Iran deal reached

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,512
17,016
136
It's striking the parallels that can be seen with Russia. Either way, in 5-10 years time no matter what the economy is, there will be a rise in people who believe dealing with the west & the U.S. is undermining the nation and its people, and history will repeat.

Only question left is will they have nuclear weapons to threaten their neighbors with by then?



...and please, for the love of humanity we've already argued this to death in the past, this is the definition of threat, I'm not in the mood to rehash that argument over basic word definitions with you ever again: ;)

threat
THret/
noun
noun: threat; plural noun: threats

1.
a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.


Just like here in the US, Iran has a minority group of zealots with whome the rest of their nation, like ours, thinks they are idiots (ok maybe not in those words). Luckily Iran, unlike the US (as in the majority in congress), actually value science and education so their "nutters" are relegated to a boisterous minority. So no, I don't buy your argument that there will be a rise in people blaming the west, provided as I said before, their economy improves.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,512
17,016
136
Speaking of nutters! Shall we go ahead and post similar quotes from the right here in the US?

Here is the difference between Israel and Iran.....

If the Iran gave up all their weapons and decided to live in peace in 10 years Iran would still exist!
If Israel gave up all their weapons and decided to live in peace in 10 years there would be no Israel......

I also don`t understand why you need to lie to make your point......

Here is another take on the whole thing --

http://news.yahoo.com/arab-world-worries-deal-boost-irans-power-064114480.html

In Arab world, worries that deal will boost Iran's power

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The nuclear deal with Iran was met with a profound wariness in the Arab world, where concerns are widespread that the easing of its international isolation could tip the already bloody contest for power in the region toward Shiite-led Tehran.





Arab countries have deep fears of Iran gaining a nuclear weapon, and some have been skeptical that a deal will prevent that from happening. But equally high for key Sunni-dominated Gulf allies of the United States is the worry that a deal gives Iran the means — through an economic windfall — and an implicit green light to push influence in the region.

The Arab world has been polarized for years in a worsening proxy conflict between Iran and Gulf powers, particularly Saudi Arabia, fueling Sunni-Shiite tensions and stoking wars. In Syria, Iran's support has ensured the survival of President Bashar Assad against Sunni rebels backed by Gulf nations in a devastating civil war, now in its fifth year. Yemen has been torn apart this year as Saudi Arabia, leading a coalition air campaign, has tried to help fend off Shiite rebels supported by Tehran. In Iraq, Saudi Arabia has opposed the growing power of Iran even since the 2003 ouster of Saddam Hussein and the rise of a government led by Shiite politicians close to Iran.

"Deal or no deal, tension in the region is not going to go away," said Abdulkhaleq Abdullah, a professor of political science at United Arab Emirates University. "If Iran is bent on acting as a hegemon, as a regional power, I think we are in for some difficult times."

Saudi Arabia issued a pointed warning, saying Iran must use any economic gains from the lifting of sanctions to improve the lives of Iranians, "rather than using them to cause turmoil in the region, a matter that will meet a decisive reaction from the nations of the region," in a statement carried on the state news agency late Tuesday.

Other Gulf monarchies sought to show some cautious optimism. The president of the United Arab Emirates, which has longstanding trade ties to Iran, and the emir of Kuwait, who visited Tehran last year in an effort to improve relations, each sent congratulations to Iran and expressed hope the agreement will contribute to regional security and stability.

On the nuclear issue itself, Arab countries have shown skepticism that a deal would stop Iran from building a weapon. In its statement Tuesday, Saudi Arabia withheld judgment on the final accord, but underlined it always wanted an agreement that guarantees Iran cannot develop a bomb, includes a strict inspection mechanism for all sites — including military ones — and ensures a swift re-imposition of sanctions if Tehran violates the deal.

Saudi Arabia's former intelligence chief, Prince Turki al-Faisal, warned earlier this year that a deal might fuel a regional arms race.

Egypt's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Badr Abdelattie, said his country hopes the deal would be "a step toward a region free of nuclear weapons"— a project Egypt has been lobbying for in the United Nations for long, with its eyes on Israel's all but confirmed arsenal.

But foremost on the minds of Iran's opponents in the region was the worry that the deal strengthens its hand in the region's conflicts.

"This agreement, from our point of view, represents an indirect threat to Gulf and Arab interests and peace," said Tariq Al-Shammari, a Saudi analyst and president of the Council of Gulf International Relations.

Behind the scenes, he said, Gulf Arab countries will work to try and keep Iran isolated politically and economically, he added, pointing out that Saudi Arabia in particular has already moved to improve ties with Russia, which is a strong ally of Iran.

Syrian rebels were alarmed, warning that now Iran will feel free to infuse even more cash and weapons to prop up Assad's overstretched army.

"This agreement translates into more barrel bombs, more massacres and more blood across Syria," said a rebel with the Islamic al-Jabha al-Shamiya faction in northern Syria who spoke on condition he be identified by his nom de guerre of Abu Yasser, for his own safety. Barrel bombs are the crude but destructive bombs dropped from Syrian military aircraft that have caused considerable civilian casualties.

He said an Iran at peace with the international community will feel "even more at ease" to implement its agenda across the region, including in Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

On the pro-government side in Syria, some had the same expectation. Bassam Mahfouz, a 54-year-old resident of the capital, Damascus, said he hoped Iran will now increase its support for Syria in the fight against "terrorism.

Assad was quick to congratulate Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Hassan Rouhani. In his cable addressed to Khamenei, Assad described the deal as "a great victory" achieved by Iran and a "historic turning point" in the history of Iran, the region and the world.

"We are quite assured that the Islamic Republic of Iran will continue, with greater momentum, supporting the just issues of nations," he said.

President Barack Obama acknowledged Tuesday that the U.S. and Iran remain at odds over many issues, including Tehran's support for terrorism in the Middle East and its detention of several American citizens. Still, he suggested a breakthrough on the nuclear issue could pave the way for a broader shift in relations between the U.S. and Iran.

"This deal offers an opportunity to move in a new direction," Obama said. "We should seize it."

Supporters of the deal see that opening as an opportunity to try to moderate Iran's role in the region.

In Iraq, the complex sectarian fault lines make the deal's impact hard to read. The Iran-U.S. and Iran-Saudi rivalries have fueled tensions in the country for years. At the same time, Iran and the U.S. have recently found themselves on the same side fighting against the Islamic State group, though they have avoided working with each other.

Saad al-Hadithi, the spokesman for Iraq's Shiite prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, called the deal "a catalyst for regional stability" that will lead to better unity in the fight against terrorism.

Hamid al-Mutlaq, an Iraqi Sunni lawmaker, was more cautious. "We hope now to see a positive Iranian interference, not a negative one in the region, and to change the way it sees and deals with people of the regional countries," he said.

But Sunni hard-liners in the Arab world were convinced the deal signals U.S. acquiescence to the spread of Iranian power.

One prominent Saudi Muslim cleric, Salman al-Ouda, who is often critical of the Saudi government, warned in a tweet that "Iran is moving according to a well-studied clear vision, absorbing its adversaries. Where are the Arab governments? Where is their alternative project to face the challenge?"

A hard-line Qatari cleric, Mohammed al-Shinqiti, tweeted that in return for limiting Iran's nuclear program, "America has something to offer Iran: An Arab world open for its wars."
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Any deal that inflames Neocon war mongers, radical Sunni clerics & Hasbara trolls is a triple crown winner in my estimation.

It's a nice cross section of hateful & manipulative bastards, so fuck 'em.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Here is the difference between Israel and Iran.....

If the Iran gave up all their weapons and decided to live in peace in 10 years Iran would still exist!
If Israel gave up all their weapons and decided to live in peace in 10 years there would be no Israel......

I also don`t understand why you need to lie to make your point......

Here is another take on the whole thing --

http://news.yahoo.com/arab-world-worries-deal-boost-irans-power-064114480.html

In Arab world, worries that deal will boost Iran's power

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The nuclear deal with Iran was met with a profound wariness in the Arab world, where concerns are widespread that the easing of its international isolation could tip the already bloody contest for power in the region toward Shiite-led Tehran.





Arab countries have deep fears of Iran gaining a nuclear weapon, and some have been skeptical that a deal will prevent that from happening. But equally high for key Sunni-dominated Gulf allies of the United States is the worry that a deal gives Iran the means — through an economic windfall — and an implicit green light to push influence in the region.

The Arab world has been polarized for years in a worsening proxy conflict between Iran and Gulf powers, particularly Saudi Arabia, fueling Sunni-Shiite tensions and stoking wars. In Syria, Iran's support has ensured the survival of President Bashar Assad against Sunni rebels backed by Gulf nations in a devastating civil war, now in its fifth year. Yemen has been torn apart this year as Saudi Arabia, leading a coalition air campaign, has tried to help fend off Shiite rebels supported by Tehran. In Iraq, Saudi Arabia has opposed the growing power of Iran even since the 2003 ouster of Saddam Hussein and the rise of a government led by Shiite politicians close to Iran.

"Deal or no deal, tension in the region is not going to go away," said Abdulkhaleq Abdullah, a professor of political science at United Arab Emirates University. "If Iran is bent on acting as a hegemon, as a regional power, I think we are in for some difficult times."

Saudi Arabia issued a pointed warning, saying Iran must use any economic gains from the lifting of sanctions to improve the lives of Iranians, "rather than using them to cause turmoil in the region, a matter that will meet a decisive reaction from the nations of the region," in a statement carried on the state news agency late Tuesday.

Other Gulf monarchies sought to show some cautious optimism. The president of the United Arab Emirates, which has longstanding trade ties to Iran, and the emir of Kuwait, who visited Tehran last year in an effort to improve relations, each sent congratulations to Iran and expressed hope the agreement will contribute to regional security and stability.

On the nuclear issue itself, Arab countries have shown skepticism that a deal would stop Iran from building a weapon. In its statement Tuesday, Saudi Arabia withheld judgment on the final accord, but underlined it always wanted an agreement that guarantees Iran cannot develop a bomb, includes a strict inspection mechanism for all sites — including military ones — and ensures a swift re-imposition of sanctions if Tehran violates the deal.

Saudi Arabia's former intelligence chief, Prince Turki al-Faisal, warned earlier this year that a deal might fuel a regional arms race.

Egypt's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Badr Abdelattie, said his country hopes the deal would be "a step toward a region free of nuclear weapons"— a project Egypt has been lobbying for in the United Nations for long, with its eyes on Israel's all but confirmed arsenal.

But foremost on the minds of Iran's opponents in the region was the worry that the deal strengthens its hand in the region's conflicts.

"This agreement, from our point of view, represents an indirect threat to Gulf and Arab interests and peace," said Tariq Al-Shammari, a Saudi analyst and president of the Council of Gulf International Relations.

Behind the scenes, he said, Gulf Arab countries will work to try and keep Iran isolated politically and economically, he added, pointing out that Saudi Arabia in particular has already moved to improve ties with Russia, which is a strong ally of Iran.

Syrian rebels were alarmed, warning that now Iran will feel free to infuse even more cash and weapons to prop up Assad's overstretched army.

"This agreement translates into more barrel bombs, more massacres and more blood across Syria," said a rebel with the Islamic al-Jabha al-Shamiya faction in northern Syria who spoke on condition he be identified by his nom de guerre of Abu Yasser, for his own safety. Barrel bombs are the crude but destructive bombs dropped from Syrian military aircraft that have caused considerable civilian casualties.

He said an Iran at peace with the international community will feel "even more at ease" to implement its agenda across the region, including in Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

On the pro-government side in Syria, some had the same expectation. Bassam Mahfouz, a 54-year-old resident of the capital, Damascus, said he hoped Iran will now increase its support for Syria in the fight against "terrorism.

Assad was quick to congratulate Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Hassan Rouhani. In his cable addressed to Khamenei, Assad described the deal as "a great victory" achieved by Iran and a "historic turning point" in the history of Iran, the region and the world.

"We are quite assured that the Islamic Republic of Iran will continue, with greater momentum, supporting the just issues of nations," he said.

President Barack Obama acknowledged Tuesday that the U.S. and Iran remain at odds over many issues, including Tehran's support for terrorism in the Middle East and its detention of several American citizens. Still, he suggested a breakthrough on the nuclear issue could pave the way for a broader shift in relations between the U.S. and Iran.

"This deal offers an opportunity to move in a new direction," Obama said. "We should seize it."

Supporters of the deal see that opening as an opportunity to try to moderate Iran's role in the region.

In Iraq, the complex sectarian fault lines make the deal's impact hard to read. The Iran-U.S. and Iran-Saudi rivalries have fueled tensions in the country for years. At the same time, Iran and the U.S. have recently found themselves on the same side fighting against the Islamic State group, though they have avoided working with each other.

Saad al-Hadithi, the spokesman for Iraq's Shiite prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, called the deal "a catalyst for regional stability" that will lead to better unity in the fight against terrorism.

Hamid al-Mutlaq, an Iraqi Sunni lawmaker, was more cautious. "We hope now to see a positive Iranian interference, not a negative one in the region, and to change the way it sees and deals with people of the regional countries," he said.

But Sunni hard-liners in the Arab world were convinced the deal signals U.S. acquiescence to the spread of Iranian power.

One prominent Saudi Muslim cleric, Salman al-Ouda, who is often critical of the Saudi government, warned in a tweet that "Iran is moving according to a well-studied clear vision, absorbing its adversaries. Where are the Arab governments? Where is their alternative project to face the challenge?"

A hard-line Qatari cleric, Mohammed al-Shinqiti, tweeted that in return for limiting Iran's nuclear program, "America has something to offer Iran: An Arab world open for its wars."
In the Arab world it is either going to be Sunni or Shi'ite in control. So far the Sunnis have given us Wahhabis, Al Qaeda, and ISIS. Maybe it's time to give the Shia a chance to see if they can dial back the violence? If not we can consider other alternatives after they've been given that chance.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
72,838
33,879
136
This is shaping up to be the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty all over again. A reasonable deal killed by internal U.S. politics as politicians try to out-strut each other, not giving a damn what might be in an agreement they likely won't read or understand.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Obama's speech on the treaty this afternoon. As a commentator pointed out after the question and answer session, he took questions from anyone, rather than the usual knowing who is going to get to ask what question in advance. As that commentator said, it really seemed to hammer home that Obama stands behind that treaty as being the best possible road to a better future. I don't think there was a single question that he didn't answer very well, though, there were a lot of pauses. LOL @ "are you going to revoke Bill Cosby's Congressional Medal?" which he also answered quite well.
 

Aristotelian

Golden Member
Jan 30, 2010
1,246
11
76
First off, you obviously know more than anyone else here how sanctions work, so thanks for contributing.

Let me ask you something; I read that Rouhani was elected on a platform of reducing isolation and brining Iran back into the international community, and obviously this was an important first step, what do you think their next step will be?

Iran is currently primarily focused on using this Agreement to have an economic turnaround in their country. The sanctions have had a devastating effect on Iran - I previously said that they were designed to collapse Iran's economy over time, and they were. Lifting the asset freeze will provide Iran with roughly USD 150 billion in the short term, but it will take time to repatriate the assets. Iran needs roughly 600-700 billion USD to rebuild its economy because of the devastating effect that these sanctions will have. Trade bans will largely stay in place, with exemptions for specific goods e.g., pistachios, a key Iranian export, plus the energy sectors I previously mentioned.

Iran's goal is to make money. China and Russia wanted to lift the arms embargo, by the way - they were on Iran's side, but - on the arms embargo, this is part of a larger political question and also a face saving issue as can be seen through China and Russia backing Iran. But the key point is that all three backed down in the face of the USA/E3 pressure. With the revival of Iran's economy the material way in which Iran engages with the external world will change, and there is popular support for this in Iran including in their higher politicians (whether publicly or internally expressed).

The road is not going to be easy. This is about verification, not trust, hence the onerous aspects of the agreement. Trust can be built. USA-Iran relations will take much longer to rebuild but, they can - through the legitimate implementation of this agreement. Iran wants to materially change the quality of life in their country, and to emerge as a regional power once again. The political dialogue improvements with Iran will come through the unravelling of sanctions - I can't overemphasise how intimately the two are linked.

In short - the next step is implementation. Iran wants a positive IAEA assessment of the benchmarks asap, but it's more likely that this will come towards Christmas this year because it factually takes some time to meet a number of the benchmarks, and have them inspected. Positive implementation -> positive sanctions rollbacks -> positive public perception -> win-win for Iran on money and external perception.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
22,347
4,973
136
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Obama's speech on the treaty this afternoon. As a commentator pointed out after the question and answer session, he took questions from anyone, rather than the usual knowing who is going to get to ask what question in advance. As that commentator said, it really seemed to hammer home that Obama stands behind that treaty as being the best possible road to a better future. I don't think there was a single question that he didn't answer very well, though, there were a lot of pauses. LOL @ "are you going to revoke Bill Cosby's Congressional Medal?" which he also answered quite well.

There was one question that he didn't handle well IMO.

Why didn't we include the 4 US Citizens being held prisoners in Iran? Release them or No deal. Instead he chose to chastise reporter Major Garrette. And talk around the question

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015...rrett-for-question-about-us-hostages-in-iran/
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
29,862
30,650
136
There was one question that he didn't handle well IMO.

Why didn't we include the 4 US Citizens being held prisoners in Iran? Release them or No deal. Instead he chose to chastise reporter Major Garrette. And talk around the question

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015...rrett-for-question-about-us-hostages-in-iran/

The way Garrette phrased the question was emotionally laden crap and he was rightfully called out for it. He could have asked the same question without that "conscience of the nation" bit. Obama addressed it directly and didn't talk around it. Not tying the issues together means those prisoners do not provide leverage to Iran. We want holding American citizens to be a worthless proposition that doesn't give a country or group additional leverage in negotiating with the American government on other issues. Ultimately that position discourages taking Americans.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Iran is currently primarily focused on using this Agreement to have an economic turnaround in their country. The sanctions have had a devastating effect on Iran - I previously said that they were designed to collapse Iran's economy over time, and they were. Lifting the asset freeze will provide Iran with roughly USD 150 billion in the short term, but it will take time to repatriate the assets. Iran needs roughly 600-700 billion USD to rebuild its economy because of the devastating effect that these sanctions will have. Trade bans will largely stay in place, with exemptions for specific goods e.g., pistachios, a key Iranian export, plus the energy sectors I previously mentioned.

Iran's goal is to make money. China and Russia wanted to lift the arms embargo, by the way - they were on Iran's side, but - on the arms embargo, this is part of a larger political question and also a face saving issue as can be seen through China and Russia backing Iran. But the key point is that all three backed down in the face of the USA/E3 pressure. With the revival of Iran's economy the material way in which Iran engages with the external world will change, and there is popular support for this in Iran including in their higher politicians (whether publicly or internally expressed).

The road is not going to be easy. This is about verification, not trust, hence the onerous aspects of the agreement. Trust can be built. USA-Iran relations will take much longer to rebuild but, they can - through the legitimate implementation of this agreement. Iran wants to materially change the quality of life in their country, and to emerge as a regional power once again. The political dialogue improvements with Iran will come through the unravelling of sanctions - I can't overemphasise how intimately the two are linked.

In short - the next step is implementation. Iran wants a positive IAEA assessment of the benchmarks asap, but it's more likely that this will come towards Christmas this year because it factually takes some time to meet a number of the benchmarks, and have them inspected. Positive implementation -> positive sanctions rollbacks -> positive public perception -> win-win for Iran on money and external perception.

The rest of the trade bans should disappear fairly quickly with honest implementation of the agreement because they were always about regime change. We've obviously given up on that. Think of it as Cuba minus 20 years of bullshit.

I think we'll also see enormous internal political changes in Iran, as well. Confronted with aggressive American tough guys in power, they elected their own tough guys in response.

Rotten power freak pricks like Cheney & Ahmadinejad feed off each other. In the face of perceived external threats, people will accept more sacrifice in support of solidarity than they would otherwise. That includes personal freedoms, obviously.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,317
32,823
136
Isn't this deal less about percentages of fissile material but about getting Iran under the tent of civilization?
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
Isn't this deal less about percentages of fissile material but about getting Iran under the tent of civilization?

As far as the deal itself is concerned, it's really like this:

1. World (UN led by USA) is angry about Iranian nuclear program
2. World imposes harsh sanctions on Iran to punish them for nuclear program
3. Iran agrees to [complex quotas/inspections] - world agrees to lift sanctions.

I think what people are hoping is that this is a foundation to build on. Good faith shown by both sides would be huge step in reducing Iranian isolation.
 

cabri

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2012
3,616
1
81
As far as the deal itself is concerned, it's really like this:

1. World (UN led by USA) is angry about Iranian nuclear program
2. World imposes harsh sanctions on Iran to punish them for nuclear program
3. Iran agrees to [complex quotas/inspections] - world agrees to lift sanctions.

I think what people are hoping is that this is a foundation to build on. Good faith shown by both sides would be huge step in reducing Iranian isolation.

^^^

Also, a reduction in antagonism within the ME will go a long way in providing additional support.

Demonstrate that you want to be a good neighbor instead of the bad kid on the block
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
There was one question that he didn't handle well IMO.

Why didn't we include the 4 US Citizens being held prisoners in Iran? Release them or No deal. Instead he chose to chastise reporter Major Garrette. And talk around the question

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015...rrett-for-question-about-us-hostages-in-iran/
Are you kidding me? I thought his response was excellent on that question, and I thought his response was done well enough that anyone asking that question would realize they were an idiot for asking that question.

It's amusing though, to note that the Right chastised Obama for negotiating the release of a US citizen in the past, and now, they're chastising him for not negotiating the release of US citizens. (Though there are still efforts being made to get those citizens released.) I presume that's what Fox means by "balanced."
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,948
55,306
136
Are you kidding me? I thought his response was excellent on that question, and I thought his response was done well enough that anyone asking that question would realize they were an idiot for asking that question.

It's amusing though, to note that the Right chastised Obama for negotiating the release of a US citizen in the past, and now, they're chastising him for not negotiating the release of US citizens. (Though there are still efforts being made to get those citizens released.) I presume that's what Fox means by "balanced."

It's not really what they mean. They were mad because Obama gave up things in order to get the other guy back. In their world if Obama's just 'tough' then Iran will do what we want with no conditions.

You hear it all the time in international situations of all types. We just need to 'get tough'. It's like 'showing leadership'. A good way to criticize someone while not having to actually offer an even remotely realistic alternative plan.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Are you kidding me? I thought his response was excellent on that question, and I thought his response was done well enough that anyone asking that question would realize they were an idiot for asking that question.

It's amusing though, to note that the Right chastised Obama for negotiating the release of a US citizen in the past, and now, they're chastising him for not negotiating the release of US citizens. (Though there are still efforts being made to get those citizens released.) I presume that's what Fox means by "balanced."

You just don't get it. Whatever Obama does is wrong simply because he's doing it.

He's uppity, ya know?

Had GWB negotiated the same deal 10 years ago when he had the chance, he'd have been hailed as a visionary. I'd have joined the chorus.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
It's not really what they mean. They were mad because Obama gave up things in order to get the other guy back. In their world if Obama's just 'tough' then Iran will do what we want with no conditions.

You hear it all the time in international situations of all types. We just need to 'get tough'. It's like 'showing leadership'. A good way to criticize someone while not having to actually offer an even remotely realistic alternative plan.

Dick waving is the right wing answer to everything.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Are you kidding me? I thought his response was excellent on that question, and I thought his response was done well enough that anyone asking that question would realize they were an idiot for asking that question.

It's amusing though, to note that the Right chastised Obama for negotiating the release of a US citizen in the past, and now, they're chastising him for not negotiating the release of US citizens. (Though there are still efforts being made to get those citizens released.) I presume that's what Fox means by "balanced."

his answers were defensive and thin skinned. probably the most unpresidential press conference he has ever done.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Get some new news sources bro, it's rotting your brain!

there is a fucking video of the totally valid question by garrett and the scolding response by your dear leader. Will your butt buddies at MSNBC show a different video?

get a new brain yours is rotten.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,512
17,016
136
there is a fucking video of the totally valid question by garrett and the scolding response by your dear leader. Will your butt buddies at MSNBC show a different video?

get a new brain yours is rotten.

Lol! Not only does that not change anything I said but if pcgeek wasn't so indoctrinated by the right he would have realized that Obama did address the question and gave a very valid reason for why the hostages weren't part of the deal.

You appear to suffer from the same bubble mentality as him.

You mad bro?
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Lol! Not only does that not change anything I said but if pcgeek wasn't so indoctrinated by the right he would have realized that Obama did address the question and gave a very valid reason for why the hostages weren't part of the deal.

You appear to suffer from the same bubble mentality as him.

You mad bro?
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
ive watched the video ive heard it on the radio and it was just pathetic.Obama didnt answer shit, all he did was scold a member of the press.

no just disgusted how people like yourself and the other tools (both sides) in here worship politicians of their party. its very cultist and scary as hell. i bet if obama told you to drink a cup of koolaid you would.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,857
31,346
146
There was one question that he didn't handle well IMO.

Why didn't we include the 4 US Citizens being held prisoners in Iran? Release them or No deal. Instead he chose to chastise reporter Major Garrette. And talk around the question

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015...rrett-for-question-about-us-hostages-in-iran/

No, he answered that perfectly. Whereas it seems you would choose to place an open target on Americans to be taken as hostages for future negotiating purposes.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,512
17,016
136
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
ive watched the video ive heard it on the radio and it was just pathetic.Obama didnt answer shit, all he did was scold a member of the press.

no just disgusted how people like yourself and the other tools (both sides) in here worship politicians of their party. its very cultist and scary as hell. i bet if obama told you to drink a cup of koolaid you would.

Like I said, you appear to suffer from the same bubble mentality as pcgeek. You are either incredibly stupid or you are so brain washed by the right that you are no longer capable of hearing answers that might puncture your nutter bubble.


Feel free to prove me wrong though, I'll help:
Now, if the question is why we did not tie the negotiations to their release, think about the logic that that creates.
Suddenly Iran realizes, you know what? Maybe we can get additional concessions out of the Americans by holding these individuals. Makes it much more difficult for us to walk away if Iran somehow thinks that a nuclear deal is dependent in some fashion on the nuclear deal, and, by the way, if we had walked away from the nuclear deal, we’d still be pushing them just as hard to get these folks out.