So Germany also says the 47 GOP senators made negotiations more difficult with their letter. He was polite, but reading through the lines it is obvious that the German government takes a very dim view of this.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Germany Warns GOP Letter Affects Iran Talks
- Thread starter Crabtownboy
- Start date
"....allowing Tehran to claim the West is not negotiating in good faith...."
That is precisely how they have assisted the hard-liners in Iran and was their goal to do. The neocon element behind the letter wants no diplomacy in this, they want military intervention. It really is just that simple. Once this becomes more widely recognized among the general public I suspect the Republicans will have hell to pay come 2016.
That is precisely how they have assisted the hard-liners in Iran and was their goal to do. The neocon element behind the letter wants no diplomacy in this, they want military intervention. It really is just that simple. Once this becomes more widely recognized among the general public I suspect the Republicans will have hell to pay come 2016.
Yes, the 47 GOP senators gave the hardliners a perfect gift as now they can say, see the US is not trustworthy.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
When you, Crabbie, poncho, and Zaac are on the same page something bad is going to happen. All I can say is the folks in Bloody Breathitt would be disappointed in the company you keep.
CTB, what is your fascination with this GOP letter?
(Obviously Iran thought the U.S. was not trustworthy prior to the letter.)
(Obviously Iran thought the U.S. was not trustworthy prior to the letter.)
It's not just the general public here, it's perception worldwide of the same neocon idiocy of the Bush/Cheney regime that had a prime opportunity in 2003 for diplomacy over war but preferred 'regime change' instead:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2054914#post2054914
'Regime change', such an easy thing to say.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2054914#post2054914
'Regime change', such an easy thing to say.
Yes, that has been the hard-liners objections opposing a deal involving the U.S. all along, that Obama could not guarantee any permanency in a deal, and that was the essence of the letter from 'The 47'.
Did you even notice that I replied to the words of German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, and not to CTB? The ramifications of this letter are apparent to all involved, but it totally escapes you.
Last edited by a moderator:
No doubt his angle is to bash the Republicans as usual; my fascination is with the utter stupidity and thoughtlessness of probably most who glibly signed the letter. Consider the truth in this statement:
".....an attempt at a diplomatic agreement is more than a hedge against the unthinkable — a nuclear-armed Iran. It is a message to the world that, if and when we do take military action, it will be as a last resort".
http://themoderatevoice.com/203370/kathleen-parker-gop-letter/
I've never been overly optimistic that there would ever be an agreement, but I most certainly agree with the truth of the above statement.
If Iran walks away because of the U.S. "not dealing in good faith", how much help, cooperation, or agreement are we to expect from the rest of the world when/if it does come down to war?
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Pretty much. Especially if they nominate another Bush.
....and your motive is also solely to bash the Republicans.
Talks with Iran has been an INTERNATIONAL endeavor for over a decade now, and the U.S. has just defecated on the whole process.
History of Official Proposals on the Iranian Nuclear Issue
History of Official Proposals on the Iranian Nuclear Issue
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Nope my motive isn't to bash either party. I wish one party had a modicum of character and conviction about itself and I might get a candidate for President every now and then for whom I could actually vote.
The Dems suck because they are unscrupulous and don't care that it's public knowledge.
The Repubs suck and are mean and nasty but have their noses so stuck in the air that they don't realize(or at least aren't willing to acknowledge) that they are unscrupulous.
I'm a write-in candidates dream come true.
If Obama wants the cooperation with the GOP then he needs to work with them to come up with a reasonable plan. If he is only going to side step them then Iran needs to be reminded that the President does not have the power to make binding agreements with the US all by himself.
Any plan that allows for a terrorist state like Iran to become nuclear in any way is unacceptable. Period.
Any plan that allows for a terrorist state like Iran to become nuclear in any way is unacceptable. Period.
You got a 'link' to 'the plan'. Do you even know what the final framework was going to be?
...oh the utter stupidity of it all, it blows my mind that the Republicans could do such a monumental blunder, again, after Iraq, after Obama got elected BECAUSE of the Iraq debacle; they truly are in a world of their own.
And, bear in mind, this is just the beginning:
Fallout Seen Worldwide From Republicans' Letter to Iran
"...The injection of partisan politics into the Iran negotiations guarantees that it will be an issue during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Several senators who are considered possible presidential candidates — Marco Rubio of Florida, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky [breaks my heart]— all co-signed the letter.....
Hillary Clinton, a former secretary of state and a likely Democratic presidential candidate, voiced her disapproval of the Republican senators’ letter during a news conference Tuesday in which she addressed the controversy over her use of private emails.
"One has to ask, what was the purpose of this letter?" Clinton said. "There appear to be two logical answers. Either these senators were trying to be helpful to the Iranians or harmful to the commander-in-chief in the midst of high-stakes international diplomacy. Either answer does discredit to the letters' signatories."....
....On Wednesday, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State John Kerry said he responded with "utter disbelief" at the letter. It endangered global trust in America, he said, and "risks undermining the confidence that foreign governments in thousands of important agreements commit to."
Kerry also said the letter broke with 200 years of precedent in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy.
'Quite stunning'
“No one is questioning anybody’s right to dissent," he said. "But to write to the leaders in the middle of a negotiation — particularly the leaders they have criticized others for even engaging with — to write them and suggest they’re going to give a constitutional lesson, which by the way is incorrect, is quite stunning.”
Kerry is leading the Iran nuclear negotiations, which resume next week in Switzerland. Those talks are in a critical phase because all sides have set the end of March as a deadline for a political framework. Kerry said the Republican senators' letter was wrong about a very important point.
The letter's contention "that Congress could actually modify the terms of an agreement at any time is flat wrong," he said. "You don't have the right to modify an agreement reached executive to executive between leaders of a country."...."
And, bear in mind, this is just the beginning:
Fallout Seen Worldwide From Republicans' Letter to Iran
"...The injection of partisan politics into the Iran negotiations guarantees that it will be an issue during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Several senators who are considered possible presidential candidates — Marco Rubio of Florida, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky [breaks my heart]— all co-signed the letter.....
Hillary Clinton, a former secretary of state and a likely Democratic presidential candidate, voiced her disapproval of the Republican senators’ letter during a news conference Tuesday in which she addressed the controversy over her use of private emails.
"One has to ask, what was the purpose of this letter?" Clinton said. "There appear to be two logical answers. Either these senators were trying to be helpful to the Iranians or harmful to the commander-in-chief in the midst of high-stakes international diplomacy. Either answer does discredit to the letters' signatories."....
....On Wednesday, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State John Kerry said he responded with "utter disbelief" at the letter. It endangered global trust in America, he said, and "risks undermining the confidence that foreign governments in thousands of important agreements commit to."
Kerry also said the letter broke with 200 years of precedent in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy.
'Quite stunning'
“No one is questioning anybody’s right to dissent," he said. "But to write to the leaders in the middle of a negotiation — particularly the leaders they have criticized others for even engaging with — to write them and suggest they’re going to give a constitutional lesson, which by the way is incorrect, is quite stunning.”
Kerry is leading the Iran nuclear negotiations, which resume next week in Switzerland. Those talks are in a critical phase because all sides have set the end of March as a deadline for a political framework. Kerry said the Republican senators' letter was wrong about a very important point.
The letter's contention "that Congress could actually modify the terms of an agreement at any time is flat wrong," he said. "You don't have the right to modify an agreement reached executive to executive between leaders of a country."...."
No, yesterday a fellow indicated that he doubted that the letter affected other countries view of the US. So, this is an example of a very friendly country saying it was a bad idea.
Some say that Obama should hammer out a deal with the GOP and then take it to Iran. Do you realize how long it would take to get the GOP to agree to anything. It is not the job of the Senate to negotiate. It is their job to approve or disapprove it after the two heads of state have agreed.
And as pointed out, the letter has given those who hate us the most a perfect gift to increase their pressure on their government to not agree to a treaty but to blame us as being unreliable and dishonest.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Yep. :thumbs:
Zaac
Well-Known Member
And this highlights again why there won't be a GOP President for quite some time to come.
The letter was beyond stupid. If someone can tell me what good came from it aside from torpedoing a delicate international negotiation I'm all ears. I'm not a big fan of taking the lunacy of this countries internal partisan war to the global stage so that we can step all over each other for the world to see. We are not the only ones working on a deal with Iran here. We are a part of a global community and it would be nice to see us get out stuff together and act like it.
Last edited by a moderator: