• 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

Montecresto said:
A blockade is also considered an act of war, you are correct. But it's up to the one bearing the weight and discomfort of economic warfare to decide when they've had enough, and reciprocate. Cause and effect. You can tell Russia and Iran that they aren't suffering enough under the economic oppression of your sanctions to have a legitimate cause to strike at you, but what would that mean?
Click to expand...

Legal or illegal war as they say- does not change anything- just how it is.
 
Apocalypse said:
You have made several claims that the only possible deduction from them is that you are in favor of Iran gaining nuclear capabilities.

Such claims are;

- The claim that Western nations having nukes bothers you more than Iran having it.
- The claim that Iran isn't trying to gain nukes.
- The claim that Iran having nukes is as legitimate as any other nation having it.
- The comparison between Iran and the US.

Apparently you wanna be dishonest about it, sure go ahead, but don't accuse me of manipulating your words when I clearly haven't.
If anything that's quite hypocritical considering you've claimed more than once that I supported the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when I've never stated so.
Click to expand...

Ok, to the bolded, I have stated that the other nations having nukes bothers me more than Iran having them, especially the US, which has actually used them.

I haven't claimed that Iran isn't trying to gain nukes. One can't prove such a negative. What I have claimed is that no one can produce evidence that their nuclear program is a weapons program.

I have not claimed that Iran having nukes is as legitimate as any other nation having them. Namely, because such weapons have no legitimacy, and there use cannot be justified. And I'm exhausted with telling you that I DO NOT WANT IRAN OR ANYBODY ELSE TO HAVE OR USE THEM.

As to the comparison between Iran and the US, I assume you harken back to my statement of fact that both nations have used terrorism to advance their interests, if so, then yes.
 
cpwill said:
:) Thank you for the confirmation of the point.
Click to expand...

You mean to say that you believe that the whole sum of Americans at any given time are responsible for US foreign policy??? I find that hard to believe. Only a tiny fraction of Americans participate in the federal government, and less yet in that portion of it responsible for setting and executing foreign policy. So, you being coy is about the only thing I've confirmed. My criticisms of US foreign policy throughout the years is not a condemnation on 300,000,000 Americans today, or 150,000,000 Americans during WW2, etc.. As a matter of fact until Roosevelt succeeded in provoking a Japanese attack, 80% of Americans were against US involvement in another world war, and as such they bear no responsibility. More recently, despite the fact that the Obama administration with a whole lot of neo-con support made three attempts to secure a resolution for the use of force in Syria, 70% of Americans were against it. They too bear no responsibility, nor do they get any of my criticism. The broad brush claims by yourself and others that I am anti-American, think America is bad, am not patriotic, etc., are cheap politic ploys, designed to deflect that attention, that spotlight shinning on the very few, who through deceipt, manipulation, intrigue and dishonesty have compromised the integrity of our foreign policy. Deal with it cp.
 
JANFU said:
Legal or illegal war as they say- does not change anything- just how it is.
Click to expand...

And what do you mean by that. Define for me a legal war, and an illegal war, lol.
 
matchlight said:
How is that relevant to the question whether the R-12 and R-14 missiles in Cuba, each with a one-megaton warhead there ready to be mounted on it, gave the Soviet Union the ability to launch an effective nuclear missile strike on the U.S. before 1964? Do you really think those missiles and warheads would not have worked? The most knowledgeable people on that subject in the U.S. must have been pretty sure they would.



That is just idle speculation on your part. Neither you nor anyone else has any way of knowing that most of those R-12's and R-14's, and their nuclear weapons, would not have done exactly what they were meant to do. There is no reason to think that weapons which had been well tested would probably not work. .
Click to expand...

Actually there is EVERY reasons to believe most of the Soviet nuclear weapons would not have detonated.

The first generation of Polaris SLBMs were deployed by the U.S. around this time frame.

Years later, the U.S. found out that fully SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT of their warheads WOULD NOT detonate (see "The Cold War At Sea" by Kit Bonner). The Polaris warheads and the Soviet IRBM warheads were the same generation of weapons. There is no reason to believe the Soviet weapons would have worked better than the American ones.

At any rate, I was doubting that the Soviets could've successfully launched the majority of missiles before U.S. nuclear warheads starting impacting on their launch sites.
 
Montecresto said:
Left and right are ideologies, not barometers of intelligence, there are both smart and stupid people subscribing to both. What a failed observation.
Click to expand...

I take the word "failed," as you use it, to mean my observation does not accord with yours. Evidently it irks you that anyone would dare not to appreciate your preternatural wisdom.

I repeat--most of the ignorant hicks I have had to be around, in graduate school and elsewhere, have been leftists. Mark Levin once said something to the effect that leftism is the philosophy of the stupid, and I tend to agree with him. Ironically, these people often like to call themselves "liberals." They are in fact the very opposite--intolerant, authoritarians who have contempt for the Constitution and like to use the federal government to push other people around. It is those who today are often mislabeled as "conservatives" who are the true liberals, in the classic sense of the term.

Leftists show their disdain for most things American by running this country down every chance they get, while leading cheers for its enemies. Andy McCarthy discusses how their loathing of this country gives them common cause with Islamists in a very good book, "The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America."
 
Dayton3 said:
Actually there is EVERY reasons to believe most of the Soviet nuclear weapons would not have detonated.

The first generation of Polaris SLBMs were deployed by the U.S. around this time frame.

Years later, the U.S. found out that fully SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT of their warheads WOULD NOT detonate (see "The Cold War At Sea" by Kit Bonner). The Polaris warheads and the Soviet IRBM warheads were the same generation of weapons. There is no reason to believe the Soviet weapons would have worked better than the American ones.

At any rate, I was doubting that the Soviets could've successfully launched the majority of missiles before U.S. nuclear warheads starting impacting on their launch sites.
Click to expand...

This is not the topic of this thread, but your claims about the Cuban Crisis are wildly inaccurate. The U.S. never had any plans to strike either the missile sites or any other targets in Cuba with nuclear weapons. In fact the transcripts of meetings show President Kennedy asking about the possibility a U.S. attack might accidentally detonate one of the Soviets' nuclear weapons (neither he nor anyone else in the U.S. knew whether they had been brought to the missile sites.) Kennedy was concerned about how many Soviets or Cubans might be killed if one of those weapons were to go off in Cuba.

The plan was to attack the sites with fighter-bombers--sixteen F-100's were tasked with destroying one site--carrying conventional bombs. There were also rough plans to follow those attacks up with a full-out invasion of Cuba by six Army divisions, each landing at an assigned place. This invasion force would have had the help of 5,700 Marines Kennedy had already sent to reinforce Guantanamo.

But all we know now makes clear that Kennedy and his military advisers expected that if large-scale fighting broke out, it was likely to break out first not in Cuba, but in Berlin. They knew it would have been foolish for the Soviets to try to wage war in Cuba, so far from their territory and so close to ours. And they knew that the relative weakness of the Soviets' conventional forces in Cuba would have forced them, before long, either to launch the nuclear weapons they had brought there or see them destroyed. In Berlin, though, they would have had a big advantage in conventional forces--particularly armor--and a far shorter supply line.
 
Montecresto said:
I know that everything that Iran says is a lie, and that everything the US says is the truth, no need to roll your eyes at me Mr.
Click to expand...

No, it is just that enriching nuclear material themselves makes absolutely no sense at all for non-military purposes makes absolutely no sense for Iran.

1) They have no source of nuclear material in Iran so they would importing this material to run nuclear generators.. going from energy independence to dependence.

2) Developing and building your own nuclear refinery is orders of magnitude more costly than buying reactor grade nuclear material from an established refinery.

3) Nuclear power would be far more expensive that oil generators that they would run essentially for free.

Again, there is absolutely no reason for Iran to refine it's own nuclear material unless it is to refine weapons grade material that they can't buy on the world market.
 
matchlight said:
I take the word "failed," as you use it, to mean my observation does not accord with yours. Evidently it irks you that anyone would dare not to appreciate your preternatural wisdom.

I repeat--most of the ignorant hicks I have had to be around, in graduate school and elsewhere, have been leftists. Mark Levin once said something to the effect that leftism is the philosophy of the stupid, and I tend to agree with him. Ironically, these people often like to call themselves "liberals." They are in fact the very opposite--intolerant, authoritarians who have contempt for the Constitution and like to use the federal government to push other people around. It is those who today are often mislabeled as "conservatives" who are the true liberals, in the classic sense of the term.

Leftists show their disdain for most things American by running this country down every chance they get, while leading cheers for its enemies. Andy McCarthy discusses how their loathing of this country gives them common cause with Islamists in a very good book, "The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America."
Click to expand...

I think I'm through with you. Anybody that would say that all republican conservatives are stupid, or anybody that says that all liberals are stupid has issues because neither is true.
 
jmotivator said:
No, it is just that enriching nuclear material themselves makes absolutely no sense at all for non-military purposes makes absolutely no sense for Iran.

1) They have no source of nuclear material in Iran so they would importing this material to run nuclear generators.. going from energy independence to dependence.

2) Developing and building your own nuclear refinery is orders of magnitude more costly than buying reactor grade nuclear material from an established refinery.

3) Nuclear power would be far more expensive that oil generators that they would run essentially for free.

Again, there is absolutely no reason for Iran to refine it's own nuclear material unless it is to refine weapons grade material that they can't buy on the world market.
Click to expand...

You need to go back to school and learn how to form sentences.
 
matchlight said:
I take the word "failed," as you use it, to mean my observation does not accord with yours. Evidently it irks you that anyone would dare not to appreciate your preternatural wisdom.

I repeat--most of the ignorant hicks I have had to be around, in graduate school and elsewhere, have been leftists. Mark Levin once said something to the effect that leftism is the philosophy of the stupid, and I tend to agree with him. Ironically, these people often like to call themselves "liberals." They are in fact the very opposite--intolerant, authoritarians who have contempt for the Constitution and like to use the federal government to push other people around. It is those who today are often mislabeled as "conservatives" who are the true liberals, in the classic sense of the term.
Click to expand...

You didn't mention what Mark Levin has said about the Republican party.
How ironic, since you speak of irony .
 
Montecresto said:
You need to go back to school and learn how to form sentences.
Click to expand...

Other than the mangled sentence, do you disagree with my assertion that Iran's nuclear program makes absolutely no sense at all as a non-military project? It has no practical value as a public works project to justify the massive expense. The only way Iran's nuclear program makes any logical sense is as a path to nuclear weapons.
 
Apocalypse said:
Now Israel? Israel never initiated a single damned war. Sure it may have attacked first at some of the events, but it didn't initiate the aggression.
Never ever ever ever.
Click to expand...

LOL, where to begin...

Suez crisis
6 Day War
1982 invasion of Lebanon (which created Hezbollah)
Lebanon attack of 2006
Numerous attacks into Gaza

The most warlike, most evil...
 
jmotivator said:
Other than the mangled sentence, do you disagree with my assertion that Iran's nuclear program makes absolutely no sense at all as a non-military project? It has no practical value as a public works project to justify the massive expense. The only way Iran's nuclear program makes any logical sense is as a path to nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

Well, I would prefer that Iran not produce a nuclear weapon. I would also prefer that the US had not developed and used the son of a bitch. But I can't understand the hand wringing over something that might happen while excusing what has happened.
 
Montecresto said:
I think I'm through with you. Anybody that would say that all republican conservatives are stupid, or anybody that says that all liberals are stupid has issues because neither is true.
Click to expand...

You can be sure I will give your opinion all the weight it deserves.
 
NIMBY said:
You didn't mention what Mark Levin has said about the Republican party.
How ironic, since you speak of irony .
Click to expand...

I agree with him. The Republican Party, overall, is very far from being conservative.
 
matchlight said:
You can be sure I will give your opinion all the weight it deserves.
Click to expand...

I suppose you mean that you believe that my opinion deserves less than yours? Maybe you should be picking flowers instead of participating on political forums.
 
Montecresto said:
Iran has maintained from jump street that their nuclear program is commercial and not military in nature.
Click to expand...

And it sounds as if you are a believer.
 
Montecresto said:
Well, I would prefer that Iran not produce a nuclear weapon. I would also prefer that the US had not developed and used the son of a bitch. But I can't understand the hand wringing over something that might happen while excusing what has happened.
Click to expand...

So you would have preferred WWII to last a bit longer and a few million more people to die?
 
MildSteel said:
You are wrong, it does have something to do with it. That is not the only issue, but that is part of it.
Click to expand...

I am not aware that the present threat has been used to frame the arguments for preventing Iran from nuclear armament. After all, they have had dirty bomb capability for at least a decade or two.
 
PoS said:
LOL, where to begin...

Suez crisis
6 Day War
1982 invasion of Lebanon (which created Hezbollah)
Lebanon attack of 2006
Numerous attacks into Gaza

The most warlike, most evil...
Click to expand...

Again, Israel ain't the subject as much as you love bashing it, but just so we're clear;

Suez crisis started by Egypt, it stopped cargo from reaching Israel and thus was the aggressor. Needless to note that France and Britain were also part of the invasion into Egypt.
Six Day War - I guess they didn't teach you history in school? Straits of Tiran blocked, kicking out all of the UN peacekeepers from the Sinai peninsula. Israel launched a preemptive strike but was the defender once more. First Lebanon war - terrorism from Lebanon. Second Lebanon war - terrorism from Lebanon. Attacks on Gaza - terrorism from Gaza.

So to conclude no, Israel wasn't the aggressor in any of these wars. Try a different argument, perhaps how Israel has no right to exist and thus its existence itself is an "act of aggression", wasn't that one of your previous arguments?
 
Apocalypse said:
Suez crisis started by Egypt, it stopped cargo from reaching Israel and thus was the aggressor. Needless to note that France and Britain were also part of the invasion into Egypt.
Click to expand...
So? Just because Egypt doesnt allow your ships to pass through THEIR canal is not an excuse to go to war. Trying to shift blame on Britain and France is a silly excuse too.

Six Day War - I guess they didn't teach you history in school? Straits of Tiran blocked, kicking out all of the UN peacekeepers from the Sinai peninsula. Israel launched a preemptive strike but was the defender once more.
Click to expand...
Lie. Isreal started using bulldozers in the DMZ and then started raiding into Jordanian territory and attacked Egypt without provocation. A total war of aggression.

First Lebanon war - terrorism from Lebanon.
Click to expand...
Another lie. There was a ceasefire in 1981 and the PLO was adhering to it. Isreal claimed it attacked because Isreal's ambassador got attacked in London by an Iraqi terror unit, no less. Lets not forget the Shatila massacre which was an act of genocide.

Second Lebanon war - terrorism from Lebanon.
Click to expand...
Lie #3, Hezbollah kidnapped a soldier while he was occupying the Sheba Farms area (which Isreal stole from Lebanon) and Isreal attacks and invades South Lebanon again.

Lies and more lies. Coming from you, Im not surprised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom