been handled a lot differently both before and after the attack. the attack itself justified none of the response we saw to it.

 

[byco42]

in those conflicts, the military was a means to an end, formed after civilian decisions to intervene. and you have to set those against the War of 1812, all the Indian Wars, all the interventions in Latin America, the Spanish American War, the Mexican American War, the Boxer Rebellion, the Vietnam War, and the Iraq war...all of which were fought solely to advance commercial interests &oppress others, and the latter two which appear to be more of a military run amok, than anything else.

I only mentioned the three I mentioned specifically because they are the only legit wars we've fought in our history.

9/11 altered our society because the creeps in the White House wanted it to. It could've been handled a lot differently both before and after the attack. the attack itself justified none of the response we saw to it.

And the "creeps" in there now have only escalated what the "creeps" in there then initiated. Why do you think that happened?