• 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 threatens to 'set fire' to nuclear deal if West violates

fmw said:
I disagree. I would say they are bunch smarter than our negotiators. A true embarrassment.
Click to expand...

The US didn't negotiate with an intention of getting anything in the deal, just giving concessions.

That's called "win win" to the Obama administration.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1065979862 said:
The US didn't negotiate with an intention of getting anything in the deal, just giving concessions.

That's called "win win" to the Obama administration.
Click to expand...

I assume the goal was to get a stop to nuclear weapons development. I see no evidence that it happened.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1065979862 said:
The US didn't negotiate with an intention of getting anything in the deal, just giving concessions.

That's called "win win" to the Obama administration.
Click to expand...

Stop reading comic books.
 
fmw said:
I assume the goal was to get a stop to nuclear weapons development. I see no evidence that it happened.
Click to expand...

It wasn't pitched as stopping nuclear weapons development but rather delaying the time needed for Iran to assemble a nuke.

What a deal...
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1065980432 said:
It wasn't pitched as stopping nuclear weapons development but rather delaying the time needed for Iran to assemble a nuke.

What a deal...
Click to expand...

Short of flattening the entire country, what exactly would you do to permanently stop them?
 
matchlight said:
It's always interesting to see this bit of anti-American propaganda being regurgitated. It's just the kind of thing I used to see in the old English-language editions of Soviet Life, a magazine whose purpose was to spread Communist propaganda to Americans. But given how dim and ignorant most of the regurgitators are, it's just as likely they got their anti-America falsehoods out of one of those "alternative" rags they stack by the door of the local bong shop.

Britain and the U.S. agreed to install the young Shah Reza Pahlavi during World War Two. The Allies were concerned with making Iran as stable as possible. One reason for this was that because supplying the Soviet Union through the North Atlantic to Murmansk was so dangerous, Churchill and Roosevelt wanted to be able to create an alternative southern route through Iran, if necessary.

This problem could--and should--be solved pretty quickly. Renege on B. Hussein Obama's agreement; order the jihadist curs in the Khamenei regime to destroy all their nuclear weapons facilities immediately, and allow international inspectors to verify the destruction; and if they refused, take the decision out of their hands by destroying the facilities from the air. All five of the sites that are indispensable to Iran's nuclear weapons program are vulnerable to conventional U.S. bombs, and the tonnage needed could probably be delivered by about ten B-2's.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid the days of going to another country and bombing the hell out of them because you don't like their politics, or because you don't agree with your president signing a contact with another country are over, and that was a great explanation but it doesn't alter the fact the US overthrew an elected government, and have caused the whole problem in the Middle East and the establishment of ISIS
 
AFM said:
I'm afraid the days of going to another country and bombing the hell out of them because you don't like their politics, or because you don't agree with your president signing a contact with another country are over, and that was a great explanation but it doesn't alter the fact the US overthrew an elected government, and have caused the whole problem in the Middle East and the establishment of ISIS
Click to expand...

First, the Muslim-loving Marxist liar currently disgracing the White House is not my president.

Second, your version of the events that finally drove the U.S. to nudge the erratic troublemaker Mohammad Mosaddeq out of office is drivel designed to slander the United States. It's the sort of witless, bumper-sticker stuff the local commie in my dorm used to prattle in late-night bull sessions, while the rest of us tried to ignore him. The assertion that something which happened in Iran in 1953 brought about ISIS, making the existence of that pack of jackals the fault of this country, is a particularly brain-dead new wrinkle on an old staple of anti-American propaganda. It doesn't even pass the laugh test.

The facts are not so simple as the simple-minded would have them. Mohammad Mosaddeq became Prime Minister when his predecessor was assassinated. His views on the existing agreement with Britain regarding Iranian oil clashed with Shah Pahlavi's, and the friction between them increased over the next year or so until Mosaddeq resigned. But there was rioting in response to this, and the Shah was forced to reappoint him. Finally, somewhat more than a year after that, the power struggle came to a head, as Britain and the U.S. decided to back the Shah and ditch Mosaddegh. And why would those two powers not support the king they had helped to place in power a decade earlier?

All this took place at the time of the Korean War, when the U.S. had very good reason to be concerned about Stalin's aggressive designs--and Mosaddegh was too close to the Iranian Communists for comfort. The Cold War was nasty business, and I am glad the U.S. did whatever our presidents during those years felt was necessary to counter the aggressive plans of the Soviet Union--and that includes encouraging coups in various countries. I know it makes leftists sulky that the USSR lost the Cold War to the U.S. they resent so much, but that's just too damned bad.

Third, no contract B. Hussein Obama made with the pack of jihadists who rule Iran regarding their nuclear weapons program means a damn. Real treaties must be ratified by the Senate, and even when they are, the U.S. is free to renege on them if it believes that is necessary. The days of the U.S. going to another country and bombing it, when that country poses a threat to the security of the U.S. and its allies, will continue as long as the U.S. wants them to continue. All those who don't like that, anywhere in the world, can go chase themselves.
 
jimbo said:
It's my understanding that Iran never signed the contract. Contracts require delivery and acceptance. We delivered, they didn't accept.
Click to expand...

Then why did we give them anything? Just another bad, useless deal it seems.
 
AFM said:
I'm afraid the days of going to another country and bombing the hell out of them because you don't like their politics, or because you don't agree with your president signing a contact with another country are over, and that was a great explanation but it doesn't alter the fact the US overthrew an elected government, and have caused the whole problem in the Middle East and the establishment of ISIS
Click to expand...

Operation Ajax had exactly zero to do with the creation of ISIS.
 
matchlight said:
First, the Muslim-loving Marxist liar currently disgracing the White House is not my president.

Second, your version of the events that finally drove the U.S. to nudge the erratic troublemaker Mohammad Mosaddeq out of office is drivel designed to slander the United States. It's the sort of witless, bumper-sticker stuff the local commie in my dorm used to prattle in late-night bull sessions, while the rest of us tried to ignore him. The assertion that something which happened in Iran in 1953 brought about ISIS, making the existence of that pack of jackals the fault of this country, is a particularly brain-dead new wrinkle on an old staple of anti-American propaganda. It doesn't even pass the laugh test.

The facts are not so simple as the simple-minded would have them. Mohammad Mosaddeq became Prime Minister when his predecessor was assassinated. His views on the existing agreement with Britain regarding Iranian oil clashed with Shah Pahlavi's, and the friction between them increased over the next year or so until Mosaddeq resigned. But there was rioting in response to this, and the Shah was forced to reappoint him. Finally, somewhat more than a year after that, the power struggle came to a head, as Britain and the U.S. decided to back the Shah and ditch Mosaddegh. And why would those two powers not support the king they had helped to place in power a decade earlier?

All this took place at the time of the Korean War, when the U.S. had very good reason to be concerned about Stalin's aggressive designs--and Mosaddegh was too close to the Iranian Communists for comfort. The Cold War was nasty business, and I am glad the U.S. did whatever our presidents during those years felt was necessary to counter the aggressive plans of the Soviet Union--and that includes encouraging coups in various countries. I know it makes leftists sulky that the USSR lost the Cold War to the U.S. they resent so much, but that's just too damned bad.

Third, no contract B. Hussein Obama made with the pack of jihadists who rule Iran regarding their nuclear weapons program means a damn. Real treaties must be ratified by the Senate, and even when they are, the U.S. is free to renege on them if it believes that is necessary. The days of the U.S. going to another country and bombing it, when that country poses a threat to the security of the U.S. and its allies, will continue as long as the U.S. wants them to continue. All those who don't like that, anywhere in the world, can go chase themselves.
Click to expand...

Mosaddegh wasn't a communist or Soviet aligned though. He wasn't ordering all Tudeh members rounded up to be summarily executed, but he wasn't inviting the Russians in either.

I think Ajax was a mistake, but to say it caused ISIS is incredible stupidity.
 
matchlight said:
First, the Muslim-loving Marxist liar currently disgracing the White House is not my president.

Second, your version of the events that finally drove the U.S. to nudge the erratic troublemaker Mohammad Mosaddeq out of office is drivel designed to slander the United States. It's the sort of witless, bumper-sticker stuff the local commie in my dorm used to prattle in late-night bull sessions, while the rest of us tried to ignore him. The assertion that something which happened in Iran in 1953 brought about ISIS, making the existence of that pack of jackals the fault of this country, is a particularly brain-dead new wrinkle on an old staple of anti-American propaganda. It doesn't even pass the laugh test.

The facts are not so simple as the simple-minded would have them. Mohammad Mosaddeq became Prime Minister when his predecessor was assassinated. His views on the existing agreement with Britain regarding Iranian oil clashed with Shah Pahlavi's, and the friction between them increased over the next year or so until Mosaddeq resigned. But there was rioting in response to this, and the Shah was forced to reappoint him. Finally, somewhat more than a year after that, the power struggle came to a head, as Britain and the U.S. decided to back the Shah and ditch Mosaddegh. And why would those two powers not support the king they had helped to place in power a decade earlier?

All this took place at the time of the Korean War, when the U.S. had very good reason to be concerned about Stalin's aggressive designs--and Mosaddegh was too close to the Iranian Communists for comfort. The Cold War was nasty business, and I am glad the U.S. did whatever our presidents during those years felt was necessary to counter the aggressive plans of the Soviet Union--and that includes encouraging coups in various countries. I know it makes leftists sulky that the USSR lost the Cold War to the U.S. they resent so much, but that's just too damned bad.

Third, no contract B. Hussein Obama made with the pack of jihadists who rule Iran regarding their nuclear weapons program means a damn. Real treaties must be ratified by the Senate, and even when they are, the U.S. is free to renege on them if it believes that is necessary. The days of the U.S. going to another country and bombing it, when that country poses a threat to the security of the U.S. and its allies, will continue as long as the U.S. wants them to continue. All those who don't like that, anywhere in the world, can go chase themselves.
Click to expand...

Firstly I assume your an American then Obama is your President, whether you voted for him or not the majority rules in a democracy. Secondly the US foreign policies since 1953 has created ISIS with all your fiddling and the installation of dictators far and wide, the US lost three thousand in the twin towers attach, but just how many have died in the middle East with your involvement over the last sixty years. Thirdly Korea was just another of your interventions that were unsuccessful, Vietnam was another, your domino's theory of the time was just that a theory, if President Eisenhower had told France the colony days were over and had taken Ho Ch Minh under his wing then then thousands of American and Australians soldiers wouldn't have died for nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom