• 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.
Not just our two nearest neighbours, but 13% of Americans clearly see their own country menacing for peace.

However, a plurality of people polled in several officially American-allied nations also rated the United States as dangerous. Thirty-seven percent of Mexicans and 17 percent of Canadians view their neighboring country with suspicion on the world stage. A surprising 13 percent of American respondents rated their own nation the biggest threat to world peace as well.


http://www.ibtimes.com/gallup-poll-biggest-threat-world-peace-america-1525008
 
Montecresto said:
Questioning the accuracy of Gallup. Or just ashamed that the world fears the US's threat to peace over anybody else's. totally pathetic!
Click to expand...
I think the former. Or perhaps he was questioning the relevance of the poll in question?
 
The Mark said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but they were both targeted.
 
The Mark said:
I think the former. Or perhaps he was questioning the relevance of the poll in question?
Click to expand...

How in the hell could it not be relevant that over NK, Iran, Syria, Russia and China, the world fears US aggression as an impediment to world peace. I mean I can understand why you'd like to hide from such findings, but it most certainly is relevant.
 
The Mark said:
What? Who both?
Click to expand...

The two civilian cities that we dropped ATOMIC bombs on killing 200,000 innocent civilians. It wasn't a case of mistaken targets. They were the target.
 
Montecresto said:
How in the hell could it not be relevant that over NK, Iran, Syria, Russia and China, the world fears US aggression as an impediment to world peace. I mean I can understand why you'd like to hide from such findings, but it most certainly is relevant.
Click to expand...
66k people from 65 countries do not the world make.

What was the poll about and how were you using it. That's what I meant by relevance - I didn't actually look at it except in passing, so I have no idea whether it actually was or not.

Stop assuming I'm saying **** that I'm not.
 
Montecresto said:
The two civilian cities that we dropped ATOMIC bombs on killing 200,000 innocent civilians. It wasn't a case of mistaken targets. They were the target.
Click to expand...
Indeed so. That was a different type of war though...

I thought we were talking more modern times.
 
Montecresto said:
The two civilian cities that we dropped ATOMIC bombs on killing 200,000 innocent civilians. It wasn't a case of mistaken targets. They were the target.
Click to expand...

Those were industrial cities. One had a submarine factory and the other a chemical weapons factory. Both were in full production. It doesn't take a genius to see how those two things could be used to continue Japan's war effort. If the intent was to kill civilians, far more deaths could have been incurred.

The bombs were necessary, and merciful for both the US and Japanese. An invasion of the mainland would have killed 10x as many Japanese and perhaps half a million Americans.

Learn some history.
 
The Mark said:
Indeed so. That was a different type of war though...

I thought we were talking more modern times.
Click to expand...

That's your defense for targeting civilians? Interesting.
 
The Mark said:
66k people from 65 countries do not the world make.

What was the poll about and how were you using it. That's what I meant by relevance - I didn't actually look at it except in passing, so I have no idea whether it actually was or not.

Stop assuming I'm saying **** that I'm not.
Click to expand...

So you didn't even look at it and your dismissing it. Wow, OK!
 
Your Star said:
Probably just him appeasing hard line people in Iran.
Click to expand...


Nope, this is a very common gambit in international politics when one of the sides is a complete moron. You agree to a deal with your moronic opponent, let them invest political capital at home selling themselves as a great diplomat, and then claim that they misunderstood your half of the deal. At that point the only thing that you have publicly agreed to that your opponent admits to is their half of the bargain. TA DA!! You win, get what you want, and don't have to do anything i return because your moronic opponent is now more married to their half of the deal publicly and would have to dispell the illusion of their own diplomatic grandeur in order to fix it.

This scheme is as old as dirt and only works on diplomats who are as dumb as dirt. Lucky for Iran the US has a moron for a President and an idiot as Secretary of State.
 
jmotivator said:
Nope, this is a very common gambit in international politics when one of the sides is a complete moron. You agree to a deal with your moronic opponent, let them invest political capital at home selling themselves as a great diplomat, and then claim that they misunderstood your half of the deal. At that point the only thing that you have publicly agreed to that your opponent admits to is their half of the bargain. TA DA!! You win, get what you want, and don't have to do anything i return because your moronic opponent is now more married to their half of the deal publicly and would have to dispell the illusion of their own diplomatic grandeur in order to fix it.

This scheme is as old as dirt and only works on diplomats who are as dumb as dirt. Lucky for Iran the US has a moron for a President and an idiot as Secretary of State.
Click to expand...

I liked this because it's true. Problem is I think Obama and Kerry know the deal didn't include dismantle which is why we've only seen "outlines" presented to Congress and the full agreement hasn't been released. Iran isn't stupid, they know they have Obama and Kerry caught red handed. Just like they did with Jimmy Carter. :cool:
 
The Mark said:
What did I say about not assuming I'm saying **** that I'm not?
Click to expand...

What's to assume? Your the one that said you didn't actually look at it. And I understand why, it doesn't have a happy ending.
 
The Mark said:
What did I say about not assuming I'm saying **** that I'm not?
Click to expand...

It appeared you were dismissive of the targeting of civilians because it wasn't modern times. Not sure why that would matter.
 
The Mark said:
What did I say about not assuming I'm saying **** that I'm not?
Click to expand...

That doesn't work, we've all tried. You'll just get annoyed.
 
Montecresto said:
What's to assume? Your the one that said you didn't actually look at it. And I understand why, it doesn't have a happy ending.
Click to expand...
I said I didn't actually look at it.

I said nothing about dismissing it, or any presumptions on my part about something I hadn't seen.

You assumed all that.
 
Your Star said:
Probably just him appeasing hard line people in Iran.
Click to expand...

That is possible. It's also possible it isn't. The same logic that would lead us to believe he is appeasing his conservative constituency could lead us to believe that he's been forced to renege on parts of the deal by that powerful constituency. Or something else entirely. The uncertainty from the Iranian side is the core source of tension in this deal. It's why it is so fragile. I'm still hopeful but I think because of the lack of trust (justifiable) Iran has little room to maneuver and any deviations will sink the deal completely.
 
Montecresto said:


It appeared you were dismissive of the targeting of civilians because it wasn't modern times. Not sure why that would matter.
Click to expand...
You assumed that because I had made a time-based presumption, I was dismissing prior time periods.

I was not.

Frankly, I hadn't recalled.

And my point about it being a different kind of war stands, along with the excellent statements on the topic by ecofarm.
 
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...

Others believe US is greatest threat to World Peace =/= the US is the greatest threat to world peace. I really don't care what they think.
 
The Mark said:
I said I didn't actually look at it.

I said nothing about dismissing it, or any presumptions on my part about something I hadn't seen.

You assumed all that.
Click to expand...

I see. So you have something to say about the polls findings?
 
Sherman123 said:
Others believe US is greatest threat to World Peace =/= the US is the greatest threat to world peace. I really don't care what they think.
Click to expand...

I understand. Had the poll found that Iran was the greatest threat to world peace we'd be very interested in what they think. But as it turned out, a mere 4% found Iran menacing! Feature that, just doesn't square with the hawks meme.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom