• 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 'concealed nuclear facility'

Apocalypse said:
That really is irrelevant, once he develops nuclear weapons he raises a huge sign saying "invade me".
Click to expand...

we invading India or Pakistan? From his perspective, he may be sitting there thinking that he's going to be invaded regardless. So why not have the nukes in that case?
 
Ikari said:
we invading India or Pakistan? From his perspective, he may be sitting there thinking that he's going to be invaded regardless. So why not have the nukes in that case?
Click to expand...
I can see that you are not trying to justify his actions but rather explain why he would act so.
I have no need to discuss the reason that led him to believe that nukes would protect him from an invasion, as long as he is disarmed it's all good.
 
Ikari said:
I find it sad how hyper partisan some can be to such extent that they will forgo looking objectively at situations. Besides, isn't Iran "violating UN agreements" too?
Click to expand...

I find it amusing when people like constantly claim anything in my statements on this issue could be "hyper partisan" except in your own mind.

What part of my comments lacks objectivity and contains "hyper" partisanship?


Ikari said:
Nothing I said was incorrect. We invaded Iraq and overthrew the government there, we've demonstrated innately aggressive actions, we aren't friends with Iran. I would say he is rightfully scared of what we could or would do.
Click to expand...

Everything you said was incorrect and you continue spewing false rhetoric as you have above>

America has never been "innately" aggressive compared to the nature of so many other nations and the notion that Iran is scared of us is beyond laughable in light of the REALITY of their actions and statements of their President; this is more along the lines of: "you're kidding us right?" :rofl
 
Truth Detector said:
Oh my, you are truly comical today dude. Thanks for another BIG laugh at your expense. :rofl
Click to expand...

No problem TD, I look at the same way about every one of your posts. They are not based in reality and are purely hyper-partisan. :2wave:
 
TheNextEra said:
No problem TD, I look at the same way about every one of your posts. They are not based in reality and are purely hyper-partisan. :2wave:
Click to expand...

That could be because you wouldn't be able to distinguish reality and facts when they are being used and have no desire to deal with historical facts and reality.

Of course, you are free to coherently show where anything I post that is not opinion, lacks in factual content; your posts however rarely contain factual information and are more along the lines of fantastical emotional hysterics that contain nothing more than your own warped opinions that cannot be supported by anything that could possibly be mistaken for a fact.

The notion that your comments don't ooze with hyper partisan anti-AmeriKa hate rhetoric would require a level of willful denial that only the most ardent kool-aid drinker could wallow in. But hey, don't let me stop your nonsensical uninformed tirades; you are the poster child for all that is wrong in todays global views and realities.

:2wave:
 
Apocalypse said:
I can see that you are not trying to justify his actions but rather explain why he would act so.
I have no need to discuss the reason that led him to believe that nukes would protect him from an invasion, as long as he is disarmed it's all good.
Click to expand...

Trying to keep nukes out of a rouge leader's hands is a good thing. But on our side, can we keep up a 3-front war if we were to go into Iran? I also think there is a lot of hope for Iran in their people. They are well educated, have a healthy middle class, and would be the most probable people for accepting a Western style Republic. Still I wonder how feasible these things are given the circumstances.
 
Ikari said:
Trying to keep nukes out of a rouge leader's hands is a good thing. But on our side, can we keep up a 3-front war if we were to go into Iran? I also think there is a lot of hope for Iran in their people. They are well educated, have a healthy middle class, and would be the most probable people for accepting a Western style Republic. Still I wonder how feasible these things are given the circumstances.
Click to expand...

Why do people continue to argue that the ONLY solution available is an invasion of Iran? Who has argued for this and who thinks that this is a coherent solution?

It may have been one of many options available that had to be discussed, but I haven't seen anyone credible on BOTH sides of the aisle arguing to do this. So why do you keep asserting that it is?
 
Ward said:
Iran ranks 2nd in natural gas reserves and 3rd in oil reserves and Ahmedinejad is enriching uranium just for energy? I figure it's one of these two reasons. He is extremely worried about having a large carbon foot print burning all that oil and natural gas for energy [/sarcasm] or he's getting ready to blow a country up cough*Israel*.

“Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury.” - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Click to expand...

Iran and their current leadership most likely are scum bags but I do not think them to be stupid/suicidal. To attack Israel or virtually any other country with nukes will casue the US and /or other countries to in turn elihilate Iran. As mucha s they hate Israel they will not die for the pleasure of destroying Israel. The Iraniacs are just not that brave. Yet Iran is a country of scum bag leadership and they would probably not think twice of giving small nukes to terrorists such as Al queda.
 
Truth Detector said:
Why do people continue to argue that the ONLY solution available is an invasion of Iran? Who has argued for this and who thinks that this is a coherent solution?

It may have been one of many options available that had to be discussed, but I haven't seen anyone credible on BOTH sides of the aisle arguing to do this. So why do you keep asserting that it is?
Click to expand...

Alright, fair enough. I can accept political and economic pressures to try to get him to abdicate the program. But in our current state, I'm not sure we can effectively do anything militarily. Unless we're just destroying the place without pretense of setting up a new government and engaging in occupation.
 
Truth Detector said:
Why do people continue to argue that the ONLY solution available is an invasion of Iran? Who has argued for this and who thinks that this is a coherent solution?

It may have been one of many options available that had to be discussed, but I haven't seen anyone credible on BOTH sides of the aisle arguing to do this. So why do you keep asserting that it is?
Click to expand...

To invade Iran would br stupid. That would take many countries to coooperate. What would be needed is a series of some very punishing surgical strikes.
 
F107HyperSabr said:
To invade Iran would br stupid. That would take many countries to coooperate. What would be needed is a series of some very punishing surgical strikes.
Click to expand...

And what do you assume will be the Iranian response to such an action?
 
Did you see how MSNBC handled this? LOL

They scrolled "Caught Red-Handed" as if Obama caught them in the act.

They ADMITTED they had the facility. Nobody caught them.

LOL.
 
Ikari said:
Alright, fair enough. I can accept political and economic pressures to try to get him to abdicate the program. But in our current state, I'm not sure we can effectively do anything militarily. Unless we're just destroying the place without pretense of setting up a new government and engaging in occupation.
Click to expand...

We cannot do anything until the entire UN body including the Russians, who are selling/assisting the/with technology to Iran, can agree on one uniform and strong action; which of course will never happen.

We must all console ourselves on the reality that Obama is abdicating the US leadership role in world politics to a feckless organization that has become nothing more than a mouthpiece for morons, despots and dictators.

His speech to the UN Body was basically all about him and contained another outright lie; "I closed Gitmo" and basically consisted of, "see how wonderful I am compared to my evil predecessor."

It contained nothing that could be mistaken for courageous leadership.
 
1. What happened to the president's pledge to pursue personal diplomacy with the principals of Iran?

2. Today, he's not talking TO the Iranians, he's talking ABOUT them.

3. In June, the president approved nuclear energy for the world's leading Shiite power.

Obama: Iran Has Right to Nuclear Power | NBC Philadelphia

4. In Pittsburg, he said, "Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear power that meets the needs of its people, but the size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program."

5. Given such an easy out, the Iranians grabbed it.

6. The head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran explained that his country is producing nukes "to preserve and enjoy its undeniable right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes."

7. But, hey, at least Obama got Russia to release a harsh statement---LOL!

8. Israel, meanwhile, is being forced into unilateral action.

9. The White House said "intelligence agencies have known about the facility for several years."

10. That would include, therefore, all the time on the campaign trail when Obama was prioritizing his absurd assertion that he could alter Iran's attitude over a cup of coffee.

11. So, suddenly the administration BELIEVES the CIA?

12. "We have excellent clandestine collection," says US intel, "we are highly confident."

13. Obama doesn't know what he's doing.

14. After Ahmedinejad openly stole the election in June, the president's reaction for a week was---hey, I'll talk to them.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Obama's cautious reaction to Iran

15. Ahmedinejad, meanwhile, demands another atonement---the disclosure of Qom "simply adds to the list of issues over which the United States owes the Iranian nation an apology."

16. Obama is moving towards sanctions, he sounds like Bush.

17. Except the current prez is so typically half stepping and non committal.

18. According to The Post, he "spoke in more measured terms, did not mention sanctions specifically."

19. "The US is committed to demonstrating that international law is not an empty promise, that obligations must be kept and that treaties will be enforced," said our overworked Obama in Pittsburg.

20. Qom, at current rates, is capable of producing one nuclear warhead per year, according to The Post.

21. China's reaction is not as tough as Russia's, not even as strong as our uncertain, over-his-head chief exec: "You talk about punishment, and personally I don't like the word 'punishment,' and I think all issues can only be solved through dialogue and negotiation," uttered Hu's Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs.

22. Today's tidings also put a rather dank downer on Obama's unanimously approved resolution JUST YESTERDAY in the Security Council for a world free of nukes.

23. Now that his policy of personal diplomacy with Persia's potentates is comprehensively seen as preposterous, perhaps the president should pull another missile defense system, it sure seemed to turn the trick just a week ago.

Iran Reveals Existence of Second Uranium Enrichment Plant
 
Last edited:
Erod said:
Did you see how MSNBC handled this? LOL

They scrolled "Caught Red-Handed" as if Obama caught them in the act.

They ADMITTED they had the facility. Nobody caught them.

LOL.
Click to expand...

It is extremely laughable; however, the desperation of the mainstream media to support this butt clown is beyond the pale and now anything but transparent.

Have we seen any stories questioning his statement that he closed Gitmo? Last time I looked, it was still open and now they are keeping it open longer while they continue to "analyze" the situation. :rofl
 
Erod said:
Did you see how MSNBC handled this? LOL

They scrolled "Caught Red-Handed" as if Obama caught them in the act.

They ADMITTED they had the facility. Nobody caught them.

LOL.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was reported that this facility has been under surveillance for a few years now, dating back to the Bush administration.

Apparently, it was decided that the information would be released, and upon hearing of that, Iran then went to the IAEA and declared its existence, but they were indeed caught, and they would not have declared it otherwise.
 
sarkozy's hard-headed, grownup response to the issue, before the backdrop of obama's dreamy security council resolution of yesterday---"we live in the real world, not a virtual world"

what a contrast
 
We must not allow this! I think we principled folk just know that we'd never allow a single dime of our taxes support a Middle East government that engages in the concealment of a nuclear weapons program from international inspection. :mad:
 
And Obama saying he won't rule out military action, gee, this was once considered 'war monger' talk.

About time Obama shows some stiff spine, perhaps we conservatives can reach some agreement on this isse....while flying into Iran to torch nuclear facilities we can first get on the radio and apologize. That way the Dems will get what they want, the US looking prostrated and remorseful, the Repubs get what they want, the piecemeal destruction of Iran's nuclear capabilities.

Everyone wins, we apologize while we destroy!
 
he STILL hasn't ruled out his policy of personal diplomacy with iran's leaders

NO preconditions

LOLOL!

even biden intimated he was a naif during the primary debates
 
Charles Martel said:
And Obama saying he won't rule out military action, gee, this was once considered 'war monger' talk.

About time Obama shows some stiff spine, perhaps we conservatives can reach some agreement on this isse....while flying into Iran to torch nuclear facilities we can first get on the radio and apologize. That way the Dems will get what they want, the US looking prostrated and remorseful, the Repubs get what they want, the piecemeal destruction of Iran's nuclear capabilities.

Everyone wins, we apologize while we destroy!
Click to expand...

We still have to determine if hitting the sites is worth the backlash that will inevitably come.
 
FlanaganReport said:
We still have to determine if hitting the sites is worth the backlash that will inevitably come.
Click to expand...
And this decision can wait until the diplomacy approach fails.
 
Apocalypse said:
And this decision can wait until the diplomacy approach fails.
Click to expand...

Well, most likely, with every passing day, the backlash that will come only increases in planning and potency, making it more of an issue, and making a strike more costly.

That said, in my opinion, the day has already come and gone when we could have hit Iranian nuclear sites with limited fear of massive backlash. Any strike we (or anyone else) conducts that this point will result in major consequences for United States interests in the Middle East.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom