• 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

MildSteel said:
Indeed it has been run in the ground and has very little basis in reality. It is mostly done for the sake of destroying political opponents.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's the standby/go to accusation against anybody critical of war and pro-peace. I noticed in the press conference with Obama yesterday that Mrs. Merkel was dancing vary carefully, still reiterating that there is no military solution in Ukraine!
 
washunut said:
OK I will accept putting sanctions in the diplomacy bucket. That being the case we should continue to use this lever and increase it as part of out negotiation stance. To give them up for a flawed agreement is a big mistake, as they will be hard if not impossible to put back once we realize (under the next president) that we have been duped.
Click to expand...

While sanctions can be an effective diplomatic tool, they should not be overused as any type of negative reinforcement when used excessively can be counterproductive. I recall my grandfather telling my father, concerning corporal punishment with regards to my older brother that at a certain point you start to beat hell into the person instead of out of him.
 
MMC said:
Thru use of diplomacy and of course contant inspections and regulations and overcite. Which then you leave it to them if they want to decide to go to war or be nice and peaceful like. Going to war.....is a lose lose situation for them.


Well there is the UK, France, Germany, the Saud and Israel to consider.
Click to expand...

Indeed diplomacy, inspections and oversight are the only realistic way forward long term. Furthermore, as I have said before, while we certainly need to take our allies views into account, we cannot let those views obstruct us in moving forward with what is in our best interests. We should not let the tail wag the dog so to speak.
 
MildSteel said:
Indeed diplomacy, inspections and oversight are the only realistic way forward long term. Furthermore, as I have said before, while we certainly need to take our allies views into account, we cannot let those views obstruct us in moving forward with what is in our best interests. We should not let the tail wag the dog so to speak.
Click to expand...



Seems most know the truth with what Iran has been doing despite the embellishing of how they have complied. What their whole strategy has been.

They even got around the Sanctions with Turkey and their Gas for gold deal. Which Treasury was aware of. Even BO's own people filed a complaint and have walked back from it. All due to BO's desperation for a deal.
 
MildSteel said:
While sanctions can be an effective diplomatic tool, they should not be overused as any type of negative reinforcement when used excessively can be counterproductive. I recall my grandfather telling my father, concerning corporal punishment with regards to my older brother that at a certain point you start to beat hell into the person instead of out of him.
Click to expand...

True. But in my view we are not close to that yet.
 
Montecresto said:
You don't have a clue what your talking about, and France, Germany and Russia aren't the topic, its Hans Blix and the AIEA that had all the access they needed to report to the UN with confidence that THERE WERE NO WMD.

Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.

The inspections have taken place throughout Iraq at industrial sites, ammunition depots, research centres, universities, presidential sites, mobile laboratories, private houses, missile production facilities, military camps and agricultural sites. At all sites which had been inspected before 1998, re-baselining activities were performed. This included the identification of the function and contents of each building, new or old, at a site. It also included verification of previously tagged equipment, application of seals and tags, taking samples and discussions with the site personnel regarding past and present activities. At certain sites, ground-penetrating radar was used to look for underground structures or buried equipment.

Full text: Hans Blix's briefing to the UN security council | World news | The Guardian


Up until they were withdrawn from Iraq on 18 March –- the day before

armed action began -- United Nations inspectors had found no evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction, Hans Blix told the Security Council this morning, as he briefed them for a final time before stepping down at the end of June as head of the inspection team.

http://www.un.org/press/en/2003/sc7777.doc.htm
Click to expand...

Well, he did keep saying there were no weapons, though, he was not willing to guarantee it, when asked point blank nor could he, as he admitted, know. We all knew, however, that there had been WMD there earlier and that he had not found them. He just had not been allowed to do the work. All he could do was talk the holier than thou talk. That was not his job and was destructive and increased the likelihood of invasion.
 
It's amazing how many leftists want to believe dictators and remain convinced that the only real threats to peace are their own elected leaders. This happened throughout the Cold War with the Communists and now countries like Iraq and Iran. These people are as dangerous as they are stupid.
 
Grant said:
It's amazing how many leftists want to believe dictators and remain convinced that the only real threats to peace are their own elected leaders. This happened throughout the Cold War with the Communists and now countries like Iraq and Iran. These people are as dangerous as they are stupid.
Click to expand...

Says the Canadian that accuses the American president of being a threat to democracy, on a daily basis, irrelevant.
 
joG said:
Well, he did keep saying there were no weapons, though, he was not willing to guarantee it, when asked point blank nor could he, as he admitted, know. We all knew, however, that there had been WMD there earlier and that he had not found them. He just had not been allowed to do the work. All he could do was talk the holier than thou talk. That was not his job and was destructive and increased the likelihood of invasion.
Click to expand...

What a failure at critical thinking. Nobody can prove a negative and only a moron would press for it. What Hans Blix could, and in fact did do, was certify that he was receiving unfettered access, was certain that each time he executed a surprise inspection, Iraqi authorities were surprised and that he never found any WMD. And so, the man charged with the executions of the IAEA inspections, carried them out dutifully, until that day when he and his team were ordered out, Bush was chomping at the bit to launch "shock and awe" without confirmation of his claims. This is why Blix returned home and wrote his report documenting Bush and Blair were determined to launch their war, despite the fact that no WMD could be found.
 
Grant said:
It's amazing how many leftists want to believe dictators and remain convinced that the only real threats to peace are their own elected leaders. This happened throughout the Cold War with the Communists and now countries like Iraq and Iran. These people are as dangerous as they are stupid.
Click to expand...

Heya Grant. :2wave: What was funnier was those that thought Iran was in compliance. Even with the sanctions.
 
Grant said:
It's amazing how many leftists want to believe dictators and remain convinced that the only real threats to peace are their own elected leaders. This happened throughout the Cold War with the Communists and now countries like Iraq and Iran. These people are as dangerous as they are stupid.
Click to expand...

Carter was all about negotiating with both. He cuddled nicely with Soviet leaders and took a 'soft' wait and hope for the best approach while Americans were systemically raped and tortured..

Reagan kind of showed just how to deal with Russians. "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"


Putin is powerful again and Iran is on the rise after years of a 'soft" give them whatever they want we need political points approach with Iran

So long as the most easy going and often "too nice country" Canada is completely and unequivocally opposed to Iran's nuke program, so am I.

The more I watch this idiocy unfold I am coming to suspect Canada's inept secret service might actually have better intel from the ME than Washington
 
Fearandloathing said:
Carter was all about negotiating with both. He cuddled nicely with Soviet leaders and took a 'soft' wait and hope for the best approach while Americans were systemically raped and tortured..

Reagan kind of showed just how to deal with Russians. "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"


Putin is powerful again and Iran is on the rise after years of a 'soft" give them whatever they want we need political points approach with Iran

So long as the most easy going and often "too nice country" Canada is completely and unequivocally opposed to Iran's nuke program, so am I.

The more I watch this idiocy unfold I am coming to suspect Canada's inept secret service might actually have better intel from the ME than Washington
Click to expand...

Canada is doing itself proud but that isn't getting much play in the US Media.

Ever since George Kennan's report following WWII American leaders, and the West, worked on 'containment' with Communism (yes, and Carter was hopelessly naive) but Reagan correctly realized it could be defeated. That same attitude doesn't exist now with Islamist terrorism so, of course, it will only get worse. In fact they can't 'contain' it and don't even pretend they can.

It's hard to predict how much more damage BHO will do, how many more lives will be lost, before another leader is finally elected President.
 
Grant said:
Canada is doing itself proud but that isn't getting much play in the US Media.

Ever since George Kennan's report following WWII American leaders, and the West, worked on 'containment' with Communism (yes, and Carter was hopelessly naive) but Reagan correctly realized it could be defeated. That same attitude doesn't exist now with Islamist terrorism so, of course, it will only get worse. In fact they can't 'contain' it and don't even pretend they can.

It's hard to predict how much more damage BHO will do, how many more lives will be lost, before another leader is finally elected President.
Click to expand...

Excellent post.

See bold, I had not connected those dots. Reagan indeed convince the American people the big one was winnable at a time when they had experienced a serious on unwinnables...

But here, Obama has created a subliminal in that it can't be won, at least not in his tenure or soon. It began to a degree with GWB who forecast Afghanistan as years with of war...

But Obama has gone further...even the "no boots on the ground" "teeeny offensive" against ISIS he has forecast will take over a decade, creating a sense of defeatism at the outset.
 
Montecresto said:
What a failure at critical thinking. Nobody can prove a negative and only a moron would press for it. What Hans Blix could, and in fact did do, was certify that he was receiving unfettered access, was certain that each time he executed a surprise inspection, Iraqi authorities were surprised and that he never found any WMD. And so, the man charged with the executions of the IAEA inspections, carried them out dutifully, until that day when he and his team were ordered out, Bush was chomping at the bit to launch "shock and awe" without confirmation of his claims. This is why Blix returned home and wrote his report documenting Bush and Blair were determined to launch their war, despite the fact that no WMD could be found.
Click to expand...

No, nobody can prove a negative. What you can do is prove an assumption wrong. At university we called that falsification. Take a hypothesis like: "The WMD the UN found before they were forced to leave after Iraq 1 were destroyed" or some such. You do not think you could falsify that? More or less in simple words that was Blix's mandate. You think he was a moron to accept it? Or do you think he only wanted to get 15 minutes of spotlight and fame?

The rest is your own wishful thinking.
 
Lol, Carter armed the Mujahideen in their jihad against the Soviet Union.
 
joG said:
No, nobody can prove a negative. What you can do is prove an assumption wrong. At university we called that falsification. Take a hypothesis like: "The WMD the UN found before they were forced to leave after Iraq 1 were destroyed" or some such. You do not think you could falsify that? More or less in simple words that was Blix's mandate. You think he was a moron to accept it? Or do you think he only wanted to get 15 minutes of spotlight and fame?

The rest is your own wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

Blix had to be coaxed out of retirement for the job, sorry but your claim to fame accusation is false. There's been plenty of others that have pulled the curtain back on Bush too, like Clark and Wilson, only to name two.
 
Montecresto said:
Blix had to be coaxed out of retirement for the job, sorry but your claim to fame accusation is false. There's been plenty of others that have pulled the curtain back on Bush too, like Clark and Wilson, only to name two.
Click to expand...

and you really believe he had to be coaxed into a high profile and very well paid job? That is as plausible as the rest of you theory.
 
Montecresto said:
Yes, it's the standby/go to accusation against anybody critical of war and pro-peace. I noticed in the press conference with Obama yesterday that Mrs. Merkel was dancing vary carefully, still reiterating that there is no military solution in Ukraine!
Click to expand...

Not a surprise. My understanding is that Europe was never to keen on a major confrontation with Russia over Ukraine.
 
joG said:
and you really believe he had to be coaxed into a high profile and very well paid job? That is as plausible as the rest of you theory.
Click to expand...

You can say whatever you want to about Blix but obviously you don't know dick.

Blix was put forward as a compromise candidate by the French one week ago. When envoys asked him to come out of retirement to head one of the most diplomatically and technically difficult assignments at the U.N., Blix was "surprised, reluctant and skeptical," a diplomat close to the talks said. "He was not enthusiastic about doing it, but he feels it is a duty."

And the CFR's report on Ukraine is no theory.

U.N. Picks a Chief Iraq Arms Inspector - Los Angeles Times
 
Montecresto said:
You can say whatever you want to about Blix but obviously you don't know dick.

Blix was put forward as a compromise candidate by the French one week ago. When envoys asked him to come out of retirement to head one of the most diplomatically and technically difficult assignments at the U.N., Blix was "surprised, reluctant and skeptical," a diplomat close to the talks said. "He was not enthusiastic about doing it, but he feels it is a duty."

And the CFR's report on Ukraine is no theory.

U.N. Picks a Chief Iraq Arms Inspector - Los Angeles Times
Click to expand...

He certainly was right to be sceptical of his qualities for the job. It turned out, he failed singularly. But to be fatfair it was more the thrust of the Schröder, Chirac, Putin axis in support of Saddam as much as his own character that doomed the mission.
 
joG said:
He certainly was right to be sceptical of his qualities for the job. It turned out, he failed singularly. But to be fatfair it was more the thrust of the Schröder, Chirac, Putin axis in support of Saddam as much as his own character that doomed the mission.
Click to expand...

he was doing his job
and doing it well
until he and his team were denied continued access to iraqi sites - not by iraq - but because our chickenhawks were in a rush to get the war started before Blix' information that there were no WMDs prevented war from happening
and you term that Blix' failure
more reich wing illogic at work
 
joG said:
He certainly was right to be sceptical of his qualities for the job. It turned out, he failed singularly. But to be fatfair it was more the thrust of the Schröder, Chirac, Putin axis in support of Saddam as much as his own character that doomed the mission.
Click to expand...

His skepticism was in the mission, as you'd know had you actually gone to the link and read the story. The UN wanted that retired man because of his qualifications.
 
justabubba said:
he was doing his job
and doing it well
until he and his team were denied continued access to iraqi sites - not by iraq - but because our chickenhawks were in a rush to get the war started before Blix' information that there were no WMDs prevented war from happening
and you term that Blix' failure
more reich wing illogic at work
Click to expand...

He quite obviously had not done it well. He did not explain, what had become of the large stockpile of WMD that the UN inspectors had identified after Iraq1. Or did he? Link?
 
Montecresto said:
His skepticism was in the mission, as you'd know had you actually gone to the link and read the story. The UN wanted that retired man because of his qualifications.
Click to expand...

Oh, I had read that link long ago and its content had long ago been positively considered in my opinion. But thank you all the same. As it turned out, his "retirement" was no guarantee against his falling prey to his ambitions
 
joG said:
He quite obviously had not done it well. He did not explain, what had become of the large stockpile of WMD that the UN inspectors had identified after Iraq1. Or did he? Link?
Click to expand...

why would he be expected to know the location/disposition of WMD stockpiles never identified by him and his team
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom