It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Is Obama's Fact Sheet Different From Iran's Fact Sheet?

page: 3
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

A list of names would help.





posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: amazing

A list of names would help.



I just gave it. Russia, China, France, UK, Germany plus the European Union. Those are some pretty big names, yet.. all the right wing press in the USA tells us is that it's Obama's deal. The guys that signed Cotton's letter. Are they really that ignorant to think Obama Rules China, Russia and France and Germany now? LOL Retards.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Interesting.

So Obama doesn't need congress's approval and even American participation is not necessary.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

But why is all the info coming out so skewed?

What's the reason for all the countries involved not being on the same page?





edit on Apr-07-2015 by xuenchen because: ['i']



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 10:41 PM
link   
also @greencmp I'm just going to say why is Iran so scary ?


originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: EvilBat

Only the naive or truly inept believe Iran won't use those Nukes against the USA, its interests, allies, and citizens.


I quoted the above because I am naive or I am truly inept.
--
Please don't say that miss translated quote Wipe Israel of the map crap because it was corrected the same day and only fox kept it going.
--
When was the last time Iran has invaded another country?
When was the last time USA or its Interests/ allies have invaded another country?

Here is something

He also called for a concerted international effort to prevent Iraq and Iran from arming themselves with non-conventional weapons.......The most dangerous of these regimes is Iran, that has wed a cruel despotism to a fanatic militancy. If this regime, or its despotic neighbor Iraq, were to acquire nuclear weapons, this could presage catastrophic consequences, not only for my country, and not only for the Middle East, but for all mankind........Only the United States can lead this vital international effort to stop the nuclearization of terrorist states. But the deadline for attaining this goal is getting extremely close - Address by Prime Minister Netanyahu to a joint session of the U.S. Congress, 10 July 1996.
Sour ce

Every year the same story from Netanyahu

Yes for almost 20 years evil Iran has been getting close to the bomb! If we don't do something about it, they will have it next year (tm)!

Yes for almost 20 years Iran has been sneaking over boarders and taking land, forcing people out of their homes, and if they retaliate they kill them, they constantly cry wolf so other countries would help them and.. wait that's Israel.

Yes for almost 20 years Iran has been storming through almost all countries in the middle east trying to change the way they live to ...... whoops that was USA.

...
Please What is it that they have done.
...
Pass arms, well golly we sold em the arms to pass is that not right Olly, Reagan doesn't recall but supplying people to fend off invaders ?! Wait wait I know it that some Iranians Kidnapped some athletes thing right
::: cough Guantanamo cough:::

What else. they Helped the terrorists during 911 just like Saddam wait they ( us gov ) admitted that was false, well it was leaked.

We can prove they are doing bad things with .... the Military Intelligence we get , from Israel. The one who has been spewing the past 19 years the Iran Nuke crap.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 10:41 PM
link   
If American participation is so superfluous, why is Kerry pushing the negotiations?



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Aazadan

If memory serves, there have been sanctions on Iran for the past 12 years.

Has the past 12 years been devastating because of it?


Not devastating, but ineffectual. Under those sanctions Iran has progressed their nuclear program and partnered with North Korea progressing their nuclear program. The timing of this seems to have nothing to do with strategy and everything to do with Obama being desperate to secure a favorable legacy but that doesn't change the fact that it's a good idea. When what you're doing isn't working, why not change tactics?

Under sanctions we've had to do things like tip our hand with cyber weapons and use Stuxnet. The deployment of which was a major blow to US capabilities because we had to make known numerous security exploits in order to use it, and then make known the code so that other nations could copy it.

Rather than take such actions which only weaken our long term defense, why not try other approaches?



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

It's a matter of opinion as to the effectiveness of the sanctions.

Again, I don't agree with the turn of events.

You're placing trust in the government, trust in the Iranian government.

It'll go down partisan lines, in my opinion, and the left will own it, good or bad.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: amazing

But why is all the info coming out so skewed?

What's the reason for all the countries involved not being on the same page?





edit on Apr-07-2015 by xuenchen because: ['i']


Our media most likely. I think if we lived in other countries the story would be much different.

But remember the point. This isn't Obama's Iran deal, this is an international deal involving several world powers and the European Union. As much as the Republicans would lead us to believe it, Obama doesn't have that much power.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: amazing

But why is all the info coming out so skewed?

What's the reason for all the countries involved not being on the same page?





edit on Apr-07-2015 by xuenchen because: ['i']


Our media most likely. I think if we lived in other countries the story would be much different.

But remember the point. This isn't Obama's Iran deal, this is an international deal involving several world powers and the European Union. As much as the Republicans would lead us to believe it, Obama doesn't have that much power.


I thought Obama and congress were elected by the American people to represent them.
So, yea, it makes perfect sense that the American people shouldn't be allowed to tell Obama what they want through their congressional representatives.
edit on 8-4-2015 by IAMTAT because: edit



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   
why is it different?

Two words.....

Plausible Deniability.....



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Iran is going to eventually get the bomb. That's what this is about. What do we do? Occupy their country to contain it or let them?

Both options suck. I know just framing it with two options is black/white, but fundamentally, I think they WILL get it, unless we occupy them. Bombing their facilities probably just leads to occupying them eventually because delaying it just means a stretched out war like with Iraq. If we were serious about it, we'd just go in and do a complete job teh first time.

I think we want to send a message, but don't have the guts to occupy yet. So we'll just bomb them or apply heavy heavy heavy sanctions. I think ti's more likely we occupy than let them have it, given the severity of extreme islam and idealogy over there. However, even if we do let them, it'll only come after being pummelled and starved by sanctions and possibly bombed a few times. We want them to know we're the boss and want to give em a good beating, even if we can't stop them.

This is about power. It's about asserting one's rule. If we don't assert ourselves, Iran eventually will. Probably not favorable to us.
edit on 8-4-2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 02:49 AM
link   
Here is basically what this really is. Obama sent Kerry in there with a piece of paper and he said, "Hey guys, just sign this to give our president a little success in foreign policy". Iran laughed and said "no way". Kerry said "Tell you what, we will lift some sanctions if you sign it. Come on...its not like it means anything..just sign it". Iran said "no".

Obama, like he always does, forced this upon Iran (as much as he could) for his personal benefit of being able to say "I did something". Much like he lied about Obamacare to say "I did something". This prick is the worst excuse for a president I've seen in my 50 years. He is a joke, has made the US weak and a laughing stock and continues to erode the fabric of America. The sooner he is gone...the better.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   
So the best they can do is agree to lie?


Obama Admin Had An Agreement With Iran to Lie to America About Terms of Nuke Deal



Obama’s administration admitted on the pages of the NY Times on April 4 that they lied about the nuke deal to keep Congress from unleashing sanctions but Iran betrayed them and told the truth. You can see it for yourself in the article, Outline of Iran Nuclear Deal Sounds Different From Each Side, Middle East section.

The Times noted that there are distinct differences between what the U.S. is saying and what Iran is saying, such as issues of sanctions, types of research, and I’m adding inspections to the Times list.

It seems that the Obama administration deliberately lied and the two sides agreed to lie, “to lock in progress made so far, as well as to strengthen the White House’s case against any move by members of Congress to impose more sanctions against Iran.”




posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

This sounds a lot like treason to me.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

It's politics, of course they're lying... or at the very least not telling the whole truth. These types of deals end up being many hundreds of pages but only summaries are released, and then summaries of the summaries are reported on.

Anyways, I read your article and the NYTimes portion they quote has an entirely different connotation than the story written about it.

The US and Iran took the same basic information and reported it different in order to each make their side look stronger in the negotiations to their people. That's pretty standard really.




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join