Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » ZVUGKTUBM, Sal, CarlSagan, Knothead: Iran Strongly Rejects Text of Geneva Agreement Released by White House

ZVUGKTUBM, Sal, CarlSagan, Knothead: Iran Strongly Rejects Text of Geneva Agreement Released by White House

4 posters

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Markle

Markle

Progressives, step up and share with us what is contained in the similar thread and the article I cite.

ZVUGKTUBM, Sal, CarlSagan, Knothead: Iran will keep their 20% pure uranium, in six months, they simply turn it back from an oxide into what they need. You're all becoming laughingstocks the more you try to defend this failed administration.

Iran Strongly Rejects Text of Geneva Agreement Released by White House

Tue Nov 26, 2013 2:13

TEHRAN (FNA)- The Iranian Foreign Ministry on Tuesday called invalid a press release by the White House alleged to be the text of the nuclear agreement struck by Iran and the Group 5+1 (the US, Russia, China, Britain and France plus Germany) in Geneva on Sunday.


“What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action (the title of the Iran-powers deal), and this fact sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the name of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true,” Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham said on Tuesday.

She said that the four-page text under the name of the Joint Plan of Action (which has been released by the Iranian foreign ministry) was the result of the agreement reached during the Geneva talks and all of its sentences and words were chosen based on the considerations of all parties to the talks. In fact one of the reasons why negotiations between Iran and the G5+1 took so long pertained to the accuracy which was needed for choosing the words for the text of the agreement, Afkham said, explaining that the Iranian delegation was much rigid and laid much emphasis on the need for this accuracy.

Afkham said that the text of the Joint Plan of Action was provided to the media a few hours after the two sides agreed on it.

After the White House released a modified version of the deal struck by Iran and the six world powers in Geneva early Sunday morning, the Iranian Foreign Ministry released the text of the agreement.

The full text of the deal is as follows:
Read more: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13920905001087

Guest


Guest

Liberals are soooo stupid

Guest


Guest

Obama has now had his Neville chamberlain moment with Iran and we can expect peace in our time lilollolol

Guest


Guest

http://freebeacon.com/iran-white-house-lying-about-details-of-nuke-deal/

WH LYING about nuke deal....

2seaoat



I think some folks are just not thinking clearly. When negotiating treaties, there are ALWAYS different opinions as to what parts of a treaty are important. This was never a finished deal, and it requires compliance over a six month period of time. It is obvious that the end of the six months will probably not find success if Iran is not agreeing to some of the American goals. However, to say that America is lying wanting to achieve those goals is simply idiotic. I think a more accurate statement would be that in light of the Iranian response, the ultimate success of these negotiations are in doubt as the two nations are still relatively apart. The diplomacy is good. The rest is simple rhetoric hoping that bombs and war are the only method of stopping nuclear proliferation. A 70 year old technology is hard to keep in a bottle, but the discussion is the important part of the process.

2seaoat



Obama has now had his Neville chamberlain moment with Iran and we can expect peace in our time lilollolol


Additionally, how utterly naive some forum members are on the capability of Iran right now without anything being done, or outright war against Iran. Iran can deliver a nuclear dirty bomb to anywhere in Israel today.........five years ago. The idea of the need to have the explosive capability is simply funny. Israel could be rendered a nuclear wasteland without a nuclear bomb being developed......again complete lack of understanding. The Syrian stockpiles of chemical and biological agents was a second strike capability to Israeli nuclear options. The Iranians have been ultra confident in their discussions with the west because of their dirty bomb capabilities. An attack in Iran by Israel on nuclear facilities will spread radioactive materials and the idea that the Iranian response requires a bomb is simply naive and ill informed.

Guest


Guest

What you think you know was spoon fed to you... gobble it up comrade.

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13920906000306

TEHRAN (FNA)- Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif lashed out at the White House for attempting to misrepresent the Geneva agreement between Tehran and the world powers last week by releasing a fact sheet alleged to be the text of the nuclear deal.

“While we were negotiating (in Geneva), the White House released a text as a fact sheet of the negotiations,” Zarif said, briefing the Iranian lawmakers in an open session of the parliament in Tehran on Wednesday.

“This is while they could release the original text of the negotiations, but they released that fact sheet because they wanted to make their desired changes in it,” he added.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry on Tuesday also called invalid a press release by the White House alleged to be the text of the nuclear agreement struck by Iran and the Group 5+1 (the US, Russia, China, Britain and France plus Germany) in Geneva on Sunday.

“What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action (the title of the Iran-powers deal), and this fact sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the name of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true,” Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham said on Tuesday.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

I think Seaoat nailed it. It is good to see Markle and PaceDog parroting their usual BS. It means that President Obama is doing things right. Keep up the good work, boys!

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:I think Seaoat nailed it. It is good to see Markle and PaceDog parroting their usual BS. It means that President Obama is doing things right. Keep up the good work, boys!
What was accomplished? For us and the hopes to avert suicide nuclear bombers that is.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

On second thought, I think we should attack Iran the soonest. The price of oil has been lagging a bit lately, and such a move will be a boon for those who are invested in petroleum. $200-$250 per barrel will put a lot of royalties in the pockets of holders of mineral-rights, and should boost the portfolios of those who hold stock in energy companies.

Besides, afterward it will be fun reading PaceDog's whines about how much he is paying for gasoline after the price per gallon doubles from where it is now.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Sal

Sal

This is an interim agreement which has not yet been implemented so there is political posturing from both sides.

The telling thing is that despite the support of more than two thirds of Americans for a negotiated settlement, the wingnuts insist on hoping for failure.

It's pathetic.

Guest


Guest

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:On second thought, I think we should attack Iran the soonest. The price of oil has been lagging a bit lately, and such a move will be a boon for those who are invested in petroleum. $200-$250 per barrel will put a lot of royalties in the pockets of holders of mineral-rights, and should boost the portfolios of those who hold stock in energy companies.

Besides, afterward it will be fun reading PaceDog's whines about how much he is paying for gasoline after the price per gallon doubles from where it is now.
That's the last thing I'd like to see... the UN sanctions were slowing the proliferation to some degree.

Again... what was accomplished? The sanctions would go away if they complied with treaties they agreed to.

Sal... I couldn't give less a damn how many people think weak sauce is dynamite. The msm is reporting the wh line.

2seaoat



This is an interim agreement which has not yet been implemented so there is political posturing from both sides.

Exactly, and just a few months back the usual suspects were posting pictures of Putin on a horse, and how the Russians were moving military assets into Syria and that Obama was weak and incapable of negotiating with the superior Russians.........The nobel peace prize was awarded to the UN groups who just removed the chemical weapons from Syria.....yet the folks posting on this thread have been uniformly consistent in not understanding diplomacy or its value...........but the telltale sign of their contributions is that they ALWAYS fail to give a reasonable or viable alternative which renders their opinions usually moot because anarchy is not an alternative, but ideological circle jerks have been mastered by our chicken little faction.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Sal wrote:This is an interim agreement which has not yet been implemented so there is political posturing from both sides.

The telling thing is that despite the support of more than two thirds of Americans for a negotiated settlement, the wingnuts insist on hoping for failure.

It's pathetic.
Wasn't it a radical leftist who once opined "....Power comes from the barrel of a gun...?" I think his name was Mao Tse Tung. These rubes are no different in their outlook from him.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Sal wrote:This is an interim agreement which has not yet been implemented so there is political posturing from both sides.

The telling thing is that despite the support of more than two thirds of Americans for a negotiated settlement, the wingnuts insist on hoping for failure.

It's pathetic.
Wasn't it a radical leftist who once opined "....Power comes from the barrel of a gun...?" I think his name was Mao Tse Tung. These rubes are no different in their outlook from him.
There's an old saying that you can tell a person's character by how they treat those they don't have to treat well.

Take an honest look at those theocracies... a rube indeed... lol. You wouldn't last ten mins on the streets of tehran.

2seaoat



Take an honest look at those theocracies... a rube indeed... lol. You wouldn't last ten mins on the streets of tehran.


Finding no other dog to sniff their butt, you spin at ever increasing speed chasing your tail......never giving an alternative, and simply thinking that the faster you chase the tail, the more substantive your arguments become, or the more flavorful they smell.......but in the end you are just chasing your tail pretending that you have something constructive or an alternative path which does not involve going in circles. Meanwhile diplomacy is like a gourmet meal........you sometimes do not really want to know where and how the meal was prepared because it is not appetizing but the finished meal if it can be achieved is a work of art.

Sal

Sal

PkrBum wrote:
Sal... I couldn't give less a damn how many people think weak sauce is dynamite. The msm is reporting the wh line.
Well, the Iranians haven't said what their problem with the White House's version is, so I took a novel approach and compared the Iranian and White House versions.

The only substantive difference I can identify is the Iranian version includes their right to pursue a peaceful nuclear energy program and the White House version does not (although Obama has said publicly, on more than one occasion, he supports that right, and no reasonable person would oppose it).

This is political posturing, nothing more.

Your eagerness to accept the Iranian Foreign Ministry's version as opposed to your own government's version says everything about your attitude and your motivation.

There's several words that come to mind that would describe that attitude.

Pathetic is the nicest.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:Take an honest look at those theocracies... a rube indeed... lol. You wouldn't last ten mins on the streets of tehran.


Finding no other dog to sniff their butt, you spin at ever increasing speed chasing your tail......never giving an alternative, and simply thinking that the faster you chase the tail, the more substantive your arguments become, or the more flavorful they smell.......but in the end you are just chasing your tail pretending that you have something constructive or an alternative path which does not involve going in circles. Meanwhile diplomacy is like a gourmet meal........you sometimes do not really want to know where and how the meal was prepared because it is not appetizing but the finished meal if it can be achieved is a work of art.
My idea of diplomacy... and the constructive path WERE the UN sanctions. That butt sniffing stuff is creepy dude.

Sal

Sal

PkrBum wrote:

Take an honest look at those theocracies... a rube indeed... lol. You wouldn't last ten mins on the streets of tehran.
And yet, you're eager to accept the word of the Iranian Foreign Ministry.

Cognitive dissonance much?

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:
PkrBum wrote:
Sal... I couldn't give less a damn how many people think weak sauce is dynamite. The msm is reporting the wh line.
Well, the Iranians haven't said what their problem with the White House's version is, so I took a novel approach and compared the Iranian and White House versions.

The only substantive difference I can identify is the Iranian version includes their right to pursue a peaceful nuclear energy program and the White House version does not (although Obama has said publicly, on more than one occasion, he supports that right, and no reasonable person would oppose it).

This is political posturing, nothing more.

Your eagerness to accept the Iranian Foreign Ministry's version as opposed to your own government's version says everything about your attitude and your motivation.

There's several words that come to mind that would describe that attitude.

Pathetic is the nicest.
I'm coming down with a cold and was up at 4am... I read reports from each of the players and from al jazera to saudi. Does that sound pathetic? I suspect it would when one is sooo eager to support the party line. Well... find a msm source.

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:
PkrBum wrote:

Take an honest look at those theocracies... a rube indeed... lol. You wouldn't last ten mins on the streets of tehran.
And yet, you're eager to accept the word of the Iranian Foreign Ministry.

Cognitive dissonance much?
Dumb ass... I posted from middle east sites, the bbc, and reuters out of europe. There's some dissonance... I agree.

Sal

Sal

PkrBum wrote:
Sal wrote:
PkrBum wrote:

Take an honest look at those theocracies... a rube indeed... lol. You wouldn't last ten mins on the streets of tehran.
And yet, you're eager to accept the word of the Iranian Foreign Ministry.

Cognitive dissonance much?
Dumb ass... I posted from middle east sites, the bbc, and reuters out of europe. There's some dissonance... I agree.

What you posted in this thread came from farsnews which is affiliated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Dumbass, indeed.

Tell us the substantive differences between the White House and Iranian versions.

All the preconditions are the same.

2seaoat



Your track record is impeccable. You attempted to convince us that diplomacy would not work in Syria. If I recall correctly the Syrians right up until the inspectors were removing the chemical weapons were telling the world they would not cooperate and no agreement had been reached. I think Sal has been far too kind. I think we have traitors amongst us. As Lyndon Johnson spoke to Senator Dirkson about the treasonous communications between then presidential candidate Nixon and the North Vietnamese, we find apologist for the State of Israel who do not share ALL of our interests trying to undermine the clear best interests of this nation to find peace and stability in the Middle East. War and dropping bombs which serves the interest of another nation state, and is contrary to our national interest is treason. If diplomacy fails, and military options become the only viable alternative and we have a unified front with Israel.......no problem, but this country must look out for our interests first, and this constant undermining of diplomacy smells of treason.........but you are still chasing your tail, and I guess treason and your tail have about the same smell.

Sal

Sal

2seaoat wrote:I think Sal has been far too kind.  I think we have traitors amongst us.  
Yep.

That's the other word that came to mind.

I was being nice.

2seaoat



Tell us the substantive differences between the White House and Iranian versions.

All the preconditions are the same.

He will not engage in a substantive conversation dealing with facts, policy, or specific agendas........it is not an easy answer, and it cannot comport with his ideological fantasy.....he would rather give his canned answer that bad ideas fail, unable to distinguish the same or even intelligently discuss facts. You will get no substantive discussion and he will run away.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » ZVUGKTUBM, Sal, CarlSagan, Knothead: Iran Strongly Rejects Text of Geneva Agreement Released by White House

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum