• 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

PoS said:
So? Just because Egypt doesnt allow your ships to pass through THEIR canal is not an excuse to go to war. Trying to shift blame on Britain and France is a silly excuse too.
Click to expand...

Wrong, what's silly is not recognizing that it was indeed an act of aggression.

Lie. Isreal started using bulldozers in the DMZ and then started raiding into Jordanian territory and attacked Egypt without provocation. A total war of aggression.
Click to expand...

History revisionism at its finest.
The blocking of the straits of Tiran was a casus beli and an act of war. Calling it a lie is like claiming that the Earth is flat, but I do believe wholeheartedly that you believe in that too and blame Israel for it as well.

Another lie. There was a ceasefire in 1981 and the PLO was adhering to it. Isreal claimed it attacked because Isreal's ambassador got attacked in London by an Iraqi terror unit, no less. Lets not forget the Shatila massacre which was an act of genocide.
Click to expand...

An act of massacre, not genocide, you clearly have no idea of the meaning of the words that you're using and it's hilarious to watch, and an act of massacre not carried by the hands of Israel so yeah let's not blame anyone but Israel for it shall we.
Also, the war was started due to terrorism so you've miserably failed at recognizing that it was not Israel that was the aggressor, once more.

Lie #3, Hezbollah kidnapped a soldier while he was occupying the Sheba Farms area (which Isreal stole from Lebanon) and Isreal attacks and invades South Lebanon again.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you even talking about. Hezbollah killed Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two more, that's an act of aggression that your favorite terror group is responsible for. To claim that Israel went to a war of aggression afterwards when it was responding to an attack is pathetic in unspeakable manners. You've been reading too much on thecompleteguidetothejihadistbeginner.net eh.

It's obvious that any connection your opinions may have with history is completely coincidental isn't it? You're going to twist anything, shamelessly, to fit your twisted Islamic fundamentalist agenda. Sad really.
 
Montecresto said:
Well, I would prefer that Iran not produce a nuclear weapon. I would also prefer that the US had not developed and used the son of a bitch. But I can't understand the hand wringing over something that might happen while excusing what has happened.
Click to expand...

But you can feel that way without actually buying into the lies coming out of Iran like you did in that naive statement. It hurts your position to come off that ill informed.
 
Montecresto said:
Well, I would prefer that Iran not produce a nuclear weapon. I would also prefer that the US had not developed and used the son of a bitch. But I can't understand the hand wringing over something that might happen while excusing what has happened.
Click to expand...

Oh, are you saying you would have preferred WWII to continue on and having more people killed and more Innocent people killed? That the US shouldn't have ended the war in the way it did.

Would have whole sale slaughter been better?
 
Montecresto said:
Well, I would prefer that Iran not produce a nuclear weapon. I would also prefer that the US had not developed and used the son of a bitch. But I can't understand the hand wringing over something that might happen while excusing what has happened.
Click to expand...

Harry Truman is my favorite president of all of those who served in my lifetime. The reason is that he didn't avoid making the hardest decision any president has had to make - that of dropping nuclear bombs on Japan. His action literally saved millions of lives - many millions. It was brutal way to save them to be sure but it seems obvious to me that nothing else would have ended the war without those millions of lost lives.
 
MildSteel said:
Iran does not pose a significant direct nuclear threat to the United States.
Click to expand...
Now? No. Soon? Yes


bumper-sticker-bibi-netanyahu.jpg




Obama can't be this stupid.
Video at link.

Obama: According to Iran's Supreme Leader, "It Would Be Contrary To Their Faith To Obtain A Nuclear Weapon"

[...]

PRESIDENT OBAMA: The issues now are sufficiently narrowed and sufficiently clarified where we're at a point where they need to make a decision. We are presenting to them in a unified fashion, the P5+1 supported by a coalition of countries around the world are presenting to them a deal that allows them to have peaceful nuclear power but gives us the absolute assurance that is verifiable that they are not pursuing a nuclear weapon.

And if in fact what they claim is true, which is they have no aspiration to get a nuclear weapon, that in fact, according to their Supreme Leader, it would be contrary to their faith to obtain a nuclear weapon, if that is true, there should be the possibility of getting a deal. They should be able to get to yes. But we don't know if that's going to happen.​


[...]

​
​
​
Obama: According to Iran's Supreme Leader, "It Would Be Contrary To Their Faith To Obtain A Nuclear Weapon" | Video | RealClearPolitics​
 
Sarkozy made an interesting comment about Netanyahu

rench President Nicolas Sarkozy branded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "a liar" in a private conversation with U.S. President Barack Obama that was accidentally broadcast to journalists during last week's G20 summit in Cannes.

"I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar," Sarkozy told Obama, unaware that the microphones in their meeting room had been switched on, enabling reporters in a separate location to listen in to a simultaneous translation.

"You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you," Obama replied, according to the French interpreter.
Click to expand...

Sarkozy tells Obama Netanyahu is a liar | Reuters
 
Excon said:
Now? No. Soon? Yes


bumper-sticker-bibi-netanyahu.jpg




Obama can't be this stupid.
Video at link.

Obama: According to Iran's Supreme Leader, "It Would Be Contrary To Their Faith To Obtain A Nuclear Weapon"

[...]

PRESIDENT OBAMA: The issues now are sufficiently narrowed and sufficiently clarified where we're at a point where they need to make a decision. We are presenting to them in a unified fashion, the P5+1 supported by a coalition of countries around the world are presenting to them a deal that allows them to have peaceful nuclear power but gives us the absolute assurance that is verifiable that they are not pursuing a nuclear weapon.

And if in fact what they claim is true, which is they have no aspiration to get a nuclear weapon, that in fact, according to their Supreme Leader, it would be contrary to their faith to obtain a nuclear weapon, if that is true, there should be the possibility of getting a deal. They should be able to get to yes. But we don't know if that's going to happen.​


[...]

​
​
​
Obama: According to Iran's Supreme Leader, "It Would Be Contrary To Their Faith To Obtain A Nuclear Weapon" | Video | RealClearPolitics​
Click to expand...



Oh yes he can. :2wave:

If they want to have nuclear energy, then they can have it the way South Korea gets it, the way most of the world gets it, and that is they enrich and reprocess abroad, and then it’s shipped in, and they put it in their fuel rods. And they use that to power their country. There’s no need to have an enrichment capability unless you intend to one day weaponized the program.

The only reason why you develop long-range rockets, inter-continental missiles, which is what they’re trying to get to, is in order to put a nuclear warhead on it. You don’t use that for conventional purposes.
 
joG said:
And it sounds as if you are a believer.
Click to expand...

Who knows. Bush said that there were stock piles of WMD in Iraq. Rumsfeld said he knew where they were, they were in points to the north, and to the south and to the East and to the west (of Baghdad) while all along Saddam Hussein was insisting he hadn't any. Hans Blix searched high and low, said he even had access to SH presidential palaces, looked under his bed, continued to report he could find nothing, was eventually told by Bush it didn't matter, we're going in tomorrow, you need to get your team out now. Hans Blix returned home and wrote that scathing report accusing Bush of...........................well, point being, PROVE that Iran is making or has made a nuclear weapon, and then we can have the discussion about whether or not that's the concern you fearful think it is.
 
MMC said:
Oh yes he can.
Click to expand...
On the rest I agree, but just as his supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, I think it is intentional.
 
Excon said:
On the rest I agree, but just as his supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, I think it is intentional.
Click to expand...



Well, you did hear him try and blame the media for over-hyping things with ISIS.....despite his own people saying otherwise. Even with Cameron in the UK saying ISIS was a direct threat to the US and UK.

Hard to believe Cameron believes what BO says about his deal with Iran. There is no deal other than some outline that BO says. Which would have to be dealt with and that would take time and another extension just to hammer out the finer details.

Which still doesn't count Iran saying Parchin is off the table.
 
Fleming said:
So you would have preferred WWII to last a bit longer and a few million more people to die?
Click to expand...

There was that opinion, and their were other opinions. If you can justify turning two cities into glass, and killing 200,000 civilians, then anybody can justify anything.



"I was against (use of the atomic bomb) on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."

Dwight D. Eisenhower, in a post-war interview.

And he was right, and the US remains even 70 years latter the only country to have used one, despite the fact there are multiple countries with them. Tell me that if Russia or China or Pakistan or Syria dropped a nuke on Tel Aviv, or Washington DC that you wouldn't call it an act of terrorism?
 
jmotivator said:
But you can feel that way without actually buying into the lies coming out of Iran like you did in that naive statement. It hurts your position to come off that ill informed.
Click to expand...

I'm not buying into anything. Lies are coming out of the US, Russia, China, England, Syria, Israel..................stop patronising the West, and prove that Iran has a weapon, or is fabricating one, and just as I told another poster, then we can have the discussion about whether or not it's the concern you fearful think it is.
 
MMC said:
Oh, are you saying you would have preferred WWII to continue on and having more people killed and more Innocent people killed? That the US shouldn't have ended the war in the way it did.

Would have whole sale slaughter been better?
Click to expand...

Post 313
 
Excon said:
Because he said it? No.
Click to expand...

That is good, because if truth were based on what Netanyahu said, then there would be no such thing as truth.

My understanding is that the notion that Iran is developing ICBMs is based on the fact that they are developing the technology to launch satellites into space.
 
MMC said:
The only reason why you develop long-range rockets, inter-continental missiles, which is what they’re trying to get to, is in order to put a nuclear warhead on it. You don’t use that for conventional purposes.
Click to expand...

Morning MMC

I said to Excon that my understanding that Iran is developing ICBMs is based on the fact that they are developing the technology to launch satellites into space.

But that aside Russia, China, India and Pakistan all have ICBMs. Does that mean that the U.S. should not negotiate deals with them? Recently, the U.S. negotiated a significant nuclear deal with India.

Over and above that, Iran has the knowledge on how to enrich uranium. Iran has the knowledge on how to launch satellites into space. Do you really think that can be changed through military means?
 
Montecresto said:
I'm not buying into anything. Lies are coming out of the US, Russia, China, England, Syria, Israel..................stop patronising the West, and prove that Iran has a weapon, or is fabricating one, and just as I told another poster, then we can have the discussion about whether or not it's the concern you fearful think it is.
Click to expand...

You were stating the Iranian lie as if it had some value in the discussion.
 
Goshin said:
... and how many times have they said they were open to some kind of deal, and then backed out of it? I think it is more than ten times, now.
Click to expand...

Goshin, the point is what is the best way forward. I have said again and again that Iran has this knowledge now. They know exactly how to do these things. As such, the best way forward is one in which the conditions are made such that they do not want to do them, along with allowing them to enrich under strict scrutiny. Otherwise the only thing would be infinite confrontation with Iran. Do you really think that is realistic?
 
jmotivator said:
You were stating the Iranian lie as if it had some value in the discussion.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to my comment that Iran has maintained all along that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes?
 
Montecresto said:
Who knows. Bush said that there were stock piles of WMD in Iraq. ......
Click to expand...

And it turned out that the sanctions had worked, the WMD had decayed and Saddam had only been acting as if he still had them. Idiots are always a danger. But the problem is that some idiots will violently rob or kill you, if you let them. Ask the Ukrainians.
 
MildSteel said:
Goshin, the point is what is the best way forward. I have said again and again that Iran has this knowledge now. They know exactly how to do these things. As such, the best way forward is one in which the conditions are made such that they do not want to do them, along with allowing them to enrich under strict scrutiny. Otherwise the only thing would be infinite confrontation with Iran. Do you really think that is realistic?
Click to expand...

I won't speak for Goshin, but there are indeed those individuals in America and Israel that do, and are chomping at the bit to get on with it. Can I say, "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"
 
joG said:
And it turned out that the sanctions had worked, the WMD had decayed and Saddam had only been acting as if he still had them. Idiots are always a danger. But the problem is that some idiots will violently rob or kill you, if you let them. Ask the Ukrainians.
Click to expand...

Lol, that you believe that. Yes, all those stockpiles north, South, East and west (of Baghdad) and their delivery systems that could have produced mushroom clouds over US cities, decayed between the time BUSHCO said it all was there, and the time Hans Blix turned the country upside down.
 
Montecresto said:
I won't speak for Goshin, but there are indeed those individuals in America and Israel that do, and are chomping at the bit to get on with it. Can I say, "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"
Click to expand...

It does indeed appear to be that way and the problem simply cannot be solved that way. The only thing that can do is to create the incentive such that they actually want to do it. You can stop it temporarily, but it will come back. What type of solution is that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom