This is who we are negotiating with

[davegolf]

Ayatollah Khamenei Accuses WH of 'Lying,' Being 'Deceptive,' and Having 'Devilish' Intentions. The Ayatollah Khamenei has the final say on any agreement and he says nothing is final or even accepted at this point in time. I think negotiations should be terminated until THEY put some concrete positions on the table for the whole world to see and understand. The rhetoric of destroying America and Israel need to be terminated immediately before any further discussions take place.

Khamenei comments

 

[Rockfish1]

LOUD NOISES!!

Iran is a bad actor. It will continue to be a bad actor even if we reach a nuclear agreement. But you don't have to negotiate potentially historic nuclear deals with your allies. You have to negotiate them with your enemies. Or you go to war.

Compare what we're told the Iranian hardliners are saying with what wingnuts like you are saying. You guys -- both of you guys -- are two sides of the same coin. None of you -- on either side -- has anything to offer but bumper sticker bullshit like NEVER AGAIN! You each use each other's bullshit to advocate reflexive nonsense that advances no one's interests. And you offer no alternative.

This latest nonsense -- that we can't enter a nuclear agreement with Iran until Iran makes peace with Israel -- is just the latest evidence that the Iran Hawks are all bullshit all the time. For the last eleventy years the Iran hawks have ranted about the Apocalyptic consequences of Iran getting the bomb. Now that it appears there might be an agreement that would prevent this calamity, the Iran Hawks are suddenly less concerned about an Iranian bomb. Instead of arguing about a good deal or a bad deal, the Iran Hawks make clear that they want no deal. Just like Bibi Netenyahu (R-Israel).

Apart from the irresistible impulse to post nonsense, what is it you guys actually want? How exactly do you propose to achieve it? Do you have any coherent point to make?

 

[kingmanite]

Re: A question


Just what makes all that are in favor of these negotiations believe that Iran does not already have the damn bomb and are just jacking us around? I think they do.

 

[IU3]

Funny thing is

As Kerry and Obama kiss these terrorists asses they still won't even throw them a bone in the media. They have been mocking Kerry the whole time. All Obama wants is one of them to say something good about him.

 

[IU3]

They hate Obama just as much as they hate bush

FYI.

 

[AEgley]

If Iran tested a nuke tomorrow... how would the US/Israel react to it...

would a spontaneous war break out with Iran?

 

[hoot1]

About the rhetoric

Political rhetoric whether by Ayatollah Khamenei, Barack Obama, or Benjamin Netanyahu is speech directed primarily to the homeland audience.

In negotiating an agreement I would argue such rhetoric as destroying America or Israel should be put aside rather than hold off negotiation. Political rhetoric is after all only rhetoric. Thus Ronald Reagan called the USSR an evil empire but later reached a historic arms agreement with this adversary.

Deeds, as in reaching agreement on terms with mutual benefit to all parties, is far more important than rhetoric. Rhetoric in the final analysis is only talk. Deeds speak louder than words.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Originally posted by davegolf:

Ayatollah Khamenei Accuses WH of 'Lying,' Being 'Deceptive,' and Having 'Devilish' Intentions. The Ayatollah Khamenei has the final say on any agreement and he says nothing is final or even accepted at this point in time. I think negotiations should be terminated until THEY put some concrete positions on the table for the whole world to see and understand. The rhetoric of destroying America and Israel need to be terminated immediately before any further discussions take place.

"Ayatollah Khamenei Accuses WH of 'Lying,' Being 'Deceptive,' and Having 'Devilish' Intentions".


LMAO,

ever notice we never see the Ayatollah and Dave in the same place at the same time.

not sayin, just sayin.

 

[Rockfish1]

What point do you think you're making?

I have no idea what you think you're talking about.

 

[Rockfish1]

Yep

Here David Brooks gets caught up in the rhetoric. But what alternative does Brooks offer? None.

Speaking of alternatives, neocon Charles Krauthammer inveighs against a deal here. Here is his alternative:

"What is the alternative, asks the president? He's repeatedly answered the question himself: No deal is better than a bad deal."

"No deal is better than a bad deal" isn't an alternative. It's a talking point. What would happen after we killed what the rest of the world doesn't see as a "bad deal"? This: Instead of Iran becoming isolated, we would become isolated, and Iran would go about its business in an international community that would no longer support sanctions.

Insofar as I can tell, the opponents of negotiation have nothing to offer but rhetoric to match Khamenei's.

 

[hoot1]

Alongside rhetoric there are undefined terms...

...such as what constitutes a "Jewish State"?

When Netanyahu says he wants to preserve Israel as a Jewish State is he saying neither a single or two state solution is possible? Along the same lines, when Iran calls for the annihilation of Israel, does it mean Israel as it now exists, or does it mean Israel can never exist under any circumstances?

Why is that even Israelis are in disagreement about the definition of a Jewish State? Seems to me before negotiations with the Palestinians begins that the Israelis themselves must be in agreement on what is acceptable.

Having said that, I realize the U.S. is currently negotiating with Iran without having reached agreement at home about what might be acceptable. Thus deals can be made by the executive branch only to have the politicians in the legislative branch, which supposedly represents the people, not approve.



This post was edited on 4/11 10:42 AM by hoot1