http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...having-devilish-intentions_914336.html?page=1 In negotiating circles, this is called moving the goal posts. It's pretty common in middle eastern negotiations owing to their extreme paranoia. Any deal you were willing to accept must by definition be unfair to me. Therefore, I will ask for more. It's only fair. If you refuse it proves you were trying to cheat me. One might ask how such critical details were somehow left vague enough that the parties have diametrically opposing views on how they are to be handled. It's a fair question. The answqer is one side or the other is lying, or the Iranians are moving the goal posts after seeing how desperate obama and Kerry were for a deal, any deal. And then there is the matter of the actual verification itself. The iranians are totally ok with it provided it doesn't involve any of their military facilities or defense research work. Uhh ok, how about we inspect Tehran University? Would that be ok? It is beginning to appear that "verification" in this deal will be like "border security" in the immigration debate. Something that is talked about and treated as a serious matter until the ink is dry, then forgotten by both sides. Put less charitably, it's eyewash designed to fool the media, which doesn't take much, and the public. Iran's point is why should it be subject to more intrusive inspections than other countries. Perhaps Kerry is too PC to answer that they are the leading international sponsor of terrorism, regularly promise to obliterate Israel and are trying to build missiles to reach the US. But if he says that, you might ask why are we negotiating with them in the first place.
I really can't think of a single person ever in my life who always looks more desperate for a deal when negotiating than John Fn Kerry.
I have actually supported the administration with these negotiations. In my mind, it is better to try to come to some sort of deal that would prevent more of our treasure and blood being spilled in the Middle East. If the deal falls apart, no one is going to be able to say the US did not give a good faith effort with the negotiations. fan27
I think the guy on the right is symbolic for the fact that Obama wants to give nuclear bomb and machines of war to terrorists but take guns away from law abiding citizens in the u.s. That bald guy probably is the typical law abiding gun owner if you look at numbers.
I don't support war with iran, so don't lump me in with McCain, John Bolton and the other neo-con's who apparently learned nothing from our various debacles in the middle east. I certainly don't trust the iranian regime. Sanctions have been far more effective than I expected however, and have basically brought Iran to its knees. Why we would drop them now, when Iran wants a deal and at the same time is trying to undermine Saudi Arabia via Yemen, is perplexing to me. Of course, our relations with Iran are reflective of Obama's chaotic middle eastern policy, where we are opposing Iran in Yemen but allied with them in Iraq and Syria. Obama's policies have produced failed states in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Tunisia and now Yemen. Egypt came close to going on the list but was rescued by its military, which had the backbone to tell obama to fuck off and threw his muslim brotherhood pals in prison. Obama inherited Bush' messes in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the others are on him and hillary.
This is how obama envisions himself while negotiating with Iran. meanwhile the iranians laugh at the idiot sitting across the table from them.
USA should tell all emerging countries, "If you do things our way, we will help you develop a complete nuclear arsenal." (including Iran) good for our economy, good for our defense industry