• 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

Apocalypse said:
I'm one of those that believe the issue can be solved diplomatically.
Meaning, stronger sanctions.
So far the sanctions have had a great effect on Iran's progress, up until the point when the P+5 had decided to ease them up.
If talks fail - stronger sanctions, save the military option as the last resort.
Click to expand...
The Iranian economy is a basket case due to sanctions. Oil revenues will be even lower with the present situation.
Not sure on the value of frozen assets?
They have a host of problems from aging infrastructure, massive corruption, a younger population that sees no jobs, ability to get ahead and they are growing restless.
The place is a mess.
 
Montecresto said:
I'm sorry, you addressed me in post 195, I thought that invited a response.
Click to expand...
It did....to things I said. But since I never claimed Iran had any nuclear weapons, your post had nothing to do with mine.

The NPT to witch you referred is for nuclear weapons, so how is it that Iran is in violation??
Click to expand...

Have you not read the news the last few years? Iran's nuclear program was believed to be enriching uranium in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and was not conforming to non-proliferation rules for peaceful use and non-diversion.
You can read any of the Security Council Resolutions on the topic: Sanctions Committee - 1737 and the IAEA page for Iran is https://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc140.pdf
Signatory non-nuclear countries are pledged to not divert peaceful use of nuclear energy into weapons and to abide by the IAEA protocols.
 
Apocalypse said:
Yes that's exactly the 'delusional' I have spoken of.
If you honestly believe that if tomorrow the entire Western world + Pakistan will get rid of their nuclear capabilities then that's the last we've seen of nukes, then you're being absurdly delusional.
Click to expand...

Damn it man, what is wrong with you????? When did I say that if believe that the worlds nuclear powers are going to rid themselves of their nuclear capabilities? I said for the umpteenth time, that it is my preference that everybody eliminates nuclear weapons and the world have NONE!!! Why are you stumbling on this concept so?
 
cpwill said:
There are people on both the far left and the far right who devote so much of their energies to the notion that the U.S. is bad, that they have difficulty with the concept that anyone else can be.
Click to expand...

Having run across a lot of leftists over the years, I've come to believe many of them are desperate to hide the fact they are ignorant hicks. And they imagine that feigning a worldly, cosmopolitan air, while ascribing to conservatives the very deficiencies they are so conscious of in themselves, helps them do that.
 
Apocalypse said:
My view isn't hypocritical in any way and it isn't my objective to stop you from posting mate.
I'm merely pointing out the dishonesty in suggesting that you aren't holding the opinion that Iran should be allowed to gain nukes when all you did so far is to point out that if it's legitimate for the free world to possess nukes then the same goes for Iran.
Click to expand...

EXCEPT I HAVE NEVER POSTED ANY SUCH THING!!!!! I don't want Iran to have a nuke, and I don't want the US or anyone else to have a nuke, sigh.
 
matchlight said:
You may have asserted that. But I don't care what you think about how this country's morality compares to that of Khomeinist Iran. I don't want to hear, still one more time, the tired leftist lie that the U.S. brought all this on itself way back in 1953, when it sided with Reza Pahlavi--who had already been Iran's king for a decade--against a crackpot political enemy named Mohammed Mossadegh because he had gotten too cozy with communists. That is only an earlier version of the leftist slander that the U.S. brought 9/11 on itself--whether Jeremiah Wright's claim that it was just America's chickens coming home to roost, or Ward Churchill's equally disgusting comparison of the people murdered at the World Trade Center to the Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann.

The simple fact is that you are sticking up for the evil pack of Jew-hating Islamic jihadists in Tehran that is doing all it can to acquire nuclear weapons. That regime has always been a strong supporter of terrorism. It is the enemy of both Israel and the United States, with the blood of thousands of Americans on its hands. And yet you continue to do all you can here to defend the Khomeinists and other Islamic jihadists, wherever they may be. That makes your repeated protestations that you are politically neutral and support your country ring hollow. I doubt you are selling anyone here on that. You've made clear that you are willing to let the enemies of the U.S. do whatever they please--that you would not favor the use of force to defend your own country. Thank God there were very few Americans who subscribed to those views in December, 1941.
Click to expand...

To the bolded, Well then I guess I won't give any regard to your views either and then we can both be about other business.
 
cpwill said:
There are people on both the far left and the far right who devote so much of their energies to the notion that the U.S. is bad, that they have difficulty with the concept that anyone else can be.
Click to expand...

If by "the US" by way of a blanket statement, you mean the American collective, then you would be decidedly wrong. But that tiny rudder (those in government that set and execute foreign policy) that steers the very large ship has a long history of infidelities, and it doesn't require standing on the left fringe, or moving over to the right fringe to capture a view of it. It's standing in plain sight.
 
Apocalypse said:
I'm one of those that believe the issue can be solved diplomatically.
Meaning, stronger sanctions.
So far the sanctions have had a great effect on Iran's progress, up until the point when the P+5 had decided to ease them up.
If talks fail - stronger sanctions, save the military option as the last resort.
Click to expand...

At some point, the oppression of sanctions become acts of and provocations for war, if a country is militarily strong enough they may strike at you overtly, and if not perhaps covertly. Diplomacy is negotiation not war. Whether it be economic, or militarily.
 
pinqy said:
It did....to things I said. But since I never claimed Iran had any nuclear weapons, your post had nothing to do with mine.



Have you not read the news the last few years? Iran's nuclear program was believed to be enriching uranium in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and was not conforming to non-proliferation rules for peaceful use and non-diversion.
You can read any of the Security Council Resolutions on the topic: Sanctions Committee - 1737 and the IAEA page for Iran is https://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc140.pdf
Signatory non-nuclear countries are pledged to not divert peaceful use of nuclear energy into weapons and to abide by the IAEA protocols.
Click to expand...

To the bolded, laugh out loud. Just like it was "believed" that Saddam Hussein was capable of producing a mushroom cloud over a US city.
 
Montecresto said:
Damn it man, what is wrong with you????? When did I say that if believe that the worlds nuclear powers are going to rid themselves of their nuclear capabilities? I said for the umpteenth time, that it is my preference that everybody eliminates nuclear weapons and the world have NONE!!! Why are you stumbling on this concept so?
Click to expand...

C'mon, you've been around long enough to know better. Any way one's argument can be dishonestly misconstrued to score cheap political points, you better believe it's going to happen.
 
Montecresto said:
At some point, the oppression of sanctions become acts of and provocations for war, if a country is militarily strong enough they may strike at you overtly, and if not perhaps covertly. Diplomacy is negotiation not war. Whether it be economic, or militarily.
Click to expand...

A provocation, yes, act of war, no. A blockade is an act of war.
If talks fail, sanction will increase dramatically.
 
Montecresto said:
EXCEPT I HAVE NEVER POSTED ANY SUCH THING!!!!! I don't want Iran to have a nuke, and I don't want the US or anyone else to have a nuke, sigh.
Click to expand...

i believe he has confused your position with mine
 
Dayton3 said:
Those were IRBMs. Relatively short range missiles. The Soviets did not have a reliable ICBM (long range missiles) until 1964.

Which is why the Soviets put the shorter range missiles in Cuba in the first place.

Be familiar with the terminology.
Click to expand...

As I said, the Soviets placed both intermediate range ballistic missiles (IRBM) and medium range ballistic missiles (MRBM) in Cuba. I also noted the ranges of both types.

I was responding to your claim in #207 that the Soviet Union did not have a reliable arsenal of nuclear weapons to deliver against the U.S. until it got the intercontinental missiles it had in 1964. As I noted, President Kennedy and his advisers certainly did not agree with you. They were very sure, as was the rest of the world, that in 1962 the Soviets could have made a very large nuclear missile attack on the U.S.

I don't know why you repeat that the Soviets did not have a reliable ICBM until 1964, since I never disputed that. I was pointing out that their lack of one in 1962 did not prevent them from devising ways to attack the U.S. with nuclear missiles of shorter range--as they did by placing several dozen of these in Cuba.
 
matchlight said:
As I said, the Soviets placed both intermediate range ballistic missiles (IRBM) and medium range ballistic missiles (MRBM) in Cuba. I also noted the ranges of both types.

I was responding to your claim in #207 that the Soviet Union did not have a reliable arsenal of nuclear weapons to deliver against the U.S. until it got the intercontinental missiles it had in 1964. As I noted, President Kennedy and his advisers certainly did not agree with you. They were very sure, as was the rest of the world, that in 1962 the Soviets could have made a very large nuclear missile attack on the U.S.

I don't know why you repeat that the Soviets did not have a reliable ICBM until 1964, since I never disputed that. I was pointing out that their lack of one in 1962 did not prevent them from devising ways to attack the U.S. with nuclear missiles of shorter range--as they did by placing several dozen of these in Cuba.
Click to expand...

Except that the Soviet missiles never became operational in Cuba before they agreed to remove them. And though the Soviets did try to give the local Soviet general authority to fire them, his authority was actually rescinded BEFORE the earlier communications ever arrived.

If the Cuban Missile Crisis had "gone hot" the U.S. would've suffered "some" damage. A handful of cities destroyed at most (probably one or two is more realistic) but the U.S.S.R. would've been destroyed.
 
Montecresto said:
EXCEPT I HAVE NEVER POSTED ANY SUCH THING!!!!! I don't want Iran to have a nuke, and I don't want the US or anyone else to have a nuke, sigh.
Click to expand...

You have made several claims that the only possible deduction from them is that you are in favor of Iran gaining nuclear capabilities.

Such claims are;

- The claim that Western nations having nukes bothers you more than Iran having it.
- The claim that Iran isn't trying to gain nukes.
- The claim that Iran having nukes is as legitimate as any other nation having it.
- The comparison between Iran and the US.

Apparently you wanna be dishonest about it, sure go ahead, but don't accuse me of manipulating your words when I clearly haven't.
If anything that's quite hypocritical considering you've claimed more than once that I supported the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when I've never stated so.
 
Apocalypse said:
Because they don't threaten it, exactly the same way as British nukes do not threaten Iran.
As I pointed to you out in a previous post you've apparently ignored - Israel has had no hostility towards Iran, it is Iran that got up one morning and decided that Israel is an enemy and that it must be destroyed, not the other way around. Please do memorize it so I wouldn't have to say it again in a few months when we'll have the same argument again.
Click to expand...

Iran has no borders with Israel--is not even very close to it. And Israel has never committed any unprovoked aggression against Iran. The regime in Tehran hates Israel not because of anything it has done to Iran, but because it is a Jewish state. The Islamists who rule Iran hate Israel purely because they hate Jews and believe they have no right even to live, just as did their philosophical forbear, the jihadist murderer Ruhollah Khomeini.
 
Montecresto said:
If by "the US" by way of a blanket statement, you mean the American collective, then you would be decidedly wrong. But that tiny rudder (those in government that set and execute foreign policy) that steers the very large ship has a long history of infidelities, and it doesn't require standing on the left fringe, or moving over to the right fringe to capture a view of it. It's standing in plain sight.
Click to expand...

:) Thank you for the confirmation of the point.
 
Dayton3 said:
Except that the Soviet missiles never became operational in Cuba before they agreed to remove them. And though the Soviets did try to give the local Soviet general authority to fire them, his authority was actually rescinded BEFORE the earlier communications ever arrived.
Click to expand...

How is that relevant to the question whether the R-12 and R-14 missiles in Cuba, each with a one-megaton warhead there ready to be mounted on it, gave the Soviet Union the ability to launch an effective nuclear missile strike on the U.S. before 1964? Do you really think those missiles and warheads would not have worked? The most knowledgeable people on that subject in the U.S. must have been pretty sure they would.

If the Cuban Missile Crisis had "gone hot" the U.S. would've suffered "some" damage. A handful of cities destroyed at most (probably one or two is more realistic)
Click to expand...

That is just idle speculation on your part. Neither you nor anyone else has any way of knowing that most of those R-12's and R-14's, and their nuclear weapons, would not have done exactly what they were meant to do. There is no reason to think that weapons which had been well tested would probably not work. President Kennedy and his advisers certainly did not think those sixty missiles could probably destroy only one or two U.S. cities, or a handful at most, nor did they cavalierly dismiss the results of one-megaton hydrogen bombs going off over a number of large U.S. cities as only "some" damage.
 
Montecresto said:
To the bolded, Well then I guess I won't give any regard to your views either and then we can both be about other business.
Click to expand...

I think you can be sure that quite a few people who have seen your views here have given due regard to them, and that they have reached their conclusions about those views and what motivates them.
 
matchlight said:
Having run across a lot of leftists over the years, I've come to believe many of them are desperate to hide the fact they are ignorant hicks. And they imagine that feigning a worldly, cosmopolitan air, while ascribing to conservatives the very deficiencies they are so conscious of in themselves, helps them do that.
Click to expand...

Left and right are ideologies, not barometers of intelligence, there are both smart and stupid people subscribing to both. What a failed observation.
 
JANFU said:
A provocation, yes, act of war, no. A blockade is an act of war.
If talks fail, sanction will increase dramatically.
Click to expand...

A blockade is also considered an act of war, you are correct. But it's up to the one bearing the weight and discomfort of economic warfare to decide when they've had enough, and reciprocate. Cause and effect. You can tell Russia and Iran that they aren't suffering enough under the economic oppression of your sanctions to have a legitimate cause to strike at you, but what would that mean?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom