• 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!

U.S. Officials Say Iran Has Agreed to Nuclear Talks

MaggieD said:
Funny, I thought it was to get them to stop developing nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

And how do you do that? Come on, you can figure this out, I have confidence in you.
 
MaggieD said:
Someone posted at thread on this using a flufey source a few days ago. Posters laughed at the source. Who's laughin' now? ;)

Another reason not to elect President Obama. We'll end up buyin' them off with taxpayer funds. Watch. You read it here first.
Click to expand...

Much better for the economy to go to war. Yep best vote for romney. He'll at least spend taxpayer funds killing people.
 
MaggieD said:
Not if our country turned some crucial military installations into glass it wouldn't. We have the most powerful military force on planet earth. We don't have to send in foot soldiers. Time some of those tax dollars got spent saving lives instead of buying boots.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Drop an atomic bomb on a nuclear facility that is suspected/known to be building an atomic bomb. Irony is dead in america.

A "surgical" strike is not a guarantee of success. It wouldn't be like Israel on Iraq decades ago. the Iranians are bristling with anti-air defences - admittedly few are first tier, but aint a countersystem on the planet that could deal with hundreds of missles at the the same time.

And then there is the reaction of the rest of the world. Now I realize that the right doesn't really care too much, but such action whether successful or not will push a lot of countries into the sino/russian economic spheres (not political, strictly investment/supplier/customer terms), thereby guaranting china's non military acquisition of necessary land, food, mineral, energy. and enabling russia to regain world influence in economic terms instead of the militaristic influence of commie days. Give em a hand - they need it.
 
Redress said:
That would be about the worst possible option.
Click to expand...

I meant that negotiations with Iraq weren't successful...not that we went in on them.

Jonsa said:
Interesting. Drop an atomic bomb on a nuclear facility that is suspected/known to be building an atomic bomb. Irony is dead in america.

A "surgical" strike is not a guarantee of success. It wouldn't be like Israel on Iraq decades ago. the Iranians are bristling with anti-air defences - admittedly few are first tier, but aint a countersystem on the planet that could deal with hundreds of missles at the the same time.

And then there is the reaction of the rest of the world. Now I realize that the right doesn't really care too much, but such action whether successful or not will push a lot of countries into the sino/russian economic spheres (not political, strictly investment/supplier/customer terms), thereby guaranting china's non military acquisition of necessary land, food, mineral, energy. and enabling russia to regain world influence in economic terms instead of the militaristic influence of commie days. Give em a hand - they need it.
Click to expand...

Well, not an atomic bomb, Jonsa. Though I said "glass," that really wasn't what I meant. It was just a fast way to communicate my thought that we should be able to destroy whatever facilities they have without putting men on the ground. And I also don't mean doing it alone.

But, in the end, you and Redress are correct. Negotiations must come first. I just don't happen to think they'll do any good. Stall-build-stall-develop-stall-stall-stall. I guess we'll see, but since it's hardly worked in the past, I just don't hold out much hope. I should be more optimistic, I guess.
 
MaggieD said:
I meant that negotiations with Iraq weren't successful...not that we went in on them.



Well, not an atomic bomb, Jonsa. Though I said "glass," that really wasn't what I meant. It was just a fast way to communicate my thought that we should be able to destroy whatever facilities they have without putting men on the ground. And I also don't mean doing it alone.

But, in the end, you and Redress are correct. Negotiations must come first. I just don't happen to think they'll do any good. Stall-build-stall-develop-stall-stall-stall. I guess we'll see, but since it's hardly worked in the past, I just don't hold out much hope. I should be more optimistic, I guess.
Click to expand...

Where would the funding come from for this new war you want us to go into?:2wave:
 
treedancer said:
Where would the funding come from for this new war you want us to go into?:2wave:
Click to expand...

I don't want us to get into a war. I guess I completely misrepresented my position. The last thing I want is a war. But if it came to acts of war, I wouldn't want it to be like Iraq where we sent our guys in to get killed -- or Afghanistan where we send our guys in to get killed. We have their targets delineated, apparently. I'd hope we'd just destroy them from the air.

Oh. The money? That would come from you and me just like always. ;)

Cute use of the wave.
 
MaggieD said:
Someone posted at thread on this using a flufey source a few days ago. Posters laughed at the source. Who's laughin' now? ;)

Another reason not to elect President Obama. We'll end up buyin' them off with taxpayer funds. Watch. You read it here first.
Click to expand...

Technically the other post says a deal has been reached and this story just says that Iran has expressed interest in 1 on 1 talks that have yet to take place, so yeah I am laughin' still at the first thread and do not see this as a game changer. Took 4 years just to get them to say they would be willing to talk to us directly is not huge progress.
 
MaggieD said:
The thick is plottening.

The reports who report the NY Times report are White House correspondents. Very peculiar.
Click to expand...

The New York Times--All the political news worth making up; check out our polls!!
 
Higgins86 said:
Problem with Romney is that no one on the international stage would take his ideas seriously because they are abusrd. I doubt Romney himself would really go through with a preemptive stike on Iran if he was to become president. He is just saying exactly what a certain % of voters want to hear.
Click to expand...

What? Obama, and all of DC, is clear: The Iranian regime will not be allowed to get nukes.
 
MaggieD said:
Someone posted at thread on this using a flufey source a few days ago. Posters laughed at the source. Who's laughin' now? ;)
Click to expand...

:)





.
 
ecofarm said:
What? Obama, and all of DC, is clear: The Iranian regime will not be allowed to get nukes.
Click to expand...

any proof that the Obama admin woud allow this too happen?
 
MaggieD said:
Someone posted at thread on this using a flufey source a few days ago. Posters laughed at the source. Who's laughin' now? ;)

Another reason not to elect President Obama. We'll end up buyin' them off with taxpayer funds. Watch. You read it here first.
Click to expand...

Iran doesn't need our money at all.. This is about lifting the punishing sanctions that have caused a massive drop in oil exports and a 30% drop in the value of the Iranian Rial.

This is good news and Obama gets the credit.. Iran watchers have known for months that the sanctions were working. Poor Bibi may not get a chance to run US foreign policy.
 
Higgins86 said:
not suprising as they begin to feel the noose tighten around their necks.
Click to expand...

since when has the USA preferred diplomacy to impliment its imperial fascist tentacles upon the world?

looks like the US has come to the table because it does not want not can it afford another war - this time with a nation that has a small defence that can inflict damage on US and Israeli interests as well as disrupt oil supplies to the spoilt US public who are used to cheap fuel prices.

it also looks like the US is fed up with the petulent demands of its master - Israel

Yes Israel - the only nation in the world that has NUKEs and prohibits international inspections and hasnt signed the NNP treaty.

Great friend you have there

Lots of American blood sweat and tears have flooded the sands of the middle east on behalf of your master and on behalf of your corporate Oligarchs

A dumber nation is harder to find

lol
 
This is false story. White House denies it all.
 
PeteEU said:
This is false story. White House denies it all.
Click to expand...

Or a premature story... Or, a back channel work in progress.

The Iranians have said they waant to wait to see if they will be talking with Obama or Romney.
 
sharon said:
Or a premature story... Or, a back channel work in progress.

The Iranians have said they waant to wait to see if they will be talking with Obama or Romney.
Click to expand...

Yes, who knows, point is it has been denied by official channels.

And the US and Iran have always had back channel talks.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom