• 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!

Khamenei calls ‘Death to America’ as Kerry hails progress on nuke deal

I know the agreement was originally for 500 centrifuges-now the "compromise" is 6,000 out of Irans 10,000.
I know they already have the capability for nukes.
I know socialist France is being tougher on Iran in these talks than Obama.
I know we have given them billions.

What on earth kind of deal is that?

And you know all this, including that France is socialist and we've given the Iranians "billions", how again?
 
I don't really see any hand wringing and I don't think I need someone to gin any fear up to convince me Iran with a nuke makes this world much worse off than it would be if Iran had no nuke. I'm not surprised however that this will be North Korea all over again. It's not Obama's fault nor his WH or State Department. Iran is very clever and let's face it, negotiation and haggling started in the ME.

But Iran isn't building a nuke, and six countries are fast at work to ensure that they won't be. We can imagine all kinds of hypotheticals we could be fearful of. There's enough problems to solve as it is without manufacturing more. And yes, Netanyahu's junket to congress a few days ago is handwringing at its finest.
 
That's just it. People are criticizing something they haven't seen! Doesn't that deserve a sheesh? Do you understand the language that Khomeini is speaking in. How do you know he said such a thing?

So your premise is that he was misinterpreted?

Can you substantiate your claim?
 
No, I don't speak Farsi, but I am slowly learning Mandarin Chinese...and some think English is difficult! :lol: Maybe I picked the wrong language?

I think I read what the Ayatollah said in one of the links somebody posted on this thread in a newspaper article written by a reporter covering the talks. Does anyone know, except those in the talks and they appear to be secretive except for the French, what's actually being discussed? :shock:

Are you seriously learning Mandarin? Because that's pretty cool if you are. My understanding is that the six nations involved are the only ones with complete knowledge, but I'm sure that just as the US is keeping some of its ally's somewhat in the loop, the others may be doing so as well. I've heard the complaint that Obama's not giving Bibi all that much, I don't know if that was true. But it's bound to be true now, if you know what I mean?
 
So your premise is that he was misinterpreted?

Can you substantiate your claim?

First, it's not a claim, it's a question of reliability. I do know that there's a difference between wanting regime change and wanting a nation eliminated.
 
First, it's not a claim, it's a question of reliability. I do know that there's a difference between wanting regime change and wanting a nation eliminated.

I've seen no evidence that he was misinterpreted. YOU are attempting to introduce uncertainty because thats how lefties roll.

Its a bit childish, and a bit immature.
 
We have tried to negotiate before, Iran was just feigning interest to build up nuclear weapons capabilities.

And thats what they got.

No, you gave nuclear capability to Iran. Without the US who knows Iran might never have had nuclear technology. In fact it was republicans who are to blame for Iran having a nuclear program in the first place.

It was his "Atoms for peace" program that gave Iran a nuclear capability. And there is no proof Iran has actual usable nuclear weapon capability, even Israel stated this in a report to Netanyahu.
 
No, you gave nuclear capability to Iran. Without the US who knows Iran might never have had nuclear technology. In fact it was republicans who are to blame for Iran having a nuclear program in the first place.

It was his "Atoms for peace" program that gave Iran a nuclear capability. And there is no proof Iran has actual usable nuclear weapon capability, even Israel stated this in a report to Netanyahu.

We gave LIMITED capabilities to Iran under the Shah. It was disbanded by the fundamentalists after the revolution.

The 10,000 centrifuges and all since are NOT our fault. Try again.
 
Hold on a minute, when did I say I'm ok with anybody getting nuked, hmm?
Well you didn't mind when I mentioned 30 million Jews getting nuked and then you said you weren't worried because Iran can't nuke America.... so that sort of implied it.
Kind of a bad debating tactic. I'm the one who advocates global eradication.
Well isn't when Iran get's a nuke, that's one more step towards global eradication, so that falls right into your wheel house.
I agree we're in the here and now, and theirs six nations leveraging Iran on this. It's not a unilateral Obama action. So it seems prudent that we let them finish before criticizing the deal that they all insist will prevent Iranian nukes and verify their compliance.
Doubt it will make a difference but whatever lets people sleep at night. I'm going to go outside and start my fallout shelter now.
 
I am not confused at all. Everything on the table, any and all Military assets needed to complete the mission of destroying any and all facilities targeted.

It's nice rhetoric from the government but I certainly know the WH has no stomach for a military solution to Iran. I think my analogy was in a past post: "Humans will start ****ting gold bricks" before Obama uses the military with Iran.
 
But Iran isn't building a nuke, and six countries are fast at work to ensure that they won't be.
Do you really believe that? :lamo

2001 we said North Korea wasn't either until they tested one underground. Ooopsie!

We can imagine all kinds of hypotheticals we could be fearful of. There's enough problems to solve as it is without manufacturing more. And yes, Netanyahu's junket to congress a few days ago is handwringing at its finest.
It's not a hypothetical, but it's nice you think that.
 
Because I have read. You can easily google either one.

So I can. I seriously doubt your statements, but then, let's google one of them and see what comes up:

I have read: Nope, nothing comes up there

French are socialists? Well, there is some academic support for socialism, however, this did come up:

Yet France's financiers have helped develop the very markets the political elite professes to deplore. French financial innovation is considered world-class. In the 1980s, Société Générale was a pioneer in the development of sophisticated equity derivatives, based on the complex mathematics in which the elite French education system excels. It drew on a steady stream of brainy graduates of the grandes écoles, such as the École Polytechnique or the École des Mines, many of them trained as much in civil as in financial engineering.
 
So I can. I seriously doubt your statements, but then, let's google one of them and see what comes up:

I have read: Nope, nothing comes up there

French are socialists? Well, there is some academic support for socialism, however, this did come up:

The govt is headed up by french socialists currently. Ironically they sound more conservative than Obama supporters.
 
I've seen no evidence that he was misinterpreted. YOU are attempting to introduce uncertainty because thats how lefties roll.

Its a bit childish, and a bit immature.

And you're a bit redundant.
 
Do you really believe that? :lamo

2001 we said North Korea wasn't either until they tested one underground. Ooopsie!

It's not a hypothetical, but it's nice you think that.

I can't help it because Bush let one fall through the cracks, as you told me, stay with the present. And yes, I believe that the six nations working on this have every interest in preventing Iran from having nuclear weapons. And yes, sense Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon, and because six nations are working to ensure that they don't, your scaredy cat stories, the same ones we hear from Bibi, are hypotheticals.
 
Are you seriously learning Mandarin? Because that's pretty cool if you are. My understanding is that the six nations involved are the only ones with complete knowledge, but I'm sure that just as the US is keeping some of its ally's somewhat in the loop, the others may be doing so as well. I've heard the complaint that Obama's not giving Bibi all that much, I don't know if that was true. But it's bound to be true now, if you know what I mean?

Yes, I really am learning Mandarin Chinese from a private tutor who uses Skype as part of the training. I have all the books and tapes, and I can go at my own pace, which is nice - and there's no exams! It's up to me to know how much time I can spend, but no dawdling is allowed! :lol: .
 
I can't help it because Bush let one fall through the cracks, as you told me, stay with the present.
It would be valid if there was a crack in 2007 but there wasn't like there is now but yes - stay in the present.
And yes, I believe that the six nations working on this have every interest in preventing Iran from having nuclear weapons.
That's not what I asked but okay.
And yes, sense Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon, and because six nations are working to ensure that they don't, your scaredy cat stories, the same ones we hear from Bibi, are hypotheticals.
They don't have one you say... how do you know? They aren't working on one? How do you know... They don't want one? North Korea said the same thing... how'd that work out?

And since they don't have one right now as you believe, they cannot get one if the P5+1 come to an agreement and Iran can't continue to oh I don't know, work in a secret location similar to the location that was outed in 2010? That can't happen either I guess.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/09/09/iran.nuclear.site/index.html
 
One - the source is staggeringly biased.

Two - I would need to hear EXACTLY what was said, how it was said and in what context it was said before judging it. I don't doubt that he said it. But context and meaning is everything. And it would have to be complete and from an completely unbiased source.
Politicians say things ALL THE TIME that are taken out of context. Why would this be any different?

Three - if Bibi said something similar I guarantee you the right would water it down gigantically because they seem to have a MAJOR hard on for the guy.

Four - it makes no sense. Why would he say it in full context knowing that they are trying to make a deal with America? Come on now...that makes zip sense.

Five - I am neither Rep nor dem...so save the 'lefty' excuses, because I DESPISE both parties.
 
Just today, Obamas boy in the CIA John Brennan said Iran is STILL a state sponsor of terrorism. And Obama wants to lift all economic and banking sanctions and allow them to continue with all their nuke fuel development and technology.

What a freakin' islamic appeasing idiot.
 
Four - it makes no sense. Why would he say it in full context knowing that they are trying to make a deal with America? Come on now...that makes zip sense.

Because he believes it. Yes, they really do think that America is the Great Satan. Yes, they really do think that we are their mortal enemies, and that we must be defeated and Israel destroyed so that the Hidden Imam can come back and lead them into Paradise on Earth. You don't get to be leader of Iran by telling key interest groups what they want to hear whether or not you believe it, like in our country - this is a system that self-selects for crazy.



What is it about this that is so difficult for people to get?
 
Last edited:
That doesn't prove anything except that some power-hungry people are willfully blind.

Well, we know. Jews are willing to be discriminated against as long as they... what? Get ahead? ;)
 
It would be valid if there was a crack in 2007 but there wasn't like there is now but yes - stay in the present.
That's not what I asked but okay.
They don't have one you say... how do you know? They aren't working on one? How do you know... They don't want one? North Korea said the same thing... how'd that work out?

And since they don't have one right now as you believe, they cannot get one if the P5+1 come to an agreement and Iran can't continue to oh I don't know, work in a secret location similar to the location that was outed in 2010? That can't happen either I guess.

Iranian secret nuclear site disclosed, opposition group claims - CNN.com

I said, Bush was president when NK got nukes, I don't know, did he get the criticism for that that you're giving Obama for something that hasn't even happened.

Israeli and US intelligence both say that Iran's doesn't have them, isn't making them, hasn't even decided to make them.

So what's your angle, you want to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran for your hypothetical?
 
Just today, Obamas boy in the CIA John Brennan said Iran is STILL a state sponsor of terrorism. And Obama wants to lift all economic and banking sanctions and allow them to continue with all their nuke fuel development and technology.

What a freakin' islamic appeasing idiot.

This is not a unilateral action by Obama. Why do you guys keep MISrepresenting the six nation talks, hmm?
 
I said, Bush was president when NK got nukes, I don't know, did he get the criticism for that that you're giving Obama for something that hasn't even happened.

Israeli and US intelligence both say that Iran's doesn't have them, isn't making them, hasn't even decided to make them.

So what's your angle, you want to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran for your hypothetical?
I'm thinking they aren't going to get them..at least not yet. 1 thing at a time. get rid of the sanctions and get breakout capability
and continue regional hegemony while the Sunni states are in confusion.

They're in the cat bird seat. they can go either way as events unfold
 
Back
Top Bottom