Forum Thread

Senate Republicans Do Netanyahu's Bidding; Attempt to Sabotage Iran Deal

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 31 - 45 of 88 Prev 1 2 3 4 5 .. 6 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: I am not bashing anyone let alone the President, I merely asked a question regarding the possible deceitful manner that those who are entrusted with bargaining in good faith have not done so, and apparently you can't or won't answer the question either, why.
    You saying you don't bash our President is as laughable as when you say that cops don't target black people in this country.

    As to your question--how in the world would I not think the P5 + 1 bargained in good faith? Why would the worlds six major powers invest years of time and energy in negotiating a peaceful solution just for shits and giggles? Were these six major nations not privy to some secret that you as an average American citizen know about? Did Netanyahu and Congressional Republicans give you a super-secret briefing of Iran's nuclear weapons program that they somehow were able to hide from the P5 + 1? What a joke.

    As I said, your hatred of this President clouds your ability to think logically about this or any matter of importance. If Obama is for it then it must be a bad thing in your eyes. If Netanyahu and Congressional Republicans are against it then you have to be against it because they would never, ever steer you wrong.
    johnnycee Wrote:As I stated previously stated I was on a contract negotiating team and when the other party was caught in an untruth or worse, not bargaining in good faith, it usually caused us to walk away from the table until trust could be restored,or the lie acknowledged. Now this was only labor negotiations and not something as serious as nuclear weapons with possible grim possibilities for all,so to me trust and honesty would be paramount, regardless of party affiliations. Can you agree with that?
    Did you just compare local cop union discussions with major international nuclear negotiations?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: Part II: Iran Responds to GOP Letter: http://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2015/mar/09/part-ii-iran-responds-gop-letter#.VP5kJS2c-O0.facebook
    Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif: “in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.
    ==========
    Thanks for sharing this Schmidt. How sad it is that there are both foreign and domestic agents who want to do nothing more than sabotage a deal that has been in the works for the better part of three years.
    Schmidt Wrote: It would appear to me that Dr. Zarif is correct in his assessment and is immensely qualified to comment on the US Constitution and International law, and certainly more qualified than many of those jackass Senators that signed the letter. That's what is so embarrassing...being lectured on the facts by an Iranian diplomat and scholar. That's what the pundits at Fox News hate. Dr Zarif doesn't fit the stereotype of the "Fox News Iranian".
    How embarrassing indeed. I have a feeling most Republicans wouldn't even be able to find Iran on a world map, but they are more than ready to go start another war in that part of the world if we don't bow down, pledge allegiance to Netanyahu, and do everything he tells us to do.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Bargaining in good faith to me anyway, means that both sides seek an amicable resolution towards a common goal,with no deceit from either side, so trust is very important in these types of discussion, once that trust is violated it's very difficult to get the talks back on line without some sort of concession via an apology to be able to resume the discussion.It isn't an issue with me whether or not the President is authorized to enter into these talks but only if the practice of deceit is eliminated.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: Bargaining in good faith to me anyway, means that both sides seek an amicable resolution towards a common goal,with no deceit from either side, so trust is very important in these types of discussion, once that trust is violated it's very difficult to get the talks back on line without some sort of concession via an apology to be able to resume the discussion.It isn't an issue with me whether or not the President is authorized to enter into these talks but only if the practice of deceit is eliminated.
    If we go off this logic then no country on this earth can ever conduct diplomacy with another country. That, and we would have already had a civilization ending nuclear war between Russia and the United States at some point or another during the Cold War.

    Was Nixon naive to negotiate with Leonid Brezhnev to come to an agreement on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty? Was Saint Reagan naive to negotiate with Mikhail Gorbachev to come to an agreement on the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty? Was Bush I naive to negotiate with Gorbachev to come to an agreement on the START I Treaty? The list goes on and on. Having a red-line of trust before talks can even commence is pure nonsense. Or can Republican Presidents only be trusted to conduct negotiations in good faith while the evil Democratic Presidents can't be trusted?

    Diplomacy doesn't start off with every side saying 'I trust you one hundred percent and will only keep talking with you if I continue to trust you one hundred percent.' It is extremely complex and painstaking. To suggest that there should be ZERO deceit is just idiotic and incredibly naive. That's not the way diplomacy ever has or ever will work.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    [url=https://www.democratichub.com/user/78196.aspx">johnnycee[/url] Wrote: Bargaining in good faith to me anyway, means that both sides seek an amicable resolution towards a common goal,with no deceit from either side, so trust is very important in these types of discussion, once that trust is violated it's very difficult to get the talks back on line without some sort of concession via an apology to be able to resume the discussion.It isn't an issue with me whether or not the President is authorized to enter into these talks but only if the practice of deceit is eliminated.

    Then you are naive.

    Negotiations between two opposing parties are not defined as working towards a common goal. Negotiations between allies might meet your description. Opposing parties seek advantage and negotiation results in both parties sacrificing here, gaining there, until an agreement is reached.

    As for Obama, provide evidence that he is engaging in deceit or go away on that subject. And your opinion isn't evidence.

    Btw, are Russia, the uk, France, Germany and the prc engaged in "deceit" in these negotiations?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Great point LB. Damned Republicans.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Lonely & Tony absolutely correct; Jared already gave J.C. "hell", Sometimes J.C. gets out of line because of GOP and church indoctrination.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote: Negotiations between two opposing parties are not defined as working towards a common goal. Negotiations between allies might meet your description. Opposing parties seek advantage and negotiation results in both parties sacrificing here, gaining there, until an agreement is reached.
    I agree lonely, but would even suggest that negotiations between allies would never be able to start if we had to adhere to johnny's ambiguous demands. It would be quite naive for anyone to think that even allied countries don't come to negotiations without an intention of getting everything out of them that they possibly can.

    For starters-- johnny's metric is literally impossible to verify. How does any country verify that their negotiating partner is coming to the table without deceit? And what does negotiating without deceit mean anyway?

    Every country goes to the negotiating table with their cards held close. They give a little to get a little back. That is what negotiations are all about. Countries don't go to negotiations and say--it's my way or we will burn your country to the ground. Well...that's what Bush did in Iraq, but you know what I mean.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The deceit was in the fact that the US was offering a 10 year plan when in fact only 2 years was conceivable and out of the Sec.of State John Kerry own mouth was the statement that this is a non-binding deal, as for the sacrificing at the table it should still be made in good faith as is the skill of the negotiator to gain a advantage without resorting to lies and deceit. This is not being naïve as you suggested that I am, but all talks and discussions should be handled in a truthful manner,that is if you truly want an agreement that would be beneficial to all.. And am I to surmise that all Democrats, excluding me of course, wants our government to engage in deceitful acts to gain an advantage on international talks or negotiations?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: The deceit was in the fact that the US was offering a 10 year plan when in fact only 2 years was conceivable and out of the Sec.of State John Kerry own mouth was the statement that this is a non-binding deal,
    Do you honestly think that Congress will throw this agreement out in two years if Iran is in compliance and all the other major world powers are content with the nuclear inspections by the IAEA? That idiotic move would isolate America more than we have ever been isolated before. What in the world would they have to gain out of that?

    And that is also assuming that Republicans will still control the Senate in 2016. They have a hell of a lot of seats up for grabs and Presidential election years are never good for a party whose two demographics are senior citizens and white males. A lot more people vote in Presidential elections, so your friends are going to be in the fight of their lives next year.

    Kerry is right that this is a nonbinding deal in the sense that Congress will still need to vote to lift the sanctions. But I do ask how we will be perceived around the world if the Republican Party sabotages a deal out of spite and hatred for our President. Do you think that idiotic move would put the United States in a stronger position to get a deal more to you and your Republican friends liking or is another Middle-Eastern war the only thing that would make you happy?

    And I also ask why you, as a supposed Democrat, are rooting for our President to fail in his attempt to avert yet another war in the Middle East. Aren't you tired of spending trillions of dollars on slaughtering innocent people? How many thousands of people do we have to kill in that part of the world before you will be happy? 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000? More? How many more innocent people have to die before you realize that the United States can't tell every other country on this planet what they can and can't do?
    johnnycee Wrote: as for the sacrificing at the table it should still be made in good faith as is the skill of the negotiator to gain a advantage without resorting to lies and deceit. This is not being naïve as you suggested that I am, but all talks and discussions should be handled in a truthful manner,that is if you truly want an agreement that would be beneficial to all.. And am I to surmise that all Democrats, excluding me of course, wants our government to engage in deceitful acts to gain an advantage on international talks or negotiations?
    I'm not so sure you fully grasp how foreign policy has been conducted for thousands of years.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    You are right ,I don't know how Foreign policy was conducted for thousands of years, since I also don't know when the term foreign policy was coined nor when ,as I said , the first Foreign Policy was enacted, but I do know negotiations ,having been involved in labor and unit mediations for a quite a few years, if there is no trust , then there is no negotiations possible. negotiations are negotiations whether they are on a local level or international level, only the stakes are higher, but in either case, you need skilled negotiators who know how to identify deceit and find a way to resolve mistrust, and that is by trust and mutual respect. BTW, I don't hate the president,I just don't like his policies, that is a far cry from hatred.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    [url=https://www.democratichub.com/user/78196.aspx">johnnycee[/url] Wrote: The deceit was in the fact that the US was offering a 10 year plan when in fact only 2 years was conceivable and out of the Sec.of State John Kerry own mouth was the statement that this is a non-binding deal, as for the sacrificing at the table it should still be made in good faith as is the skill of the negotiator to gain a advantage without resorting to lies and deceit. This is not being naïve as you suggested that I am, but all talks and discussions should be handled in a truthful manner,that is if you truly want an agreement that would be beneficial to all.. And am I to surmise that all Democrats, excluding me of course, wants our government to engage in deceitful acts to gain an advantage on international talks or negotiations?

    In other words you have no proof. Why was only two years conceivable? Truthful manner...and when circumstances change? You are making a blanket assertion with no evidence except your own opinion to back it up. All diplomatic discussions are presumed made in good faith and all diplomatic discussions have agendas on all sides from the very outset. To assume otherwise is naive which is precisely what you are. Btw, the best description I have seen as to Kerry's comments revolves around congressional oversight which is not the same as approval. Non-binding eliminates or bypasses congressional oversight. As to whether or not this becomes a treaty then the senate will have to pass it or not should they so choose. Non-binding also takes into account that there are legally passed sanctions against Iran in place and Obama cannot unilaterally ignore them.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    This diplomatic discussion was not done in good faith because of the suggestion of a ten year compliance term when in fact they couldn't go beyond 2 years because of a new president in 2017 and they knew this and yet went on with the assertion of the ten year term, as you said ,times change as will political climates, but no one knows what the future holds, So why lie and say 10 when it's only 2 years they can certify./ guarantee. that is not being presumptuous but rather it's outright lie.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The next president might be a democrat - who knows.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    A road kill skunk would be a better president than ANY Republican wannabe cadidate riding in the clown car!