Iran

BoJack Horseman · 23-04-2015 3:57pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I didn't say there was anything inaccurate about it.

So why criticise it?

The Iran nonproliferation deal may be a good one, time will tell, but I'm sceptical at best.

The reasons for pessimism are there, if they are innacurate then demonstrate how.

El_Duderino 09 · 23-04-2015 5:10pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So why criticise it?

The Iran nonproliferation deal may be a good one, time will tell, but I'm sceptical at best.

The reasons for pessimism are there, if they are innacurate then demonstrate how.

Reading the article it becomes clear that it's about criticising an individual. The author has an agenda which is separate from simply giving an honest account of the facts. Credibility of the author would be a problem for me. It might be accurate but I'll reserve judgement for now.

Iran getting a nuclear weapon might be inevitable. They developed the technology while the last president lobed insults at them from the white house. The current one made a deal which they might use as a shield to continue developing the technology.

We both agree that there's no way to know whether the old approach or the new one is better. The fact that we don't have enough information to make an informed decision didn't stop CK writing an attack piece on Obama. That's my issue and I'll continue gathering information for now

BoJack Horseman · 23-04-2015 5:20pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It might be accurate

But you dismiss it because he's politically different from you.

How closed minded.

I'd love to see some Obama supporter give a convincing argument that the word of an Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship can be trusted.... For all our sakes.... However this "deal" (which no one has yet signed) seems like a giveaway.

El_Duderino 09 · 23-04-2015 5:36pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

But you dismiss it because he's politically different from you.

How closed minded.

Ah just reread the posts. We both agree it's too early to tell but CK has decided based on what? I'm not even accusing you of closed mindedness. CK would never write a positive article about Obama because it doesn't suit his agenda. For that reason he's an unreliable source not necessarily wrong.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

El_Duderino 09 · 23-04-2015 5:41pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I'd love to see some Obama supporter give a convincing argument that the word of an Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship can be trusted.... For all our sakes.... However this "deal" (which no one has yet signed) seems like a giveaway.

Are you classing me as an Obama supporter based on what I've said in this thread?

Junkyard Tom · 23-04-2015 5:57pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I'd love to see some Obama supporter give a convincing argument that the word of an Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship can be trusted....

Your partisanship is clear to see. I'm not an Obama supporter. Afaic he's little more than 'republican lite'. Also, this agreement and talks are happening because of a multiplicity of reasons and not because Obama says so.

Regardless, the current talks, if an agreement is to be concluded, include comprehensive monitoring of the Iranian nuclear programme.

Back to the neocon opinion pieces with you.

BoJack Horseman · 23-04-2015 6:45pm

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Your partisanship is clear to see.

I'm an Obama supporter(for the most part)
I didn't vote for him, but my wife & in-laws all did..... I'm wondering why the views of a republican columnist are dismissed as flim-flam.... While refusing to even consider the columnists accuracy!

I'm not an Obama supporter.

Good for you.

if an agreement is to be concluded, include comprehensive monitoring of the Iranian nuclear programme.

Says who?

The 2006 UN resolution failed in its efforts to have full inspection access.
What proof do you have that the Ayatollah has changed his mind?

Back to the neocon opinion pieces with you.

If you can summon the wit (big if), demonstrate your confidence in the Ayatollah's honesty for this deal rather than being bitchy.

El_Duderino 09 · 23-04-2015 7:38pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I'm an Obama supporter(for the most part)
I'm wondering why the views of a republican columnist are dismissed as flim-flam.... While refusing to even consider the columnists accuracy!

I'm wondering why you're still wondering. It's been explained to you a fair few times. I'll give it another go.

Charles Krauthammer writes articles exclusively with an anti-Obama agenda. He's not concerned with giving an impartial overview of the facts. I want an impartial overview of the facts therefore CK is an untrustworthy source of the kind of information I'm looking for.

CK's opposite number who would write from an exclusvely pro-Obama perspective, would be dismissed as an equally untrustworthy source.

Do you understand the reason yet?

Junkyard Tom · 23-04-2015 11:33pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What proof do you have that the Ayatollah has changed his mind?

Em.. what exactly is it you are seeking to be (dis)proven? Be specific.

If you can summon the wit (big if), demonstrate your confidence in the Ayatollah's honesty for this deal rather than being bitchy.

Please explain to me how anyone on this planet can prove or disprove the honesty, or otherwise, of individuals who've yet to act.

Gatling · 28-04-2015 4:26pm

US cargo ship has sent out an urgent mayday after coming under fire from an Iranian naval patrol vessel in the strait of hormuz demanding the cargo ship sails into Iranian waters ,
US Navy is responding more to follow

IrishTrajan · 28-04-2015 5:24pm

Gatling wrote: »

US cargo ship has sent out an urgent mayday after coming under fire from an Iranian naval patrol vessel in the strait of hormuz demanding the cargo ship sails into Iranian waters ,
US Navy is responding more to follow

Link?

I wonder if the U.S. will respond with force, considering they're reportedly close to signing a deal with the Iranians.

Gatling · 28-04-2015 5:28pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Link?

I wonder if the U.S. will respond with force, considering they're reportedly close to signing a deal with the Iranians.

Give me a min

Looks like the vessel has been siezed

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32503660

El_Duderino 09 · 28-04-2015 5:49pm

Now it's a Marshall Islands cargo ship and US officials report no Americans onboard. What does this mean?

The Marshall Islands are an American colony/territory so it's more or less an American ship

Gatling · 28-04-2015 7:14pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Now it's a Marshall Islands cargo ship and US officials report no Americans onboard. What does this mean?

The Marshall Islands are an American colony/territory so it's more or less an American ship

It seems the ship left Saudi and was swarmed by 5 Iranian vessels firing warning shots across its bow before been borded outside Iranian waters .

Iran

Comments