• 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

11Bravo said:
A direct threat to only the United States is not 100% of the concern. It's our allies as well. Remember, there's a treaty :)
Click to expand...

No it is not all of the concern. But the point is that there is no good reason not to come to a settlement in which Iran enriches uranium under strict inspection and that creates the environment such that Iran does not want to develop nuclear weapons in the first place.
 
Montecresto said:
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!!!!!
Click to expand...

Good.

Prove to me that Iran is the largest sponsor of terrorism in the world.
Click to expand...

By now it's a given fact.
Hezbollah is one of the largest terror organizations on the planet, and it is exclusively funded, trained and armed by Iran and in Iran. It is practically an Iranian organization. Iran has also supplied multiple times the terror organization of Hamas with weapons, had declared several times that it is intending to boost its cooperation with it, and is known to be supplying arms to various lesser terror organizations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc.

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.
Click to expand...

And as I have pointed out to you that doesn't make the claim that the US sponsors terrorism a reality.

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!
Click to expand...

And where exactly have I supported that, exactly?
The fact that you are drawing comparisons between something that happened over 70 years ago and something that is happening at the present shows how desperate your arguments truly are.
 
American said:
You want them to have nukes out of fairness, and I don't give a **** about what's fair.
Click to expand...

Precisely.
Montecresto's argument is analogous to an argument that all criminals must be armed, because the police are armed too.
 
American said:
You want them to have nukes out of fairness, and I don't give a **** about what's fair.
Click to expand...

Stop lying, I've never said any such thing. I want for their to be NO nukes, remember, you accused me of loving war for stating that. I do want to know why you are perfectly fine with some countries having nukes, namely the US, and not others? The US used nuclear weapons on two civilian targets, remember, killing 200,000 CIVILIANS while Iran doesn't even have a nuclear weapon, yet you shiver in your boots at the thought of what somebody may do, IF they ever can do!
 
MildSteel said:
No it is not all of the concern. But the point is that there is no good reason not to come to a settlement in which Iran enriches uranium under strict inspection and that creates the environment such that Iran does not want to develop nuclear weapons in the first place.
Click to expand...

A lot of the world still doesn't buy Iran's "we're not building a weapon, we promise!" story. There are plenty of experts who can tell through geospatial imagry that it's what they are clearly doing.

However, there are two sides to this argument.

Personally? I think Iran is doing much better than the past. I see the change in leadership did at least somewhat of a good job. Do I consider them a threat right now? No. However, we should listen to the concerns of our allies and respect their intelligence.
 
Apocalypse said:
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".
Click to expand...
LOL Really? Let me ask you, which country has started more wars in the last hundred years, Iran or Isreal?
 
Montecresto said:
Stop lying, I've never said any such thing. I want for their to be NO nukes, remember, you accused me of loving war for stating that. I do want to know why you are perfectly fine with some countries having nukes, namely the US, and not others? The US used nuclear weapons on two civilian targets, remember, killing 200,000 CIVILIANS while Iran doesn't even have a nuclear weapon, yet you shiver in your boots at the thought of what somebody may do, IF they ever can do!
Click to expand...

You also think it's fair to have nukes, because someone on either side has them.
 
PoS said:
LOL Really? Let me ask you, which country has started more wars in the last hundred years, Iran or Isreal?
Click to expand...

Not that Israel is the subject here, but it hasn't started a single damned one, in all of them it was on the defensive.
Iran on the other hand is operating the terror organization of Hezbollah and is arming Islamic terrorists such as Hamas and others.
It should be obvious which state is more dangerous than the other to be holding nuclear capabilities, just like it's obvious that you would support any type of Islamic fundamentalism.
 
11Bravo said:
A lot of the world still doesn't buy Iran's "we're not building a weapon, we promise!" story. There are plenty of experts who can tell through geospatial imagry that it's what they are clearly doing.

However, there are two sides to this argument.

Personally? I think Iran is doing much better than the past. I see the change in leadership did at least somewhat of a good job. Do I consider them a threat right now? No. However, we should listen to the concerns of our allies and respect their intelligence.
Click to expand...

Of course we should listen to our allies and take their views and concerns into account. However we should not let those views and concerns obstruct us from moving forward on what is in our best interests.
 
Apocalypse said:
Good.



By now it's a given fact.
Hezbollah is one of the largest terror organizations on the planet, and it is exclusively funded, trained and armed by Iran and in Iran. It is practically an Iranian organization. Iran has also supplied multiple times the terror organization of Hamas with weapons, had declared several times that it is intending to boost its cooperation with it, and is known to be supplying arms to various lesser terror organizations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc.



And as I have pointed out to you that doesn't make the claim that the US sponsors terrorism a reality.



And where exactly have I supported that, exactly?
The fact that you are drawing comparisons between something that happened over 70 years ago and something that is happening at the present shows how desperate your arguments truly are.
Click to expand...

So no proof that Iran is the worlds chief supporter of terrorism, ok. 70 years ago, or seven years ago, the US remains the sole country to use a nuclear weapon on civilian targets, something you would INSIST would be an act of terrorism were Russia or China or Iran to do it. You're on the list with the other hypocritical.
 
Last edited:
It is agonizingly sad that anyone would believe Iran has any intent whatsoever to stop building nuclear weapons.

They "negotiate" merely to patronize and distract while they are in full-capacity nuclear development mode.

Why would anyone believe a single word out of their demonic mouths? They have one purpose alone, to permanently destroy Israel. Anything short of that is unacceptable to them.
 
American said:
You also think it's fair to have nukes, because someone on either side has them.
Click to expand...

I'm the guy you criticised as a lover of war for preferring that nobody have nukes, are you ok this morning?
 
Montecresto said:
So no proof that Iran is the worlds chief supporter of terrorism, ok. 70 years ago, or seven years ago, the US remains the sole country to use a nuclear weapon on civilian targets, something you would INSIST would be an act of terrorism were Russia or China or Iran to do it. You're on the list with the other hypocritical.
Click to expand...



;)

In July 2012, the United States State Department released a report on terrorism around the world in 2011. The report states that "Iran remained an active state sponsor of terrorism in 2011 and increased its terrorist-related activity" and that "Iran also continued to provide financial, material, and logistical support for terrorist and militant groups throughout the Middle East and Central Asia." The report states that Iran has continued to provide "lethal support, including weapons, training, funding, and guidance, to Iraqi Shia militant groups targeting U.S. and Iraqi forces, as well as civilians," despite pledging to support the stabilization of Iraq, and that the Qods Force provided training to the Taliban in Afghanistan on "small unit tactics, small arms, explosives, and indirect fire weapons, such as mortars, artillery, and rockets." The report further states that Iran has provided weapons and training to the Assad regime in Syria which has launched a brutal crackdown on Syrian rebels, as well as providing weapons, training, and funding to Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, among others, and has assisted in rearming Hizballah. The report states as well that Iran has remained unwilling to bring to justice senior members of Al Qaeda that it continued to detain, and also refused to publicly identify these senior members, as well as that Iran has allowed Al Qaeda members to operate a core facilitation pipeline through Iranian territory, which has enabled Al Qaeda to carry funds and move facilitators and operatives to South Asia and elsewhere.[9][10][11].....snip~

Iran and state-sponsored terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Yet BO peep says he can believe Iran and what they have to say.....huh?
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
So no proof that Iran is the worlds chief supporter of terrorism, ok.
Click to expand...

Proven above.

70 years ago, or seven years ago, the US remains the sole country to use a nuclear weapon on civilian targets, something you would INSIST would be an act of terrorism were Russia or China or Iran to do it. You're on the list with the other hypocritical.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for a link to show where I have supported it.
And as I was saying comparing something that was done over 70 years ago with everything that happened at the time to the present time is a desperate move. You're desperate for an argument and you just can't manage to form one, and that's all there is to it.
 
MMC said:
;)

In July 2012, the United States State Department released a report on terrorism around the world in 2011. The report states that "Iran remained an active state sponsor of terrorism in 2011 and increased its terrorist-related activity" and that "Iran also continued to provide financial, material, and logistical support for terrorist and militant groups throughout the Middle East and Central Asia." The report states that Iran has continued to provide "lethal support, including weapons, training, funding, and guidance, to Iraqi Shia militant groups targeting U.S. and Iraqi forces, as well as civilians," despite pledging to support the stabilization of Iraq, and that the Qods Force provided training to the Taliban in Afghanistan on "small unit tactics, small arms, explosives, and indirect fire weapons, such as mortars, artillery, and rockets." The report further states that Iran has provided weapons and training to the Assad regime in Syria which has launched a brutal crackdown on Syrian rebels, as well as providing weapons, training, and funding to Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, among others, and has assisted in rearming Hizballah. The report states as well that Iran has remained unwilling to bring to justice senior members of Al Qaeda that it continued to detain, and also refused to publicly identify these senior members, as well as that Iran has allowed Al Qaeda members to operate a core facilitation pipeline through Iranian territory, which has enabled Al Qaeda to carry funds and move facilitators and operatives to South Asia and elsewhere.[9][10][11].....snip~

Iran and state-sponsored terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Do you think that because I question a posters claims about Iran being the CHIEF supporter of terrorism, that I deny that Iran is a supporter of terrorism????
 
Apocalypse said:
Proven above.



I'm still waiting for a link to show where I have supported it.
And as I was saying comparing something that was done over 70 years ago with everything that happened at the time to the present time is a desperate move. You're desperate for an argument and you just can't manage to form one, and that's all there is to it.
Click to expand...

Desperate, no. Are you suggesting that any other state or non state entity has used a nuclear weapon on an entire city, besides the US? If Iran were to ever get a nuke, and they dropped one on Tel Aviv, would you call it an act of terror?
 
Montecresto said:
If Iran were to ever get a nuke, and they dropped one on Tel Aviv, would you call it an act of terror?
Click to expand...

If done by the state? No - it'd be an act of Total War, as WWII was. And Israel (and hopefully the US) would then respond in kind.
 
Apocalypse said:
Precisely.
Montecresto's argument is analogous to an argument that all criminals must be armed, because the police are armed too.
Click to expand...

I like that formulation.
 
Montecresto said:
Do you think that because I question a posters claims about Iran being the CHIEF supporter of terrorism, that I deny that Iran is a supporter of terrorism????
Click to expand...

Chief.....Main.....just an average supporter. It all comes out the same doesn't it.
 
Montecresto said:
Desperate, no. Are you suggesting that any other state or non state entity has used a nuclear weapon on an entire city, besides the US? If Iran were to ever get a nuke, and they dropped one on Tel Aviv, would you call it an act of terror?
Click to expand...

Desperate, yes.
Your argument for allowing Iran to hold nuclear capabilities is a ridiculous one.
The only non-Western state to hold nuclear capabilities is Pakistan, and it isn't led by Islamic fundamentalism. I'm not for Pakistan having nukes to begin with and just like you I would get rid of all of them if I could, but we have to deal with what's happening in the present and at the present Pakistan has nuclear capabilities like the UK, the US and other states. That doesn't mean that states like Iran and North Korea - states that are rogue and hostile and promote dark agendas, states that are yet to gain nuclear capabilities - should be allowed to gain nuclear capabilities. They shouldn't. The argument that because some have nuclear capabilities then everyone should have it is a ridiculous argument. The argument that is comparing Iran to the US of over 70 years ago is a desperate argument.
 
:lol: turns out what Khamenei is saying is:


High-level Iranian officials mobilized immediately to promote the Supreme Leader’s statement that a nuclear deal must be accomplished in a one-stage final settlement, rather than the issuance of General Principles in March and a comprehensive resolution by July 1.

The officials linked the demand to Iran’s insistence on a removal within months of all major financial and restrictions.

Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the chairman of Parliament’s National Security Commission, said, “A two-phase agreement which envisages a decision on the removal of sanctions to a later date or includes lifting of some embargos will be unacceptable; all sanctions, including those of the UN Security Council, the UN, the US Congress, and the EU [European Union] should be removed all at once.”

He pointed to today’s statements of Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei on a nuclear agreement with the West, and said, “Because the negotiations have reached a sensitive stage, the leader’s remarks about the negotiations will help the Iranian negotiators in their ongoing talks.”

The Supreme Leader made a notable intervention on Sunday in Iran’s nuclear talks with the 5+1 Powers, telling the US and its partners to accept the Iranian deal on the table....
Click to expand...
 
Montecresto said:
Iran has maintained from jump street that their nuclear program is commercial and not military in nature.
Click to expand...



Iran has also maintained that the kidnapping and torture of American diplomats was a spontaneous demonstration held by "student Activists" and denied there is an assassination order on Ambassador Kenneth Taylor. They have also refused to prosecute the people responsible for that illegal act, most of the "students" went on to great rewards.....in government.

Thre is a reason Canada, the "nice" country has severed relations with Iran all together...

On September 7, 2012, Canada closed its embassy in Iran and declared all remaining Iranian diplomats in Canada personae non gratae, ordering them to leave the country within five days.[31] Ten Canadian diplomats had already left Iran when Canada declared the closure of its embassy.[32] This move was another step by Canada to isolate Iran in addition to economic sanctions.[33]
Embassy of Iran in Ottawa

John Baird, Canada's foreign minister, called Iran "the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today," citing Iran's material support to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime, non-compliance with United Nations resolutions regarding its nuclear program, continuing threats to Israel, and fears for the safety of Canadian diplomats following attacks on the British embassy in Iran in violation of the Vienna Convention
Click to expand...

The country that gets along with EVERYONE calling Obama news friends "the most significant threat to global peace in the world today."

Not Isis. Not North Korea, not Russia, not China, not Cuba, but Iran, they who Obama now wants to get cuddly with.

The US has no right in the say of who should not have nuclear weapons, that means they have no say in who gets them either, and Obama is going against the international trend. Again.

How many of the "friends" he made in Arab Spring are stable allies? Oh but they SAY they will play nice like Iran can be trusted....
 
Apocalypse said:
Desperate, yes.
Your argument for allowing Iran to hold nuclear capabilities is a ridiculous one.
The only non-Western state to hold nuclear capabilities is Pakistan, and it isn't led by Islamic fundamentalism. I'm not for Pakistan having nukes to begin with and just like you I would get rid of all of them if I could, but we have to deal with what's happening in the present and at the present Pakistan has nuclear capabilities like the UK, the US and other states. That doesn't mean that states like Iran and North Korea - states that are rogue and hostile and promote dark agendas, states that are yet to gain nuclear capabilities - should be allowed to gain nuclear capabilities. They shouldn't. The argument that because some have nuclear capabilities then everyone should have it is a ridiculous argument. The argument that is comparing Iran to the US of over 70 years ago is a desperate argument.
Click to expand...

Where have I argued that Iran should be ALLOWED to hold nuclear weapons???? I have been clear that my preference would be for nobody to have them, has that escaped you? I have asked the question to several folk now, why it is that they seem perfectly content with the US, who has used them in the past, should be the country deciding who else should have them. Or why it's ok for Pakistan and Israel to have them? There's no darker agenda then a war room full of old fat guys smoking cigars and drinking port while they go over a map of Japan deciding which two entire cities they are going to nuke!!!!!!
 
Montecresto said:
never mind that the size and scope of our military far surpasses defensive obligations.
Click to expand...

Prove it. And not with that idiotic link that shows U.S. defense spending exceeds all the other nations on Earth. It is not only inaccurate but completely irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom