Skip to main content

View Diary: Iran, U.S. to begin talks on Tehran's nuclear program October 15 (85 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  somebody needs to tell our guys (12+ / 0-)
    U.S. officials, however, have said no deal until Iran takes concrete steps to prove it is not developing nuclear weapons
    that proving a negative is a logical impossibility.

    But of course.  Because the Iranians will never be able to prove they aren't developing nuclear weapons, we will always be able to argue that yes, in fact, they are doing just that.

    My, how convenient.

    Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

    by corvo on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 07:16:07 PM PDT

    •  how convenient indeed (11+ / 0-)

      This comment by U.S. officials serves to reinforce my judgement that Iran's nuclear (weapons) program is simply the pretext, as were Iraq's WMDs, for the actions we have taken to strangle their economy and for future, more drastic actions if and when the opportunity seems ripe.

      Despite the lack of any credible evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program we have placed punishing sanctions on Iran, infected their enrichment facilities with the Stuxnet virus and assassinated some of their nuclear scientists.

      I will continue to believe the real reason is Iran's refusal to bow to U.S. - Israeli hegemony in the oil rich southwest Asian region.

      The eventual full U.S. response to Iran's recent gestures should be a good indicator of our true motivations with respect to Iran.

      Orwell - "Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable"

      by truong son traveler on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 08:21:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Absolutely. (4+ / 0-)

        It doesn't fit.  And Obama's UN speech didn't fit.  Iran had to take the opportunity as Syria and Russia did but I don't think this means anything other than tactical changes to the bankster class.  Can't be for something over 100 years in the making.   The response to Iran's gestures is a good indicator, but also what actions they continue to take in Syria and elsewhere.  Causing genocides in Africa, fucking with Latin America, etc.  Obama's speech didn't indicate anything would change to me.  It was full of lies.   Enormous stakes riding on Syria and Iran getting taken down.  

      •  We must never cease to ask: (5+ / 0-)

        Between Iran and the USA, which of the two countries has sponsored groups it has itself declared to be terrorist groups to spread death and destruction inside the other's country?

        Answer: It ain't Iran.

        Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

        by corvo on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 08:42:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes! (4+ / 0-)
        The eventual full U.S. response to Iran's recent gestures should be a good indicator of our true motivations with respect to Iran.
        We must wait and be very watchful.

        the war being waged...is the relentless ...struggle... by the rich against the poor. " by Andrew O'Hehir in "Salon"

        by dharmasyd on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 09:39:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Somebody needs to inform you of the progressive (7+ / 0-)

      stance that negotiations should always begin from the most extreme position possible, then as the negotiations move on, parties move to the less extreme positions in the middle.  That's what purist progressives have complained that the administration doesn't do.  But I notice that when it comes to negotiating with Putin/Assad or with Iran, the purist progressives suddenly and jarringly change their tune to instead demanding that the US immediately accede position to the other party.  Interesting.

      I already see multiple comments in this thread with demands that the US should give up this demand and that demand, without getting anything in return.  Yep, what big, tough negotiators the purists are.  LOL

      •  What's REALLY interesting is how you always (3+ / 0-)

        find a way to disparage the left in your comments, Tony.

        How many people are you talking about when you refer to these "progressive purists," Tony?

        Or are you just back to creating an imaginary group of leftie boogymen to help further the campaign of marginalization I've seen you engaged in for awhile now?




        Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

        by DeadHead on Fri Sep 27, 2013 at 12:36:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  No, nobody needs to tell them that. (0+ / 0-)

      Because unlike you, they don't believe that preventing a nuclear armed Iran is just a pretext for a war.  They actually believe that Iran with a nuke is bad for the world.  Notably, not even the Iranians quibble with that concept.

      HEY COGNITIVE INFILTRATORS! I googled "confirmation bias" and Daily Kos raided my house! And and and smashed my hard drives! Ask CNN, it's all truthy!

      by Inland on Fri Sep 27, 2013 at 09:45:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You know what US officials believe? (0+ / 0-)

        Please tell us what other insider information you're privy to.

        •  It's not insider information. (0+ / 0-)

          Maybe you don't know it, but that says something about you, not the info.

          HEY COGNITIVE INFILTRATORS! I googled "confirmation bias" and Daily Kos raided my house! And and and smashed my hard drives! Ask CNN, it's all truthy!

          by Inland on Fri Sep 27, 2013 at 01:47:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site