• 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!

Iranian official on nuke deal: 'We did not agree to dismantle anything'

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wasn't it you who time traveled back to settlers of this nation, and the early US to highlight our own illegitimacy as a nation? I see, only you can do that right?



No one is warmongering...It would be nice though if we didn't just drop our pants and lay prostrate in hopes that our enemies will somehow like us...Your contempt of your own nation noted.

No, that was just to demonstrate that it permeates our entire history and founding. And diplomacy, and suing for peace is not dropping ones drawers. Inexperience with compromise and negotiation, inferior intelligence and greed and selfishness drive people to hostilities. Peace is Nobel, you may mock it all you like, but just make sure its you and your kids leading the charge of the next country you'd like to launch a pre-emptive strike on because if not, they MIGHT do something to us. And, my contempt is for war, not my country. But nice try.
 
If in the pursuance of their interests innocent civilians get killed and YOU wish to define that as murder, then when the US kills innocent civilians in pursuant of our interests, it too must be murder. The point being apdst, the label you attach to the death is meaningless to the Iraqi, Pakistani, Afghani, Yemeni civilians dying by US aggressions in their neighbourhoods. It's murder when they do it and its always foreign policy when we do it.

That's collateral damage. Not murder. The US never took 53 people hostage and held them for 444 days, like the Iranians.

Why you would trash your own country and defend a terrorist state is beyond me.
 
That's collateral damage. Not murder. The US never took 53 people hostage and held them for 444 days, like the Iranians.

Why you would trash your own country and defend a terrorist state is beyond me.

Why you would dismiss the senseless killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians as collateral damage, is what's beyond reason. It shows your lack of respect for human life. We blow children up and eh, it's just collateral damage, anybody else does it and its murder. Dear lord, there is no help.
 
Do you even have a clue what was agreed on? (yeah, that is kind of a problem for everyone. Nobody seems to know the details....)

No, I don't what was agreed upon...I guess it's a big secret since even the people who made the agreement don't seem to know what was agreed upon! For something as important as this could be, you'd think they'd be shouting it from the rooftops! It's a shame we have to read foreign newspapers to learn what's going on in our own country, though! Perhaps if the MSM would stop the daily character assassinations they seem to be so fond of covering, and instead concentrated on giving us the news that affects us all, we'd all be better informed! :2mad:

Greetings, Cole. :2wave:
 
But the Gallop poll is specific to who the world views as the greatest threat to world peace. The poll understands Iran can't threaten the peace of the whole world, but the US can and does.

You have either misread my point or ignored it.
 
No, that was just to demonstrate that it permeates our entire history and founding. And diplomacy, and suing for peace is not dropping ones drawers. Inexperience with compromise and negotiation, inferior intelligence and greed and selfishness drive people to hostilities. Peace is Nobel, you may mock it all you like, but just make sure its you and your kids leading the charge of the next country you'd like to launch a pre-emptive strike on because if not, they MIGHT do something to us. And, my contempt is for war, not my country. But nice try.

I see a little backpedaling from you there...But, I will say that I served my country for peace, so I don't need some snot nosed kid telling me how I should think because he thinks that his liberal college professors have the answers...What have you done? Have you traveled to another land in service of peace? Have you done anything larger than your selfish, feel good bloviating, and regurgitation of borderline communist punk professors that also dodged their own commitments to this nation, and you look to as hero figures...Peace is noble, and to stand in uniform protecting that hope, or even fighting to ensure that a future peace can be achieved is of the most noble of endeavors. You don't understand that because your mind has been polluted to see those in uniform as tools of war, and I see them as necessary tools for peace.

I don't want to strike Iran, however, I will not just give into their desires in order to avoid any conflict either...It is akin to giving the bully your lunch money not to beat you up...Your words do show a contempt for the US, as well as a propensity to blame the US for the ills of the world...Maybe it is you that should step back and check yourself, but that comes with time, age, and wisdom....We will see.
 
That's collateral damage. Not murder. The US never took 53 people hostage and held them for 444 days, like the Iranians.

Why you would trash your own country and defend a terrorist state is beyond me.

Why you would defend the killing of innocent people is beyond me.
 
Those attitudes had started changing before the coup. The coup empowered and legitimized those radicals.

Again, false. But funny to see you change your argument all the same. The people supported the Shah, not Khomeini. What "legitimized" Khomeini in the eyes of his followers was the Qur'an and Islam. Khomeini and his followers saw granting legal rights to women and non-Muslims to be a threat to Islam. If the coup was the catalyst then why not go back to the Soviet backed coup of 1921? Or the 1905 Constitutional revolution? You conveniently pick the US as the bad guy and ignore history.


The coup was a UK\USA venture triggered because the Mohammad Mosaddegh was planning to nationalize their oil industry, and vague fears of Communist influence. That Iranian monster had to be stopped!

You don't seem to know your Iranian history all that well. It would make sense that you choose to place the blame for Iran's current state on the US given that you don't seem to know anything about the country before the 1950s. There wasn't anything vague about the Communist influence. Reza Shah Pahlavi (Reza Khan) took the Iranian throne and crushed the Qajar dynasty in 1921 commanding an army of Soviet Cossacks. The Soviets had previously taken large swaths of former Persia from the Qajar dynasty and created the Persian Soviet Socialist Republic, from which Reza Khan launched his 1921 coup.

"Vague Communist Influence"? :roll:

If we had left well enough alone in the '50s, they may well have placed those reform on their own by now.

Hah! If they hadn't been so quick they'd be done by now?

The West created the situation we face today.

False, again. Your evaluation is myopic and stinks of bias. You simply WANT your explanation to be true so you ignore everything that came for 1950.


You should probably read the links you post.

Pay close attention to how Mosaddegh handled the constitutional dispute between him and the Shah over cabinet appointments:

"On 16 July 1952, during the royal approval of his new cabinet, Mosaddegh insisted on the constitutional prerogative of the Prime Minister to name a Minister of War and the Chief of Staff, something the Shah had done up to that point. The Shah refused, and Mosaddegh announced his resignation appealing directly to the public for support, pronouncing that "in the present situation, the struggle started by the Iranian people cannot be brought to a victorious conclusion".[37]

Veteran politician Ahmad Qavam (also known as Ghavam os-Saltaneh) was appointed as Iran's new Prime Minister. On the day of his appointment, he announced his intention to resume negotiations with the British to end the oil dispute, a reversal of Mosaddegh's policy. The National Front — along with various Nationalist, Islamist, and socialist parties and groups[38] — including Tudeh — responded by calling for protests, strikes and mass demonstrations in favor of Mosaddegh. Major strikes broke out in all of Iran's major towns, with the Bazaar closing down in Tehran. Over 250 demonstrators in Tehran, Hamadan, Ahvaz, Isfahan, and Kermanshah were killed or suffered serious injuries.[39]"

So when Mosaddegh didn't get everything he wanted, he called on his communist, nationalist and Islamist thugs to crack heads until the Shah agreed to his terms.

Tell me again how he was going to modernize the Iranian culture? He was the maniac who introduced the Islamists to strong arm politics in Iran in the first place! In the end Mosaddegh was ultimately responsible for the rise of militant political Islamists in Iran because he made the same mistake that every utopian socialist idealist makes with Islamists... he thought he could control it and harness the militant fervor for his own uses. He was not going to be able to put that jinni back in the bottle, and he would never control it.
 
Last edited:
If managing to avoid another war (even if temporarily) is screwing "us" again, I suppose. But I would imagine that at best it hurts the MIC of war profiteers. And maybe pisses off bored soldiers and hawks, but that's about it.

Nope. not what I mean, but good try to make the idiot look brilliant!
 
I see a little backpedaling from you there...But, I will say that I served my country for peace, so I don't need some snot nosed kid telling me how I should think because he thinks that his liberal college professors have the answers...What have you done? Have you traveled to another land in service of peace? Have you done anything larger than your selfish, feel good bloviating, and regurgitation of borderline communist punk professors that also dodged their own commitments to this nation, and you look to as hero figures...Peace is noble, and to stand in uniform protecting that hope, or even fighting to ensure that a future peace can be achieved is of the most noble of endeavors. You don't understand that because your mind has been polluted to see those in uniform as tools of war, and I see them as necessary tools for peace.

I don't want to strike Iran, however, I will not just give into their desires in order to avoid any conflict either...It is akin to giving the bully your lunch money not to beat you up...Your words do show a contempt for the US, as well as a propensity to blame the US for the ills of the world...Maybe it is you that should step back and check yourself, but that comes with time, age, and wisdom....We will see.

Still trying to paint peace activists as communists. And diplomacy doesn't mean capitulation except from the person that wants his position, ONLY. When those people have the power to press for, their position only, all other participants suffer. The thing that scares guys like you about a balance of power is the thing that others appreciate about it.

Wait!!! In last weeks Gallop poll, the world finds the US to be the biggest threat to world peace, and YOU liken Iran to a bully. How do such notions even materialise in your mind. I mean this level of self deceit and denial is prolific in these halls. God damn it, is there ever going to be an end to aggression.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't it you who time traveled back to settlers of this nation, and the early US to highlight our own illegitimacy as a nation? I see, only you can do that right?



No one is warmongering...It would be nice though if we didn't just drop our pants and lay prostrate in hopes that our enemies will somehow like us...Your contempt of your own nation noted.

Oh, the America hating left is out today! The bias is horrible.
 
Still trying to paint peace activists as communists. And diplomacy doesn't mean capitulation except from the person that wants his position, ONLY. When those people have the power to press for, their position only, all other participants suffer. The thing that scares guys like you about a balance of power is the thing that others appreciate about it.

Wait!!! In last weeks Gallop poll, the world finds the US to be the biggest threat to world peace, and YOU liken Iran to a bully. How do such notions even materialise in your mind. I mean this level of self deceit and denial is prolific in these halls. God damn it, is there ever going to be an end to aggression.

Oh really? Does that same gallup poll say what the world thinks of Iran getting a nuke? Does that poll say anything to the droves of mistreated women in the ME that you dishonestly ignore while tearing down your own country? Like I said, those who see utopia around the corner if the world would just think like them, are delusional. Utopia is a pipe dream, and this ain't star trek kiddo....Learn something.
 
Again, false. But funny to see you change your argument all the same. The people supported the Shah, not Khomeini. What "legitimized" Khomeini in the eyes of his followers was the Qur'an and Islam. Khomeini and his followers saw granting legal rights to women and non-Muslims to be a threat to Islam. If the coup was the catalyst then why not go back to the Soviet backed coup of 1921? Or the 1905 Constitutional revolution? You conveniently pick the US as the bad guy and ignore history.

So you believe the UK\USA coup was good for Iran, and didn't serve to drive support towards the resistance to that coup? Khomeini was going to have support no matter what, but a coup from the outside could only serve to drive more support his way, by demonstrating that the the outside influences were negative.


Hah! If they hadn't been so quick they'd be done by now?

If the West hadn't interfered, they may have been able to make their own decisions. Mohammad Mosaddegh was no wild-eyed religious nut. Iran may have ended up in the same place, but they wouldn't have a legitimate reason to blame anyone but themselves.


Tell me again how he was going to modernize the Iranian culture? He was the maniac who introduced the Islamists to strong arm politics in Iran in the first place! In the end Mosaddegh was ultimately responsible for the rise of militant political Islamists in Iran because he made the same mistake that every utopian socialist idealist makes with Islamists... he thought he could control it and harness the militant fervor for his own uses. He was not going to be able to put that jinni back in the bottle, and he would never control it.

I'm interesting in how (or whether) you believe the UK\US coup was justified in the '50s.
 
Iran on nuke deal: 'We did not agree to dismantle anything' - CNN.com


Israel was right. It looks like force is the only thing these ****ers respect. I predict there's going to be a war eventually. Obama either lied to us, or is a fool.


Obama fed us a bunch of hooey.


This should come as no surprise to even the most casual followers of the rules of diplomacy. What Obama has fallen for here was wholly avoidable if he had ever learned to keep his fool mouth shut. It's a classic blunder that is as old as time. The rule is simple "Never mention what you conceded publicly until it's in writing" done. That is it. Once you admit your concessions openly you have destroyed any chance of a deal getting done.

Here is how the Iranians have played this:

1) Agree in principle to a compromise in which you will concede A, B and C while they will concede X, Y and Z
2) Go back to your country and tell everyone that you got your opponent to concede X, Y and Z
3) The egotistical Idealist invariably will return home and tell everyone that they got concessions on A, B and C and all it cost was X, Y and Z.
4) Let this story percolate for a while, let your opponent bask in the accolades of their wonderful compromise.
5) Now that your opponent is fully invested in the compromise publicly announce that there was some mistake. You never actually conceded A, B and C. All you agreed to was the concession of X, Y and Z.

At this point the only negotiation that both sides have agreed to publicly is that your opponent will concede X, Y and Z. Your opponent, on the other hand, now has the choice of either conceding X, Y and Z and calling it a day, or admitting that maybe they aren't as great at negotiating as they have been promoted to be, and scrap the very compromise they were praised for just weeks ago.

(Hint: Politicians never chooses the second option.)

What makes this sort of funny -- if it weren't so serious -- is that this is how Obama negotiates with Republican leadership all the time. Essentially the Iranians just Boehner-ed Obama.
 
Oh, the America hating left is out today! The bias is horrible.

It's only ok to criticize the actions of America if you are a republican.
 
It's only ok to criticize the actions of America if you are a republican.

Nope, you are free to criticize anything, or anyone you want...But realize that people will call it what it is comes with the territory.
 
You can't prevent any group (terrorist group) like Hezbollah from getting nuclear material. You can literally bomb Iran into glass and it won't chance the risk Israel still has.

Iran would probably give Hezbollah nukes, but only discreetly, and w/the understanding that they're never to be used, except to defend Lebanon from another invasion.
 
Lemme splain...

The bolded part is embarrassingly ironic.

The spelling fails are just plain embarrassing. Especially when going for the condescending tone. :shock:



LOL !! No, what's EMBARRASSING is your misuse of the word "IRONIC" to describe my "embarrassing" comment.

Irony - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

iro·ny
:the use of words that mean the opposite of what you really think especially in order to be funny..

I was NOT using a opposing metaphor to describe the typical leftist drek I see on this Forum daily. In fact I was pretty direct, therefore my comment was NOT " IRONIC".

You need to understand that not every paradox, coincidence, curiosity and/or oddity qualifies as "ironic"

Honestly, if your'e going to make stuff up why come here ?
 
Believe that statement is a little naive. If Iran has nuclear capability Israel certainly has reason to be concerned. Muslim extremists aren't known for rational thought. And there are "means of delivery" for a bomb that would not need to come from Iranian airspace...

Iran's leaders may not be nice but they're certainly rational--they tricked President dodo head into attacking Iraq, and as a result, got a whole new Shiite nation under their sphere of influence.
 
Iran would probably give Hezbollah nukes, but only discreetly, and w/the understanding that they're never to be used, except to defend Lebanon from another invasion.

Invasion by whom?...
 
If Israel starts a war with Iran, the USA should stay out of it.

I'm not sure anyone could stay out of that one. That would probably be WWIII.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom