• 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

Donc

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
9,796
Reaction score
2,590
Location
out yonder
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Kinda looks like there will be something of substance that BO can ask romneys advice on come Monday night.:2wave:


By HELENE COOPER and MARK LANDLER

Published: October 20, 2012


<WASHINGTON — The United States and Iran have agreed for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, according to Obama administration officials, setting the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran.>


<Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election, a senior administration official said, telling their American counterparts that they want to know which American president they would be negotiating with.>


<Mr. Romney has repeatedly criticized the president as showing weakness toward Iran and failing to stand firmly with Israel against the Iranian nuclear threat.>

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/w...talk-to-us-about-nuclear-program.html?_r=1&hp
 
not suprising as they begin to feel the noose tighten around their necks.
 
Kinda looks like there will be something of substance that BO can ask romneys advice on come Monday night.:2wave:


By HELENE COOPER and MARK LANDLER

Published: October 20, 2012


<WASHINGTON — The United States and Iran have agreed for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, according to Obama administration officials, setting the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran.>


<Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election, a senior administration official said, telling their American counterparts that they want to know which American president they would be negotiating with.>


<Mr. Romney has repeatedly criticized the president as showing weakness toward Iran and failing to stand firmly with Israel against the Iranian nuclear threat.>

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/w...talk-to-us-about-nuclear-program.html?_r=1&hp

Someone posted at thread on this using a flufey source a few days ago. Posters laughed at the source. Who's laughin' now? ;)

Another reason not to elect President Obama. We'll end up buyin' them off with taxpayer funds. Watch. You read it here first.
 
Someone posted at thread on this using a flufey source a few days ago. Posters laughed at the source. Who's laughin' now? ;)

Another reason not to elect President Obama. We'll end up buyin' them off with taxpayer funds. Watch. You read it here first.

bu them off with tax payer funds would still be better than getting involved in a much more expensive war with a decent sized country.
 
Someone posted at thread on this using a flufey source a few days ago. Posters laughed at the source. Who's laughin' now? ;)

Another reason not to elect President Obama. We'll end up buyin' them off with taxpayer funds. Watch. You read it here first.

It's another reason to vote for President Obama, wasting not only money, but more importantly US lives by warring with Iran would cost us way more.
 
Someone posted at thread on this using a flufey source a few days ago. Posters laughed at the source. Who's laughin' now? ;)

Another reason not to elect President Obama. We'll end up buyin' them off with taxpayer funds. Watch. You read it here first.

How do you think that romney would do?
 
Problem with Romney is that no one on the international stage would take his ideas seriously because they are abusrd. I doubt Romney himself would really go through with a preemptive stike on Iran if he was to become president. He is just saying exactly what a certain % of voters want to hear.
 
How do you think that romney would do?

I would hope he would take the hard stand that Obama has taken up 'til now. Keep those sanctions running. Keep world opinion behind those sanctions. And increase the number of nations imposing them. Talks? Not.so.much.
 
bu them off with tax payer funds would still be better than getting involved in a much more expensive war with a decent sized country.

I don't advocate blackmail. We do it all the time, but I'm against it myself. I agree war is not the answer, though. Surgical strikes? Perhaps.
 
I don't advocate blackmail. We do it all the time, but I'm against it myself. I agree war is not the answer, though. Surgical strikes? Perhaps.

only problem is I dont see Iran as the kind of nation to just take a surgical strike and move on like Iraq did in the 90's. Not only that but any kind of strike would have to meet the approval of Israel as they would be right in the frying pan if we turned up the heat.
 
Here comes Obama's October Surprise:


Iran will agree to stop enrichment in return for loosening sanctions.


Obama wins, America continues our decline, Iran fires up the centrifuges, nukes Israel, oil goes to $500...get the picture.


When's that Mayan Calendar end again?
 
Iran wants to talk, is this something new. Yet another stall tactic, Obama will of course appease, appease, appease, them BOOM ....... Sorry Israel
 
Iran wants to talk, is this something new. Yet another stall tactic, Obama will of course appease, appease, appease, them BOOM ....... Sorry Israel

yes because Obama has a history of appease, appease, appease. Oh no wait he doesnt. In fact he increased US forces in afghan, increased drone strikes and went after AL-Q leadership.
 
Anyone besides myself think that all these dueling news releases, both pro and con, regarding negotiating with Iran,or not, could be a Rovien tactic for getting in mitts head, in Florida, where he's busy cramming for something he don’t know **** about?Just a thought.:2wave:
 
Someone posted at thread on this using a flufey source a few days ago. Posters laughed at the source. Who's laughin' now? ;)

Another reason not to elect President Obama. We'll end up buyin' them off with taxpayer funds. Watch. You read it here first.

And even if we were to, it'd still cost monumentally less than a war with them.
 
Kinda looks like there will be something of substance that BO can ask romneys advice on come Monday night.:2wave:


By HELENE COOPER and MARK LANDLER

Published: October 20, 2012


<WASHINGTON — The United States and Iran have agreed for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, according to Obama administration officials, setting the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran.>


<Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election, a senior administration official said, telling their American counterparts that they want to know which American president they would be negotiating with.>


<Mr. Romney has repeatedly criticized the president as showing weakness toward Iran and failing to stand firmly with Israel against the Iranian nuclear threat.>

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/w...talk-to-us-about-nuclear-program.html?_r=1&hp

This is great news.
 
And even if we were to, it'd still cost monumentally less than a war with them.

Not if our country turned some crucial military installations into glass it wouldn't. We have the most powerful military force on planet earth. We don't have to send in foot soldiers. Time some of those tax dollars got spent saving lives instead of buying boots.
 
Not if our country turned some crucial military installations into glass it wouldn't. We have the most powerful military force on planet earth. We don't have to send in foot soldiers. Time some of those tax dollars got spent saving lives instead of buying boots.

Then you make terrorists out of otherwise complacent civilians.
 
I would hope he would take the hard stand that Obama has taken up 'til now. Keep those sanctions running. Keep world opinion behind those sanctions. And increase the number of nations imposing them. Talks? Not.so.much.

Seriously, do you have any clue what the purpose of those sanctions are? Hint: it is to get Iran to negotiate....
 
It's another reason to vote for President Obama, wasting not only money, but more importantly US lives by warring with Iran would cost us way more.

it appears Iran wants Obama as president just as Russia does.
 
This is funny if Iran thinks they can influence the November presidential election.

Analogy: Jimmy Carter/Ronald Reagan: Barack Obama/Mitt Romney
 
Seriously, do you have any clue what the purpose of those sanctions are? Hint: it is to get Iran to negotiate....

Funny, I thought it was to get them to stop developing nuclear weapons.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1061047337 said:
So blame America, got it.

Well, if you wish. It is your 1st Amendment right. I wouldn't do that however.
 
Back
Top Bottom