• 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!

Iranian ministry suggests openness to nuclear talks

ecofarm said:
Saddam killed everyone with half a brain and an ounce of conscience. What is there to not understand regarding this being a post-Saddam development difficulty.
Click to expand...
Please re-read the converstaion and post i just posted.

Saddam killed 200k Kurds in a couple years, with chemical weapons wiping out entire towns, women and children dead in the streets by the thousands. You think that's "stability"?
Click to expand...
Dear god :roll:
It was a hell of a lot more stable than it is now.

I still think you dont understand my position or argument.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Dear god :roll:
It was a hell of a lot more stable than it is now.
Click to expand...

Seventeen UN Security Council Resolutions. Sanctions of unprecedented levels. Genocide TWICE. He sold food for oil, starving 400k children. He went to war with neighbors on a regular basis. He attempted and pretended to develop weapons of mass destruction to hold off the Iranians. He spent all of the country's money on henchmen and rape palaces.

That's stable? That's sustainable?
 
ecofarm said:
Seventeen UN Security Council Resolutions. Sanctions of unprecedented levels. Genocide TWICE. He sold food for oil, starving 400k children. He went to war with neighbors on a regular basis. He attempted and pretended to develop weapons of mass destruction to hold off the Iranians. He spent all of the country's money on henchmen and rape palaces.

That's stable? That's sustainable?
Click to expand...

My friend you can have stability and still be a brutal dictator..
Was it sustainable? No.
 
Brutal dictators are not stable. It never lasts.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
[/COLOR][/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, serif]Read more @:Iranian ministry suggests openness to talks - The Washington Post[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, serif]It seems many in the "hawkish" Iranian Intelligence agency are pushing for diplomacy over force in their talks about their nuclear program. This should defiantly be seen as a plus. [/FONT]
Click to expand...

When will you people learn? They love to talk as they advance their nuclear capabilities. Japan "talked" as they planned Pearl Harbor.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
When will you people learn? They love to talk as they advance their nuclear capabilities. Japan "talked" as they planned Pearl Harbor.
Click to expand...

Or you could say the USA talked after they embargoed Japan's lifeline, OIL, to force the Japanese to attack someplace.
 
ecofarm said:
That's stable? That's sustainable?
Click to expand...

Compared to what's there now? Yes. The brutal dictatorship will come to an end at some point, but the government itself could be very stable. Look at all those commie countries. Very long term stable (not infinitely long of course), and horrible, brutal authoritarian assholes.
 
DaveFagan said:
Or you could say the USA talked after they embargoed Japan's lifeline, OIL, to force the Japanese to attack someplace.
Click to expand...

It must be depressing constantly hating your own country.
 
Ikari said:
Compared to what's there now? Yes. The brutal dictatorship will come to an end at some point, but the government itself could be very stable. Look at all those commie countries. Very long term stable (not infinitely long of course), and horrible, brutal authoritarian assholes.
Click to expand...

So the average man can not handle his own destiny?
 
ecofarm said:
I meant even in the short term, historically speaking, not in an abstract way.
Click to expand...

Well in the short term, yes, dicatorships last in the short term. Long term they don't.
 
I think this is another delay tactic.
 
Yes, they like to "suggest openness to talks" now and again, to keep us hopeful while they keep working their way towards nukes.
 
j-mac said:
It must be depressing constantly hating your own country.
Click to expand...

I stated the simple truth. Why don't you read your history books so you will know what happened. Roosevelt wanted the Japanese to attack. It's not complicated. It's just history.
 
DaveFagan said:
I stated the simple truth. Why don't you read your history books so you will know what happened. Roosevelt wanted the Japanese to attack. It's not complicated. It's just history.
Click to expand...


eh, like I said....:shrug: I am not saying that America was just oh so perfect in our history, but see, instead of focusing on the less than shining spots in our past, I prefer to look toward how we have learned from that, and changed for the better. I prefer to see America as the country that rushes to countries in need with aid, and help in times of disaster, and strife to help those in need. I prefer to see this country as the example, and hope of a world looking for freedom, and what that looks like. Your's seems to be a constant dirge of what is wrong with America, yet it isn't a constructive rant, but more a depressing, dower, pissed off view of this country. It's like the guy that everyone knows that is always pissed at the world, hates his life, hates his job, but won't do a damned thing to change it, all you want to do is complain, and in the end that is a lonely place to be brother. No one want's to be around that guy for long....So I feel for ya, and hope that in some way you can find happiness with who you are and where you live, if you can't? Well then, quit bitching and moaning about it, do something about it! No one want's to hear your constant complaints with no solutions.
 
j-mac said:
eh, like I said....:shrug: I am not saying that America was just oh so perfect in our history, but see, instead of focusing on the less than shining spots in our past, I prefer to look toward how we have learned from that, and changed for the better. I prefer to see America as the country that rushes to countries in need with aid, and help in times of disaster, and strife to help those in need. I prefer to see this country as the example, and hope of a world looking for freedom, and what that looks like. Your's seems to be a constant dirge of what is wrong with America, yet it isn't a constructive rant, but more a depressing, dower, pissed off view of this country. It's like the guy that everyone knows that is always pissed at the world, hates his life, hates his job, but won't do a damned thing to change it, all you want to do is complain, and in the end that is a lonely place to be brother. No one want's to be around that guy for long....So I feel for ya, and hope that in some way you can find happiness with who you are and where you live, if you can't? Well then, quit bitching and moaning about it, do something about it! No one want's to hear your constant complaints with no solutions.[/QUOTE

That's a thoughtful post and I appreciate the time it took to post it. Thanks for that. I don't focus on the veneer or the "Imagery" as one might actually define. I aim for a better USA. One that does not lie us into war for business reasons. Nobody but OIL corporations are concerned about Iran. They haven't attacked anyone. There is no proof they are building a bomb and if they are who gives a rat's ass? We seem to have made sure all of our allies got Nukes and I don't think that is by accident. Nuclear proliferation and take a look at where Nuke reactors come from.. I'm a Vietnam veteran so I don't wonder if the USA gov't will lie to start and maintain a war. I know they will. I see the same view of the Iraq war. We are responsible for the deaths of more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein. We send fine patriotic, committed citizens who do a good job into wars on Bull Crap. We would not have been in Iraq if it wasn't for the OIL. It's the same now only Iran has the OIL. Ergo big media "Imagery" creates a mythical enemy where none exists. I am chasing a better America.
Click to expand...
 
In general, rhetoric is cheap. The proof of any change in Iran's posture will arise in negotiations. Iran has frequently signaled flexibility and then failed to deliver, so one should be cautious about assuming any breakthroughs are likely, much less imminent.
 
DaveFagan said:
That's a thoughtful post and I appreciate the time it took to post it. Thanks for that.
Click to expand...

Once and a while I stumble into a decent one. :)

I don't focus on the veneer or the "Imagery" as one might actually define. I aim for a better USA.
Click to expand...

Do you often see anything "better" coming out of negativity?

One that does not lie us into war for business reasons.
Click to expand...

War at the heart of it is seldom about truly altruistic reasons.

Nobody but OIL corporations are concerned about Iran.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is true, I think the entire region is concerned with Iran's posture in this. But beyond that, what is it that you think makes the world run? See, I think of oil right now as the life blood of the world. Think about it beyond gas for your car, or heat for houses, and although that is a part of what makes up usage, oil is a part nearly everything we use, consume, or rely on in healthcare. You think that a commodity like that is not going to be the catalyst of war should one country use it as leverage against others?

We seem to have made sure all of our allies got Nukes and I don't think that is by accident.
Click to expand...

I see no problem with responsible countries having Nukes, but that is the benchmark. Do you really see a country that is foaming at the mouth to destroy another country, and actively arming those currently attacking another country as responsible enough? I don't.

Nuclear proliferation and take a look at where Nuke reactors come from..
Click to expand...

This is what I am talking about...To read this you would think that the USA was the only country that developed nuclear technology. Russia, China, Pakistan....What did we have to do with the countries that they aided in obtaining the technology? Including Russia's aid to Iran in this respect.

I'm a Vietnam veteran so I don't wonder if the USA gov't will lie to start and maintain a war. I know they will. I see the same view of the Iraq war.
Click to expand...

As a vet myself that was lucky enough to serve during peacetime, thank you for your sacrifice in Vietnam. I also know that geo political purposes for involvement in war is never as clear cut as the final reasoning shared with the public at large. Regardless of whether you agree with Iraq or not, the fact of the matter is that we elect people to represent our interests in this country, and the congress abdicated their responsibility in the decision making process for entering Iraq, and gave it to Bush. It was only when it became politically expedient to oppose it that demo's flipped and tried to revise history.

We are responsible for the deaths of more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein.
Click to expand...

No, I don't buy that at all. Unless you are saying that the civilians that our enemies were killing in Iraq was our fault, and that is in my view a flawed overview. We brought a dictator down, and freed its people to vote. Their destiny is now up to them.

We send fine patriotic, committed citizens who do a good job into wars on Bull Crap.
Click to expand...

Voluntarily

We would not have been in Iraq if it wasn't for the OIL.
Click to expand...

If that were true, then why aren't we still there taking the spoils of our victory?

It's the same now only Iran has the OIL.
Click to expand...

How'd that happen if we went in for the oil, why don't we have it then?

Ergo big media "Imagery" creates a mythical enemy where none exists.
Click to expand...

Media does much in the way of misleading the country these days.

I am chasing a better America.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you are against war...That is actually a pretty conservative view. Beyond that though, what does that even mean? Can you define what is a "better America" outsid the box of relatively myopic anti war stance? America is more than its geo political strength.
 
donsutherland1 said:
In general, rhetoric is cheap. The proof of any change in Iran's posture will arise in negotiations. Iran has frequently signaled flexibility and then failed to deliver, so one should be cautious about assuming any breakthroughs are likely, much less imminent.
Click to expand...

Iran, and many of the despotic regimes in this world have taken note of the fact that all it takes to hold back action is to cry uncle, and continue to move forward as the 2nd, 3rd, 50th chance is given. Threats with no teeth is laughed at pretty quickly.
 
j-mac said:
Once and a while I stumble into a decent one. :)



Do you often see anything "better" coming out of negativity?

If the truth is negative, that's the way the cookie curmbles



War at the heart of it is seldom about truly altruistic reasons.

In this country, it is often about business



I don't think that is true, I think the entire region is concerned with Iran's posture in this. But beyond that, what is it that you think makes the world run? See, I think of oil right now as the life blood of the world. Think about it beyond gas for your car, or heat for houses, and although that is a part of what makes up usage, oil is a part nearly everything we use, consume, or rely on in healthcare. You think that a commodity like that is not going to be the catalyst of war should one country use it as leverage against others?

OIL is also causing Global Warming and not a good thing

I see no problem with responsible countries having Nukes, but that is the benchmark. Do you really see a country that is foaming at the mouth to destroy another country, and actively arming those currently attacking another country as responsible enough? I don't.

I don't see Iran in that statement. Who have they attacked?

This is what I am talking about...To read this you would think that the USA was the only country that developed nuclear technology. Russia, China, Pakistan....What did we have to do with the countries that they aided in obtaining the technology? Including Russia's aid to Iran in this respect.

I don't think nude tech should have been shared with anyone, friend or foe!

As a vet myself that was lucky enough to serve during peacetime, thank you for your sacrifice in Vietnam. I also know that geo political purposes for involvement in war is never as clear cut as the final reasoning shared with the public at large. Regardless of whether you agree with Iraq or not, the fact of the matter is that we elect people to represent our interests in this country, and the congress abdicated their responsibility in the decision making process for entering Iraq, and gave it to Bush. It was only when it became politically expedient to oppose it that demo's flipped and tried to revise history.

Not true. It was and is a business war.

No, I don't buy that at all. Unless you are saying that the civilians that our enemies were killing in Iraq was our fault, and that is in my view a flawed overview. We brought a dictator down, and freed its people to vote. Their destiny is now up to them.

Conservative estimates of over one million dead Iraqis caused by the war. Saddam didn't kill that many. Wars are good business, but kill people, directly and indirectily.

Voluntarily

Now, it didn't use to be that way.

If that were true, then why aren't we still there taking the spoils of our victory?

See how much Exxon/Mobil makes on oil transported into the Centralized Distribution Network? You know transport, pipeline, tanker, refining, delivery and gas pumps. Getting it into the distribution net was why Saddam had to be eliminated. That and the fact he was selling it in Euros and could de-stabilize our economy.

How'd that happen if we went in for the oil, why don't we have it then?

We do have it. It is in the USA distribution network and wasn't in the past.

Media does much in the way of misleading the country these days.

Absolutely

Ok, so you are against war...That is actually a pretty conservative view. Beyond that though, what does that even mean? Can you define what is a "better America" outsid the box of relatively myopic anti war stance? America is more than its geo political strength.
Click to expand...

A country run by people not business. If you don't think our economy runs on war, then explain why our military budger is around $700 billion per year. We don't have any real threats out there. Not for 20 years.
 
j-mac said:
Threats with no teeth is laughed at pretty quickly.
Click to expand...

For threats to be credible, the country making those threats has to be willing and able to deliver on those threats and the country receiving them must know that the country is willing and able to deliver on them. Otherwise, miscalculations will occur or bluffs will be called bringing about the kind of situation that the threats are supposed to prevent.

Iran has continued to use the negotiating process to buy time. The U.S. and its partners need to be wary of situations where Iran offers to engage in new talks (without any real prospect of meaningful concessions) or, perhaps later, offers cosmetic concessions to create perceptions of progress when, in fact, Iran is seeking to run out the clock.
 
donsutherland1 said:
For threats to be credible, the country making those threats has to be willing and able to deliver on those threats and the country receiving them must know that the country is willing and able to deliver on them. Otherwise, miscalculations will occur or bluffs will be called bringing about the kind of situation that the threats are supposed to prevent.

Iran has continued to use the negotiating process to buy time. The U.S. and its partners need to be wary of situations where Iran offers to engage in new talks (without any real prospect of meaningful concessions) or, perhaps later, offers cosmetic concessions to create perceptions of progress when, in fact, Iran is seeking to run out the clock.
Click to expand...

Who gives a rat's ass if Iran has "nukes?" The worthless, backstabbin', lyin', lowlife Pakistanis have nukes and you are worried about Iran? Get a grip!
 
DaveFagan said:
Who gives a rat's ass if Iran has "nukes?" The worthless, backstabbin', lyin', lowlife Pakistanis have nukes and you are worried about Iran? Get a grip!
Click to expand...

Isn't is possible to be worried about both worthless, backstabbin', lyin', lowlifes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom