• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

World Powers Agree to Resume Nuclear Talks With Iran

Talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, happy talk...

...BOOM!
 
Yeah, dimplomacy has worked great, so far.
 
Talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, happy talk...

...BOOM!

I was going to post something similar.

In my book "action speaks louder then words". What action is Iran doing. Stalling.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/w...tion-of-secret-military-site-report-says.html

certainly not out of the woods yet, but this is at least a step in the right direction.


Well, yes it is a step in the right direction but, the problem is that for the last decade, the international community has been trying diplomacy and talks with Iran. It hasn’t worked. Recent previous rounds of talks at Geneva and Istanbul failed too.

Many have voiced their skepticism about these new talks.... will they work this time? will they not?

Only time will tell and there is not much time left.
 
Well, yes it is a step in the right direction but, the problem is that for the last decade, the international community has been trying diplomacy and talks with Iran. It hasn’t worked. Recent previous rounds of talks at Geneva and Istanbul failed too.

Many have voiced their skepticism about these new talks.... will they work this time? will they not?

Only time will tell and there is not much time left.

Why is there not much time left?

On-topic: Things talks will most likely not do anything unfortunately. The fact of the matter is that despite the US admitting (see this and this) that Iran is not using its nuclear energy program to develop a weapon, they are still most likely going to push for war and the US media is going to go along with it.
 
Well, yes it is a step in the right direction but, the problem is that for the last decade, the international community has been trying diplomacy and talks with Iran. It hasn’t worked.

We're not fighting a war, so as far as I'm concerned it's worked pretty well.
 
I guess I don't understand...if Leon Panetta thinks Iran is not attempting to develop nuclear weapons, why are there sanctions, and why is there so much talk about attacking them? What am I missing?
 
I guess I don't understand...if Leon Panetta thinks Iran is not attempting to develop nuclear weapons, why are there sanctions, and why is there so much talk about attacking them? What am I missing?

Basically they think that Iran is doing most of the hard work that would be necessary to create fissible material for a bomb, while not actively working on on the warhead itself. The problem is that it's relatively easy to build a warhead should they decide to move in that direction.
 
Even if Iran does build nukes, why would we think that they'd use them on us? What possible benefit is there in fighting the United States and almost certainly being destroyed? No, the real targets of Iranian nukes would be their neighbors. Probably their Sunni neighbors first, even before Israel. Even Israel is probably protected under our shadow. Countries like Bangladesh, Jordan, Egypt, or Pakistan are the ones who really need to worry about Iranian nukes, not us.
 
Probably their Sunni neighbors first, even before Israel. . . . . Countries like Bangladesh, Jordan, Egypt, or Pakistan are the ones who really need to worry about Iranian nukes, not us.

What on Earth makes you say this?
 
I hope by talks they mean that they are going to put their foot down on Iran and say that no more will be tolerated from them and that military action can be expected.
 
I hope by talks they mean that they are going to put their foot down on Iran and say that no more will be tolerated from them and that military action can be expected.

Mind explaining to me how we are going to fund/why we should even have another war?
 
We're not fighting a war, so as far as I'm concerned it's worked pretty well.




Well then AdamT, we will have to agree to disagree.



"There has, in fact, been an “armed attack” against the United States. Iran has been waging a low-intensity war against America and Israel — both directly and by proxy — for more than two decades. Iran’s Quds Force has planned and directed attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and on Israelis in Israel and abroad. Iran has directly supplied our enemies with deadly weaponry in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is responsible for hundreds of American military deaths — including the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut and the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. "
 
Well then AdamT, we will have to agree to disagree.



"There has, in fact, been an “armed attack” against the United States. Iran has been waging a low-intensity war against America and Israel — both directly and by proxy — for more than two decades. Iran’s Quds Force has planned and directed attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and on Israelis in Israel and abroad. Iran has directly supplied our enemies with deadly weaponry in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is responsible for hundreds of American military deaths — including the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut and the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. "

Mind if I ask for the source of that quote?
 
I guess I don't understand...if Leon Panetta thinks Iran is not attempting to develop nuclear weapons, why are there sanctions, and why is there so much talk about attacking them? What am I missing?

Iran’s support for international terrorism and Iran’s active pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.
 
Well then AdamT, we will have to agree to disagree.



"There has, in fact, been an “armed attack” against the United States. Iran has been waging a low-intensity war against America and Israel — both directly and by proxy — for more than two decades. Iran’s Quds Force has planned and directed attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and on Israelis in Israel and abroad. Iran has directly supplied our enemies with deadly weaponry in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is responsible for hundreds of American military deaths — including the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut and the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. "

I have no doubt that they were up to no good while we were invading Iraq. OTOH, we supported an autocratic dictator in Iran and supplied Saddam with WMDs when he was fighting Iran, so I can see how they'd be a bit cheesed at us.

In any case, there is no good military solution here. We could bomb the crap out of them and it wouldn't set their program back for very long. We could launch an Iraq-style invasion but that would actually be much more difficult than Iraq was, and more costly, and we can ill afford it. On top of the direct cost, which would be immense, it would likely plunge the world economy into a massive recession, if not a depression.
 
Connery said:

I didn't deny your former statement, I just find it to be a laughable reason for "going to war" considering the fact that the United States has supported and continues to support terrorist groups. US government officials have even openly stated their support for terrorist groups in Iran in the recent past months. Your latter statement first off is false as there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program as well as hypocritical considering the fact that American allies such as Israel, India and Pakistan have proliferated without much whining from American government officials.

But you already knew all this when you wrote your post.
 
In any case, there is no good military solution here. We could bomb the crap out of them and it wouldn't set their program back for very long. We could launch an Iraq-style invasion but that would actually be much more difficult than Iraq was, and more costly, and we can ill afford it. On top of the direct cost, which would be immense, it would likely plunge the world economy into a massive recession, if not a depression.


I am not disagreeing with you in that.

What I am saying is that I am very pessimist about these "new" round of talks because almost certainly Iran will use them to gain further time to obtain full military nuclear capability.

A war would be a disaster for the whole world but regrettably sometimes wars are forced upon us whether we like it or not.
 
What on Earth makes you say this?

The vast majority of acts of terrorism conducted by extremist Muslims are carried out against other Muslims. All of the wars (except the ones started by us) that Middle Eastern nations have fought in since WW2 have been against each other. And often, violence in the Middle East, such as the actions of Saddam that caused the Gulf War, were Sunni vs. Shiite. They're FAR more interested in fighting each other than attacking us. Iran wants us alive, prosperous, and buying their oil.
 
I didn't deny your former statement, I just find it to be a laughable reason for "going to war" considering the fact that the United States has supported and continues to support terrorist groups. US government officials have even openly stated their support for terrorist groups in Iran in the recent past months. Your latter statement first off is false as there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program as well as hypocritical considering the fact that American allies such as Israel, India and Pakistan have proliferated without much whining from American government officials.

But you already knew all this when you wrote your post.

The term used is "weapons of mass destruction" which means:

18 USC § 2332a -... weapons of mass destruction
(c) Definitions.— For purposes of this section—

(2) the term “weapon of mass destruction” means—
(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life;

18 USC § 2332a - weapons of mass destruction | LII / Legal Information Institute
 
I am not disagreeing with you in that.

What I am saying is that I am very pessimist about these "new" round of talks because almost certainly Iran will use them to gain further time to obtain full military nuclear capability.

A war would be a disaster for the whole world but regrettably sometimes wars are forced upon us whether we like it or not.

I have two things to say on the bolded part:

1. This was is not being "forced upon us." We are forcing war upon Iran. Who is talking about bombing and invading countries? Whose been supporting terrorist groups inside other countries?

And before you bring up the BS Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map quote- it's already been debunked:

(Lost in translation | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk) (Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel? - NYTimes.com) (Sam Sedaei: The Biggest Lie Told To The American People: Ahmadinejad's Alleged Remarks On Israel)

2. Since you think that this war is being "forced upon us" would you be willing to join up and fight in it?
 
Back
Top Bottom