• 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

Isn't is possible to be worried about both worthless, backstabbin', lyin', lowlifes?[/QUOTE}



That's a considerable contradiction. We give billions of dollars to Pakistan. We pretend they are our old pals. We don't threaten Pakistan. Perhaps y'all might feel sumpin' slippin', eh?
 
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.


No, no, don't get me wrong. There is a military industry in this country, and needs to be. But not because we are necessarily a waring nation, or as many liberals like to label it imperialist, but rather because as the strongest military on earth, we have responsibilities, that as a moral nation in that position must not be ignored, or minimized. The vacuum created in the event that the US scales back in its protection of weaker nations is not a world that I'd want to see.

I also get frustrated with the way our aid, and protection is perceived as well, but if you just say 'that's it, we're out!' Who will fill that vacuum? China? Russia?....More people would die, and more people would be subject to dictatorial rule in the world. Plus, we would be more vulnerable.
 
No, no, don't get me wrong. There is a military industry in this country, and needs to be. But not because we are necessarily a waring nation, or as many liberals like to label it imperialist, but rather because as the strongest military on earth, we have responsibilities, that as a moral nation in that position must not be ignored, or minimized. The vacuum created in the event that the US scales back in its protection of weaker nations is not a world that I'd want to see.

I also get frustrated with the way our aid, and protection is perceived as well, but if you just say 'that's it, we're out!' Who will fill that vacuum? China? Russia?....More people would die, and more people would be subject to dictatorial rule in the world. Plus, we would be more vulnerable.

We have troops in over 140 Nations. That is pretty easy to interpret and make a solid case for "Imperialism." Usually for some resource needed for our Corporations. There iswas nothing moral about the Iraq War. Nor Vietnam. Nor Libya. Nor Grenada. Nor Panama. Just to list a few.
 
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!

The U.S., U.S. allies, many of Iran's neighbors, and oil importers who purchase crude oil from the region. A nuclear-armed Iran would have the possibility of gaining regional hegemony and could leverage that position to block the vital Strait of Hormuz, among other things. Regional dominance could also embolden the Iranian regime to expand its efforts to spread its revolutionary ideology and strengthen the non-state actors it sponsors i.e., Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. A nuclear arms race could ensue.

Pakistan is an unstable state. It is no longer a reliable international player. It is not, however, focused on spreading revolutionary ideology or gaining regional dominance. The latter is not possible given India's superior power. Risks are currently associated with its continuing slide toward failed state status, but that's one of a number of possible outcomes.
 
The U.S., U.S. allies, many of Iran's neighbors, and oil importers who purchase crude oil from the region. A nuclear-armed Iran would have the possibility of gaining regional hegemony and could leverage that position to block the vital Strait of Hormuz, among other things. Regional dominance could also embolden the Iranian regime to expand its efforts to spread its revolutionary ideology and strengthen the non-state actors it sponsors i.e., Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. A nuclear arms race could ensue.

Pakistan is an unstable state. It is no longer a reliable international player. It is not, however, focused on spreading revolutionary ideology or gaining regional dominance. The latter is not possible given India's superior power. Risks are currently associated with its continuing slide toward failed state status, but that's one of a number of possible outcomes.


Your reply makes it clear that Iran is about OIL. Thank you. I don't think that is what you intended. Does that mean you can see that the USA has a hugely flawed energy policy? We have to stop defending and reinforcing the Centralized Distribution of Energy monopoly and turn to common sense and reason. THat would be wind and solar. LOCALLY. I'm not sure Hezbollah and Hamas are any worse than our CIA. Libya. Color revolutions? Wherefore art thou, CIA?
 
Your reply makes it clear that Iran is about OIL. Thank you. I don't think that is what you intended. Does that mean you can see that the USA has a hugely flawed energy policy? We have to stop defending and reinforcing the Centralized Distribution of Energy monopoly and turn to common sense and reason. THat would be wind and solar. LOCALLY. I'm not sure Hezbollah and Hamas are any worse than our CIA. Libya. Color revolutions? Wherefore art thou, CIA?

Open access to the Strait of Hormuz through which a disproportionate share of the world's oil flows is part of the reason every U.S. President from Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama have indicated a willingness to use military force should any nation try to block it. Until alternatives can readily be used to supplant the role currently played by oil on a global basis, the strategic importance of that area is not likely to change materially.

In terms of energy policy, there has been a lack of strategic investment effort to diversify the nation's energy supply. That has led to greater vulnerability to oil price shocks and geopolitical risk than would otherwise be the case.

Finally, the military intervention in Libya's civil war was largely on "humanitarian grounds." Libya is not one of the world's biggest oil producers. The post-Gadhafi regime is not materially friendlier to U.S. interests and allies. I don't believe the U.S. should have intervened in that civil conflict on account of a lack of compelling national interests. The same holds with regard to Syria. I don't believe the interests rise to the level that would justify U.S. military intervention.
 
No, no, don't get me wrong. There is a military industry in this country, and needs to be. But not because we are necessarily a waring nation, or as many liberals like to label it imperialist, but rather because as the strongest military on earth, we have responsibilities, that as a moral nation in that position must not be ignored, or minimized. The vacuum created in the event that the US scales back in its protection of weaker nations is not a world that I'd want to see.

I also get frustrated with the way our aid, and protection is perceived as well, but if you just say 'that's it, we're out!' Who will fill that vacuum? China? Russia?....More people would die, and more people would be subject to dictatorial rule in the world. Plus, we would be more vulnerable.

The United States has been carrying the burden of "The World's Policeman" for far too long and other democracies should certainly contribute more.

To that end we should abandon the UN and form a Union of Democracies, something along the lines of The Anglosphere, where responsibility for human rights is shared by all. The UN has become a forum for dictators and corruption and it shames the world's democracies to be associated with it.
 
The United States has been carrying the burden of "The World's Policeman" for far too long and other democracies should certainly contribute more.

To that end we should abandon the UN and form a Union of Democracies, something along the lines of The Anglosphere, where responsibility for human rights is shared by all. The UN has become a forum for dictators and corruption and it shames the world's democracies to be associated with it.

While I agree with the sentiment, I would not abandon the UN completely.
 
While I agree with the sentiment, I would not abandon the UN completely.

I feel it serves as a useful forum for corrupt dictators of various stripes, as mentioned, but I would certainly like to learn why you feel it is at all worthwhile.
 
I feel it serves as a useful forum for corrupt dictators of various stripes, as mentioned, but I would certainly like to learn why you feel it is at all worthwhile.

There are a few decent programs and having some avenue to approach dictators and other tyrannys diplomatically and in a group/global setting can be useful. As we cannot liberate everyone immediately, pushing some countries towards freedom through diplomacy and economics remains, and always will be, part of the plan.
 
There are a few decent programs and having some avenue to approach dictators and other tyrannys diplomatically and in a group/global setting can be useful. As we cannot liberate everyone immediately, pushing some countries towards freedom through diplomacy and economics remains, and always will be, part of the plan.

OK, I never thought of some of the useful work they do but as it is the democracies who mostly pay for the worthwhile programs they should be able to carry them out, with probably greater efficiency, within a new organization.

If it wasn't for the UN it is likely that dictatorships would be more isolated, unless they organized a forum of their own.
 
We have troops in over 140 Nations. That is pretty easy to interpret and make a solid case for "Imperialism."

Only if you think that America is an ignoble nation to start with. I don't. We are in those nations for a reason. Could we scale back, and take a lesser role in the world? Yes. But, like I said, who would fill that vacuum? You can bet other strong nations would, and many might not have the same goals for doing what they do.

Usually for some resource needed for our Corporations.

Oh come on man...Get off it. Corporations help provide the things we use everyday, and make your life easier. We don't conquer nations for resources to use for ourselves. These countries we are in and have business relationships benefit greatly from our involvement.

There is/was nothing moral about the Iraq War.

Sure there was. The way this administration pulled out and just left it open to what we see happening today, is a great illustration of what happens in your vision of a US that is meek, and less than what we are today.

Nor Vietnam. Nor Libya. Nor Grenada. Nor Panama. Just to list a few.

Totally disagree. But that doesn't mean that we were successful. It seems you are advocating for an America that is 2nd world, or Euro centric in its existence. That would in my view be a disaster for the world.
 
Who are "you guys"? I'm not republican. Lighten up.

The guys that believe the media hype. The CIA charter is to assist USA "Corporations" overseas. That means to help BigAgra fruit companies in banana republics like Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvacor, Panama, Colobia, Ecuador, Uruguay, etc. That means to help USA copper companies in Chile with Allende and other democratically elected types that need their arteries plugged. That means to help our CIA asset Noriega in Panama to help with cocaine deliveries and crooked banks to finance guns for Nicuaraguan Contras. Why do you think Daddy Bush had to pardon 8 senior administration officials just before Billy Clintoon moved in? That means running the "School of the Americas" to train "dictators" for the Latin American nations. That means being in charge of opium crops in Afghanistan. Currently!!!! , the CIA can now operate in the USA to help USA Corporations in the USA, I would guess. It used to be against the USA law for the CIA to operate within our borders. Does any of this surprise you? Do you think these sound like the good guys. By the way, are you a Corporation?
 
The guys that believe the media hype. The CIA charter is to assist USA "Corporations" overseas. That means to help BigAgra fruit companies in banana republics like Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvacor, Panama, Colobia, Ecuador, Uruguay, etc. That means to help USA copper companies in Chile with Allende and other democratically elected types that need their arteries plugged. That means to help our CIA asset Noriega in Panama to help with cocaine deliveries and crooked banks to finance guns for Nicuaraguan Contras. Why do you think Daddy Bush had to pardon 8 senior administration officials just before Billy Clintoon moved in? That means running the "School of the Americas" to train "dictators" for the Latin American nations. That means being in charge of opium crops in Afghanistan. Currently!!!! , the CIA can now operate in the USA to help USA Corporations in the USA, I would guess. It used to be against the USA law for the CIA to operate within our borders. Does any of this surprise you? Do you think these sound like the good guys. By the way, are you a Corporation?


Got anything credible to back that up? Or is it just the ranting of bitterness?
 
It must be depressing constantly hating your own country.

Since when is being honest the same thing as hate? You obviously think that image trumps truth!
 
Got anything credible to back that up? Or is it just the ranting of bitterness?


That was history, not some hallucinations. Google any part of it. You'll get plenty of links and you won't be able to accuse me of bitterness.
 
Since when is being honest the same thing as hate? You obviously think that image trumps truth!


Image? Oh, I see, you are of the mindset that only your particular worldview is "the Truth"? Check yourself man....
 
That was history, not some hallucinations. Google any part of it. You'll get plenty of links and you won't be able to accuse me of bitterness.

No Dave, you are making the claims and expecting me to back up your assertions. You need to back up your own ridiculous claims. That way we can see where you are getting your info from, and what is going into this twilight zone view you are promoting here.
 
Image? Oh, I see, you are of the mindset that only your particular worldview is "the Truth"? Check yourself man....

No, like you I understand that my world view is totally wrong, but I stay with it, NOT!

You are the one who believes that the United States has never done anything that is not noble and right. Don' blame me because you hold to an ignorant belief that we Americans are somehow superior to all others.
 
No Dave, you are making the claims and expecting me to back up your assertions. You need to back up your own ridiculous claims. That way we can see where you are getting your info from, and what is going into this twilight zone view you are promoting here.

Google ( Iran Contra Noreiga Cocaine BCCI Hasenfus ) then take your pick. Well known and documented historical information. From Wiki to news organizations. The Lord helps those that help themselves.
After that google ( Chile Allende IT & T copper CIA )
After that google ( operation Phoenix )
After that google ( opium production Afghanistan 2000-2012 )
After that google ( banana republics )
have some nice reads.
 
No, like you I understand that my world view is totally wrong, but I stay with it, NOT!

You are the one who believes that the United States has never done anything that is not noble and right. Don' blame me because you hold to an ignorant belief that we Americans are somehow superior to all others.

Well, I never said that America was perfect. On the other hand, what do you see good about America?
 
Back
Top Bottom