• 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 official on nuke deal: 'We did not agree to dismantle anything'

Status
Not open for further replies.
ecofarm said:
Negotiating will strengthen the coalition of the willing should such be necessary.
Click to expand...
That is a point in favor of it - it seemed that going into Iraq basically alone didn't go over so well. And people here in the US are probably far less willing to so such a thing these days. That would change if Iran attacked someone with a nuke though...perhaps even without one.
 
The Mark said:
it seemed that going into Iraq basically alone didn't go over so well.
Click to expand...

US, UK, Australia, Romania, El Salvador, Estonia, Bulgaria, Moldova, Albania, Ukraine, Denmark, Czech Republic, South Korea, Japan, Tonga, Azerbaijan, Singapore, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Latvia, Poland, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Georgia, Slovakia, Lithuania, Italy, Norway, Hungary, Netherlands, Portugal, New Zealand, Thailand, Philippines, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Spain, Nicaragua and Iceland deployed troops.

Multi-National Force

And people here in the US are probably far less willing to so such a thing these days.
Click to expand...

Pretty much all of congress agrees to military action to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes.

That would change if Iran attacked someone with a nuke though...perhaps even without one.
Click to expand...

Iran attacks countries all the time, through proxies. They don't even hide it.
 
The Mark said:
That is a point in favor of it - it seemed that going into Iraq basically alone didn't go over so well. And people here in the US are probably far less willing to so such a thing these days. That would change if Iran attacked someone with a nuke though...perhaps even without one.
Click to expand...

Iran is not a waring country. And they aren't a threat to world peace. That comes from elsewhere.

There's really no way to sugarcoat it: The rest of world believes that the United States is the country that poses the greatest threat to world peace, beating out all challengers by a wide margin.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/02/greatest-threat-world-peace-country_n_4531824.html
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
Interesting how some folks (Americans) like to point the finger at another country sticking their nose in another country's affairs but are quick to forget that we've done the same thing a time or two over the years only we justify our involvement as "preserving the peace, spreading democracy" or place such under the heading of "national security". I'm in no way defending Iran's insurgent activities. They've been a thorn in our side at least since the Carter-era. I'm just saying don't be too quick to point the finger at another country's foreign policy affairs before taking a look-back at some of our own questionable activities as former Sen. Ron Paul tried to caution us about. (And no, I don't agree with is isolationist position either. Just saying...well, "pot calling kettle black".)
Click to expand...

That kind of logic would justify the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the attack on Pearl Harbor.
 
The United States is the greatest threat to world peace. That’s the finding of an end-of-the- year, WIN/Gallup International survey of people in 65 countries.
Of the 66,000 people polled, just under a quarter named Uncle Sam as the greatest threat to world peace.
Other menaces didn’t even come close: 8 percent named Pakistan, putting that country in second place, while 6 percent named China. A mere 4 percent found Iran threatening — which tied it with Israel.

http://nypost.com/2014/01/05/us-is-the-greatest-threat-to-world-peace-poll/
 
ecofarm said:
I think we're doing pretty well. I'd prefer a diplomatic solution to invasion and nation building. If the Iranian regime is willing to play ball, we should do everything in our power to push them towards development. War should only be a last resort and only in the most dire circumstances. The deal Obama brokered is being monitored closely and I think it's fine to give it a chance and see if this can be resolved peacefully.
Click to expand...

The first ground rule should be that everyone agrees to what was apparently agreed upon...which doesn't see to be the case at the moment. Why there should be questions is a puzzle to me....is it the wording of the agreement that seems to be causing the misunderstanding?

When one side is saying "we didn't agree to that!," something is wrong!

Greetings, ecofarm. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
How many innocents have been murdered by Hezbollah?
Click to expand...

How many innocents have been murdered by the US. I assure you FAR more than Hezbollah if we're keeping count.
 
Montecresto said:
How many innocents have been murdered by the US. I assure you FAR more than Hezbollah if we're keeping count.
Click to expand...

I believe misuse of the term 'murder' is restricted to the abortion subforum.
 
ecofarm said:
US, UK, Australia, Romania, El Salvador, Estonia, Bulgaria, Moldova, Albania, Ukraine, Denmark, Czech Republic, South Korea, Japan, Tonga, Azerbaijan, Singapore, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Latvia, Poland, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Georgia, Slovakia, Lithuania, Italy, Norway, Hungary, Netherlands, Portugal, New Zealand, Thailand, Philippines, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Spain, Nicaragua and Iceland deployed troops.

Multi-National Force



Pretty much all of congress agrees to military action to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes.



Iran attacks countries all the time, through proxies. They don't even hide it.
Click to expand...
Well then, that's all my points gone.

Let's attack Iran then! After we negotiate and they don't take it seriously, that is.
 
Montecresto said:
How many innocents have been murdered by the US. I assure you FAR more than Hezbollah if we're keeping count.
Click to expand...
IRL, the words "kill" and "murder" do not mean the same thing.
 
The Mark said:
Well then, that's all my points gone.
Click to expand...

Not entirely. There is a perception that the US went it alone. A willingness in congress does not always translate to a willingness among Americans. Iran does not personally attack other countries. All of those nuances must be considered within the context of perception that is often as you described.

I think Obama is trying to avoid such perceptions by taking all possible alternative avenues explicitly.

Let's attack Iran then! After we negotiate and they don't take it seriously, that is.
Click to expand...

Let's hope that's not necessary.
 
poweRob said:
Seeing how these righties are speculating about us going to war with Iran or Israel going to war with Iran... I'll speculate. I believe there is going to be a massive change in Iran soon where the split is with the President and the people on one side and the ruling mullahs on the other side. And the people will win. I don't think it will be a bloody revolution or anything like that. I just think the mullah's are about to be done with. They will be ousted from political power. Especially if they try to make hay against the U.S. You heard it here first.

It all depends on what side the Iranian military goes with. The President? Or the mullahs? I'm thinking the Iranian military will choose to back the one who won't get them killed going to war with the world's preeminent military superpower.
Click to expand...


Believe that you are dreaming in a fantasy world. But on the other hand hope you are correct...
 
WillyPete said:
Can anyone think of anything in our historical relationship with Iran that would cause them to trust us for a single second?

I can come up with several reasons why they should not trust us at all.
Click to expand...

Or vice versa. Hence the dilemma...
 
The Mark said:
IRL, the words "kill" and "murder" do not mean the same thing.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm well aware. If you note, apdst used the word murder, so I threw it right back at him. If the US is simply "killing" civilians in wars we've been lied into, then I suppose, in defending their interests, Hezbollah is simply killing people. Note my sig line TM.
 
Montecresto said:
The United States is the greatest threat to world peace. That’s the finding of an end-of-the- year, WIN/Gallup International survey of people in 65 countries.
Of the 66,000 people polled, just under a quarter named Uncle Sam as the greatest threat to world peace.
Other menaces didn’t even come close: 8 percent named Pakistan, putting that country in second place, while 6 percent named China. A mere 4 percent found Iran threatening — which tied it with Israel.

US is the greatest threat to world peace: poll | New York Post
Click to expand...


/facepalm
 
Montecresto said:
Yes, I'm well aware. If you note, apdst used the word murder, so I threw it right back at him. If the US is simply "killing" civilians in wars we've been lied into, then I suppose, in defending their interests, Hezbollah is simply killing people. Note my sig line TM.
Click to expand...
Which word applies depends on the circumstances of the death.

As I understand it, accidentally killing a civilian during a battle is not considered murder.

OTOH, intentionally killing a bunch of civilians by suicide-bombing a mall is most definitely murder.

Perhaps I am wrong in these definitions, but....
 
Cole said:
Uhhh, yes they are....
Click to expand...

Oh, come on. Being a terrorist state, a brutal totalitarian dictatorship, the largest supplier of terrorism in the world, attacking various countries by proxy, violating UN resolutions and ratified treaties, genocidal rhetoric, Holocaust denial, Death to America chants in parliament and on loud speakers in the streets, support of Hez, support of Hamas, support of terrorists in Africa, sharing missile tech with North Korea, ignoring human rights and otherwise being all around global douche bags are not things we should hold against the Iranian regime!




:D
 
Last edited:
polgara said:
The first ground rule should be that everyone agrees to what was apparently agreed upon...which doesn't see to be the case at the moment. Why there should be questions is a puzzle to me....is it the wording of the agreement that seems to be causing the misunderstanding?

When one side is saying "we didn't agree to that!," something is wrong!

Greetings, ecofarm. :2wave:
Click to expand...


Do you even have a clue what was agreed on? (yeah, that is kind of a problem for everyone. Nobody seems to know the details....)
 
The Mark said:
Which word applies depends on the circumstances of the death.

As I understand it, accidentally killing a civilian during a battle is not considered murder.

OTOH, intentionally killing a bunch of civilians by suicide-bombing a mall is most definitely murder.

Perhaps I am wrong in these definitions, but....
Click to expand...

I told you, apdst used the word murder, so I used it back. But just because fat boy wasnt strapped to a GI's chest doesn't change the fact that 200,000 civilians were targeted and blown up.
 
Montecresto said:
I told you, apdst used the word murder, so I used it back. But just because fat boy wasnt strapped to a GI's chest doesn't change the fact that 200,000 civilians were targeted and blown up.
Click to expand...
Actually, you point out the key factor here: Targeted.

If someone is not a combatant, and is targeted and killed, it's murder.


I do not recall hearing that the US was intentionally targeting and killing civilians, anywhere. And if we did/are, we shouldn't have/shouldn't.
 
Cole said:
/facepalm
Click to expand...

Questioning the accuracy of Gallup. Or just ashamed that the world fears the US's threat to peace over anybody else's. totally pathetic!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom