Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 106

Thread: Iranian ministry suggests openness to nuclear talks

  1. #71
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,290

    Re: Iranian ministry suggests openness to nuclear talks

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Once and a while I stumble into a decent one.



    Do you often see anything "better" coming out of negativity?

    If the truth is negative, that's the way the cookie curmbles



    War at the heart of it is seldom about truly altruistic reasons.

    In this country, it is often about business



    I don't think that is true, I think the entire region is concerned with Iran's posture in this. But beyond that, what is it that you think makes the world run? See, I think of oil right now as the life blood of the world. Think about it beyond gas for your car, or heat for houses, and although that is a part of what makes up usage, oil is a part nearly everything we use, consume, or rely on in healthcare. You think that a commodity like that is not going to be the catalyst of war should one country use it as leverage against others?

    OIL is also causing Global Warming and not a good thing

    I see no problem with responsible countries having Nukes, but that is the benchmark. Do you really see a country that is foaming at the mouth to destroy another country, and actively arming those currently attacking another country as responsible enough? I don't.

    I don't see Iran in that statement. Who have they attacked?

    This is what I am talking about...To read this you would think that the USA was the only country that developed nuclear technology. Russia, China, Pakistan....What did we have to do with the countries that they aided in obtaining the technology? Including Russia's aid to Iran in this respect.

    I don't think nude tech should have been shared with anyone, friend or foe!

    As a vet myself that was lucky enough to serve during peacetime, thank you for your sacrifice in Vietnam. I also know that geo political purposes for involvement in war is never as clear cut as the final reasoning shared with the public at large. Regardless of whether you agree with Iraq or not, the fact of the matter is that we elect people to represent our interests in this country, and the congress abdicated their responsibility in the decision making process for entering Iraq, and gave it to Bush. It was only when it became politically expedient to oppose it that demo's flipped and tried to revise history.

    Not true. It was and is a business war.

    No, I don't buy that at all. Unless you are saying that the civilians that our enemies were killing in Iraq was our fault, and that is in my view a flawed overview. We brought a dictator down, and freed its people to vote. Their destiny is now up to them.

    Conservative estimates of over one million dead Iraqis caused by the war. Saddam didn't kill that many. Wars are good business, but kill people, directly and indirectily.

    Voluntarily

    Now, it didn't use to be that way.

    If that were true, then why aren't we still there taking the spoils of our victory?

    See how much Exxon/Mobil makes on oil transported into the Centralized Distribution Network? You know transport, pipeline, tanker, refining, delivery and gas pumps. Getting it into the distribution net was why Saddam had to be eliminated. That and the fact he was selling it in Euros and could de-stabilize our economy.

    How'd that happen if we went in for the oil, why don't we have it then?

    We do have it. It is in the USA distribution network and wasn't in the past.

    Media does much in the way of misleading the country these days.

    Absolutely

    Ok, so you are against war...That is actually a pretty conservative view. Beyond that though, what does that even mean? Can you define what is a "better America" outsid the box of relatively myopic anti war stance? America is more than its geo political strength.
    A country run by people not business. If you don't think our economy runs on war, then explain why our military budger is around $700 billion per year. We don't have any real threats out there. Not for 20 years.

  2. #72
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: Iranian ministry suggests openness to nuclear talks

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Threats with no teeth is laughed at pretty quickly.
    For threats to be credible, the country making those threats has to be willing and able to deliver on those threats and the country receiving them must know that the country is willing and able to deliver on them. Otherwise, miscalculations will occur or bluffs will be called bringing about the kind of situation that the threats are supposed to prevent.

    Iran has continued to use the negotiating process to buy time. The U.S. and its partners need to be wary of situations where Iran offers to engage in new talks (without any real prospect of meaningful concessions) or, perhaps later, offers cosmetic concessions to create perceptions of progress when, in fact, Iran is seeking to run out the clock.

  3. #73
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,290

    Re: Iranian ministry suggests openness to nuclear talks

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    For threats to be credible, the country making those threats has to be willing and able to deliver on those threats and the country receiving them must know that the country is willing and able to deliver on them. Otherwise, miscalculations will occur or bluffs will be called bringing about the kind of situation that the threats are supposed to prevent.

    Iran has continued to use the negotiating process to buy time. The U.S. and its partners need to be wary of situations where Iran offers to engage in new talks (without any real prospect of meaningful concessions) or, perhaps later, offers cosmetic concessions to create perceptions of progress when, in fact, Iran is seeking to run out the clock.
    Who gives a rat's ass if Iran has "nukes?" The worthless, backstabbin', lyin', lowlife Pakistanis have nukes and you are worried about Iran? Get a grip!

  4. #74
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Iranian ministry suggests openness to nuclear talks

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    I think this is another delay tactic.
    You mean like the dozens of others?

  5. #75
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Iranian ministry suggests openness to nuclear talks

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Who gives a rat's ass if Iran has "nukes?" The worthless, backstabbin', lyin', lowlife Pakistanis have nukes and you are worried about Iran? Get a grip!
    Isn't is possible to be worried about both worthless, backstabbin', lyin', lowlifes?

  6. #76
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,290

    Re: Iranian ministry suggests openness to nuclear talks

    [QUOTE=Grant;1061175173]Isn't is possible to be worried about both worthless, backstabbin', lyin', lowlifes?[/QUOTE}



    That's a considerable contradiction. We give billions of dollars to Pakistan. We pretend they are our old pals. We don't threaten Pakistan. Perhaps y'all might feel sumpin' slippin', eh?

  7. #77
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Iranian ministry suggests openness to nuclear talks

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    A country run by people not business. If you don't think our economy runs on war, then explain why our military budger is around $700 billion per year. We don't have any real threats out there. Not for 20 years.

    No, no, don't get me wrong. There is a military industry in this country, and needs to be. But not because we are necessarily a waring nation, or as many liberals like to label it imperialist, but rather because as the strongest military on earth, we have responsibilities, that as a moral nation in that position must not be ignored, or minimized. The vacuum created in the event that the US scales back in its protection of weaker nations is not a world that I'd want to see.

    I also get frustrated with the way our aid, and protection is perceived as well, but if you just say 'that's it, we're out!' Who will fill that vacuum? China? Russia?....More people would die, and more people would be subject to dictatorial rule in the world. Plus, we would be more vulnerable.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  8. #78
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,290

    Re: Iranian ministry suggests openness to nuclear talks

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    No, no, don't get me wrong. There is a military industry in this country, and needs to be. But not because we are necessarily a waring nation, or as many liberals like to label it imperialist, but rather because as the strongest military on earth, we have responsibilities, that as a moral nation in that position must not be ignored, or minimized. The vacuum created in the event that the US scales back in its protection of weaker nations is not a world that I'd want to see.

    I also get frustrated with the way our aid, and protection is perceived as well, but if you just say 'that's it, we're out!' Who will fill that vacuum? China? Russia?....More people would die, and more people would be subject to dictatorial rule in the world. Plus, we would be more vulnerable.
    We have troops in over 140 Nations. That is pretty easy to interpret and make a solid case for "Imperialism." Usually for some resource needed for our Corporations. There iswas nothing moral about the Iraq War. Nor Vietnam. Nor Libya. Nor Grenada. Nor Panama. Just to list a few.

  9. #79
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: Iranian ministry suggests openness to nuclear talks

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Who gives a rat's ass if Iran has "nukes?" The worthless, backstabbin', lyin', lowlife Pakistanis have nukes and you are worried about Iran? Get a grip!
    The U.S., U.S. allies, many of Iran's neighbors, and oil importers who purchase crude oil from the region. A nuclear-armed Iran would have the possibility of gaining regional hegemony and could leverage that position to block the vital Strait of Hormuz, among other things. Regional dominance could also embolden the Iranian regime to expand its efforts to spread its revolutionary ideology and strengthen the non-state actors it sponsors i.e., Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. A nuclear arms race could ensue.

    Pakistan is an unstable state. It is no longer a reliable international player. It is not, however, focused on spreading revolutionary ideology or gaining regional dominance. The latter is not possible given India's superior power. Risks are currently associated with its continuing slide toward failed state status, but that's one of a number of possible outcomes.

  10. #80
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,290

    Re: Iranian ministry suggests openness to nuclear talks

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    The U.S., U.S. allies, many of Iran's neighbors, and oil importers who purchase crude oil from the region. A nuclear-armed Iran would have the possibility of gaining regional hegemony and could leverage that position to block the vital Strait of Hormuz, among other things. Regional dominance could also embolden the Iranian regime to expand its efforts to spread its revolutionary ideology and strengthen the non-state actors it sponsors i.e., Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. A nuclear arms race could ensue.

    Pakistan is an unstable state. It is no longer a reliable international player. It is not, however, focused on spreading revolutionary ideology or gaining regional dominance. The latter is not possible given India's superior power. Risks are currently associated with its continuing slide toward failed state status, but that's one of a number of possible outcomes.

    Your reply makes it clear that Iran is about OIL. Thank you. I don't think that is what you intended. Does that mean you can see that the USA has a hugely flawed energy policy? We have to stop defending and reinforcing the Centralized Distribution of Energy monopoly and turn to common sense and reason. THat would be wind and solar. LOCALLY. I'm not sure Hezbollah and Hamas are any worse than our CIA. Libya. Color revolutions? Wherefore art thou, CIA?

Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •