• 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!

Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise

Montecresto said:
Well, we're all familiar with presidential incompetency.

"Katrina to me was the tipping point," said Matthew Dowd, the president's pollster and chief strategist in his 2004 reelection.

"Politically, it was the final nail in the coffin," added Dan Bartlett, former White House counselor and longtime aide to Bush.
Click to expand...


Not much the US has any blame with this sectarian conflict.....that always switches back and forth and always spills over the borders and outside their region. Wherein it alwys becomes someone else's problem.



The final and most important category of recruit is often under-appreciated by the West -- those drawn by the group's political ideology. Many Sunni Muslims in the region feel threatened by Shias led by a resurgent Iran. "Across the region, Shias are confident, bold and on the rise, while Sunnis feel insecure and persecuted," said Hassan.

"Many disagree with ISIS on ethical grounds but they see them as the only group capable of protecting them." ....snip~
 
countryboy said:
Naivety, the liberal's stock in trade. :roll:
Click to expand...

Note that the OP opens with Iran is not a nuclear threat to the US...

Not a mention of Israel, Turkey a NATO partner, Saudi Arabia with all that oil, nor any other country within a small missile trajectory, and that to socialists means A-OK let em have nukes.

Let's see that would make two Nuke ready Islamic states...Pakistan who has vowed to wipe India off the map and Iran, who has vowed to wipe Israel, Canada and "the great Satan" off the map.

Go Obama...we need a nuke war to achieve income equality
 
MMC said:
Not much the US has any blame with this sectarian conflict.....that always switches back and forth and always spills over the borders and outside their region. Wherein it alwys becomes someone else's problem.



The final and most important category of recruit is often under-appreciated by the West -- those drawn by the group's political ideology. Many Sunni Muslims in the region feel threatened by Shias led by a resurgent Iran. "Across the region, Shias are confident, bold and on the rise, while Sunnis feel insecure and persecuted," said Hassan.

"Many disagree with ISIS on ethical grounds but they see them as the only group capable of protecting them." ....snip~
Click to expand...

Ok, I get that, and can see it readily. Iran, a big beneficiary of Bush's deceptive war in Iraq, what else?
 
MAD has never been breached. Seems we're ever ready to consider resolution without war/hostilities failure, and war success.
 
This is great news. This just reinforces many of the past statements made by the Ayatollah's statements that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear bomb.
 
Montecresto said:
That would be an Obama foreign policy success. Had John McCain won in 2008, we'd have long ago bomb bomb bomb, bomb bombed Iran, with the applause and support of the fringe right that lurks about this place.
Click to expand...

It would only be a success if The United States got some benefit from it. Otherwise, it would be no different than Chamberlain's Munich Agreement.
 
apdst said:
It would only be a success if The United States got some benefit from it. Otherwise, it would be no different than Chamberlain's Munich Agreement.
Click to expand...

How is it that the US isn't benefited by a non weapon nuclear program in Iran?
 
MildSteel said:
Agreed. It is in the interests to do so, and would likely contribute to a more stable Middle East.
Click to expand...

Bombing, a well-known method of enhancing regional stability.
 
Deuce said:
Bombing, a well-known method of enhancing regional stability.
Click to expand...

The problem is, as has already been realized by the knowledgeable, you cannot bomb knowledge. Again, one must look properly at the board.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Always Bush


Yeah, you're non partisan.

How did Bush affect the building of nuclear weapons in Iran exactly?
Click to expand...

Always Bush huh. You're intentionally ignoring the 7 highly critical posts I have up on Obama in the last hour in four different threads, or perhaps you haven't seen them.
 
Montecresto said:
Ok, I get that, and can see it readily. Iran, a big beneficiary of Bush's deceptive war in Iraq, what else?
Click to expand...

Try looking again.....as it goes way back before Bush Jr or any Republicans were around.


The Gulf-Gulf conversation about the challenges posed by the Islamic State (IS/ISIS) and the alliances that will be forged to destroy it indicates that a striking disparity exists between the positions of official leaderships and the sentiment of the grassroots. There is a sense of schizophrenia surrounding what the Gulf parties want from the United States, as they quarrel over what Washington wants from them. What is remarkable -- and certainly healthy -- is the sudden candor in expressing radical differences, for example between the fact that Gulf governments have characterized the ISIS threat as an "existential" one, and the fact that a large segment of the public sympathizes with ISIS and its motives, and sees it as something necessary in the balance of power and the balance of terror. A segment in the Gulf says that Islam is innocent of ISIS and that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam. Another segment sees it as the pure Islam that spoke about Christians in the language of "convert or be killed or exiled." Therefore, this segment of society in the Gulf does not perceive ISIS and its practices from the standpoint of terrorism -- and this is more common in Saudi society relative to other Gulf societies.

Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz made it clear that the priority should be to fight terrorism, whether it is practiced by ISIS or by similar organizations. On the other hand, there is a significant segment of Saudi society -- including within institutions -- that deny the charge of terrorism from ISIS and sees the latter as a necessary instrument to confront the Islamic Republic of Iran and its regional ambitions, especially in the war in Syria, and as a way to avenge the Sunnis in Iraq who have been marginalized by the Shiites. This race between these two principles and two paths is directly impacting President Barack Obama's assessment of and objectives behind his declared war on ISIS, amid a lack of confidence in Obama and ongoing doubt in whether he is serious this time or whether he is going to back track again.....snip~

The Gulf: ISIS in Return for Iran! | Raghida Dergham
 
Fearandloathing said:
Always Bush


Yeah, you're non partisan.

How did Bush affect the building of nuclear weapons in Iran exactly?
Click to expand...
Started from the Iraq -Iran war- when Saddam was a friend and received enormous support - then he later turned out not to be- then Gulf War 2- then Libya which gave up all nuke tech- then the Govt changed.
Do you think Iran cannot build a bomb if they want to?
 
It will simply not be possible to contain Iran's nuclear program long term by military means. If we think we can bomb it over a relative infinite period of time that will not work. That would put us in an infinite war with Muslim countries and at some point will come to a head in a very gruesome catastrophe. Not only that but it will not to be possible to occupy Iran for an infinite period of time because that is against international law. Now one could say, international law is meaningless, but then we would be making the statement that it is alright for countries to take other countries by force, if they can get away with it. And we could go there also, but then when a country such as Russia or China starts doing it, we will have to live with the consequences because they can say we are simply doing as you have done. And then we would be in a position where we could do nothing realistically about it short of direct wars with nations that have the capability to destroy the U.S. And we could go there, if we want, and there might be certain instances where that indeed would have merit. But I think is wise that we not go there in the first place, if possible. That would be my preference.

If we take over Iran for a short period of time, they will simply restart at some point after we leave.

So the only solution is to closely monitor their nuclear program and create the conditions such that they don't feel the need to have nuclear weapons while at the same time being ready to impose harsh conditions on Iran if it tries to develop them. There is no other realistic way.
 
Montecresto said:
Iran has maintained from jump street that their nuclear program is commercial and not military in nature.
Click to expand...

Yes, and their threats to annihilate Israel are just for fun right?
 
Fearandloathing said:
Always Bush


Yeah, you're non partisan.

How did Bush affect the building of nuclear weapons in Iran exactly?
Click to expand...

Let me give you some examples of criticism of Obama policies and his supporters of such:

1. Support of the MB in Egypt

2. Abuse of the UN resolution in Libya and his use of AQ to help topple Gaddafi.

3 Obama's covert arming of terrorist groups in Syria, using the Benghazi annex to smuggle weapons confiscated from Gaddafi's army thru Turkey.

4. Obama's failure to confront Saudi Arabia for crushing the same type protests in Bahrain, that he was supporting in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Syria.

5. Obama's interference in the Maiden Square events and immediately prior to them in the fall of 2013.

6. Obama's provocations to Russia for doing things not unlike what he and former US presidents have done.

7. Obama's, Bush on steroids, predator drone program.

8. His failure to regulate banks.

9. His working with education reformers that are privatisers.

10. Obama's call to ramp up our already pervasive surveillance state.

11. His failure to be his promised most transparent presidency. (And perhaps the least)

12. Obama's attempt to ram through the, only good for corporations, TPP.

13. Obama's counter productive energy policy.

14. Obama's huge expansion of the number of countries in which we are fighting covert wars with special ops.

And don't consider this an exhaustive list.

You really should stop with your repeated attempts to label me a partisan. I have proven my willingness to call out presidential wrong doing by any president, regardless of his party affiliation. Why don't you do a little of that??
 
Montecresto said:
Probably not for fun, but an impossibility. So no worries mate.
Click to expand...

An impossibility? That's quite the blase view you have. Do you reside on planet earth? Evil people do bad things and Iran, is ruled by evil people that do bad things.

Iran supreme leader touts 9-point plan to destroy Israel | The Times of Israel

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called over the weekend for the destruction of Israel, stating that the “barbaric” Jewish state “has no cure but to be annihilated.”

Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email
and never miss our top stories FREE SIGN UP!

A plan titled “9 key questions about the elimination of Israel” was posted on his Twitter account Saturday night, using the hashtag #handsoffalaqsa, in reference to the recent tensions on the Temple Mount.

Read more: Iran supreme leader touts 9-point plan to destroy Israel | The Times of Israel Iran supreme leader touts 9-point plan to destroy Israel | The Times of Israel
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook
Click to expand...
 
Montecresto said:
Let me give you some examples of criticism of Obama policies and his supporters of such:

1. Support of the MB in Egypt

2. Abuse of the UN resolution in Libya and his use of AQ to help topple Gaddafi.

3 Obama's covert arming of terrorist groups in Syria, using the Benghazi annex to smuggle weapons confiscated from Gaddafi's army thru Turkey.

4. Obama's failure to confront Saudi Arabia for crushing the same type protests in Bahrain, that he was supporting in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Syria.

5. Obama's interference in the Maiden Square events and immediately prior to them in the fall of 2013.

6. Obama's provocations to Russia for doing things not unlike what he and former US presidents have done.

7. Obama's, Bush on steroids, predator drone program.

8. His failure to regulate banks.

9. His working with education reformers that are privatisers.

10. Obama's call to ramp up our already pervasive surveillance state.

11. His failure to be his promised most transparent presidency. (And perhaps the least)

12. Obama's attempt to ram through the, only good for corporations, TPP.

13. Obama's counter productive energy policy.

14. Obama's huge expansion of the number of countries in which we are fighting covert wars with special ops.

And don't consider this an exhaustive list.

You really should stop with your repeated attempts to label me a partisan. I have proven my willingness to call out presidential wrong doing by any president, regardless of his party affiliation. Why don't you do a little of that??
Click to expand...

WOW! That is a long list!!! No wonder MMC calls him BO peep!!!! :lamo
 
MMC said:
Try looking again.....as it goes way back before Bush Jr or any Republicans were around.


The Gulf-Gulf conversation about the challenges posed by the Islamic State (IS/ISIS) and the alliances that will be forged to destroy it indicates that a striking disparity exists between the positions of official leaderships and the sentiment of the grassroots. There is a sense of schizophrenia surrounding what the Gulf parties want from the United States, as they quarrel over what Washington wants from them. What is remarkable -- and certainly healthy -- is the sudden candor in expressing radical differences, for example between the fact that Gulf governments have characterized the ISIS threat as an "existential" one, and the fact that a large segment of the public sympathizes with ISIS and its motives, and sees it as something necessary in the balance of power and the balance of terror. A segment in the Gulf says that Islam is innocent of ISIS and that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam. Another segment sees it as the pure Islam that spoke about Christians in the language of "convert or be killed or exiled." Therefore, this segment of society in the Gulf does not perceive ISIS and its practices from the standpoint of terrorism -- and this is more common in Saudi society relative to other Gulf societies.

Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz made it clear that the priority should be to fight terrorism, whether it is practiced by ISIS or by similar organizations. On the other hand, there is a significant segment of Saudi society -- including within institutions -- that deny the charge of terrorism from ISIS and sees the latter as a necessary instrument to confront the Islamic Republic of Iran and its regional ambitions, especially in the war in Syria, and as a way to avenge the Sunnis in Iraq who have been marginalized by the Shiites. This race between these two principles and two paths is directly impacting President Barack Obama's assessment of and objectives behind his declared war on ISIS, amid a lack of confidence in Obama and ongoing doubt in whether he is serious this time or whether he is going to back track again.....snip~

The Gulf: ISIS in Return for Iran!*|*Raghida Dergham
Click to expand...

You won't get any disagreement with me that it predates Bush 1.
 
MrVicchio said:
An impossibility? That's quite the blase view you have. Do you reside on planet earth? Evil people do bad things and Iran, is ruled by evil people that do bad things.

Iran supreme leader touts 9-point plan to destroy Israel | The Times of Israel
Click to expand...

Lol, the times of Israel. Do you have any idea of how many contingency plans the US has at the ready, to tear any number of countries asses if its deemed at some point in our sacred 'national interest'?

Iran cannot wipe Israel off the face of the map, and I disagree with your categorisation of Iranian leadership. That's not to say that I think them any squeakier clean than any other leaderships in the world.
 
Montecresto said:
Lol, the times of Israel. Do you have any idea of how many contingency plans the US has at the ready, to tear any number of countries asses if its deemed at some point in our sacred 'national interest'?

Iran cannot wipe Israel off the face of the map, and I disagree with your categorisation of Iranian leadership. That's not to say that I think them any squeakier clean than any other leaderships in the world.
Click to expand...
Okay, you keep believing that. If you and people liek you get your way, remember this conversation when Tel Aviv is glassed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom