• 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!

Who do you trust more to deal with Iran?

Who do you trust more to deal with Iran?


  • Total voters
    54
I think both suck, for different reasons.... both are much better choices than having me negotiate, though.
both together might be a decent team , though... but that won't happen either.

in the end, it doesn't matter much...the Iranian regime can't be trusted no matter who is sitting on the "Great Satans" side of the table.
 
Without a doubt President Obama. Netanyahu was here to undermine our negotiations with Iran.
 
Netanyahu sounded like Dick Cheney on Steroids....just what we don't need a meganeocon.

I thought at the time that Iraq might have been a mistake. now it seems clear that we should have done Iran instead. ;)
 
I thought at the time that Iraq might have been a mistake. now it seems clear that we should have done Iran instead. ;)

Well considering that Reagan supplied most of the arms to Iraq to build up their army during the Iran/Iraq war....it would have at least made more logical sense.
 
Well considering that Reagan supplied most of the arms to Iraq to build up their army during the Iran/Iraq war....it would have at least made more logical sense.

"most of the arms"?

were/are you upset that Iran wasn't allowed to take over Iraq?
 
I hate to say it but under Obama I expect another mass attack on our homeland that will make 9/11 look like kindergarten... The man has no clue on how to run a country and without a teleprompter would be a babbling idiot.
 
Well considering that Reagan supplied most of the arms to Iraq to build up their army during the Iran/Iraq war....it would have at least made more logical sense.



If you use your Google you can find a photo of Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein shaking hands when all that was going on. :roll:
 
The USA has already said that it won't let Iran have nukes so all we can do is wait and see what happens.

With the sunset provision in the deal do you think the Saudi's are going to wait and see what happens? Funny Obama would like the U.S. to have no nuclear weapons but is fine with Iran having them.
 
Saying after this:
"A new assessment by American intelligence agencies released Monday concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting a judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/world/middleeast/04intel.html?pagewanted=all

"Less than a month after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's 2012 warning to the UN General Assembly that Iran was 70 percent of the way to completing its "plans to build a nuclear weapon", Israel's intelligence service believed that Iran was "not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons".
Mossad contradicted Netanyahu on Iran nuclear programme - Al Jazeera English

"(Reuters) - The United States, European allies and even Israel generally agree on three things about Iran's nuclear program: Tehran does not have a bomb, has not decided to build one, and is probably years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead."
Special Report: Intel shows Iran nuclear threat not imminent | Reuters

"Despite this heady rhetoric, Netanyahu’s estimates of an imminent Iranian nuclear bomb have consistently been at odds with analyses made by his own intelligence agency. In 2011, departing Mossad intelligence chief Meir Dagan said in his final intelligence summary that, contrary to Netanyahu’s repeated statements at the time, an Iranian nuclear weapon is in fact not imminent, and that any military action against the country could end up spurring the development of such a weapon.... The conclusion from this history is inescapable. Over the course of more than 20 years, Benjamin Netanyahu has made false claims about nuclear weapons programs in both Iran and Iraq, inventing imaginary timelines for their development, and making public statements that contradicted the analysis of his own intelligence advisers."
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/...y-netanyahu-crying-wolf-iranian-nuclear-bomb/

"Iran is continuing to comply with the conditions of the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA), an interim deal that Iran and the P5+1 reached in November 2013. In total, these actions have halted Iran’s nuclear progress and rolled back key elements of proliferation concern...Iran is continuing to implement all of its commitments under the JPOA. Iran is making progress on the new actions it pledged to take as part of the agreement to extend its negotiations with the P5+1. Iran has completed three of five actions it pledged to take as part of its cooperation with the IAEA’s investigation into past military actions." IAEA Report Shows Iran’s Nuclear Program Remains Frozen |

After Netanyahu's Speech, A Reality Check : Parallels : NPR

I'm gonna say not the crazy war hawk, who is running for an election, who has been making the same erroneous claim since 1992, who's own intelligence agency contradicts him.... Yea Bibi. Not that guy
 
Obama. The US is a far larger threat to Iran than Israel, and Iran is a far larger threat to Israel than the US, so Obama would have far more leverage in negotiations than Netanyahu would.

I realise I'm not being properly partisan for this thread, so I apologise.
 
I hate to say it but under Obama I expect another mass attack on our homeland that will make 9/11 look like kindergarten... The man has no clue on how to run a country and without a teleprompter would be a babbling idiot.

Are you saying Bush was a babbling idiot?
 
well what do yyou think?

I picked the PM of Israel. Mostly because we have nothing to lose if Iran gets nukes.We are too far away and we have a heavily armed military and civilian population. Israel on the other hand is much closer to Iran and therefor actually has something to lose.
 
I hate to say it but under Obama I expect another mass attack on our homeland that will make 9/11 look like kindergarten... The man has no clue on how to run a country and without a teleprompter would be a babbling idiot.


LOL....nah Navy....Obama isn't a fool and asleep at the wheel like GWB was. That is the only way an attack like 9/11 could happen or will happen again.
 
I hate to say it but under Obama I expect another mass attack on our homeland that will make 9/11 look like kindergarten... The man has no clue on how to run a country and without a teleprompter would be a babbling idiot.

Hyper-partisan drama-queen says what????

Why does your poll only supply two choices?

Why shouldn't all of Europe, South Asia, North Africa, and all of the Middle East play a major role in what to "do" with Iran?
How about letting the countries who stand to lose the most deal with those issues?

Iran is a saber-rattling country.
They don't have a suicidal death wish to end the world, or start a nuclear world war, which they know would happen if they ever tried to unleash a nuke on Israel.

The USofA needs to take a few loooooooong steps back from trying to be the world's police force.
 
well what do yyou think?

Stupid poll. Where's Germany, France, China, Russia and the UK. People act like Obama is unilaterally negotiating with Iran!!
 
I thought at the time that Iraq might have been a mistake. now it seems clear that we should have done Iran instead. ;)

So ignore Mossads comments on Iran, as well as US intelligence conclusions, and listen to this freak from Israel, with his black octopus map and cartoon bomb, dribble about. He's been crying wolf on Iran for twenty five years! You can't put Iraq back on the shelf, (remember colin Powell's Pottery Barn rule) and now you want to pull Iran down and handle it!
 
he was?... that's an interesting opinion.

You're denying his criticism of the deal (that he hasn't seen) that the P-5+1 is working on? Do you think he was here to give Obama moral support and a pat on the back for a job well done. Why don't you try to disguise your dishonesty a bit?
 
Back
Top Bottom