• 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

Opening facilities to free inspection by IAEA at any time -they could have proven that.
Parchin - Nice and clean now.
BBC News - 'Blast' deepens mystery of Iran's Parchin military complex


Real clean.....do you think it can stand the a test or two? Should we give the IAEA a couple of jackhammers to break open that concrete. From your link Janfu.


The allegation is that Iran has been pursuing a comprehensive programme to remove evidence of nuclear-related activities. Buildings have been demolished, while the rubble and connecting roads have been removed or erased.

Satellite images going back to 2012 show earth-moving equipment and water tanks at the facility. Meanwhile, images from 2013 show large areas of ground that have been covered by asphalt. Mr Fitzpatrick says: "Given the clean-up efforts that have apparently been underway since the IAEA in early 2012 sought to go back to Parchin, it is unlikely that the IAEA would be able to find any incriminating evidence there.

"It is therefore mysterious why Iran has steadfastly refused access - after having tentatively agreed in 2012 to allow it. " .....snip~

_78118241_78118240.jpg
 
Not if it is listed down as Procurement for Nuclear parts, which Iran did agree not to try and Obtain certain parts. Didn't they?

If you're referring to the NPT, they are signers, its true. If they wanted to build a bomb, they would withdraw from it, say like N. Korea. Stop being fearful of things that haven't even happened.

To much profit for this to take place:

The civilized world can successfully prevent nuclear terrorism by just doing one thing: denying terrorists the means to achieve their deadliest ambitions by locking up all nuclear weapons and materials to a gold standard -- beyond the reach of terrorists and thieves. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1887 called upon member states to "raise standards of nuclear security to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism, with the aim of securing all vulnerable nuclear material from such risks within four years."

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/20057/nuclear_terrorism_fact_sheet.html
 
Last edited:
If you're referring to the NPT, they are signers, its true. If they wanted to build a bomb, they would withdraw from it, say like N. Korea. Stop being fearful of things that haven't even happened.

To much profit for this to take place:

The civilized world can successfully prevent nuclear terrorism by just doing one thing: denying terrorists the means to achieve their deadliest ambitions by locking up all nuclear weapons and materials to a gold standard -- beyond the reach of terrorists and thieves. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1887 called upon member states to "raise standards of nuclear security to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism, with the aim of securing all vulnerable nuclear material from such risks within four years."

Nuclear Terrorism Fact Sheet - Harvard - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs


If they want to withdraw from it.....then that's what they should have done. Not agree to terms and then Lie, deceive, and play headgames.

So tell the Iranians to stop fearing and living in fear. We won't let the big bad wolves blow their lil house down. Tell them its a promise.
 
Goshin, the point is what is the best way forward. I have said again and again that Iran has this knowledge now. They know exactly how to do these things. As such, the best way forward is one in which the conditions are made such that they do not want to do them, along with allowing them to enrich under strict scrutiny. Otherwise the only thing would be infinite confrontation with Iran. Do you really think that is realistic?


No, the point is: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Fool us fifty-seven times and get nukes and threaten to use them.... one has to wonder what kind of a fool lets that happen.
 
Blix was the best weapons inspector EVER. That's why he was asked to come out of retirement for the job, hear. He's the professional, You on the other hand are the one puffing opinion!!!!!

I am sure he might have been extremely good, had he done his job instead of shooting off his mouth out of turn. That probably wouldn't have saved Saddam. But we shall never know.
 
If they want to withdraw from it.....then that's what they should have done. Not agree to terms and then Lie, deceive, and play headgames.

So tell the Iranians to stop fearing and living in fear. We won't let the big bad wolves blow their lil house down. Tell them its a promise.

I don't know why you think I'm Obama's representative to Iran. I explained to you that if Iran wanted to build a bomb, they would withdraw from the NPT like NK and then build one. I can't understand why that's difficult.
 
No, the point is: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Fool us fifty-seven times and get nukes and threaten to use them.... one has to wonder what kind of a fool lets that happen.

To the bolded. Like the time we were told that Iraq had operational nuclear weapons that were capable of producing mushroom clouds over US cities. I'm not buying it.
 
I don't know why you think I'm Obama's representative to Iran. I explained to you that if Iran wanted to build a bomb, they would withdraw from the NPT like NK and then build one. I can't understand why that's difficult.

I don't know why you think someone who doesn't stick to their word is anything to trout out as good intentioned. For the real.....their Word is their Bond.

Maybe the Iranians need to face that fact!
 
I don't know why you think someone who doesn't stick to their word is anything to trout out as good intentioned. For the real.....their Word is their Bond.

Maybe the Iranians need to face that fact!

All governments, not unlike individuals, have a public face, and a private face. Iran will do whatever is in Iran's best interests, not unlike the US. Iran is demonised in the press, demonised by the American government, both parties, labeled as the third leg in some ethereal "axis of evil" (prolly another thing god inspired Bush with) and under heavy pressure from economic warfare being waged against them right now. They have a nuclear powered enemy nearby chomping at the bit to "do" something (and we all know what that means) about it, the US has torn a gapping vacuum in the Middle East with the removal or neutralisation of Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi, and Assad, and you've got your panties twisted around your throat over something Iran might do, when a nuclear deterrent would be the logical move, from her perspective. But it appears they're holding out on that option. As I've said before, if the nuclear powers rid themselves of these weapons that never can have any legitimacy in warfare, indiscriminate as they are, and locked up all available materials for producing them, this wouldn't even be an issue.
 
Last edited:
I am sure he might have been extremely good, had he done his job instead of shooting off his mouth out of turn. That probably wouldn't have saved Saddam. But we shall never know.

What are you talking about, "out of turn" and what do you mean by accusing him of not doing his job? He was doing it right up until the Bush administration told him and his team to leave, he couldn't wait any longer to execute his ****ing "shock and awe"
 
All governments, not unlike individuals, have a public face, and a private face. Iran will do whatever is in Iran's best interests, not unlike the US. Iran is demonised in the press, demonised by the American government, both parties, labeled as the third leg in some ethereal "axis of evil" (prolly another thing god inspired Bush with) and under heavy pressure from economic warfare being waged against them right now. They have a nuclear powered enemy nearby chomping at the bit to "do" something (and we all know what that means) about it, the US has torn a gapping vacuum in the Middle East with the removal or neutralisation of Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi, and Assad, and you've got your panties twisted around your throat over something Iran might do, when a nuclear deterrent would be the logical move, from her perspective. But it appears they're holding out on that option. As I've said before, if the nuclear powers rid themselves of these weapons that never can have any legitimacy in warfare, indiscriminate as they are, and locked up all available materials for producing them, this wouldn't even be an issue.

Say what Monte public or private doesn't change their Word being their bond...... but don't let that part about them being a State Sponsor of Terrorism fool you. While you try and make them out as good guys. Like I said....try!!!!!
 
Say what Monte public or private doesn't change their Word being their bond...... but don't let that part about them being a State Sponsor of Terrorism fool you. While you try and make them out as good guys. Like I said....try!!!!!

You think Obama's word is his bond, lol. Do you think Putins word is his bond, how bout Bush, maybe he's the only one that hasn't lied. I'm not trying to make Iran out as good guys, Iran is what it is. I can't make them good, and you can't make them bad. This constant dripping faucet that Americas always right, and Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, (oh hell I can't list them all, I haven't the time) is always wrong is patronising grade school bull****. Sometimes Iran is wrong and America is right and sometimes America is wrong and Iran is right. That's just how things work.
 
Heya Steel. :2wave: Seems that would be based off or conceding the point to the Iranians that they are doing such for peaceful purposes. Which their intentions have shown otherwise. Their behaviors show otherwise, and even their rhetoric shows this.

Yet even though all of the evidence undisputed for years now is that Iran has violated the commitment it made under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty not to seek nuclear weapons. And this is not just any treaty, this is the treaty that is critical for prevention of proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Even if you don't concede the point and assume that they want them, the question is what is the best way to prevent them from getting them. If your position is that diplomacy is not the way, then there is no long term solution because the problem cannot be solved long term through military means.

Bo peeps way of attempting to show the Iranians.....that the US is not a threat to them. Only reinforces to them we are weak and rather than have problems with them. We will do what we can to avoid such.

You don't think should be projected to them do you?

If the Iranians think that we are so weak then why is it that they are negotiating in the first place? If we are so weak, and if it is as you say that they want to develop nuclear weapons, then there is no need for them to negotiate. We don't negotiate with Iran when we want to build nuclear weapons. We just do it. That is the reality.
 
Did the US allow a tribunal of countries to determine whether or not we developed a nuclear weapon? This is Iran's business. And hopefully, they will do as they say they are doing and develop nuclear power for civilian purposes. Btw, you failed to respond to the meat of my post, I'd like to know what you think of the rest of it, thanks.

Well we both know the answer to your first question. Now with regards to getting rid of nuclear weapons, there is only one thing that will accomplish that, and that is a big catastrophe. It appears that is where the world is headed. The problem is that compromise is viewed as appeasement and weakness these days. Some of that is the result of deceptive people who want to influence the political system for their advantage. If the opposition can be labeled as weak, regardless of whether it is true or not, one can get the advantage.

If I missed something, let me know.
 
Even if you don't concede the point and assume that they want them, the question is what is the best way to prevent them from getting them. If your position is that diplomacy is not the way, then there is no long term solution because the problem cannot be solved long term through military means.



If the Iranians think that we are so weak then why is it that they are negotiating in the first place? If we are so weak, and if it is as you say that they want to develop nuclear weapons, then there is no need for them to negotiate. We don't negotiate with Iran when we want to build nuclear weapons. We just do it. That is the reality.

Your mistake in part A of your answer leads to a bad conclusion in part B in my view. You say that there are only two options. There is a third, which is what congress is proposing. That is to tighten not loosen sanctions. That is where you missed in Part B. The Iranians want it all. They want sanctions to not only not be tightened, but to go away altogether. They also want the ability to build a bomb.

How to do this? negotiate with Kerry and Obama. They could care less if Iran gets the bomb, especially if they run the clock past 2016, then it is someone else's fault. That is why Obama is going nuclear about Netanyahu's speech to congress. He knows that the public will hear the truth about these negotiations just before the president signs off on them next month.
 
No, the point is: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Fool us fifty-seven times and get nukes and threaten to use them.... one has to wonder what kind of a fool lets that happen.

So what is your solution to the problem?
 
Your mistake in part A of your answer leads to a bad conclusion in part B in my view. You say that there are only two options. There is a third, which is what congress is proposing. That is to tighten not loosen sanctions. That is where you missed in Part B. The Iranians want it all. They want sanctions to not only not be tightened, but to go away altogether. They also want the ability to build a bomb.

The mistake in your response is that it fails to recognize that sanctions are part of diplomacy. The point of sanctions is to impose negative consequences such that the conditions can be created for positive incentives for compliance. Otherwise sanctions make no sense.
 
Well we both know the answer to your first question. Now with regards to getting rid of nuclear weapons, there is only one thing that will accomplish that, and that is a big catastrophe. It appears that is where the world is headed. The problem is that compromise is viewed as appeasement and weakness these days. Some of that is the result of deceptive people who want to influence the political system for their advantage. If the opposition can be labeled as weak, regardless of whether it is true or not, one can get the advantage.

If I missed something, let me know.

I completely agree with your characterisation of the false accusation of appeasement, and see it here all the time.
 
The mistake in your response is that it fails to recognize that sanctions are part of diplomacy. The point of sanctions is to impose negative consequences such that the conditions can be created for positive incentives for compliance. Otherwise sanctions make no sense.

Economic war can also backfire and provoke a nation to attack you. Lately our sanction program's have been imposed upon weak or weakfish countries without such abilities, Russia is a bit different situation.
 
The mistake in your response is that it fails to recognize that sanctions are part of diplomacy. The point of sanctions is to impose negative consequences such that the conditions can be created for positive incentives for compliance. Otherwise sanctions make no sense.

OK I will accept putting sanctions in the diplomacy bucket. That being the case we should continue to use this lever and increase it as part of out negotiation stance. To give them up for a flawed agreement is a big mistake, as they will be hard if not impossible to put back once we realize (under the next president) that we have been duped.
 
What are you talking about, "out of turn" and what do you mean by accusing him of not doing his job? He was doing it right up until the Bush administration told him and his team to leave, he couldn't wait any longer to execute his ****ing "shock and awe"

He was not putting enough pressure on the SC to force Saddam to let him in. He was not doing his job. What he was doing was telling Saddam that Bush should not attack along the same line that Schröder and Putin took. That reduced the probability of invasion in Saddam's calculations. That was talking out of turn. Even an idiot would know that that would increase the probability of Saddam not adhering to the SC resolution and therefore of war.
In Blix's case I am not sure, but in the cases of Chirac, Schröder and Putin it is pretty certain, that they had done the maths and knew, what they were releasing. The later change of policies in France and Germany show that they realized that the approach harmed them badly. Putin's activities since then show, that he was practicing, what he has now developed to an art.
 
He was not putting enough pressure on the SC to force Saddam to let him in. He was not doing his job. What he was doing was telling Saddam that Bush should not attack along the same line that Schröder and Putin took. That reduced the probability of invasion in Saddam's calculations. That was talking out of turn. Even an idiot would know that that would increase the probability of Saddam not adhering to the SC resolution and therefore of war.
In Blix's case I am not sure, but in the cases of Chirac, Schröder and Putin it is pretty certain, that they had done the maths and knew, what they were releasing. The later change of policies in France and Germany show that they realized that the approach harmed them badly. Putin's activities since then show, that he was practicing, what he has now developed to an art.

You don't have a clue what your talking about, and France, Germany and Russia aren't the topic, its Hans Blix and the AIEA that had all the access they needed to report to the UN with confidence that THERE WERE NO WMD.

Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.

The inspections have taken place throughout Iraq at industrial sites, ammunition depots, research centres, universities, presidential sites, mobile laboratories, private houses, missile production facilities, military camps and agricultural sites. At all sites which had been inspected before 1998, re-baselining activities were performed. This included the identification of the function and contents of each building, new or old, at a site. It also included verification of previously tagged equipment, application of seals and tags, taking samples and discussions with the site personnel regarding past and present activities. At certain sites, ground-penetrating radar was used to look for underground structures or buried equipment.

Full text: Hans Blix's briefing to the UN security council | World news | The Guardian


Up until they were withdrawn from Iraq on 18 March –- the day before

armed action began -- United Nations inspectors had found no evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction, Hans Blix told the Security Council this morning, as he briefed them for a final time before stepping down at the end of June as head of the inspection team.

http://www.un.org/press/en/2003/sc7777.doc.htm
 
Even if you don't concede the point and assume that they want them, the question is what is the best way to prevent them from getting them. If your position is that diplomacy is not the way, then there is no long term solution because the problem cannot be solved long term through military means.



If the Iranians think that we are so weak then why is it that they are negotiating in the first place? If we are so weak, and if it is as you say that they want to develop nuclear weapons, then there is no need for them to negotiate. We don't negotiate with Iran when we want to build nuclear weapons. We just do it. That is the reality.



Thru use of diplomacy and of course contant inspections and regulations and overcite. Which then you leave it to them if they want to decide to go to war or be nice and peaceful like. Going to war.....is a lose lose situation for them.


Well there is the UK, France, Germany, the Saud and Israel to consider.
 
I completely agree with your characterisation of the false accusation of appeasement, and see it here all the time.

Indeed it has been run in the ground and has very little basis in reality. It is mostly done for the sake of destroying political opponents.
 
Economic war can also backfire and provoke a nation to attack you. Lately our sanction program's have been imposed upon weak or weakfish countries without such abilities, Russia is a bit different situation.

Yes it can backfire, not only by provoking an attack, but it can serve to purpose of leaders who then have a demon to rally the population. In the case of Cuba, the current sanctions are serving no purpose at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom