• 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!

U.S. Officials Say Iran Has Agreed to Nuclear Talks

PeteEU said:
Yes, who knows, point is it has been denied by official channels.

And the US and Iran have always had back channel talks.....
Click to expand...

Iran is in tough shape.. Their currency lost 30% of its value, they can't sell their oil and Chin pulled out of the South Pars oil and gas project.

Its likely a true story.
 
sharon said:
Iran is in tough shape.. Their currency lost 30% of its value, they can't sell their oil and Chin pulled out of the South Pars oil and gas project.

Its likely a true story.
Click to expand...

Media hype. Iran has always been in tough shape in one way or another.
 
sharon said:
Or a premature story... Or, a back channel work in progress.

The Iranians have said they waant to wait to see if they will be talking with Obama or Romney.
Click to expand...

lol

The Israeli puppet number 2 MITT ROMNEY will be talking to the Iranians???
 
PeteEU said:
Media hype. Iran has always been in tough shape in one way or another.
Click to expand...

Well, they need $117 a barrel to make their ends meet. They have had gas rationing since 2007..

Half their tanker fleet is parked at Kharg being used to store crude.

China has cut back their purchasing to 250,000 bpd.. and are paying deeply discounted price per barrel.

Its not media hype.
 
sharon said:
Well, they need $117 a barrel to make their ends meet. .
Click to expand...

lol

the USA hasnt been making its end meet since Reagan took office and trashed the US economy

sounds like the US needs another war againgst a defenseless nation
 
sharon said:
Well, they need $117 a barrel to make their ends meet.
Click to expand...

Not exactly true.. this US estimates, estimates made by biased and partisan sources. The ones that are pushing oil prices up are not the Iranians, but in fact the US and its allies by fear mongering constantly. This of course benefits also US allies, like the Saudi's who also need a high oil price to sustain themselves.

They have had gas rationing since 2007..
Click to expand...

Thats because they dont have refining capacity and a growing economy.

Half their tanker fleet is parked at Kharg being used to store crude.
Click to expand...

Yes, now it is because of sanctions and waiting for better prices... Goldman Sachs does it also.

China has cut back their purchasing to 250,000 bpd.. and are paying deeply discounted price per barrel.
Click to expand...

again sanctions.. and a bit of political pressure.

Its not media hype.
Click to expand...

Most of it is, and the speculators in Asia and West use it to earn billions of profits.
 
PeteEU said:
Not exactly true.. this US estimates, estimates made by biased and partisan sources. The ones that are pushing oil prices up are not the Iranians, but in fact the US and its allies by fear mongering constantly. This of course benefits also US allies, like the Saudi's who also need a high oil price to sustain themselves.



Thats because they dont have refining capacity and a growing economy.



Yes, now it is because of sanctions and waiting for better prices... Goldman Sachs does it also.



again sanctions.. and a bit of political pressure.



Most of it is, and the speculators in Asia and West use it to earn billions of profits.
Click to expand...

Saudis need about 85$ a barrel.. that's why they keep trying to push the price down ... to further hurt Iran.

The tankers have been parked at Kharg since March.. They can't sell their oil.. and they can't ramp down production substantially without destroying the reserves. They can't get parts and equipment.
 
sharon said:
Saudis need about 85$ a barrel.. that's why they keep trying to push the price down ... to further hurt Iran.

The tankers have been parked at Kharg since March.. They can't sell their oil.. and they can't ramp down production substantially without destroying the reserves. They can't get parts and equipment.
Click to expand...

You have been reading and pedalling too much Z spin
 
Klown said:
You have been reading and pedalling too much Z spin
Click to expand...

I have been following the facts on Iran's economy for four or five years.

What Z spin?

Iran's in trouble.. the Iranian Rial lost 30% of its value two weeks ago.
 
sharon said:
I have been following the facts on Iran's economy for four or five years.

What Z spin?

Iran's in trouble.. the Iranian Rial lost 30% of its value two weeks ago.
Click to expand...

Name the nations which arent in trouble

Have you seen the US debt level lately?

Keep printing money

Why do you focus on Iran? Seems like you have taken the propaganda bait hook line and sinker

You werent one of those Americans who thougt Saddam Hussein was involved with the 9/11 attacks and that he had WMDs were you?
 
Klown said:
Name the nations which arent in trouble

Have you seen the US debt level lately?

Keep printing money

Why do you focus on Iran? Seems like you have taken the propaganda bait hook line and sinker

You werent one of those Americans who thougt Saddam Hussein was involved with the 9/11 attacks and that he had WMDs were you?
Click to expand...

I knew Iraq didn't have WMDs... Iraq was crippled by two decades of war and sanctions.. and they had NOTHING to do with 9-11.

What strange arguments you invent.
 
sharon said:
I knew Iraq didn't have WMDs... Iraq was crippled by two decades of war and sanctions.. and they had NOTHING to do with 9-11.

What strange arguments you invent.
Click to expand...

You mean the war against Iran?

the one the US supported with arms and intelligence?

Seems like fascism is alive and well in the USA

The primary slaughterer of civilians in the worlds since WW2

You should be all very proud of your crimes against humanity record - I am sure
 
sharon said:
Saudis need about 85$ a barrel.. that's why they keep trying to push the price down ... to further hurt Iran.
Click to expand...

They are trying to keep the price down because the US is asking them to do so. I have lived in Saudi Arabia, and what the US wants is often what the US gets.

The tankers have been parked at Kharg since March.. They can't sell their oil.. and they can't ramp down production substantially without destroying the reserves. They can't get parts and equipment.
Click to expand...

DOGH!... the sanctions started around that time.. come on..

As for parts and equipment.. again.. sanctions, plus in reality they can get them from 3rd parties at a price.
 
Klown said:
You mean the war against Iran?

the one the US supported with arms and intelligence?

Seems like fascism is alive and well in the USA

The primary slaughterer of civilians in the worlds since WW2

You should be all very proud of your crimes against humanity record - I am sure
Click to expand...

I SAID Iraq..........
 
PeteEU said:
They are trying to keep the price down because the US is asking them to do so. I have lived in Saudi Arabia, and what the US wants is often what the US gets.

DOGH!... the sanctions started around that time.. come on..

As for parts and equipment.. again.. sanctions, plus in reality they can get them from 3rd parties at a price.
Click to expand...

I lived in Saudi Arabia too for nearly two decades and I know the Sudeiri Six quite well.
 
PeteEU said:
They are trying to keep the price down because the US is asking them to do so. I have lived in Saudi Arabia, and what the US wants is often what the US gets.



DOGH!... the sanctions started around that time.. come on..

As for parts and equipment.. again.. sanctions, plus in reality they can get them from 3rd parties at a price.
Click to expand...

Sharon is right, the Saudi's have a vested interest (and one that has been well documented in interviews and discussions and forums for years) of keeping the price of petroleum pegged at a stable price and that is one that is lower than it is today. The persistent fear of the Kingdom's is that too high prices will lead to global economic downturn, spur alternative energy resource or resource mitigation strategies, and of course engender anger and discontent from its allies. It also has very clearly been using its crude production as a weapon against Iran for years, and it has in many ways thrown a wrench into OPEC as a collaborative body by using their reserve production as a threat of independent production which would alter the basket price for everyone else.
 
Also the sanctions have had an undeniable impact on Iran's ability to export. It has led to a direct sky-rocketing of their maritime insurance rates, the withdrawal of Chinese and Korean crude contracts which have fallen by double digit percentages, the increase in hard currency trading (Iran has been trading bunker fuel for gold in many of its remaining Indian deals) due to the inability to work with financial institutions to transfer payments in rials or gain new credit, and of course in the longer term the steady deterioration of their terminals, fields, and other facilities.
 
TurtleDude said:
it appears Iran wants Obama as president just as Russia does.
Click to expand...


Maybe they Think Obama ,will be More flexible, After the Election'''''' Hmmm, wonder why they might think that?
 
Romeny wants to help big business. Nothing like a big war to help the military industrial complex to make loads of $$$. That's exactly what Romney would do. A bloodbath.
 
Call me cynical, and this would be my claim regardless of the party in power, but this smells.

Iran's been an issue for YEARS now and somehow, two days before a Foreign Policy debate after the challenger has been gaining momentum, and with the election less than a month away, SUDDENLY it comes out that "Talks" will happen.

Mind you...no guarantee talks result in anything, no guarantee that what is decided upon is actually followed or not, just a statement that there will be TALKS. However, what that means is that there's essentially "hope" something good will come from it and can be played as such despite the fact that it's essentially still a giant unknown.

The fact this just HAPPENS to come out right at this moment is ridiculous coincidental to me and makes me question the sincerity of it in terms of the talks being legitimately useful or productive in any real fashion and not an attempt by both sides to attempt and simply influence the political process that's about to be had.

As I said, call my cynical...but sorry, something smells weird. Props for getting talks agreed to....however, the notion of having "talks" at some point in the future is kind of hollow to me. It's a minor accomplishment compared to what actually is NEEDED, which is what could come out from those talks. While its possible that it does turn out to be a really good thing....you don't get credit for the really good thing in terms of the election when you didn't get that really good thing done BEFORE the election. All you get credit for is a possibly suspect in intentions "talk" agreed to at some point in the future.
 
Zyphlin said:
Call me cynical, and this would be my claim regardless of the party in power, but this smells.

Iran's been an issue for YEARS now and somehow, two days before a Foreign Policy debate after the challenger has been gaining momentum, and with the election less than a month away, SUDDENLY it comes out that "Talks" will happen.

Mind you...no guarantee talks result in anything, no guarantee that what is decided upon is actually followed or not, just a statement that there will be TALKS. However, what that means is that there's essentially "hope" something good will come from it and can be played as such despite the fact that it's essentially still a giant unknown.

The fact this just HAPPENS to come out right at this moment is ridiculous coincidental to me and makes me question the sincerity of it in terms of the talks being legitimately useful or productive in any real fashion and not an attempt by both sides to attempt and simply influence the political process that's about to be had.

As I said, call my cynical...but sorry, something smells weird. Props for getting talks agreed to....however, the notion of having "talks" at some point in the future is kind of hollow to me. It's a minor accomplishment compared to what actually is NEEDED, which is what could come out from those talks. While its possible that it does turn out to be a really good thing....you don't get credit for the really good thing in terms of the election when you didn't get that really good thing done BEFORE the election. All you get credit for is a possibly suspect in intentions "talk" agreed to at some point in the future.
Click to expand...

The one thing that inclines me to believe this may be genuine is that for the last several months there have been frequent reports that the sanctions on Iran where creating a major mess in that country. Whether this is legit or not I have no idea, but the possibility of it being so does exist.
 
What is to negotiate at this point? Open yourself up for inspection or suffer the consequences. A rumored agreement to possibly discuss things is irrelevant. Bush opposed direct talks because he felt that Iran just wanted to use it as a ploy to spit in the US eye. Their President is on the way out so who would really even have the authority to speak for them, and if we had a deal with the current regime it would be moot in pretty short order.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom