The Deal of a Lifetime

[moe]

The Iranian nuclear deal reached in Switzerland on Thursday is a significant breakthrough. Uncertainties remain, inherently so, as it's merely a "political framework" for a formal deal to be completed and signed by June 30. But this framework turns out to be far more detailed, quantitative, and restrictive than anyone had expected. (the preceding was taken from the linked article) geez
This post was edited on 4/3 12:33 PM by moe

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2015/04/iranian_nuclear_deal_is_a_breakthrough_why_the_agreement_is_the_best_option.html

 

[Snow Sled Baby]

blah blah blah blah.....in short we got used and made fools of......again.....the international community is now realizing what we in America have known for 6 years.....this administration is a joke and will go down in history as one of the worst....as long as we still have a history to tell.....but you go on ahead and leave your blinders on.........

 

[Motown Mounty_rivals]

LOL! The French called us wimps**

q

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

So, despite making zero impact on their current status and not coming close to a single objective laid out by the administration over the last several months and years you are hailing this as a success.

That article is the equivalent of Baghdad Bob and you are swallowing it. It's a magical world you live in. I would love to visit it sometime. Are there any direct flights to fantasy land? Theme parks? Is the log flume named "Denial, not just a river in Egypt"?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[moe]

Huh? lol WVPATX provided an anti-framework link. I provided one from someone who wasn't so anti-framework. I'm still studying the topic and have no opinion either way at this time. From the sounds of your response, maybe you should read more yourself but thanks for weighing in.

 

[TarHeelEer]

Sources: The White House and Slate

Yeah, I'm sure I'll buy that.

I'm not even going to click the links.

 

[TarHeelEer]

He gave 5 terrorists back to the terrorists for one traitor

We can't trust him to deal in a prisoner swap well. And you trust him with nukes?

 

[Keyser76]

Quit poking the bears! lol

nm

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Well considering his link actually compares the information of the deal to the reality of where Iran currently sits and the Administrations stated goals going into this negotiation, then I would tend to give his more credence. The article you listed basically takes the deal and spins it to a positive regardless of the success or failure. You really can't see the difference?

I've held judgement on this to see how O and Lurch would fare and now the information is starting to come out I'm thinking they performed pretty much how most suspected they would.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Motown Mounty_rivals]

You need to get off your knees and let Obama zip up**

Q

 

[mneilmont]

Re: The Deal of a Lifetime - Seriously?


What is magical about 10 years? No argument then about nukes? Where is Israel with 10 year guarantee? Can all other Arab countries build their nukes in those 10 years?

Where is that lifetime deal you are speaking of? Are you serious?

 

[moe]

Re: The Deal of a Lifetime - Seriously?

Where is that lifetime deal you are speaking of? That's the title of the article you dolt. Educate yourself on the topic and you won''t have so many questions. If you don't like what's going on, write your congressperson.

 

[MountainBill]

It all but guarantees complete nuclear proliferation of the mid east


within the next 5 years. Deal of the century for sure.

 

[mneilmont]

Re: The Deal of a Lifetime - Seriously?


You stupid bastard, you are the one accepting another deal that you will know what is in it when it is passed. Pros and cons could have been discussed. You, without an appreciation of what is happening, want to jump on the Obama bandwagon. Obama and Iran have a history of deals they have struck. You are too damned stupid to learn. Got a little brown on your sight?

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Too many on this board believe what Faux news tells them to believe rather than thinking for themselves.

It's all Obama's fault. Never mind that there were SIX powerful countries at the table negotiating. They won't discuss facts either; just hurl insults and repeat nonsense they hear on Faux.

This post was edited on 4/3 11:36 AM by countryroads89

 

[moe]

Re: The Deal of a Lifetime - Seriously?

Show me where have I expressed an opinion on the proposed deal. Take your time.
This post was edited on 4/3 11:13 AM by moe

 

[Popeer]

Re: If you're going to use those T words, you should know what they mean

Like it or don't, the five prisoners traded were not terrorists, they were officials of the Taliban government. Just because Cheney and Bush ignored the Geneva Conventions so they could be interned without charge doesn't make them anything other than POWs.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Bergdahl is not charged with treason, only with desertion and misbehavior in the face of the enemy, i.e., running away from his post.

 

[EEReverent]

Re: The Deal of a Lifetime - Seriously?

You apparently should have used quotes so he would realize you posted the first two sentences of the article......not giving your opinion

 

[EEReverent]

Re: It all but guarantees complete nuclear proliferation of the mid east

How so?

 

[mneilmont]

Help me a little bit.


Were "Cheney and Bush" required to give those 5 prisoners Geneva Convention rights per Geneva Convention?

Could Bergdahl be charged with treason if the administration so desired. In looking at the charges, you have to consider the fact that this administration wanted to decorate him.

 

[moe]

Re: Help me a little bit.

In looking at the charges, you have to consider the fact that this administration wanted to decorate him. Could you expand upon this? What medal(s) was he being considered for?

 

[mneilmont]

Re: Help me a little bit.


There should be video of Rice comments on what a brave soldier he was and........ .

 

[Popeer]

Re: Help me a little bit.

Originally posted by mneilmont:

Were "Cheney and Bush" required to give those 5 prisoners Geneva Convention rights per Geneva Convention?

Could Bergdahl be charged with treason if the administration so desired. In looking at the charges, you have to consider the fact that this administration wanted to decorate him.

They weren't required to, but they should have because those five in particular were all either officials of the Taliban government or officers in the army when they were captured during the first year of the war. But Bush and Cheney didn't like giving the Taliban the distinction of being prisoners of war. So they got a legal opinion from a compliant Justice Department labeling them "unlawful combatants" so as to lump them in with al Qaeda operatives captured rather than recognizing them as fighters for a foreign government, which they were under the definitions in Article IV of the Geneva Conventions.

Keep in mind that even Bush's State Department never labeled the Taliban government a foreign terrorist organization (unlike the Taliban of Pakistan, which is on that list). True, they gave sanctuary and aid and comfort to bin Laden until they were overthrown in 2001, but that doesn't change the facts of the status of those five.

Bergdahl could not be charged with treason because other than walking away from his base in Afghanistan he did nothing to lend aid and comfort to the enemy -- he didn't even take his NVDs, which would have been of great use to the Taliban. The charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy are appropriate, and if he's court-martialed -- which he probably will be since the Army rarely goes public with charges unless it plans to proceed -- and he'll probably be convicted and, while I'll be surprised if he gets any prison time, he'll still get a dishonorable discharge along with forfeiture of all pay and allowances, including all the back pay he accrued while held prisoner.


This post was edited on 4/3 3:02 PM by Popeer

Geneva Convention Article IV

 

[mneilmont]

Re: Help me a little bit.


They (Bush/Cheney) "were not required to" is all telling. Taliban were not members of any group signatory. They were not recognized as an organized army defending IRAQ. Where are they guaranteed rights under Geneva.

Maybe I put too much faith in the report that Bergdahl did aid the enemy. It was reported they became much more knowledgable of the military practices and became more effective at killing and locating US soldiers. But I suppose he just walked away an took up residence with them and they accepted him with open arms. That seems to be a reach to me.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Re: Help me a little bit.

Taliban were the ruling Government of Afghanistan at the time of our assault in 01. Also, you don't have to be a signatory to be recognized. As a signing country we are bound to follow it regardless of our enemy.

Did Bush/Cheney/Rummy slide through a loophole? Yes.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[mneilmont]

Re: Help me a little bit.


Stand corrected then. Recall from military science is abandoning me.

 

[dave]

This is the dumbest of many dumb comments. People who disagree with you are a problem and their problem is they get their news from a source you dont like. You on the other hand apparently get your news from the correct source and not from some partisan source and the whole world should be more like you. Everyone else should learn to think for themselves. You dont know **** kid.

 

[mneilmont]

Well said


and no ambiguity.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Kid?

LOL!

 

[dave]

I assume you are younger than 25 because ignorance and naivity are obvious explanations for the level of stupidity you spew. If i am wrong i feel sorry for you.

Now go find a response at the kos or on reddit and come back when you can make another sweeping generalization to deal with people who dare think for themselves rather than agree with you.