• 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

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
4,974
Reaction score
1,047
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iran does not pose a significant direct nuclear threat to the United States. The way forward is for a deal that allows them to enrich uranium under strict safeguards. Those that don't think this is possible only have one other option, that is war.

Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise | Reuters

In a speech that still underlined his suspicions about Western nations that he characterized as "bullies", Khamenei backed Rouhani's negotiations with them and said any workable deal would mean both sides easing their demands.

"As the president said, negotiations mean reaching a common point. Therefore, the other party ... should not expect its illogical expectations to be materialized. This means that one side would not end up getting all it wants."

"I am for reaching a good settlement and the Iranian nation too will certainly not oppose any deal to uphold its dignity and integrity," Khamenei said, an apparent warning to hardliners that they might have to accept a deal with powers including the United States, commonly known in Iran as "the Great Satan".
 
Iran does not pose a significant direct nuclear threat to the United States. The way forward is for a deal that allows them to enrich uranium under strict safeguards. Those that don't think this is possible only have one other option, that is war.

Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise | Reuters

That would be an Obama foreign policy success. Had John McCain won in 2008, we'd have long ago bomb bomb bomb, bomb bombed Iran, with the applause and support of the fringe right that lurks about this place.
 
That would be an Obama foreign policy success. Had John McCain won in 2008, we'd have long ago bomb bomb bomb, bomb bombed Iran, with the applause and support of the fringe right that lurks about this place.

Agreed. It is in the interests to do so, and would likely contribute to a more stable Middle East.
 
Iran does not pose a significant direct nuclear threat to the United States. The way forward is for a deal that allows them to enrich uranium under strict safeguards. Those that don't think this is possible only have one other option, that is war.

Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise | Reuters


It is interesting that in the moment that Russia and the EU are showing the world how important it is to have nuclear capabilities in Ukraine, Iran says it will forego such weapons.



PS: The question of a direct and present threat to the US has nothing to do with the problem of Iran having nuclear weapons. You know that don't you?
 
It is interesting that in the moment that Russia and the EU are showing the world how important it is to have nuclear capabilities in Ukraine, Iran says it will forego such weapons.

PS: The question of a direct and present threat to the US has nothing to do with the problem of Iran having nuclear weapons. You know that don't you?

You are wrong, it does have something to do with it. That is not the only issue, but that is part of it.
 
Other than simple self appointment, the US has no authority to decide which countries do and which countries do not have nuclear weapons. And as the only country to date that has used nuclear weapons, and on two very civilian targets, the US should be the last to be deciding on this. But when you carry a big stick, you pretty much do as you wish. And this is why republicans in particular, never want to see the pentagon, that sacred cow, receive even the slightest budget cut, never mind that the size and scope of our military far surpasses defensive obligations.
 
It is interesting that in the moment that Russia and the EU are showing the world how important it is to have nuclear capabilities in Ukraine, Iran says it will forego such weapons.



PS: The question of a direct and present threat to the US has nothing to do with the problem of Iran having nuclear weapons. You know that don't you?

Iran has maintained from jump street that their nuclear program is commercial and not military in nature.
 
Other than simple self appointment, the US has no authority to decide which countries do and which countries do not have nuclear weapons. And as the only country to date that has used nuclear weapons, and on two very civilian targets, the US should be the last to be deciding on this. But when you carry a big stick, you pretty much do as you wish. And this is why republicans in particular, never want to see the pentagon, that sacred cow, receive even the slightest budget cut, never mind that the size and scope of our military far surpasses defensive obligations.

Other than simple self appointment, nobody has no authority to do anything.
 
Iran does not pose a significant direct nuclear threat to the United States. The way forward is for a deal that allows them to enrich uranium under strict safeguards. Those that don't think this is possible only have one other option, that is war.
Naivety, the liberal's stock in trade. :roll:
 
You are wrong, it does have something to do with it. That is not the only issue, but that is part of it.

We were never worried about being attacked by Iran...

#1 They probably couldn't even make a missile with that much range, and if they could they could only make 1-2 maybe even 3 at best.

#2 we have a triple layered defense system that would shoot the pitiful missiles down.

You are wrong, jog is right. Iran never will have the capability to directly damage us in any way (outside of possibly hacking a couple US companies), including nuclear.
 
Other than simple self appointment, nobody has no authority to do anything.

Ok. So you're arguing that the US does, or doesn't have the authority to decide whether Iran has a military nuclear capability? Never mind the fact that Iran has maintained the civilian nature of the program all along!
 
We were never worried about being attacked by Iran...

#1 They probably couldn't even make a missile with that much range, and if they could they could only make 1-2 maybe even 3 at best.

#2 we have a triple layered defense system that would shoot the pitiful missiles down.

You are wrong, jog is right. Iran never will have the capability to directly damage us in any way (outside of possibly hacking a couple US companies), including nuclear.

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.
 
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.

I would love for Iran to try to nuke us.

Not only would it be futile, but it would open up reason for us to nuke their pitiful asses into the stone age.

You'd never hear about Ahmadinejad or whoever the hell runs Iran for a whole millennium since it'd just be a desolate wasteland.

IOW, a nuclear armed Iran is of no threat to us for many reasons.

Your preference will never be a reality, but I'm sure you knew that anyway.
 
We were never worried about being attacked by Iran...

#1 They probably couldn't even make a missile with that much range, and if they could they could only make 1-2 maybe even 3 at best.

#2 we have a triple layered defense system that would shoot the pitiful missiles down.

You are wrong, jog is right. Iran never will have the capability to directly damage us in any way (outside of possibly hacking a couple US companies), including nuclear.

No I am not wrong. Although much of what you have posted is indeed correct, Iran's nuclear capabilities are an issue for us as the Middle East is of strategic importance to us. As a result of that, the U.S. may indeed feel the need to one day engage Iran militarily, and at that point it would be a threat. But that is a potential threat only, and as such, that is no reason to preclude a nuclear deal. But it is certainly erroneous to not factor that into the equation.
 
I would love for Iran to try to nuke us.

Not only would it be futile, but it would open up reason for us to nuke their pitiful asses into the stone age.

You'd never hear about Ahmadinejad or whoever the hell runs Iran for a whole millennium since it'd just be a desolate wasteland.

IOW, a nuclear armed Iran is of no threat to us for many reasons.

Your preference will never be a reality, but I'm sure you knew that anyway.


Wow, so refreshing to see someone actually hoping for nuclear war and the massive killing of a nation's citizenry, not to mention a desire to see $10 a gallon gas.
 
Wow, so refreshing to see someone actually hoping for nuclear war and the massive killing of a nation's citizenry, not to mention a desire to see $10 a gallon gas.

Sure thing mam.

Everyone knows I'm terribly biased when it comes to the ME, I disclosed that publicly. Always feel free to ignore me when it comes to the ME.
 
I would love for Iran to try to nuke us.

Not only would it be futile, but it would open up reason for us to nuke their pitiful asses into the stone age.

You'd never hear about Ahmadinejad or whoever the hell runs Iran for a whole millennium since it'd just be a desolate wasteland.

IOW, a nuclear armed Iran is of no threat to us for many reasons.

Your preference will never be a reality, but I'm sure you knew that anyway.

I think my preference is unlikely, sure, but you're still young with a round face and have yet to learn never to say never. Nevertheless, many things in history have taken place despite the declarations that they never would. Now then, as to your other comment, what of the millions of mostly young (Iran is composed of a comparatively young demographic) Iranians that would be vaporised, were you to get your wish, and things like all the flora and fauna, that you can't possibly be accusing of contributing to the miserable place you consider Iran to be. And the environmental impact on Iran's neighbours. I'm sure you're too young to remember the huge outpouring of support the US received from Iran on the heels of the 9/11 attacks, that dissipated only after the "decider" declared that Iran was the third leg in the "axis of evil".
 
Iran has maintained from jump street that their nuclear program is commercial and not military in nature.

Yet, in defiance of a UN treaty, broke it with regard over the firing and testing of Ballistic Missiles. Including last year.

Then decided to try and obtain parts that they weren't suppose to be trying to obtain. Even enough for BO's own people to file a compliant with the UN, only to back off due to BO and his desperation for a deal.
 
Yet, in defiance of a UN treaty, broke it with regard over the firing and testing of Ballistic Missiles. Including last year.

Then decided to try and obtain parts that they weren't suppose to be trying to obtain. Even enough for BO's own people to file a compliant with the UN, only to back off due to BO and his desperation for a deal.

You mean a government might actually profess one thing publicly, and pursue a different path privately? Ok, I'll buy that.
 
You mean a government might actually profess one thing publicly, and pursue a different path privately? Ok, I'll buy that.


Yeah, and then know they were doing it with purpose and deliberate intent.


Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) criticized the Obama administration’s Iran rhetoric for sounding “like talking points that come straight out of Tehran” and supporting “the Iranian narrative of victimization” before a Senate hearing on Wednesday.....snip~

Menendez: Obama Iran Rhetoric Sounds 'Straight Out Of Tehran' - Breitbart



Iran's parliament has started to draft a law that would allow the country's nuclear scientists to intensify their uranium enrichment, a step that could complicate ongoing talks with world powers. The move, announced Saturday by parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, comes after U.S. lawmakers said they were planning legislation that could place new sanctions on Iran. "This bill will allow the government to continue enrichment, using new generation centrifuges," he said, referring to more modern machines that would speed up production.....snip~

Iran Lawmakers Drafting Law on Nuclear Enrichment Hike
 
Yeah, and then know they were doing it with purpose and deliberate intent.


Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) criticized the Obama administration’s Iran rhetoric for sounding “like talking points that come straight out of Tehran” and supporting “the Iranian narrative of victimization” before a Senate hearing on Wednesday.....snip~

Menendez: Obama Iran Rhetoric Sounds 'Straight Out Of Tehran' - Breitbart



Iran's parliament has started to draft a law that would allow the country's nuclear scientists to intensify their uranium enrichment, a step that could complicate ongoing talks with world powers. The move, announced Saturday by parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, comes after U.S. lawmakers said they were planning legislation that could place new sanctions on Iran. "This bill will allow the government to continue enrichment, using new generation centrifuges," he said, referring to more modern machines that would speed up production.....snip~

Iran Lawmakers Drafting Law on Nuclear Enrichment Hike

Nearly all the democrats supported Bush's war of deceit, too!!!!! Do you think the Democratic Party impresses me any more than the Republican Party? Anyway, I would prefer that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon arsenal. But the fact that we allowed Pakistan and Israel to have them, is far more troubling to me.
 
Nearly all the democrats supported Bush's war of deceit, too!!!!! Do you think the Democratic Party impresses me any more than the Republican Party? Anyway, I would prefer that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon arsenal. But the fact that we allowed Pakistan and Israel to have them, is far more troubling to me.

Well even BO's own advisors have warned him. He don't listen to any but Valerie Jarrett on Iran. Funny thing is Mayor Daley fired her and said she was incompetent.
 
Well even BO's own advisors have warned him. He don't listen to any but Valerie Jarrett on Iran. Funny thing is Mayor Daley fired her and said she was incompetent.

Well, we're all familiar with presidential incompetency.

"Katrina to me was the tipping point," said Matthew Dowd, the president's pollster and chief strategist in his 2004 reelection.

"Politically, it was the final nail in the coffin," added Dan Bartlett, former White House counselor and longtime aide to Bush.
 
If we consider the root of the problem, the fact that Iran feels they need a nuke for safety and their subsequent distrust of the US, then we may be able to get somewhere besides bickering about whether or not Iran can harm us. If we hadn't messed around with the Iranians during 50's we would not even be having this conversation.
 
Is a nuclear Iran an existential threat to Israel?
 
Back
Top Bottom