• 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!

Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise

Fearandloathing said:
Iran has also maintained that the kidnapping and torture of American diplomats was a spontaneous demonstration held by "student Activists" and denied there is an assassination order on Ambassador Kenneth Taylor. They have also refused to prosecute the people responsible for that illegal act, most of the "students" went on to great rewards.....in government.

Thre is a reason Canada, the "nice" country has severed relations with Iran all together...



The country that gets along with EVERYONE calling Obama news friends "the most significant threat to global peace in the world today."

Not Isis. Not North Korea, not Russia, not China, not Cuba, but Iran, they who Obama now wants to get cuddly with.

The US has no right in the say of who should not have nuclear weapons, that means they have no say in who gets them either, and Obama is going against the international trend. Again.

How many of the "friends" he made in Arab Spring are stable allies? Oh but they SAY they will play nice like Iran can be trusted....
Click to expand...

Israel hasn't just had a plot, they actually have assassinated Iranian civilian scientists inside of Iran, and they don't admit that either.

So now Iran is the greatest threat to world peace, laugh out loud. Sorry, but that opinion isn't universal. I remember too when it was Iraq, we were under imminent threat of mushroom clouds over a US city, and then it was Gaddafi, the chief exporter of terrorism, sorry dude, but we haven't any enemies that we haven't created.
 
Dayton3 said:
Prove it. And not with that idiotic link that shows U.S. defense spending exceeds all the other nations on Earth. It is not only inaccurate but completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Wow, you believe such nonsense? The US hasn't any offensive weapon systems in our arsenal, lol. The majority of our weapons have offensive purposes. Chief amongst them are the nuclear weapons, and if you want to argue that MAD works, then why the fuss over Iran having them??
 
Montecresto said:
Israel hasn't just had a plot, they actually have assassinated Iranian civilian scientists inside of Iran, and they don't admit that either.

So now Iran is the greatest threat to world peace, laugh out loud. Sorry, but that opinion isn't universal. I remember too when it was Iraq, we were under imminent threat of mushroom clouds over a US city, and then it was Gaddafi, the chief exporter of terrorism, sorry dude, but we haven't any enemies that we haven't created.
Click to expand...

Where in the **** did I even mention Israel and how does that even relate to the fact of the nicest country in the world calling the state your buddy Obama is making nice with?

Talk about deliberate off topic responses...


BTW you didn't mention Bush.....
 
Apocalypse said:
Good.



By now it's a given fact.
Hezbollah is one of the largest terror organizations on the planet, and it is exclusively funded, trained and armed by Iran and in Iran. It is practically an Iranian organization. Iran has also supplied multiple times the terror organization of Hamas with weapons, had declared several times that it is intending to boost its cooperation with it, and is known to be supplying arms to various lesser terror organizations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc.



And as I have pointed out to you that doesn't make the claim that the US sponsors terrorism a reality.



And where exactly have I supported that, exactly?
The fact that you are drawing comparisons between something that happened over 70 years ago and something that is happening at the present shows how desperate your arguments truly are.
Click to expand...
In 2006, former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak stated, "When we entered Lebanon ... there was no Hezbollah. We were accepted with perfumed rice and flowers by the Shia in the south. It was our presence there that created Hezbollah".[43]
Click to expand...
Hezbollah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Montecresto said:
Where have I argued that Iran should be ALLOWED to hold nuclear weapons???? I have been clear that my preference would be for nobody to have them, has that escaped you?
Click to expand...

By arguing that if it's legitimate for the nations that currently hold nuclear capabilities to hold these capabilities, then it is also legitimate for Iran to hold them, you are arguing for Iran holding nuclear capabilities whether you are aware of it or not.

I have asked the question to several folk now, why it is that they seem perfectly content with the US, who has used them in the past, should be the country deciding who else should have them. Or why it's ok for Pakistan and Israel to have them?
Click to expand...

No matter what you believe the legitimacy of some nations who currently hold nuclear capabilities to be holding these capabilities is - it wouldn't be a determining factor in whether or not to allow another nation, a rogue and violent one that is waging terrorism through proxies and is the no.1 sponsor of terrorism on the planet, to hold the same capabilities.
That I'm afraid is something that you deliberately fail to understand.

There's no darker agenda then a war room full of old fat guys smoking cigars and drinking port while they go over a map of Japan deciding which two entire cities they are going to nuke!!!!!!
Click to expand...

And again you are comparing the US from over 70 years ago, during WWII, to present time.
Good for you.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Where in the **** did I even mention Israel and how does that even relate to the fact of the nicest country in the world calling the state your buddy Obama is making nice with?

Talk about deliberate off topic responses...


BTW you didn't mention Bush.....
Click to expand...

In the interest of accusing Iran of plotting assassinations, Israel has both plotted, and executed their assassinations in Iran, a bit more serious charge. And why would you call Obama, necessarily my buddy, I don't even know him, as a matter of fact, I've never met him either. Hardly the definition of a buddy. Additionally, I responded to an accusation by you in another thread with a list of 14 serious criticisms of Obama/Obama administration policies, to arrest your false claims.
 
Apocalypse said:
By arguing that if it's legitimate for the nations that currently hold nuclear capabilities to hold these capabilities, then it is also legitimate for Iran to hold them, you are arguing for Iran holding nuclear capabilities whether you are aware of it or not.



No matter what you believe the legitimacy of some nations who currently hold nuclear capabilities to be holding these capabilities is - it wouldn't be a determining factor in whether or not to allow another nation, a rogue and violent one that is waging terrorism through proxies and is the no.1 sponsor of terrorism on the planet, to hold the same capabilities.
That I'm afraid is something that you deliberately fail to understand.



And again you are comparing the US from over 70 years ago, during WWII, to present time.
Good for you.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I have never argued that its "legitimate" for Iran to have nuclear weapons. I have, once again, asked yourself and others, why you guys think its perfectly fine for some countries to have them, and not others?? And still have no satisfactory reason.
 
Montecresto said:
In the interest of accusing Iran of plotting assassinations, Israel has both plotted, and executed their assassinations in Iran, a bit more serious charge.
Click to expand...

Even if true taking out those who are aiding the Iranian regime to gain nuclear capabilities is extremely legitimate.
You don't seem to understand the nature of the Iranian government.
 
Apocalypse said:
Just like Montecresto you're sticking to the claims of public figures to dictate your reality bubba.
This has nothing to do with the fact that Hezbollah is a terror organization that is funded, trained and armed exclusively by Iran, that it is practically an Iranian organization.
Click to expand...

and i am pointing out that this organization was created only as a result of israel's over-reaching actions, as has been expressed by a former israeli prime minister
the biggest barrier to the elimination of iran's nuclear development program is the existence of the israeli nuclear arsenal
israel refuses to sign the international non-proliferation treaty but still insists on expressing its opposition to the development of nuclear weapons by iran
if israel truly wanted a nuclear free iran it should sign the NPT and relinquish its nuclear arms. it would remain adequately defended by the USA in the event of a nuclear attack
 
Montecresto said:
Sorry, I have never argued that its "legitimate" for Iran to have nuclear weapons. I have, once again, asked yourself and others, why you guys think its perfectly fine for some countries to have them, and not others?? And still have no satisfactory reason.
Click to expand...

That you do not consider the fact that Iran unlike those other nations is led by an Islamic fundamentalist regime, a regime that is the no.1 sponsor of terrorism on the planet, as a satisfactory reason is all on you mate.
 
Apocalypse said:
Just like Montecresto you're sticking to the claims of public figures to dictate your reality bubba.
This has nothing to do with the fact that Hezbollah is a terror organization that is funded, trained and armed exclusively by Iran, that it is practically an Iranian organization.
Click to expand...

Wow! Just WOW that's unbelievable dismissal, like on a grand scale. So you now think the former prime minister of Israel doesn't even know what he's talking about. Wonder if he would be believed if he said that the Iranians were the chief exporters of terrorism in the world?????
 
justabubba said:
and i am pointing out that this organization was created only as a result of israel's over-reaching actions, as has been expressed by a former israeli prime minister
Click to expand...

Which doesn't make it the truth, nor does it mean anything at all in relation to Hezbollah being an Iranian proxy terror organization.
If you tried to make a point on the subject... well you clearly haven't.

the biggest barrier to the elimination of iran's nuclear development program is the existence of the israeli nuclear arsenal
israel refuses to sign the international non-proliferation treaty but still insists on expressing its opposition to the development of nuclear weapons by iran
if israel truly wanted a nuclear free iran it should sign the NPT and relinquish its nuclear arms. it would remain adequately defended by the USA in the event of a nuclear attack
Click to expand...

Another non-relating comment.
Israel wasn't threatening Iran, Iran was threatening Israel.
Israel didn't have any hostility with Iran before Iran had declared that Israel is the enemy and must be destroyed.
Hence the argument that it is somehow all Israel's fault, again, is a very ridiculous one.
 
Apocalypse said:
That you do not consider the fact that Iran unlike those other nations is led by an Islamic fundamentalist regime, a regime that is the no.1 sponsor of terrorism on the planet, as a satisfactory reason is all on you mate.
Click to expand...

Iran uses terrorism in places to advance their agenda not unlike the US, Israel, Russia, Saudi Arabia and so many others do. It would be nice if nobody did, the ideal situation, for me. But pointing out Iran's use of the tactic while excusing our own is dishonest. So far the only country to use the nuclear bomb, and on whole cities, is the US. So stop wringing your hands about something that you think Iran might do one day IF, they get the opportunity.
 
justabubba said:
and i am pointing out that this organization was created only as a result of israel's over-reaching actions, as has been expressed by a former israeli prime minister
the biggest barrier to the elimination of iran's nuclear development program is the existence of the israeli nuclear arsenal
israel refuses to sign the international non-proliferation treaty but still insists on expressing its opposition to the development of nuclear weapons by iran
if israel truly wanted a nuclear free iran it should sign the NPT and relinquish its nuclear arms. it would remain adequately defended by the USA in the event of a nuclear attack
Click to expand...

Cause and effect man, it's not profound.
 
Montecresto said:
In the interest of accusing Iran of plotting assassinations, Israel has both plotted, and executed their assassinations in Iran, a bit more serious charge. And why would you call Obama, necessarily my buddy, I don't even know him, as a matter of fact, I've never met him either. Hardly the definition of a buddy. Additionally, I responded to an accusation by you in another thread with a list of 14 serious criticisms of Obama/Obama administration policies, to arrest your false claims.
Click to expand...

Please stick to the topic.

I said NOTHING about Israel and do not intend to. I refuse to get into your constant diversions of comparison based on your faulty ideas of history. If you cannot debate properly, don't.

you have supported your president without hesitation in his helping of Iran's nuclear development program while ignoring the facts that Iran is a rogue state, sworn to the destruction of it's neighbor with hostile intentions in the west. That Canada, the "nice country" is in a cold war with them and yet with Obama's insane track record of loss after loss after loss after failure, you still niavely believe Iran's intentions are honorable.

And then defend your position with more comparative reductivism as a defense.
 
Montecresto said:
Wow! Just WOW that's unbelievable dismissal, like on a grand scale. So you now think the former prime minister of Israel doesn't even know what he's talking about. Wonder if he would be believed if he said that the Iranians were the chief exporters of terrorism in the world?????
Click to expand...

What I was actually saying is that bringing up an opinion of a public figure - as high as a prime minister - about why Hezbollah was created, does nothing to contradict the fact, yes fact, that Hezbollah is armed trained and funded exclusively by Iran and operates by its orders. You haven't denied that, so I can't see how you have convinced yourself that you're making a point here.
 
Montecresto said:
Iran uses terrorism in places to advance their agenda not unlike the US, Israel,
Click to expand...

Actually yes unlike those states unless you can prove otherwise.
That's how arguments work, you making assertions based on the opinion of a handful American public figures isn't called "forming an argument".
Iran is the no.1 sponsor of terrorism on the planet and that makes it unique, along with its hostile approach and its Islamic fundamentalist agenda.
You claim that you do not argue for allowing them to have nuclear capabilities but I'm afraid that's all you've been doing so far. It's ridiculous.

It would be nice if nobody did, the ideal situation, for me.
Click to expand...

I already agreed with you on that but it's delusional to believe that the entire world is going to disarm itself from nuclear capabilities.
We need to focus on what needs to be done at present, and what the free world should be focusing on is to not allow nations like Iran and North Korea to gain nuclear capabilities.

But pointing out Iran's use of the tactic while excusing our own is dishonest. So far the only country to use the nuclear bomb, and on whole cities, is the US. So stop wringing your hands about something that you think Iran might do one day IF, they get the opportunity.
Click to expand...

Again you're bringing up the US from over 70 years ago.
Nuclear weapons were used once during a time of moral crisis and that was enough for the free world to recognize that it is not to be used again.
Iran should never be allowed to gain these capabilities.
 
Apocalypse said:
Which doesn't make it the truth, nor does it mean anything at all in relation to Hezbollah being an Iranian proxy terror organization.
If you tried to make a point on the subject... well you clearly haven't.



Another non-relating comment.
Israel wasn't threatening Iran, Iran was threatening Israel.
Israel didn't have any hostility with Iran before Iran had declared that Israel is the enemy and must be destroyed.
Hence the argument that it is somehow all Israel's fault, again, is a very ridiculous one.
Click to expand...
[emphasis added by bubba]

read this article and once again see that it is israel who is the initiator of aggression towards iran
Who is the real threat: Iran or Israel? - Al Jazeera English

A history of military threats against Iran
Israel has repeatedly tried to provoke the US into attacking Iran. In an interview with the Times of London on November 5, 2002, former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon tried to persuade the US to attack Iran. Calling Iran a "centre of world terror" that is pursuing nuclear weapons, Sharon insisted that the US put pressure on Tehran, the "day after action against Baghdad ends".
In April 2003, Daniel Ayalon, then Israeli ambassador to the US, called for regime change in Iran and Syria, claiming in a conference that "it [the US] has to follow through." In the same year, other Israeli officials spoke repeatedly about the possibility of Israeli unilateral attacks on Iran's nuclear sites. Then Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz warned that "under no circumstances would Israel be able to tolerate nuclear weapons in Iranian possession."
In January 2005, Seymour Hersh reported, "The Defence Department civilians, under the leadership of [Under-secretary of Defence for Policy] Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran."
In April 2005, Sharon said, "Israel - and not only Israel - cannot accept a nuclear Iran. We have the ability to deal with this and we’re making all the necessary preparations to be ready for such a situation."Sharon had reportedly ordered the IDF to develop plans for attacking Iran by March 2006. In the same month, when the IDF chief Dan Halutz was asked, how far Israel was willing to go to stop Iran's nuclear program, he responded, "two thousand kilometres," meaning Tehran. In response to Ahmadinejad's infamous and incorrectly translated statement that "Israel must be wiped off the map," Peres said, "Iran can also be wiped off the map."
After a meeting in July 2009 with then US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, Ehud Barak, Israel's Defence Minister, said that attacking Iran's nuclear facilities is an option, adding, "We clearly believe that no option should be removed from the table. This is our policy; we mean it. We recommend to others to take the same position …."
Barak and Netanyahu were determined to attack Iran in 2010, but were thwarted by the military and intelligence establishments within Israel. In November 2012, Netanyahu again threatened Iran with military attacks, even if the US does not go along.
On June 19 Moshe Ya’alon, Netanyahu’s new Defense Minister called for "significant increase in pressure by Western countries to lead Iran to the dilemma of either having a bomb or surviving."
In the latest of such provocations, in an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria on August 9, Barak emphasised again that attacking Iran is a serious option for Israel. ...
Click to expand...
 
Montecresto said:
Sorry, I have never argued that its "legitimate" for Iran to have nuclear weapons. I have, once again, asked yourself and others, why you guys think its perfectly fine for some countries to have them, and not others?? And still have no satisfactory reason.
Click to expand...

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons entered into force in 1970. All countries that already possessed nuclear weapons were allowed to retain them: United States, France, United Kingdom, Soviet Union, People's Republic of China. All other signatoriies have agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has signed the treaty. India, Israel, and Pakistan have not, and so are not bound by it. North Korea withdrew from the treaty in 2003.

So, by treaty, all countries that currently have nukes are either allowed to have them under the Non-Proliferation treaty, or are not signatories. Iran is a signatory and in violation of the treaty.
 
justabubba said:
[emphasis added by bubba]

read this article and once again see that it is israel who is the initiator of aggression towards iran
Who is the real threat: Iran or Israel? - Al Jazeera English
Click to expand...

An opinion piece from al-Jazeera? Seriously?
And no it doesn't contradict the fact that Iran has initiated hostilities with Israel and not the other way around.
It is clear by now that you are unable, mentally-wise, to acknowledge this obvious truth. Awesome.
 
Montecresto said:
Wow, you believe such nonsense? The US hasn't any offensive weapon systems in our arsenal, lol. The majority of our weapons have offensive purposes. Chief amongst them are the nuclear weapons, and if you want to argue that MAD works, then why the fuss over Iran having them??
Click to expand...

MAD does not work as far as I'm concerned.

Besides which MAD by its very natures requires

1) Considering the other side to be equals. Something I'm not prepared to extend to Iran
2) Believing the other side will act reasonably. Again, not something I'm going to consider Iran.

And who cares if our weapons are offensive? The U.S. can't be defended without them.
 
Dayton3 said:
MAD does not work as far as I'm concerned.

Besides which MAD by its very natures requires

1) Considering the other side to be equals. Something I'm not prepared to extend to Iran
2) Believing the other side will act reasonably. Again, not something I'm going to consider Iran.

And who cares if our weapons are offensive? The U.S. can't be defended without them.
Click to expand...

why do you believe the world's dominant weapon system - nuclear weapons - have not been used since nagasaki?
 
justabubba said:
why do you believe the world's dominant weapon system - nuclear weapons - have not been used since nagasaki?
Click to expand...

What targets have been attacked since Nagasaki?
 
apdst said:
What targets have been attacked since Nagasaki?
Click to expand...

so, your position is that there have been no military targets since nagasaki?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom