Andrey (azangru) wrote,

Вынесу, интереса ради, сюда, потому что видел и слышал некоторое количество прямых и косвенных отсылок на эти слова без конкретных библиографических указаний.

Daily Press Briefing - April 13, 2015:

QUESTION: Okay. Is it the Administration’s position that the S-300s, the transfer of them to Iran would violate existing sanctions?

MS HARF: In terms of UN Security Council sanctions, it’s my understanding that it would not.

QUESTION: It would not.

MS HARF: Correct.

QUESTION: So your concern is – or your objections are based on what?

MS HARF: Well, there’s a number of factors, obviously, here. And we think given Iran’s destabilizing actions in the region in places like Yemen or Syria or Lebanon that this isn’t the time to be selling these kinds of systems to them. So in general, that’s what our concerns are based on.

QUESTION: Your understanding is --

MS HARF: And we have concerns about things separate and apart from whether they would be a violation of Security Council sanctions.

QUESTION: No, I know. But I just wanted to know if your objection was based in – based on – if your understanding of your objection was that it was a violation of sanctions.

MS HARF: It’s my understanding that it’s not.

(видео, начиная примерно со второй минуты)

  • (no subject)

    This is bullshit, right? Immediately after the 1917 revolution education was in shambles. And there were still several years of the civil war to…

  • (no subject)

    I was stumped by the asterisks in the second bleeped word. Could only think of hand, but that's not what it was. In any case, it's a perfectly…

  • (no subject)

    Which/whose corporate interests is he talking about? Which corporations are interested in what? I am so confused.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.