• 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

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.

There is another issue. The mullas are nuts and not responsible enough to handle nuclear material. In addition, I don't know if you've flown in from Europe lately but they are checking everyone for radiation because of the possibility of a dirty bomb. Obama should have been on top of this years ago.
 
Well the topic is Iran, not American arms shipments. Do you think Iran is a passive nation, really? They have just taken over Yemen through a proxy government, effectively control Lebanon through Hezbollah, control southern Iraq where most of Iraq's oil comes from and is fighting to preserve Assad in Syria. Where would a nuclear Iran leave the gulf states. And while we say who cares, let them take care of themselves. Lets not forget that the gulf still churns out something like 25% of the world's oil. Enough so that a material change in how that oil flows has a dramatic impact on the price of oil and thus the developed world's economy.

So even if the world could care less if Israel is destroyed or not, it should care about a nuclear Iran which would effectively control a good chunk of the world's oil supply.

What's wrong with you? The world hasn't any interest in seeing Israel destroyed. I do believe that much of the world favours a Palestinian State though. Oil, yes, that's always been the thing lurking behind US policy in the ME. Glad you finally got that one out.
 
Then you should be aware the US is more concerned about Pakistan losing a nuke.
The levels of controls & fail safes Pakistan has on nukes.
The attacks on Nuke facilities in Pakistan.
That you have 4 differing tribal regions in Pakistan.
That Pakistan has been supportive of attacks on India, and in Afghanistan.
That Pakistan has caused more proliferation- N Korea- Iran, for starters.
That China laid the law down to Pakistan about shutting down Islamist's in order to receive aid.
Yep- Pakistan is more of a problem then Iran is.

According to you, not to reality.
Iran is the no.1 sponsor of terrorism on the planet and is led by fanatical radical Islamic fundamentalists.
Also, Pakistan already has nukes while Iran can still be stopped.
So... no.
 
According to you, not to reality.
Iran is the no.1 sponsor of terrorism on the planet and is led by fanatical radical Islamic fundamentalists.
Also, Pakistan already has nukes while Iran can still be stopped.
So... no.
Isreal recruits more terrorists than Iran does because of its occupation of Palestinians and the wars it constantly starts.

Im all for Iran getting nukes, it will make the Middle East a safer place because MAD (mutually assured destruction) will force everyone to the negotiating table.
 
Isreal recruits more terrorists than Iran does because of its occupation of Palestinians and the wars it constantly starts.

Im all for Iran getting nukes, it will make the Middle East a safer place because MAD (mutually assured destruction) will force everyone to the negotiating table.

Israel defends itself and always will and you are for Iran having nukes due to your alignment with Islamic fundamentalism you've already made that sure several times before.
 
suggest you check your spelling, genius

Hows that history assignment I gave you......do you think like, you can manage to keep Historical facts in the perspective they are. Rather than making **** up on the fly.
 
Israel defends itself and always will and you are for Iran having nukes due to your alignment with Islamic fundamentalism you've already made that sure several times before.
Wrong. I am aligned with peace. You on the other hand, are aligned with oppression.
 
Wrong. I am aligned with peace. You on the other hand, are aligned with oppression.

Aligning with peace is not supporting the Iranian government - a regime of Islamic fundamentalists that spreads terrorism throughout the globe and oppresses its own people. It's not supporting their proxy, Hezbollah. It's not supporting Hamas either. Aligning with peace is believing that the use of force can only be justified by self-defense - which is my position really. You choose to align yourself with oppression, you merely prefer to label it "peace" so you can sleep better at the nights, not unlike many other promoters of Islamic fundamentalism who believe themselves to be the "true voice of peace".
 
So, are you arguing that a militarily nuclear armed Iran is no threat to the US, if so, I'll agree with you. Nevertheless, it would be my preference that ALL nukes were destroyed.

You must love war.
 
Isreal recruits more terrorists than Iran does because of its occupation of Palestinians and the wars it constantly starts.

Im all for Iran getting nukes, it will make the Middle East a safer place because MAD (mutually assured destruction) will force everyone to the negotiating table.

Sure it will. :roll:
 
According to you, not to reality.
Iran is the no.1 sponsor of terrorism on the planet and is led by fanatical radical Islamic fundamentalists.
Also, Pakistan already has nukes while Iran can still be stopped.
So... no.


The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan – Lt. General William Odom – noted:

Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today’s war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world.

Odom also said:

By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation.

The Washington Post reported in 2010:

The United States has long been an exporter of terrorism, according to a secret CIA analysis released Wednesday by the Web site WikiLeaks.

The head and special agent in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles office said that most terror attacks are committed by our CIA and FBI.
 
You must love war.

You must misunderstand the method in which I would like to see them destroyed. The US is the country to have developed the wakeful weapon, and the only one that has justified its use to incinerate two civilian targets. If the targeting and killing of whole cities with all its inhabitants, including babies, infants, school children, grandparents, police, hospital staffs and the dogs and cats, then any country can JUSTIFY anything, including burning people alive in a cage.

Nuclear weapons have not kept the US out of war, in fact we're in it as we speak, so I really don't understand your snarky comment, especially having seen me post continually about my disdain for war.
 
The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan – Lt. General William Odom – noted:

Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today’s war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world.

Odom also said:

By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation.

The Washington Post reported in 2010:

The United States has long been an exporter of terrorism, according to a secret CIA analysis released Wednesday by the Web site WikiLeaks.

The head and special agent in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles office said that most terror attacks are committed by our CIA and FBI.

A handful of American past public figures claiming that the US is sponsoring terrorism does not make it a reality, nor does it have much to do with the fact that the Iranian government is actively doing so, by a matter of fact, and that it is the largest sponsor of terrorism at the present. So do understand if many in the Western world do not prefer to hand over nukes to such a regime, unlike you apparently.
 
The right-wing has lost all credibility when it come to both designating targets for military action, and for identifying direct threats to the homeland. Come back in a century or so, after the damage done by your last military escapade has dissipated.

Maybe Iran wouldn't want a nuke if neocon dumbf**ks didn't openly talk about raining holy hell on them every single day.
 
You must misunderstand the method in which I would like to see them destroyed. The US is the country to have developed the wakeful weapon, and the only one that has justified its use to incinerate two civilian targets. If the targeting and killing of whole cities with all its inhabitants, including babies, infants, school children, grandparents, police, hospital staffs and the dogs and cats, then any country can JUSTIFY anything, including burning people alive in a cage.

Nuclear weapons have not kept the US out of war, in fact we're in it as we speak, so I really don't understand your snarky comment, especially having seen me post continually about my disdain for war.

You want to see military budgets climb and arm races among, go ahead and get rid of the nukes. You think we spend a lot to maintain technical superiority now, just wait. And a lot more countries would find conventional war convenient without any deterents at all.
 
A handful of American past public figures claiming that the US is sponsoring terrorism does not make it a reality, nor does it have much to do with the fact that the Iranian government is actively doing so, by a matter of fact, and that it is the largest sponsor of terrorism at the present. So do understand if many in the Western world do not prefer to hand over nukes to such a regime, unlike you apparently.

Read before you post, you'll make better sense. I have multiple posts in this thread stating that it would be my preference that the US had never created the aweful weapon (nuclear bomb) to begin with and that I would prefer that there were no nukes in the world!!!!! And for that have been accused of loving war by another poster. Prove to me that Iran is the largest sponsor of terrorism in the world. Lots of countries use terrorism to advance their interests unfortunately, and as I pointed out to you, there are those of our own government that have acknowledged the US's use of the tactic. You're one of those that has justified the use of nuclear weapons on two civilian cities incinerating 200,000 civilians of all conceivable age, gender and station in life. And you wring your gawd damn hands over something that Iran may do!
 
Here's the only acceptable compromise: Iran never gets nuclear tech of any kind, and in return we don't make Iran glow in the dark.

It is not possible to stop Iran from ever getting nuclear technology. How do you think that such a thing could be done?
 
You want to see military budgets climb and arm races among, go ahead and get rid of the nukes. You think we spend a lot to maintain technical superiority now, just wait. And a lot more countries would find conventional war convenient without any deterents at all.

If you're arguing that MAD works, then what harm in Iran having nuclear weapons, if, IF that is their goal?
 
If you're arguing that MAD works, then what harm in Iran having nuclear weapons, if, IF that is their goal?

1) Don't need anymore nukes
2) Region is volatile and pron to extremism.
 
1) Don't need anymore nukes
2) Region is volatile and pron to extremism.

I understand, to their left the Israelis have nukes and to their right the Pakistani have them. Funny you say we don't need anymore nukes while suggesting I must love war for saying the same thing. Stop shaking like a leaf, look in the direction that truly threatens your security.
 
I understand, to their left the Israelis have nukes and to their right the Pakistani have them. Funny you say we don't need anymore nukes while suggesting I must love war for saying the same thing. Stop shaking like a leaf, look in the direction that truly threatens your security.

You want them to have nukes out of fairness, and I don't give a **** about what's fair.
 
Back
Top Bottom