Page 12 of 43 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 428

Thread: Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise

  1. #111
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    The Shia!


    US should stop Syria not ISIS: Saudi prince.....

    U.S. policymakers should concentrate on eliminating the threat posed by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad instead of Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria, according to an influential member of the Saudi Arabian royal family.



    Prince Turki bin Faisal Al Saud told CNBC at the World Economic Forum in Davos that the reason why Islamic State exists is because of what's happening in Syria and has called on U.S. authorities including the government, the Central Intelligence Agency and the military to act. "They are all aware of what needs to be done," he said. "It needs the political will.".....snip~

    US should stop Syria not ISIS: Saudi Prince.
    The SP is wrong.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  2. #112
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    Oh for }#%^'s sake Iran is the enemy? Iran?

    Given the fact ISIS is mostly Sunni, why should we we help the Sunni engage in their petty sectarian war with the Shia?


    Well I don't think we should be helping the Sunni nor the Shia. Besides BO's own people have said the deal was 50/50 at best.



    Iran's parliament has started to draft a law that would allow the country's nuclear scientists to intensify their uranium enrichment, a step that could complicate ongoing talks with world powers. The move, announced Saturday by parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, comes after U.S. lawmakers said they were planning legislation that could place new sanctions on Iran. "This bill will allow the government to continue enrichment, using new generation centrifuges," he said, referring to more modern machines that would speed up production.

    US President Barack Obama has said he will veto any move to adopt new sanctions but a White House spokesman said Friday the "likelihood of success" in the nuclear talks is "at best 50/50."....snip~

    Iran Lawmakers Drafting Law on Nuclear Enrichment Hike


    The Saud tend to panic when they get surrounded by Shia.....which as you know they were behind the BS in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, and Bahrain, anyways.



  3. #113
    cynical class clown
    Luftwaffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    CONNECTICUT
    Last Seen
    11-18-17 @ 10:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    10,499

    Re: Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    You assume Iran is governed by rationale people.
    They're rational.

    Iran is like a little dog. **** loads of barking but no bite, and when you step in front of them they whimper.
    -----MOS 19D = cavalry scout = best damn MOS there is

  4. #114
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    No nation ever posed a direct significant threat to the US until they developed significant intercontinental ballistic missile capability. Believing that we should watch them enrich uranium for nuclear power and they will never construct weapons capable of turning Israel to glass or eventually go long range is the kind of short sighted and pro muslim thinking that I'd expect from the Obama administration. This is the way forward to mutually assured destruction.
    The problem is that Iran knows how to do the things that you have mentioned, and that you cannot change. There are three significant hurdles that a nation must cross before it can deploy nuclear weapons. One is that it must figure out EXACTLY how to enrich uranium. The next is actually obtaining a sufficient amount of U-235 to make a bomb. The next is figuring out the EXACT method for triggering the release of neutrons at precisely the EXACT moment that a critical mass of uranium is assembled. The first two are certainly the most daunting of the three and Iran knows exactly how to do that and that you cannot change. The third item, while difficult is something that can be done undetected relatively easy and is something someone who is expert at the detonation of explosive devices, along with competent engineers and physicists could accomplish. Therefore the only realistic long term solution is one that attempts to insure that Iran finds it unnecessary to build a bomb and to strictly monitor it's enrichment activities. Otherwise, it is not possible to do it, long term, through military means.

  5. #115
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by RDS View Post
    Iran should move ahead with their nuclear plans. US sanctions did not work out. Why go for Iran and close one eye with Pakistan which is a terrorist hub.
    There is nothing that can be done about Pakistan. We had a chance to build decent relations with them, but unfortunately it did not work out. The two partners are simply to incompatible at the present.

  6. #116
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,351

    Re: Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Lol. Iran has supplied Hamas and Hezbollah with weapons to do just that?? That's funny. Every time either of them get into it with Israel, Israel crushes them, and their families until mounting international pressure forces the parties to sue for peace. I don't understand your claim of my affiliation with any "ilk", but speaking for myself as always, I haven't any concerns about Iran and nukes. I wasn't concerned about Iraq and nukes when BushCo, was scarring old ladies and children with tales of mushroom clouds over US cities. Your contrived fears of Iran to justify, god only knows, what kind of preemptive actions makes you as problematic as those your demonising in Iran.
    I understand your disappointment that the new anti- missile weapons Israel created did not get you the result you desired. I guess you want people on this site to believe that Iran sends missiles to Hamas and Hezbollah knowing that they will not destroy Israeli towns and cities. Sorry your fantasy on a second holocaust has not yet been fulfilled.

    I have never called for a preemptive strike against Iran, another lie you and your ilk like to toss about. I would have kept the sanctions that were working and by now, since we did not get agreement in the 12 months as first proposed tightened them. This would do the opposite of what Obama, you and your ilk say. It would have a decent chance of getting Iran to relent in their pursuit of the bomb.

  7. #117
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Last Seen
    02-08-17 @ 04:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,639

    Re: Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by washunut View Post
    I understand your disappointment that the new anti- missile weapons Israel created did not get you the result you desired. I guess you want people on this site to believe that Iran sends missiles to Hamas and Hezbollah knowing that they will not destroy Israeli towns and cities. Sorry your fantasy on a second holocaust has not yet been fulfilled.

    I have never called for a preemptive strike against Iran, another lie you and your ilk like to toss about. I would have kept the sanctions that were working and by now, since we did not get agreement in the 12 months as first proposed tightened them. This would do the opposite of what Obama, you and your ilk say. It would have a decent chance of getting Iran to relent in their pursuit of the bomb.
    Lol. Past sanctions really stopped em...

  8. #118
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise

    I see the spirit of Neville Chamberlain is alive and well. Khamenei is a damned murdering, degenerate son of a whore, as are the rest of the pack of boy-buggering jihadist curs that have been oppressing Iran for the past thirty-five years. Since they are the enemies of the United States--they have sponsored terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of American civilians and servicemen--it's predictable that people who choose to take up space in the U.S. while running it down at every opportunity would come to their defense.

    The U.S. could and should have, quite a few years ago, issued an ultimatum to Iran to dismantle its nuclear weapons facilities completely and permanently and allow international inspections to verify compliance, or be blockaded. Other oil exporters would have increased production to make up any shortfall, and Iran would have been helpless to lift a blockade. The resulting economic damage and loss of prestige might well have been fatal to the Khomeinist regime. And it could have been warned that the blockade was only a first step--that the U.S. would respond to any attempt at retaliation by destroying all of Iran's nuclear weapons facilities from the air.

    Anyone who imagines a nuclear-armed Iran would not be a threat to the U.S. either is being willfully blind or has not thought very much about the matter. The Tehran regime has openly declared its intent to attack Israel when it gets nuclear weapons, even though it knows that because Israel has a hundred or more of them itself, that would mean the end of Iran. Why would fanatics like that hesitate to attack this country, particularly if they thought they could hide their part in an attack? A crew of Hizballah suicides could sail into a port city here some night in one of the nondescript thousands of cargo ships that are sea at any given time, with a bomb somewhere in its hold--and before anyone had any idea who they were, blow up the ship in the harbor, taking themselves and a good part of the city with it. There would be no evidence left to point to any nation's involvement.

  9. #119
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by washunut View Post
    I understand your disappointment that the new anti- missile weapons Israel created did not get you the result you desired. I guess you want people on this site to believe that Iran sends missiles to Hamas and Hezbollah knowing that they will not destroy Israeli towns and cities. Sorry your fantasy on a second holocaust has not yet been fulfilled.

    I have never called for a preemptive strike against Iran, another lie you and your ilk like to toss about. I would have kept the sanctions that were working and by now, since we did not get agreement in the 12 months as first proposed tightened them. This would do the opposite of what Obama, you and your ilk say. It would have a decent chance of getting Iran to relent in their pursuit of the bomb.
    I'm the one that promotes peaceful solutions to grievances, not war. I'm not interested in any people's dying because of war. You cannot find me promoting any wars or military actions beyond truly defensiveness. You claimed that Iran was supplying Hezbollah and Hamas with weapons in order to help them realise their ambition to wipe Israel off the map. That is patently false. That would take nuclear weapons, and guess what would happen to the WB and Gaza Strip if that were to take place? Your thought process is hilarious. I suppose you think your cute accusing me of hoping for another Jewish Holocaust, but its ineffective debating.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  10. #120
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,351

    Re: Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by SlevinKelevra View Post
    Lol. Past sanctions really stopped em...
    It brought them to the negotiating table. I think they have since come to the conclusion that Obama could care less if they get the bomb. Now they just have to get the P5 to relent.

Page 12 of 43 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... 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
  •