• 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!

Khamenei calls ‘Death to America’ as Kerry hails progress on nuke deal

CIA Chief Warns Of 'Tremendous' Consequences For Iran

And heres the CIA director today saying Iran better not make a nuke-this despite the fact that the forums lefties say Death to America doesn't mean what it means.

And what's your point. Obama has said from the beginning that Iran can sign an agreement that precludes them the ability to make nuclear weapons, accept rigorous inspections that verify compliance or the consequences will be tremendous. There's nothing new, or profound coming from the CIA director.
 
No, that's just your false belief.

Trust but Verify, Strength as leverage. If the enemy knows you are not actually going to do anything, what's to stop them? A written note?

And Obama's upping your anti. He's trusting nothing and insisting Iran submit to rigorous inspections, see?
 
And what's your point. Obama has said from the beginning that Iran can sign an agreement that precludes them the ability to make nuclear weapons, accept rigorous inspections that verify compliance or the consequences will be tremendous. There's nothing new, or profound coming from the CIA director.

Look at the timing, Obama is so willing to appease Iran that he will attack Netanyahu and celebrate Iranian holidays, but just after Irans supreme leader says Death to America, obama sends out this guy to talk tough.

It was a response, a reaction. Our presidents actions have been entirely contrary to this.

If we found out Iran had nukes tomorrow-what do you think Obama would do? Not a thing, because hes a chump.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064449282 said:
Iran doesn't need this deal as long as the US keeps giving them $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.







Obama gives away the farm and liberals say conservatives hate America. :2rofll:

U.S. to Award Iran $11.9 Billion Through End of Nuke Talks | Washington Free Beacon

Greetings, Mo. :2wave:

The fact that Iran received $4.2 billion, then was given an additional $2.8 billion in additional funds from the Obama administration in 2013, to keep Iran committed to the talks through November is astonishing. Keep them committed? Who wanted this lousy deal in the first place? Then to read that negotiators parted ways without reaching an agreement means that $7 billion dollars of taxpayer money was spent for nothing. How much more are non-productive talks going to cost us? Why wasn't the money held in reserve, dependent upon reaching an agreement?

We have, in effect, given them billions of dollars to fund the very terrorist groups that we are purportedly fighting, since we see crowds shouting "Death to America" as their response. The Iranian leaders are sneering at the negotiators publicly, and they are paying for the privilege of being made to look like naïve idiots? WTH is going on in this administration? Unless I am misunderstanding what is happening, I'm afraid I agree with those that advocate tightening the sanctions on that arrogant country, not eliminating them! You are correct - Iran doesn't need this deal since they are getting all the money they want already! :2mad:
 
And you're privy to something that Russia, China, Germany, the UK and France haven't seen, lol.

The deal wont work, Obama is actually making softer demands than socialist France, he's said its likely not to work, and Irans supreme leader is saying death to America.

I know liberals aren't big on subtlety, so let me spell it out for you-this is not a recipe for success.
 
The (real) Iranian leaders are not the diplomats, but rather nuts like THIS guy.

He has to appease the hardliners. You may not understand their culture or the culture of saving face. We have been their target of ire since 1979.

How many US politicians have call us to war against another country. Khamenei has to blame the US for Iran's problems but Iran has no other options. They have to negotiate.

It's called hyperbole and it is practiced everyday on this forum.
 
He has to appease the hardliners. You may not understand their culture or the culture of saving face. We have been their target of ire since 1979.

How many US politicians have call us to war against another country. Khamenei has to blame the US for Iran's problems but Iran has no other options. They have to negotiate.

It's called hyperbole and it is practiced everyday on this forum.

HE IS A HARDLINER. He's only got to appease himself, and this is how.
 
I agree with you that Obama doesn't agree with Netanyahu. But do you think that Netanyahu's opposed to doing what he thinks is best, without much concern for what Obama thinks? IOW, it's quite likely that Israel will bomb Iran, so either way, there's no worries for those that are scared that Iran might someday develop a nuclear weapon, and might someday use it on their nemesis.

Perhaps he will do that without Obama's ok or agreement, but I'm sure he'd feel better about it if the US had his back. I would like to think Israel would bomb Iran but I'm not so sure any longer as Russia seems to have Iran's back on this and the anti-Israel sentiment in Europe and now in the US by it's government would only condemn such actions. I would not be surprised if under this WH the US abandoned Israel. That may change with a new President but it is not a foregone conclusion that the US would stand by Israel like it was say 7 years ago.
 
Oh, the old Bush lied people died crap?

I can write you off as a serious poster then. Thank you for letting me know, good day to you sir.

Nope, the young Bush was the big liar and yes, loads of people died. Ten of thousands according to some sources but at least way too many US soldiers died. Friends and family of mine also risked their lives for a war that should have never happened (the one in Iraq), at least not that that time and for those reasons (made up reasons/lies).

And what is serious? I am very serious but I also do not agree with the claim that we will get paper promises. And maybe peace should have been possible if not for the historical problems between the US and Iran. You know, supporting Saddam in his bloody war of massacres and weapons of mass destruction use against Iran. Supporting the Shah even though there were huge problems in that country. And there have been many issues since like shooting down an Iranian plane (even though I believe it was an honest mistake/tragedy) but it was still another problematic issue in the relationship and let's be honest, both republican and democratic presidents/leadership has never been too aggressive in their desire to make a real peace with Iran (even though there might have been opportunities for that peace) and as you see, I blame both sides of the political sides of that failure.

And the agreement now might be the first step to a real peace accord between the two countries.

And most agreements start off as paper promises with a bit of trust thrown in the mix.
 
You do know there other hardliners...other than Khamenei right. He is not the only hardliner in Iran. You do know that right?

Yes, there are, and this hardliner has always said death to America-and his timing now, indicates this is the view those other hardliners hold as well.
 
Greetings, Mo. :2wave:

The fact that Iran received $4.2 billion, then was given an additional $2.8 billion in additional funds from the Obama administration in 2013, to keep Iran committed to the talks through November is astonishing. Keep them committed? Who wanted this lousy deal in the first place? Then to read that negotiators parted ways without reaching an agreement means that $7 billion dollars of taxpayer money was spent for nothing. How much more are non-productive talks going to cost us? Why wasn't the money held in reserve, dependent upon reaching an agreement?

We have, in effect, given them billions of dollars to fund the very terrorist groups that we are purportedly fighting, since we see crowds shouting "Death to America" as their response. The Iranian leaders are sneering at the negotiators publicly, and they are paying for the privilege of being made to look like naïve idiots? WTH is going on in this administration? Unless I am misunderstanding what is happening, I'm afraid I agree with those that advocate tightening the sanctions on that arrogant country, not eliminating them! You are correct - Iran doesn't need this deal since they are getting all the money they want already! :2mad:

Howdy Polgara. Allow me to ease your frustration some. First, you can find a crowd of people, even in ally countries to the United States that will chant horrible things about America. But the overwhelming majority of Iranians have a good regard for Americans.

The agreement deadline hasn't been reached, and could likely be extended if necessary. The sanctions are impositions on the Iranian public, primarily, and they aren't invited into the negotiations. The six countries negotiating with Iran largely agree that sanctions are impediments. Only Bibi, who isn't involved in the negotiations believes sanctions should be increased. Iran really isn't a threat to you or us, just like Libya wasn't before that, or Iraq before that.
 
You do know there other hardliners...other than Khamenei right. He is not the only hardliner in Iran. You do know that right?

Can you prove he's the only hard liner? I'd really like to see that...
 
You do know there other hardliners...other than Khamenei right. He is not the only hardliner in Iran. You do know that right?

Khamenei is the Supreme Leader and the spiritual leader of Iran, he answers to no one and his rule is not challenged.
And regardless the only ones who could challenge his regime are the Iranian moderates(as we've seen in the Iranian protests back then), not the hardliners who take his word as the word of God. He doesn't need to appease anyone, it's his views that he's preaching.
 
Yes, there are, and this hardliner has always said death to America-and his timing now, indicates this is the view those other hardliners hold as well.

His "timing now" only has significance to you. I'm sure someone or another is calling for America's demise...It probably was his turn.
 
Iran’s Supreme leader Ali Khamenei called for “Death to America” on Saturday, a day after President Barack Obama appealed to Iran to seize a “historic opportunity” for a nuclear deal and a better future, and as US Secretary of State John Kerry claimed substantial progress toward an accord.

Khamenei told a crowd in Tehran that Iran would not capitulate to Western demands. When the crowd started shouting, “Death to America,” the ayatollah responded: “Of course yes, death to America, because America is the original source of this pressure.

Mideast-Iran-Nuclear_Horo-e1392695047501-635x357.jpg


Read more: Khamenei calls 'Death to America' as Kerry hails progress on nuke deal | The Times of Israel Khamenei calls 'Death to America' as Kerry hails progress on nuke deal | The Times of Israel

and so we want to let them get a nuclear weapon?

Huh?????
 
Khamenei is the Supreme Leader and the spiritual leader of Iran, he answers to no one and his rule is not challenged.
And regardless the only ones who could challenge his regime are the Iranian moderates(as we've seen in the Iranian protests back then), not the hardliners who take his word as the word of God. He doesn't need to appease anyone, it's his views that he's preaching.


Then either he has OKed the nuclear negotiations or does not not they are ongoing...which do you figure it is?

Negotiating with the US and calling for our demise is counter intuitive...which do you figure has more probability of actually happening???? Our demise at the hands of Iran or a nuclear deal?
 
Perhaps he will do that without Obama's ok or agreement, but I'm sure he'd feel better about it if the US had his back. I would like to think Israel would bomb Iran but I'm not so sure any longer as Russia seems to have Iran's back on this and the anti-Israel sentiment in Europe and now in the US by it's government would only condemn such actions. I would not be surprised if under this WH the US abandoned Israel. That may change with a new President but it is not a foregone conclusion that the US would stand by Israel like it was say 7 years ago.

And again, I agree with you. It's likely that we wouldn't just throw Israel under the bus if they acted unilaterally, but they wouldn't get the support from Obama that they would have from Bush or Reagan certainly. Besides the fact for many Americans, that's a good thing, it's still premature to be condemning the work of the P5+1 that we haven't seen the detail of. Americans are at a snails pace moving away from unconditional support for Israel, so I believe regardless who is president, subtle as it may be, we'll be seeing increasing accountability requirements from Israel.
 
His "timing now" only has significance to you. I'm sure someone or another is calling for America's demise...It probably was his turn.

Obama spends the week celebrating an Iranian holiday, on Saturday the Supreme leader yells death to America, and the next day this guy makes the rounds.

Its transparently obvious.
 
And again, I agree with you. It's likely that we wouldn't just throw Israel under the bus if they acted unilaterally, but they wouldn't get the support from Obama that they would have from Bush or Reagan certainly. Besides the fact for many Americans, that's a good thing, it's still premature to be condemning the work of the P5+1 that we haven't seen the detail of.
Why would that be a good thing?
 
and so we want to let them get a nuclear weapon?

Huh?????

I dont know how much Obama would mind, but its intended as evidence that he is being played by Iran.

So they will not only get nukes (they already have the capability) but they will get billions of dollars, and they will have run afoul of Obama. To be fair, this is just the latest in a string of foreign policy "smart diplomacy" blunders.
 
Can you prove he's the only hard liner? I'd really like to see that...

As I read it, he's pointing out that there are other hard liners. There's hard liners in America too, and some of them want to be president. :shock:
 
Back
Top Bottom