• 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 criticizes Obama, calls on U.S. to scrap nuclear arms

WillRockwell said:
I don't think it's too late to change relations with any nation, the problem is the world may have decided that American foreign policy is inconsistent, changing with each election, and has the potential to become irrational depending on who is in charge.
Click to expand...

The CIA could always sponsor a coup. It worked last time... :shrug:
 
Orius said:
The CIA could always sponsor a coup. It worked last time... :shrug:
Click to expand...

It worked in Quantum of Solace. :)

BulletWounD said:
There's too much of a risk that the other nations will be able to squirrel a few away and be able to launch a first strike or blackmail us.
Click to expand...

Oh you mean like Thunderball? :)



Sorry, I have Bond on the brain, couldn't resist.
 
Last edited:
Vader said:
Asking Iran to cease nuclear activities as a precursor to talks is not an unreasonable request.
Click to expand...

It wasn't just a precursor is was a requirement. If they didn't do exactly what the US wanted them to do with US would not speak with them in a political setting in any fashion. That is unreasonable and a terrible foreign policy for a country to have.

Vader said:
Iran is owned and operated by terrorists called the Mullahs. These Mullahs are the bitches of a turd called the Ayetioletbowl Komonkeyboy.

Religious zealots who punish children for stealing bread by running their arms over with a truck are BEYOND mentally unstable. People of this sort ... DO NOT need to have nuclear toys of ANY kind.
Click to expand...

First, "Mullah" isn't a terrorist group. It's a religious title for any Muslim educated in Islamic law.

I can see what Bush was trying to do though, I just don't agree with it. He's obviously trying to piss Iran off enough that they do something stupid like attack Israel. This will allow us to fully invade them without international backlash. The problem is, Iran will never do anything like that. Ali Hoseyni would never allow for something that could possibly jeopardize his power.

Vader said:
Iran MUST be stopped by whatever means necessary.
Click to expand...

Then call for the invasion of Iran. If you aren't going to invade and topple the government or fully fund a rebellion then you need to deal with the government in place in the best way possible.
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
Bush made it quite clear he wouldn't hold diplomatic talks with any country (Syria and Iran in this case) that didn't support his vision of Iraq.
Click to expand...

I challenge you to post anything Bush stated IN CONTEXT that remotely resembles what you claim here.

Gibberish said:
He told Iran specifically that if they wanted to have diplomatic talks with the US then they must meet Bush's demands. He fully knows that no country would voluntarily do such things just to have diplomatic talks that would most likely only lead to more demands they would need to meet. He might as well of asked Iran to pay the US $100 million dollars per hour that they meet.
Click to expand...

Wrong again, but at least you are consistent. Bush insisted Iran meet the UN’s demands to cease enrichment as a requirement for direct talks.

The UN has been negotiating with Iran for 8 years; how has that worked out?

Gibberish said:
Talks are about political negotiations, not demand meeting.
Click to expand...

It is readily apparent that you, and many Liberals, have no comprehension about how to negotiate. You always want to negotiate from a position of strength. BOTH parties to a negotiation have to negotiate in GOOD faith and BOTH parties always require some form of gesture to show they are willing to negotiate.

If one party, Iran, shows absolutely NO desire to discuss the issues, NO desire to meet the requirements to hold talks, NO willingness to negotiate in good faith, how do you think any attempt will come out? What has been their response to Obama’s overtures? Oh yeah, before they talk to us, we must change OUR ways and totally comply with their demands.

Good luck with that.

Gibberish said:
I also find it humorous that Bush is praised for seeking multi-national support and discussions on the matter but Obama is attacked as been weak for doing that same.
Click to expand...

Obama is doing NOTHING that could be considered the same; he is being criticized for his rabid naiveté’ in which he thinks that by criticizing his own country’s attitude and being willing to talk without any pre-conditions will somehow promote diplomacy.

How has that worked for the UN so far with Iran? How has this worked with Korea? What level of denial does it take to comprehend that these despotic nations don’t give a rats buttocks about OUR notion of peaceful intentions and negotiating in GOOD faith?

Gibberish said:
That would be a refreshing change from your empty rhetoric and hyperbole of liberals and why they hate America.
Click to expand...

Nothing empty about it; I could post volumes on the hate America BS Liberals spew daily. Only someone suffering from willful denial thinks that attacking a President and claiming failure and loss while troops are fighting and dying in a war they chose is somehow patriotic or coherently sensible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom