Popular Post Ulysses G. Posted March 31, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted March 31, 2015 There is no country except Israel that has any problem with Iran enriching "1%" (1% as in an example of very small quantities) of uranium as of now. Any other countries opposed to this? Dont bring up your beloved congress, please. Do you ever do any actual thinking or research at all or just type whatever bit of foolishness pops up in your head? The current UN Sanctions forbid Iran from enriching uranium. That is a BUNCH of countries - DUH! 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 "German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said Iran's expectations from the talks are "very ambitious" and not yet acceptable to his country or the other five negotiating: the U.S., Britain, China, France and Russia." Interesting. Russia is more in bed with Syria, and not Iran. France doesn't like this deal. Germany doesn't. The Arab coalition doesn't. I wonder what the UK and China think. Obama's minions might go home with their tails between their legs and the US Congress may not have to take action. I can hope. It seems that everyone in the world is wiser than Obama. Iran and Russia don't love each other, but as both have problems with America they are logic allies. The idea is to take Iran out of it to make Russia more lonely, specially as Iran is a neighbor. But that thinking is silly. if USA stops the Sanctions Iran won't love the West over night. All the US politics under Obama is so simple minded...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Seastallion Posted March 31, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted March 31, 2015 The warmongers are beating their drums today. "Iran are too ambitious" ? because they want sanctions lifted? They have attacked no one, agreed to more inspections than any other country in history and made plain that they do not want nuclear weapons. Israel on the other hand, attack their neighbours every couple of years, have hundreds of nuclear weapons and refuse inspections. Sanction them !! Ahhh, but if you are a country that is used to ignoring international law, and used to being aggressive and attacking "defensively" or "preemptively", then you will project those attitudes onto others. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Ulysses G. Posted March 31, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted March 31, 2015 "Ahhh, but if you are a country that is used to ignoring international law", building nuclear weapons programs that you have committed not to, sponsoring terrorism all over the planet and so on... 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Steely Dan Posted March 31, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted March 31, 2015 The backdrop behind the negotiations with Iran are to say the least surreal. Pakistani troops alongside Saudis are poised to land in Aden to fight Shia militia allied to Iran. Pakistan are already a nuclear power who will certainly arm the Saudis with nuclear weapons if requested to so do. Iran know this very well and even if they sign off an agreement with the P5+1 theres fat chance of them honouring it with a Sunni vs Shia war breaking out. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arjunadawn Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 The Islam-Firsters are certainly on their high horse today.The biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world has the "right" to nuclear weapons too. Pardon me but the biggest state sponsor of terrorism is not Iran : it's USA Before and if the moderator steers this back on track I wish to respond. Iran has entire institutions built on fomenting sedition and war and jihad throughout the sunni world. Iran has built its entire existence on realigning the world since the Battle of Karbala. For shia muslims, this was just yesterday! I erased the part where I somewhat agreed with aaacorp as this requires its own thread; but few actors in the world are as grievous as Iran (and sadly, now, my own country). You should have seen Iran pre-Islamic revolution. You would laugh out loud at your writings. If we go thru every passage in the Torah and Bible we could also consider the scripts a danger to society. The only religion you objectify and take literally is Islam. You also give too much 21st century importance to the historical events that has shaped shia islam. Your credibility was a bit tainted when you tried to make Sweden look dangerous because of its rape statistics. Its a country I left 2,5 years ago. I lived and were born their 30 years and were hanging out in all "no-go"-zones, immigrant areas and so called ghettos. Internet is somethings a misleading source of information... I may not always be correct; but I always assert what I believe to be true. If I give too much importance to historical events please share the formula that I appear to use in reaching my faulty observations so we may all consider the merit of your point. Why is my grasp of islamic history antiquated and inappropriate for considering the current context of Islamic expansion? Why is my consideration of earlier islamic events overrated when the shia and sunni themselves consistently inform us of the mandate of the past? I have read writings of mine recently from when a child; I cringed, rather than "laugh[ed] out loud." I dont have a mechanism for importing emotion, certainly not laughter, into such topics as I write on- certainly not death, beheadings, rape, islamic jihad, terrorism, nuclear, war, conflict, ad infinitum. "The only religion objectify and take literally is islam." Your observation is simple fact. The bylines and headlines of the world do not read "Christian Knights Conquer Malta." We dont watch news reels regarding "Pious Rabbis Blow Up Islamic Madrasa." We dont read or watch these headers because they are not the vox populi of the day. Since islamic jihad is, and since islamic jihad takes islam "literally"- acts out the injunctions of their scriptures, then islam should be evaluated and considered objectively; and I do. I rarely make an observation without the islamic scriptural reference or a pretty fast ability to produce it. If this is what is meant by "objectify" then you are correct. Islam makes itself "objective" to the world whereby its adherents no longer have a subjective theology but a militant theology bent on marshal expansion and subjugation. "If we go thru every passage in the Torah and Bible we could also consider the scripts a danger to society." This is true. Of course the next step for rational humans is to then ask are these injunctions being acted out? Are Jewish and Christian mandates being forced on others? Are the underlying scriptural imperatives being systematically used to militarize, politicize, and war upon entire peoples and nations? The answer is of course no, which renders your point moot. PS. Sweden does have horrific rape numbers. This topic regards Iran, nukes, and the related perspectives regarding the threat Iran poses, or not- not me! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post hard124get Posted March 31, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted March 31, 2015 "Ahhh, but if you are a country that is used to ignoring international law", building nuclear weapons programs that you have committed not to, sponsoring terrorism all over the planet and so on... Yes, you finally admit Israel is sponsoring terrorism all over the world, it took a while. Welcome to reality 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beechguy Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Just my point of view, but I lived in the Gulf Region for 10 years, and spent a few more in and out of the region, to include Iraq, and Afghanistan. The largest explosion I heard in Bahrain, was around the 2005, 2006 time frame. It occurred about 300 yards from the front entrance of the U.S. Navy Facility, in an area frequented by pedestrians. A couple of the things that kept it from being fatal, it wasn't very large, and it was placed in rubbish container with a curved bottom, deflecting much of the force upward. It was set by an Iranian. I know we're thinking of the normal nuclear weapons because of the negotiations, but I look at past actions, and a broader picture. What if that had been a dirty bomb, able to be built by current, or future capabilities? The Iranians have ben exerting their influence for a number of years, there is reason the Gulf countries and others have concerns. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snarky66 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Mashed potato face Kerry has already blown off one deadline. Saying that too much progress has been made to let it all evaporate. We have another way of expressing this. It's called "caving". 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post snarky66 Posted March 31, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) Wow. Breaking news. Deadline extended. Again. Means Kerry & obama folded like a pup tent in hurricane. Edited March 31, 2015 by snarky66 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKKBobby Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 The backdrop behind the negotiations with Iran are to say the least surreal. Pakistani troops alongside Saudis are poised to land in Aden to fight Shia militia allied to Iran. Pakistan are already a nuclear power who will certainly arm the Saudis with nuclear weapons if requested to so do. Iran know this very well and even if they sign off an agreement with the P5+1 theres fat chance of them honouring it with a Sunni vs Shia war breaking out. Good 1st of April joke! I really wonder how you can come to this kind of conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverSure Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I might have screwed up the quotes, sorry. Im tired. Going to catch a 10 1/2h flight to Farangland in a few hours. Have a good flight. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Hmmmm. Suddenly a "no comment". 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Numerous off-topic, inflammatory, troll posts and replies removed. Please stay on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterTee Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> If answering your question correctly is "off topic" That would be YOUR fault. Iran signed the NPT and therefore is forbidden from producing nuclear weapons. Israel already had them, did not sign the NPT and is under no obligation to do so. You didn't answer the question, you merely stated the obvious, ie that Israel defies this and every other international agreement if it doesn't suit their needs. The most disturbing thing is that you actually defend this behaviour, while at the same time "scream murder" about Iran not following agreements (while actually they do). The Israel propaganda about the intention of Iran to get nuclear weapons is the same ingnorant propaganda of the WMD fairytale which Sadam supposedly had. Sadly it seems Israel, through the media, is fooling a large part of the world yet again..... Its too bad that solving problems and moving forward is not your intention. When reading your posts, I can't help thinking that you are only out for blood (as a good Israeli would), and now that your buddy Natanyahu has sided with Saudi (and consequently ISIS and Al Qaida), war might be what you'll get. Afterall, if an agreement is reached with Iran, Israel might be stupid enough to go to war....and we all know that that will be the end of Israel as we know it.... The toxic Israel demonization rears its ugly head, yet again. Of course, Iran would like nuclear weapons. Any five year old knows that. DUH! RockyBB raises some very good points that are on-topic. It's not 'Israel demonization by any stretch of the imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linky Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Mashed potato face Kerry has already blown off one deadline. Saying that too much progress has been made to let it all evaporate. We have another way of expressing this. It's called "caving". Great news, if an agreement looks possible then of course extend the deadline. I think you will find that the other countries have essentially agreed but it is the US holding out. But dont let the facts worry you. Great work so far Mr Kerry, a positive outcome for all involved can still be reached. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> If answering your question correctly is "off topic" That would be YOUR fault. Iran signed the NPT and therefore is forbidden from producing nuclear weapons. Israel already had them, did not sign the NPT and is under no obligation to do so. You didn't answer the question, you merely stated the obvious, ie that Israel defies this and every other international agreement if it doesn't suit their needs. The most disturbing thing is that you actually defend this behaviour, while at the same time "scream murder" about Iran not following agreements (while actually they do). The Israel propaganda about the intention of Iran to get nuclear weapons is the same ingnorant propaganda of the WMD fairytale which Sadam supposedly had. Sadly it seems Israel, through the media, is fooling a large part of the world yet again..... Its too bad that solving problems and moving forward is not your intention. When reading your posts, I can't help thinking that you are only out for blood (as a good Israeli would), and now that your buddy Natanyahu has sided with Saudi (and consequently ISIS and Al Qaida), war might be what you'll get. Afterall, if an agreement is reached with Iran, Israel might be stupid enough to go to war....and we all know that that will be the end of Israel as we know it.... The toxic Israel demonization rears its ugly head, yet again. Of course, Iran would like nuclear weapons. Any five year old knows that. DUH! RockyBB raises some very good points that are on-topic. It's not 'Israel demonization by any stretch of the imagination. You're wrong. Rhetoric like a good Israeli is out for blood is a kind of hate speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> You didn't answer the question, you merely stated the obvious, ie that Israel defies this and every other international agreement if it doesn't suit their needs. The most disturbing thing is that you actually defend this behaviour, while at the same time "scream murder" about Iran not following agreements (while actually they do). The Israel propaganda about the intention of Iran to get nuclear weapons is the same ingnorant propaganda of the WMD fairytale which Sadam supposedly had. Sadly it seems Israel, through the media, is fooling a large part of the world yet again..... Its too bad that solving problems and moving forward is not your intention. When reading your posts, I can't help thinking that you are only out for blood (as a good Israeli would), and now that your buddy Natanyahu has sided with Saudi (and consequently ISIS and Al Qaida), war might be what you'll get. Afterall, if an agreement is reached with Iran, Israel might be stupid enough to go to war....and we all know that that will be the end of Israel as we know it.... The toxic Israel demonization rears its ugly head, yet again. Of course, Iran would like nuclear weapons. Any five year old knows that. DUH! RockyBB raises some very good points that are on-topic. It's not 'Israel demonization by any stretch of the imagination. You're wrong. Rhetoric like a good Israeli is out for blood is a kind of hate speech. Where is the argument? I am sure the same posting with Russia and Ukraine wouldn't be labeled as "hate speech" by you. Whenever you don't have any arguments you call the others racist or homophob (or as variation calling it "hate speech"). It would be better if you find an argument why it is wrong what Rockybeerybelly told instead of saying that he isn't allowed to say it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Steely Dan Posted April 1, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted April 1, 2015 Mashed potato face Kerry has already blown off one deadline. Saying that too much progress has been made to let it all evaporate. We have another way of expressing this. It's called "caving". Great news, if an agreement looks possible then of course extend the deadline. I think you will find that the other countries have essentially agreed but it is the US holding out. But dont let the facts worry you.Great work so far Mr Kerry, a positive outcome for all involved can still be reached. So another red line is crossed and the talks head on into April fools day, how very fitting. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggold Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Mashed potato face Kerry has already blown off one deadline. Saying that too much progress has been made to let it all evaporate. We have another way of expressing this. It's called "caving". Great news, if an agreement looks possible then of course extend the deadline. I think you will find that the other countries have essentially agreed but it is the US holding out. But dont let the facts worry you. Great work so far Mr Kerry, a positive outcome for all involved can still be reached. Actually it is the others that are holding out, the US are falling over them selves for a deal! or did you miss that? http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/3/24/as-iran-nuclear-deadline-looms-france-holds-it-ground.html http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/sports/iran-deal-can-be-done-must-put-bomb-out-of-reach-uk/vp-AAaclLi 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post arjunadawn Posted April 1, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted April 1, 2015 The backdrop behind the negotiations with Iran are to say the least surreal. Pakistani troops alongside Saudis are poised to land in Aden to fight Shia militia allied to Iran. Pakistan are already a nuclear power who will certainly arm the Saudis with nuclear weapons if requested to so do. Iran know this very well and even if they sign off an agreement with the P5+1 theres fat chance of them honouring it with a Sunni vs Shia war breaking out. Good 1st of April joke! I really wonder how you can come to this kind of conclusion. Since you indict him you should be aware his observations join a long list of relevant voices making the same observations. 1. The negotiations are surreal with leaks of goings on inside, suggesting french displeasure; high level Iranian defector indicating the US is actually motivating the Iranian position in the talks and in a manner of speaking the talks are Iran+1 v P4+1. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/03/30/iranian_defector_the_united_states_is_negotiating_on_behalf_of_iran 2. Pakistan has agreed to assist other sunni with regard to the peninsula; I would add at considerable exposure to themselves as a border country to Iran. As myself and others suggested, the Iran rebels moved not to Aden as suspected as fast as they moved to the red sea straits island to try to control the straits. 3. It has been open sourced for some time that Saudi Arabia may be in a deal with Pak for nukes and its also been suggested they may have funded some of their program. As myself and others who have spent time in recent Pakistan, Islamabad region, the Saudi presence, especially with regard to Mosques, is unmistakable. http://www.dw.de/pakistans-yemen-dilemma-being-neutral-is-not-an-option/a-18349300 http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20150331/world/Pakistan-joins-Saudi-coalition-against-Yemen-Houthi-rebels.562152 http://spectator.org/articles/61523/obama%E2%80%99s-strange-iran-negotiations https://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/just-days-before-nuclear-talks-end-iran-seizes-yemen-u-s-evacuates-but-saudis-arab-coalition-launch-war-to-retake-yemen-where-will-this-lead/ It is surreal! http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-iran-negotiators-20150330-story.html 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 The Saudi military and Pakistani military have had strong ties for years. It wouldn't surprise me if Riyadh doesn't already have something in the works to counter the Iranian nuclear attempt. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 If a Preliminary Agreement is reached, that would be a most welcome and encouraging development. Which would also mean the hard-liners in the Republican controlled congress maximus will enter into a new dimension of their vilification of Prez Obama, the chief attack line being the president sold us out, caved, collapsed in his supposed desperation to realize an agreement etc etc etc etc etc. Some extremists on the lunar fringe will even contend the president is in alliance with Iran during the negotiations....after all, Rush Limbaugh said so. Some of Iran's reality on the ground under the sanctions are that China has been bartering for Iranian oil because US sanctions in particular prohibit any government using USD$ in dealings with Iran. Russia too, although state owned corporations in Russia are searching high and low for USD$ to pay loans to banks in Europe. Any bank doing business in any currency or for any transaction is prohibited doing business with US banks, so Deutsche Bank, PNB....all of 'em don't do any business with Iran. Etc. Here's Prez Obama teleconferencing with SecState Kerry and the US negotiating team, to include the US Secretary of Energy, Dr. Ernest Moniz, a nuclear expert who joined the negotiations at the beginning of this year. The P5+1 negotiators support Dr. Moniz's plan to arrange Iran's centrifuges so that enriching uranium would be extremely difficult, laborious, burdensome, extraordinarily time consuming. Present or participating in the teleconference were: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKKBobby Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) There is no country except Israel that has any problem with Iran enriching "1%" (1% as in an example of very small quantities) of uranium as of now. Any other countries opposed to this? Dont bring up your beloved congress, please. Do you ever do any actual thinking or research at all or just type whatever bit of foolishness pops up in your head? The current UN Sanctions forbid Iran from enriching uranium. That is a BUNCH of countries - DUH!P5+1 are busy with sorting out the issue right now: The issue of Irans actual right to enrich uranium. A right given by signing the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Thats the reason why the grown ups are sitting at the table discussing. Edited April 1, 2015 by BKKBobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post NeverSure Posted April 1, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) The Observer - UK "President Obama Must Not Complete a Disastrous Deal With Iran." 03/31/15 3:32pm "The deal with Iran follows in the wake of these foreign policy disasters. Among our traditional Sunni allies in the region, it is seen as a betrayal not simply because it advances Iran’s nuclear ambitions but also because it encourages Iran’s support for the Houthi Shiite militia in Yemen and Iran’s adventurism in Iraq. The lifting of sanctions means more resources for Iran to transfer to its meddlesome proxies like Lebanon’s Hezbollah, the assassin of Lebanon’s democratic aspirations. The Iran deal is a march toward the nuclear abyss hand-in-hand with the world’s largest exporter of terrorism– the patron of Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi militias in Yemen, Shiite militias in Iraq, and operatives killing Jews in Argentina. Regrettably, a naïve, petulant President Obama sees this as a crowning part of his legacy and nothing will stand in his way." http://observer.com/2015/03/president-obama-must-not-complete-a-disastrous-deal-with-iran/ Edited April 1, 2015 by NeverSure 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKKBobby Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 The Observer - UK "President Obama Must Not Complete a Disastrous Deal With Iran." 03/31/15 3:32pm "The deal with Iran follows in the wake of these foreign policy disasters. Among our traditional Sunni allies in the region, it is seen as a betrayal not simply because it advances Iran’s nuclear ambitions but also because it encourages Iran’s support for the Houthi Shiite militia in Yemen and Iran’s adventurism in Iraq. The lifting of sanctions means more resources for Iran to transfer to its meddlesome proxies like Lebanon’s Hezbollah, the assassin of Lebanon’s democratic aspirations. The Iran deal is a march toward the nuclear abyss hand-in-hand with the world’s largest exporter of terrorism– the patron of Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi militias in Yemen, Shiite militias in Iraq, and operatives killing Jews in Argentina. Regrettably, a naïve, petulant President Obama sees this as a crowning part of his legacy and nothing will stand in his way." http://observer.com/2015/03/president-obama-must-not-complete-a-disastrous-deal-with-iran/ A deal is in the best interest of the world except Israel and the moderate(im using the word in a highly sarcastic way) Sunni allies of the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post NeverSure Posted April 1, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted April 1, 2015 The Observer - UK "President Obama Must Not Complete a Disastrous Deal With Iran." 03/31/15 3:32pm "The deal with Iran follows in the wake of these foreign policy disasters. Among our traditional Sunni allies in the region, it is seen as a betrayal not simply because it advances Iran’s nuclear ambitions but also because it encourages Iran’s support for the Houthi Shiite militia in Yemen and Iran’s adventurism in Iraq. The lifting of sanctions means more resources for Iran to transfer to its meddlesome proxies like Lebanon’s Hezbollah, the assassin of Lebanon’s democratic aspirations. The Iran deal is a march toward the nuclear abyss hand-in-hand with the world’s largest exporter of terrorism– the patron of Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi militias in Yemen, Shiite militias in Iraq, and operatives killing Jews in Argentina. Regrettably, a naïve, petulant President Obama sees this as a crowning part of his legacy and nothing will stand in his way." http://observer.com/2015/03/president-obama-must-not-complete-a-disastrous-deal-with-iran/ A deal is in the best interest of the world except Israel and the moderate(im using the word in a highly sarcastic way) Sunni allies of the US. "The world" doesn't seem to think so and there's a lot of push back on this from European and ME countries. If you speak for "the world," good for you. I can speak only for myself, and reference what others say when they speak for themselves. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKKBobby Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) The Observer - UK "President Obama Must Not Complete a Disastrous Deal With Iran." 03/31/15 3:32pm "The deal with Iran follows in the wake of these foreign policy disasters. Among our traditional Sunni allies in the region, it is seen as a betrayal not simply because it advances Iran’s nuclear ambitions but also because it encourages Iran’s support for the Houthi Shiite militia in Yemen and Iran’s adventurism in Iraq. The lifting of sanctions means more resources for Iran to transfer to its meddlesome proxies like Lebanon’s Hezbollah, the assassin of Lebanon’s democratic aspirations. The Iran deal is a march toward the nuclear abyss hand-in-hand with the world’s largest exporter of terrorism– the patron of Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi militias in Yemen, Shiite militias in Iraq, and operatives killing Jews in Argentina. Regrettably, a naïve, petulant President Obama sees this as a crowning part of his legacy and nothing will stand in his way." http://observer.com/2015/03/president-obama-must-not-complete-a-disastrous-deal-with-iran/ A deal is in the best interest of the world except Israel and the moderate(im using the word in a highly sarcastic way) Sunni allies of the US. "The world" doesn't seem to think so and there's a lot of push back on this from European and ME countries. If you speak for "the world," good for you. I can speak only for myself, and reference what others say when they speak for themselves. Who are the others?The US Republicans, Israel and Sunni Arab ME countries? You are not speaking on behalf or refering to the opinion of the majority of the population in western Europe, right? Edited April 1, 2015 by BKKBobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post NeverSure Posted April 1, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted April 1, 2015 Two hours ago... (Reuters) - Major powers and Iran were closer to a preliminary accord on Tehran's nuclear program as marathon talks ran into Wednesday, but were stuck over key details such as lifting U.N. sanctions and Iran's future atomic research. After missing a self-imposed March 31 deadline for a deal, the negotiators ended talks in the Swiss city of Lausanne in the early morning hours with an air of chaos, disunity and cacophony as delegations scrambled to get contradictory viewpoints across. The six powers - the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China - aim to stop Iran from gaining the capacity to develop a nuclear bomb in exchange for easing international sanctions crippling its economy. (Emphasis mine) LINK 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverSure Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 A deal is in the best interest of the world except Israel and the moderate(im using the word in a highly sarcastic way) Sunni allies of the US. "The world" doesn't seem to think so and there's a lot of push back on this from European and ME countries. If you speak for "the world," good for you. I can speak only for myself, and reference what others say when they speak for themselves. Who are the others? The US Republicans, Israel and Sunni Arab ME countries? You are not speaking on behalf or refering to the opinion of the majority of the population in western Europe, right? See above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now