• 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

polgara said:
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:
Click to expand...

Greetings, Miss P. :2wave:

It wouldn't be prudent for Iran to agree to anything, as long as Obama continues to send them billions of dollars to keep them at the bargaining table.

But you come under immediate attack from his minions when making statements like "Obama hates America," or "Obama is a Muslim sympathizer."
 
Ockham said:
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.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Ockham. :2wave:

At the point of being a bore, I will once again state that every US President, both Democrat and Republican, since Israel became a State some 67 years is on record making speeches calling Israel an ally and a great friend - until now. It's not logical to think that all of them were wrong and Obama right. So once again, I have to ask: What is Obama's problem with Israel?
 
Montecresto said:
This is not a unilateral action by Obama. Why do you guys keep MISrepresenting the six nation talks, hmm?
Click to expand...

You mean the UN six nation Security Council talks?

Both Russia and China WANT a nuclear armed Iran. Both as a market to sell nuke tech to AND another nuclear adversary to the US/West.

Three Euro anti-semetic muslim appeaser countries,........make that four with Obama.
 
Chainsaw said:
You mean the UN six nation Security Council talks?

Both Russia and China WANT a nuclear armed Iran. Both as a market to sell nuke tech to AND another nuclear adversary to the US/West.

Three Euro anti-semetic muslim appeaser countries,........make that four with Obama.
Click to expand...

Prove your claim that Russia and China want a nuclear weapon powered Iran.
 
Montecresto said:
Prove your claim that Russia and China want a nuclear weapon powered Iran.
Click to expand...


PS at least you didn't deny the three Euro counties and Obama are anti-Semitic. You are making progress
 
Chainsaw said:
Who the f* is currently selling Iran all the nuke tech????
Click to expand...

For Iran's nuclear power program, yes. You're obviously unaware that both Israeli and US intelligence have stated that Iran has no nuclear weapons, isn't building any, and hasn't decided to build any. But keep trying to scare people with your hypotheticals to push for another unnecessary war.
 
Montecresto said:
For Iran's nuclear power program, yes. You're obviously unaware that both Israeli and US intelligence have stated that Iran has no nuclear weapons, isn't building any, and hasn't decided to build any. But keep trying to scare people with your hypotheticals to push for another unnecessary war.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, then why are negotiations ongoing between Iran and the US over their nuclear program, just so Obama can continue to send them billions of dollars?
 
JANFU said:
QUOTE=Ockham;1064449041]To remove Iran's nuclear capability, by whatever means necessary is the appropriate action.
Click to expand...

By whatever means necessary. Your interpretation of the post is welcomed.
Edit- Thank you for the link.
Click to expand...

The studies and discussions I have seen all assume air attacks, and nothing more. I have not heard anyone even suggest that a land invasion of Iran would be necessary to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons facilities. Only a fraction of the air power of the U.S. would be needed to do a thorough job of that, and of removing all its ballistic missile facilities too. If Israel is forced to try to destroy the main nuclear weapons facilities itself, though, it would raise a very serious problem the study I cited touches on in an objective, detached way.

Israel's most capable aircraft is the F-15 I, and the largest bomb it can carry weighs 5,000 lb. That is large enough to destroy most things, and if enough were used, one per aircraft, they could probably wreck both of the vast underground centrifuge galleries at Natanz. But the galleries at Fordow are so deeply buried that these bombs probably could not destroy the centrifuges there. (Unlike Israel, the U.S. has heavy bombers like the B-2, which can carry and accurately deliver a 30,000 lb. bomb that would do the job on Fordow.)

I am sure that Israel sees a nuclear-armed Iran as such a clear threat to its existence as a nation--which it is--that it will do anything it can to prevent it. If it is a matter of your survival, what the rest of the world may think of your actions means nothing. However unthinkable it may seem to use nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, I believe Israel would use them against Fordoz if it were certain it could not destroy the centrifuges there through sabotage, or in some other way. And any nuclear explosion at or beneath ground level, as would be required in this case, throws up vast amounts of radioactive soil, which drifts downwind and falls back to earth--fallout.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064450623 said:
If that's the case, then why are negotiations ongoing between Iran and the US over their nuclear program, just so Obama can continue to send them billions of dollars?
Click to expand...

Do you understand the difference between a nuclear power program, and a nuclear weapons program? Why is this difficult. The P5+1 team is working to ensure that Iran's nuclear program remains peaceful.
 
Montecresto said:
I said, Bush was president when NK got nukes, I don't know, did he get the criticism for that that you're giving Obama for something that hasn't even happened.
Click to expand...
Whether or not he got criticism isn't the issue though yes, he should have - the issue is was anything learned by that failure. The answer to that by the current WH is a resounding, "NO".

Montecresto said:
Israeli and US intelligence both say that Iran's doesn't have them, isn't making them, hasn't even decided to make them.
Click to expand...
If that were true Kerry wouldn't be part of the P5+1 and this negotiation wouldn't be happening. So that assessment isn't worth the time it took to type out.

Montecresto said:
So what's your angle, you want to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran for your hypothetical?
Click to expand...
My angle was pages ago, where I stated the following:

To remove Iran's nuclear capability, by whatever means necessary is the appropriate action.


What's your angle? Let Iran bomb bomb bomb the jews because you don't like them?
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Ockham. :2wave:

At the point of being a bore, I will once again state that every US President, both Democrat and Republican, since Israel became a State some 67 years is on record making speeches calling Israel an ally and a great friend - until now. It's not logical to think that all of them were wrong and Obama right. So once again, I have to ask: What is Obama's problem with Israel?
Click to expand...

Evening Polgara - it is curious isn't it that Obama seems to be the one and only US President who has serious problems with Israel and the Jewish state. It lends all sorts of credence to the conspiracy theorists out there with all sorts of crazy notions, from the "I can be more flexible" comment to Russia and now the back turning on Israel. Pretty soon we'll have alienated everyone. Maybe that was the plan all along ... we have to tear down America to remake it. :shrug:
 
Montecresto said:
Do you understand the difference between a nuclear power program, and a nuclear weapons program? Why is this difficult. The P5+1 team is working to ensure that Iran's nuclear program remains peaceful.
Click to expand...

Yes I understand the difference. I also see how some like you, who are so trusting of those who wish us death, that allowing Iran to achieve nuclear weapon capabilities is no big deal.
 
Ockham said:
Whether or not he got criticism isn't the issue though yes, he should have - the issue is was anything learned by that failure. The answer to that by the current WH is a resounding, "NO".

If that were true Kerry wouldn't be part of the P5+1 and this negotiation wouldn't be happening. So that assessment isn't worth the time it took to type out.

My angle was pages ago, where I stated the following:

To remove Iran's nuclear capability, by whatever means necessary is the appropriate action.


What's your angle? Let Iran bomb bomb bomb the jews because you don't like them?
Click to expand...

How can you say that, when the works not even finished?

And apparently you don't know that there is nuclear power programs that generate electricity, and there are nuclear power programs that are for making weapons. The P5+1 is working to ensure that Iran's program remains peaceful.

Why would I concern myself with your stupid hypothetical about Iran bombing Israel? That's not going to happen. It's a far more likely scenario that the freak in Israel will preemptively bomb Iran.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064450723 said:
Yes I understand the difference. I also see how some like you, who are so trusting of those who wish us death, that allowing Iran to achieve nuclear weapon capabilities is no big deal.
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous, the trust isn't in Iran. It's in the ability of Russia, the US, the UK, China, Germany and France to negotiate an agreement with Iran that prevents a weapons program with a verification process to monitor it.
 
US Conservative said:
We gave LIMITED capabilities to Iran under the Shah. It was disbanded by the fundamentalists after the revolution.

The 10,000 centrifuges and all since are NOT our fault. Try again.
Click to expand...

You think that the nuclear information went bye bye? Think again again IMHO.

And then there are European nations and Russia who aided Iran to get even more technology.
 
Peter King said:
You think that the nuclear information went bye bye? Think again again IMHO.

And then there are European nations and Russia who aided Iran to get even more technology.
Click to expand...

No, but I think the real and significant tech (including refining) came from Russia, Argentina, etc. Its not secret where the islamic republic got its stuff.
 
It's no secret at all that Russia has long been Iran's big friend.
 
I'm generally not friends with those who don't like me. That's not how it works.
 
nota bene said:
I'm generally not friends with those who don't like me. That's not how it works.
Click to expand...

Assuming that's a response to my post, no, I shouldn't think you would be friends with those who don't like you, particularly people whom you have a history of wronging. But that can change. As a mater of fact, Obama seems to be attempting to make peace with Iran, with the GOP doing their level best to sabotage the process. Way to go.
 
I don't think our view toward Iran should change until it stops chanting "Death to America." Very interesting that your focus is on American "wrong-doing" toward Iran; perhaps this explains your willingness to appease those who wish us and our way of life dead.
 
nota bene said:
I don't think our view toward Iran should change until it stops chanting "Death to America." Very interesting that your focus is on American "wrong-doing" toward Iran; perhaps this explains your willingness to appease those who wish us and our way of life dead.
Click to expand...
Well maybe they might stop saying that when our politicians stop singing "bomb Irraaan" or force economic sanctions on them... being nice and being belligerent goes both ways.
 
Which politicians have been singing "Bomb Iran"?

Why shouldn't the U.S. impose economic sanctions if these are effective?

Why should anybody believe that Iran wants nuclear capability solely for energy purposes? This defies credulity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom