• 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

JANFU said:
The P5 plus 1 are negotiating a deal on Nukes.
That does not equate to the US letting Iran have the run of the ME.
It does not stop the US from sabotage either.
Many in the west myself included hope for a revolution in Iran.
If no deal is reached, the sanctions increased, the economy worsens, and then we will see mass rioting.
Unfortunately, the present leadership would not hesitate to commit mass murder and massacre demonstrators. Self preservation of their power will cause that.
Even the Shah did not do that.
Click to expand...

I understand the basis of your point. An Iranian revolution, the overthrow of the authoritarian government and figs for everybody in Iran. Except, the revolutions across the region are tearing it apart. Things are worse in the region than they've been in our lifetimes. And the more US/Western policy digs, the hole just gets deeper. I'm waiting for the day when there are more people in the West that acknowledge, ok, what we done so far has only worsened things. Then, maybe we can get on with a new approach.
 
Democrat152 said:
I don't think you understand the kind of pressure the Iranian Leaders are under from their hardliners. This is just rhetoric to appease them. If "Death to America" were really his only goal he wouldn't have allowed negotiations to happen in the first place.
Click to expand...



Can you give us some kind of indication from which college's school f Iranian Studies you draw that conclusion? Or have you lived in Iran? Know a lot people who travel there?

As I recall, the Ayatolla IS the pressure on Iranian leadership, he is the grandfather of fundamentalism and it's concrete hard line. He is the one who can and does push the radical button that leads to things like a 444 day occupation of the US embassy.

But, since he's Obama's new buddy, I guess you all have to overlook that and make excuses for him
 
brothern said:
The "Death to America" is so cliche in Persian, that it's virtually meaningless. You could shout "Death to Spinach" and it'd have the same oompf to the average Iranian.
Click to expand...

So your premise is that at a public address regarding the nuclear talks, the Supreme leader of Iran and a crowd were just saying virtually meaningless words? Perhaps it was just a coincidence?

Explain why we should negotiate with a nation to allow it to get nukes as they call for the deaths of Americans.

Why is it that the left can't even say the words islamic terrorism in the same sentence (despite Iran being a hardline islamic state that is the worlds largest state sponsor of terror), but somehow "Death to America" is meaningless.

We are giving them billions, to help them weaponize, and listening to them say they want to kill Americans...and for what exactly? In exchange for sitting down at talks? Talks that even the President says are most likely NOT to work?

Where is the "deal" here exactly? Kindly show how we benefit from this.
 
rocket88 said:
They were working on that ability throughout the Bush administration. He didn't stop it.

What, in your opinion, would be the appropriate action? When pressed you won't own up to calling for military action. You oppose diplomacy. It seems that you have no ideas other than continuing the failed policies that didn't change Iran, and didn't keep them from pursuing a weapons program.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, its Booooosh!!! time again, eh?
 
US Conservative said:
This is how absolutely distorted the left has become.

Conservatives are the same (maybe even worse) than terrorists. Israel is bad because Netanyahu disagrees with Dear Leader and therefore must be conservative. Conservatives are just like Iran because we think the deal is no deal at all.

In THIS thread, Ive heard lefty excuses including Khamenei didn't say what he said, it was "just" a chant, they drink coke so they can't be bad, etc. :doh

Its a coincidence, no doubt that any different political ideology, religion, or patriotism (which happen to be the direct competitors of liberalism) are the bad guys.
Click to expand...

Nothing could please Iran leaders more than to hear how much you hate your president and your country. Whatever you do, don't let the truth get in your way.....it just wouldn't be you if you did.
 
Moot said:
Not hard to justify at all considering the majority of the GOP are birthers and don't believe in science and would sell out their own country to score a few political points for their party.
Click to expand...

Well, alrighty then, Moot. There's really no sane, reasonable reply to claims such as these. :3oops:
 
US Conservative said:
Ah yes, its Booooosh!!! time again, eh?
Click to expand...

Still have no answer about what you would consider to be an appropriate action?

Maybe Gruber needs to say something so you have something to oppose. You don't actually favor anything it would seem.
 
nota bene said:
Well, alrighty then, Moot. There's really no sane, reasonable reply to claims such as these. :3oops:
Click to expand...


Why, was it too rational for you, bene? lol
 
rocket88 said:
They were working on that ability throughout the Bush administration. He didn't stop it.

What, in your opinion, would be the appropriate action? When pressed you won't own up to calling for military action. You oppose diplomacy. It seems that you have no ideas other than continuing the failed policies that didn't change Iran, and didn't keep them from pursuing a weapons program.
Click to expand...



I see we are making improvements.....

147 posts before the ghost of the most powerful president America has ever had is even mentioned.

As I recall? Your side was denying Iran was building nukes, so can Bush be blamed for that too?

Wait, he's responsible for the crash, the recovery failure, that you can't keep your plan, the war in Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Crimea, Ukraine, the Keystone Pipeline, Iraq 2, the pull out of Iraq, the re-invasion of Iraq and now the fact Iran really IS building a bomb...which was not so, even as late as the last presidential election.

So, yeah, I agree it IS Bush's fault...
 
Montecresto said:
I understand the basis of your point. An Iranian revolution, the overthrow of the authoritarian government and figs for everybody in Iran. Except, the revolutions across the region are tearing it apart. Things are worse in the region than they've been in our lifetimes. And the more US/Western policy digs, the hole just gets deeper. I'm waiting for the day when there are more people in the West that acknowledge, ok, what we done so far has only worsened things. Then, maybe we can get on with a new approach.
Click to expand...

Iran is a cat of a different color. Highly educated, booming population, high inflation, no jobs, economy tanking. Iran needs this deal.
It will only take a spark. No interference needed.
 
Moot said:
Nothing could please Iran leaders more than to hear how much you hate your president and your country. Whatever you do, don't let the truth get in your way.....it just wouldn't be you if you did.
Click to expand...

Iran respects strong leadership and if needed force. They, like most of the thuggish countries of the world do NOT respect whiny, appeasing, chumps like Obama.

Look around, WHERE is he succeeding? Can you give me examples of his smart diplomacy working? Face it, he fails constantly, and he and his army of gruberites try to spin it into success. The left is simply unable to deal with reality.
 
rocket88 said:
Still have no answer about what you would consider to be an appropriate action?
Click to expand...
Theoretically there may be lots of actions but realistically there are only three...
1. The Obama administration goes through with the agreement, Iran holds to it, gives up any nuclear weapons ability and everyone wins.
2. The Obama administration goes through with the agreement, Iran doesn't hold to it, gets nukes anyway and makes Obama and the US look like fools (Which I suspect we already are... but that's just me.)
3. The Obama administration fails to go through with the agreement, Iran gets nuclear weapons.

Since no military options are on the table which, if there was a time to forcibly remove Iran's capability, it would be now - that's not realistically in the list. Even if there were a military option, I'm sorry but Obama doesn't have the balls to do that when his legacy would be at risk. Humans will start ****ting gold bars before that ever happens. There's no reason to think Iran will voluntarily give up their nuclear weapons since the last 40 years has shown they have no interest in being a peaceful nation but one that wants to exert it's power on the region either through terrorism, political or nuclear methods. It wants a seat at the big boy table. In 2 of the 3 scenario's Iran gets nukes. I would also say #1 has a <5% chance of happening. Iran has shown (as in 2010) it's willing to hide it's nuclear facilities from the world.

I guess we better get used to the idea of a nuclear Iran then eh?
 
Fearandloathing said:
I see we are making improvements.....

147 posts before the ghost of the most powerful president America has ever had is even mentioned.

As I recall? Your side was denying Iran was building nukes, so can Bush be blamed for that too?

Wait, he's responsible for the crash, the recovery failure, that you can't keep your plan, the war in Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Crimea, Ukraine, the Keystone Pipeline, Iraq 2, the pull out of Iraq, the re-invasion of Iraq and now the fact Iran really IS building a bomb...which was not so, even as late as the last presidential election.

So, yeah, I agree it IS Bush's fault...
Click to expand...

You guys are starting to make me think that conservatism is all about anger and being opposed to something and not about favoring anything.


I ask again, though I have no hope that it will be answered. What would be the appropriate action? So far we've ruled out military and diplomatic means.
 
JANFU said:
Iran is a cat of a different color. Highly educated, booming population, high inflation, no jobs, economy tanking. Iran needs this deal.
It will only take a spark. No interference needed.
Click to expand...

To the bolded. I assume you refer to the P5+1 deal, if so we agree. Otherwise, I disagree with your optimism of a preferred outcome to an Iranian revolution. And particularly, this is not the time to be wishing to add another destabilized country to the list in the ME.
 
US Conservative said:
So your premise is that at a public address regarding the nuclear talks, the Supreme leader of Iran and a crowd were just saying virtually meaningless words? Perhaps it was just a coincidence?

Explain why we should negotiate with a nation to allow it to get nukes as they call for the deaths of Americans.

Why is it that the left can't even say the words islamic terrorism in the same sentence (despite Iran being a hardline islamic state that is the worlds largest state sponsor of terror), but somehow "Death to America" is meaningless.

We are giving them billions, to help them weaponize, and listening to them say they want to kill Americans...and for what exactly? In exchange for sitting down at talks? Talks that even the President says are most likely NOT to work?

Where is the "deal" here exactly? Kindly show how we benefit from this.
Click to expand...




"Death to America" in Persian is "Death to America"!

But it's still OK, but Boehner is a "traitor" for visiting Israel.

I wonder what would be the reaction if several hundred Canadians with ark hair and deep tans showed up at the Ambassador bridge shouting "Death to America".....

At least a swat team.
 
Ockham said:
Theoretically there may be lots of actions but realistically there are only three...
1. The Obama administration goes through with the agreement, Iran holds to it, gives up any nuclear weapons ability and everyone wins.
2. The Obama administration goes through with the agreement, Iran doesn't hold to it, gets nukes anyway and makes Obama and the US look like fools (Which I suspect we already are... but that's just me.)
3. The Obama administration fails to go through with the agreement, Iran gets nuclear weapons.

Since no military options are on the table which, if there was a time to forcibly remove Iran's capability, it would be now - that's not realistically in the list. Even if there were a military option, I'm sorry but Obama doesn't have the balls to do that when his legacy would be at risk. Humans will start ****ting gold bars before that ever happens. There's no reason to think Iran will voluntarily give up their nuclear weapons since the last 40 years has shown they have no interest in being a peaceful nation but one that wants to exert it's power on the region either through terrorism, political or nuclear methods. It wants a seat at the big boy table. In 2 of the 3 scenario's Iran gets nukes. I would also say #1 has a <5% chance of happening. Iran has shown (as in 2010) it's willing to hide it's nuclear facilities from the world.

I guess we better get used to the idea of a nuclear Iran then eh?
Click to expand...

At least one of those options is a good outcome. Otherwise I agree...we fail to come to an agreement and they go nuclear.

Reagan said "Trust but verify." He didn't say "Do nothing out of fear that it won't work."
 
rocket88 said:
I ask again, though I have no hope that it will be answered. What would be the appropriate action? So far we've ruled out military and diplomatic means.
Click to expand...
To remove Iran's nuclear capability, by whatever means necessary is the appropriate action.
 
brothern said:
The "Death to America" is so cliche in Persian, that it's virtually meaningless. You could shout "Death to Spinach" and it'd have the same oompf to the average Iranian.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's like saying "hello" or "how do you do" or "that's a nice coat you're wearing, where did you get it".

What the ****.
 
Ockham said:
To remove Iran's nuclear capability, by whatever means necessary is the appropriate action.
Click to expand...

OK, but US Con has already taken both military action and diplomacy off the table. I'd like to hear from him. No military, no diplomacy...what?
 
Ockham said:
Theoretically there may be lots of actions but realistically there are only three...
1. The Obama administration goes through with the agreement, Iran holds to it, gives up any nuclear weapons ability and everyone wins.
2. The Obama administration goes through with the agreement, Iran doesn't hold to it, gets nukes anyway and makes Obama and the US look like fools (Which I suspect we already are... but that's just me.)
3. The Obama administration fails to go through with the agreement, Iran gets nuclear weapons.

Since no military options are on the table which, if there was a time to forcibly remove Iran's capability, it would be now - that's not realistically in the list. Even if there were a military option, I'm sorry but Obama doesn't have the balls to do that when his legacy would be at risk. Humans will start ****ting gold bars before that ever happens. There's no reason to think Iran will voluntarily give up their nuclear weapons since the last 40 years has shown they have no interest in being a peaceful nation but one that wants to exert it's power on the region either through terrorism, political or nuclear methods. It wants a seat at the big boy table. In 2 of the 3 scenario's Iran gets nukes. I would also say #1 has a <5% chance of happening. Iran has shown (as in 2010) it's willing to hide it's nuclear facilities from the world.

I guess we better get used to the idea of a nuclear Iran then eh?
Click to expand...

To the bolded, probably so, if they decide its in their interest. Do you dismiss that Israel may have military options on the table?
 
US Conservative said:
So your premise is that at a public address regarding the nuclear talks, the Supreme leader of Iran and a crowd were just saying virtually meaningless words? Perhaps it was just a coincidence? Explain why we should negotiate with a nation to allow it to get nukes as they call for the deaths of Americans. Why is it that the left can't even say the words islamic terrorism in the same sentence (despite Iran being a hardline islamic state that is the worlds largest state sponsor of terror), but somehow "Death to America" is meaningless. We are giving them billions, to help them weaponize, and listening to them say they want to kill Americans...and for what exactly? In exchange for sitting down at talks? Talks that even the President says are most likely NOT to work? Where is the "deal" here exactly? Kindly show how we benefit from this.
Click to expand...
Apocalypse said:
Yeah it's like saying "hello" or "how do you do" or "that's a nice coat you're wearing, where did you get it". What the ****.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Persian is "Marg bar Amerika!" ( مرگ بر ) which is inaccurately translated as 'death' (the literal meaning) whereas it's truer translation is more along the lines of 'down with'.

They shout it in regards to anyone or anything of which they're not a fan (including spinach), but by all means, don't let that stop your vapors US Conservative.

o2Ftd7E.jpg
 
Moot said:
Nothing could please Iran leaders more than to hear how much you hate your president and your country. Whatever you do, don't let the truth get in your way.....it just wouldn't be you if you did.
Click to expand...



Hate?

Please demonstrate where there is "hate" in that post at all, and "hate" directed at the United States?

The ****ing over-the-top rhetoric in the defense of a president whose loyalty should be questioned is preposterous. FFS, Boehner is a "traitor" for visiting Israel, members of congress are "enemies" according to your president......and you accuse a loyal American who is exercising his constitutional right to impeach policies and actions of government?

From a bunch of bullies who have destroyed with rhetoric every opponent from within and without, including an ally like Netanyahu and you accuse others of hate....?

That's disgusting
 
brothern said:
Yes, the Persian is "Marg bar Amerika!" ( مرگ بر ) which is inaccurately translated as 'death' (the literal meaning) whereas it's truer translation is more along the lines of 'down with'.

They shout it in regards to anyone or anything of which they're not a fan (including spinach), but by all means, don't let that stop your vapors US Conservative.
Click to expand...

You mean you're inaccurately translating, deliberately, a word that in the context used means "may America be destroyed" as "Down with American policies, they are so irritating". Awesome.

Next thing we know "The Great Satan" is simply a mistranslation and the actual meaning is "The Great Nation".
M I RIGHT? M I RIGHT?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom