• 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!

Iranian Regime: Obama Sent Secret Message Recognizing Our Nuclear Rights

LowDown

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Iranian Regime: Obama Sent Secret Message Recognizing Our Nuclear Rights | Human Events

Senior Iranian parliamentary sources revealed on Saturday that the Swiss envoy to Tehran has quoted US President Barack Obama as acknowledging Iran’s nuclear rights.

Swiss Ambassador to Tehran Livia Leu Agosti attended a meeting with senior Iranian foreign ministry officials a few days ago to submit a letter from the US president to Tehran leaders.

Vice-Chairman of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Hossein Ebrahimi told FNA that during the meeting, Agosti had told the Iranian officials that President Barack Obama recognizes Iran’s right of access and use of the nuclear technology.

“There are a couple of points with regard to this (US) message (to Iran),” Ebrahimi said and added, “Firstly, during the session to submit the message, the Swiss ambassador to Tehran quoted the US president as saying that ‘we (the US) recognize your nuclear rights’.”

As regards the second issue, the lawmaker said that the Swiss diplomat had also quoted Obama as saying that “I didn’t want to impose sanctions on your central bank but I had no options but to approve it since a Congress majority had approved the decision.”
Click to expand...

No detail is provided concerning what "nuclear rights" entail. Elsewhere it mentions that Iran would retain "portions" of their nuclear program, meaning possibly that it would not include nuclear weapons. However, my understanding is that Iran is already well beyond what is needed for peaceful uses where uranium enrichment is concerned.

The word of the President in this regard carries great weight, but that would change if Presidents change. Only a formal treaty, which requires Senate approval, would make it the law of the land and put it beyond executive fiat.

Secret conciliatory messages to Iran contrary to official US policy in the midst of a Presidential election reminds me a lot of Jimmy Carter.
 
I dont quite understand this

Since when does fascist Imperial USA recognise anybody else's rights?
 
Klown said:
I dont quite understand this

Since when does fascist Imperial USA recognise anybody else's rights?
Click to expand...

Since January 2008? Or since January, 2013?

This news is a perfect example of Obama's unsuitability for the job of POTUS.
 
Well if Obama actually did send this message then good for him. Sovereign countries have the right to nuclear energy
 
LowDown said:
No detail is provided concerning what "nuclear rights" entail. Elsewhere it mentions that Iran would retain "portions" of their nuclear program, meaning possibly that it would not include nuclear weapons. However, my understanding is that Iran is already well beyond what is needed for peaceful uses where uranium enrichment is concerned.

The word of the President in this regard carries great weight, but that would change if Presidents change. Only a formal treaty, which requires Senate approval, would make it the law of the land and put it beyond executive fiat.

Secret conciliatory messages to Iran contrary to official US policy in the midst of a Presidential election reminds me a lot of Jimmy Carter.
Click to expand...

So now you believe the Iranians? :lamo

Anything to attack Obama in October, I guess.
 
This is typical "Obama-speak". Say something that sounds good to the intended receiver, but general and slippery enough that when call out on it allows him to say, "That's not what I meant".
 
marsden said:
Since January 2008? Or since January, 2013?

This news is a perfect example of Obama's unsuitability for the job of POTUS.
Click to expand...

Since the end of the American civil war
 
Yeah I don't believe these stories of rumors.
 
LowDown said:
No detail is provided concerning what "nuclear rights" entail. Elsewhere it mentions that Iran would retain "portions" of their nuclear program, meaning possibly that it would not include nuclear weapons. However, my understanding is that Iran is already well beyond what is needed for peaceful uses where uranium enrichment is concerned.

The word of the President in this regard carries great weight, but that would change if Presidents change. Only a formal treaty, which requires Senate approval, would make it the law of the land and put it beyond executive fiat.

Secret conciliatory messages to Iran contrary to official US policy in the midst of a Presidential election reminds me a lot of Jimmy Carter.
Click to expand...

If this is true, this is an abomination.

This, the underscored:

“There are a couple of points with regard to this (US) message (to Iran),” Ebrahimi said and added, “Firstly, during the session to submit the message, the Swiss ambassador to Tehran quoted the US president as saying that ‘we (the US) recognize your nuclear rights’.”

As regards the second issue, the lawmaker said that the Swiss diplomat had also quoted Obama as saying that “I didn’t want to impose sanctions on your central bank but I had no options but to approve it since a Congress majority had approved the decision.”
Click to expand...

Though, I must admit, I recognize their nuclear rights myself.
 
Mycroft said:
This is typical "Obama-speak". Say something that sounds good to the intended receiver, but general and slippery enough that when call out on it allows him to say, "That's not what I meant".
Click to expand...

Slippery like Romney on abortion? Or gay rights? Or his tax plan?
 
rocket88 said:
Slippery like Romney on abortion? Or gay rights? Or his tax plan?
Click to expand...

Who cares?

Oh, wait...I forgot...you can't bear to hear criticism of Obama without deflecting to Romney. It must be irritating to be bound by knee-jerk reactions, eh?
 
marsden said:
Since January 2008? Or since January, 2013?

This news is a perfect example of Obama's unsuitability for the job of POTUS.
Click to expand...


Your statement, without understanding the premise upon which you are replying (that the United States never had any such authority), is proof positive that you should not be voting in Presidential Elections.

Look, folks. If you want the right to participate in your Democracy, that's one thing and you should have that right as a U.S. Citizen. But, at least TRY to educate yourself before you take on the enormous responsibility of being a member of our beloved Electorate! Going to the polls and punching your card in the name of your candidate, is a great and civic thing to do -but- only when you do so while being educated on the reasons WHY you are voting one way or another. All I am saying, is that running your mind over a cliff, merely because you don't understand what's going on and then blaming one candidate or another for your lack of understanding, is simply not the way to run a healthy Democratic Republic. That's all I'm saying.

First, the entire write-up needs to do a far better job of checking sources. Second, a careful and deliberate reading of what was posted, tells you that there is nothing "official" about any of it. The USA is not the IAEA, or is it the UN. There is nothing written in International Law that gives the United States any authority to Christen anyone else's Nuclear Program(s).

Furthermore, the writing says nothing whatsoever about a Nuclear Weapons Program. The United States has long since "recognized" Iran's Civil Nuclear Programs and has always maintained that it was acceptable. Lastly, all the reader of this kind of last minute-before-an-election propaganda has to do, is simply apply some really easy common sense. What President in his or her right mind, knowing full well that they are up for re-election, would author a document that basically tells Iran, that it is "Ok" to go ahead with a Nuclear Weapons Program?

I mean, geepers! Common sense ought to be enough to stop that kind of propaganda right dead in its tracks. The only place that this kind of stuff plays, is with the anti-Obama hater crowd, because nobody with an ounce of grey matter remaining is buying this as anything other than something designed to muddy the waters for Obama. Just plain ole common sense tells me that much.
 
MaggieD said:
If this is true, this is an abomination.
Click to expand...

It would be down right silly and that level of silliness tells me that somebody is playing the reader for a total fool.


MaggieD said:
Though, I must admit, I recognize their nuclear rights myself.
Click to expand...

Not that such recognition is needed for Iran, to move on with its own Nuclear Program. Whether they decide to remain purely Civilian in their efforts, or to Weaponize their efforts - is really their choice. They are an "Adult" country and the have the right to lead their own destiny.

The notion that somehow nuclear weapons technology won't extend to other non-nuclear countries at any point in time in the future, is a bit naive to say the least. Sooner or later, even the Congo, will have the bomb. The question is whether or not humanity will levy enough common sense to not destroy itself, and seek a higher plain of existence on the notion of sharing the earth together.

The cat is already out of the bag. You can download about 75%-85% of what you need for a bomb off the net, for crying out loud. It is not a question of "if" but a question of when.
 
Klown said:
I dont quite understand this

Since when does fascist Imperial USA recognise anybody else's rights?
Click to expand...

You apparently think they recognize your rights or else you wouldn't post that crap on a public forum.
 
Mycroft said:
Who cares?

Oh, wait...I forgot...you can't bear to hear criticism of Obama without deflecting to Romney. It must be irritating to be bound by knee-jerk reactions, eh?
Click to expand...

No I should apologize. I forgot you're a True Believer in the GOP, and think that they **** pure gold.
 
PW4000 said:
It would be down right silly and that level of silliness tells me that somebody is playing the reader for a total fool.




Not that such recognition is needed for Iran, to move on with its own Nuclear Program. Whether they decide to remain purely Civilian in their efforts, or to Weaponize their efforts - is really their choice. They are an "Adult" country and the have the right to lead their own destiny.

The notion that somehow nuclear weapons technology won't extend to other non-nuclear countries at any point in time in the future, is a bit naive to say the least. Sooner or later, even the Congo, will have the bomb. The question is whether or not humanity will levy enough common sense to not destroy itself, and seek a higher plain of existence on the notion of sharing the earth together.

The cat is already out of the bag. You can download about 75%-85% of what you need for a bomb off the net, for crying out loud. It is not a question of "if" but a question of when.
Click to expand...

Well, no, we don't have to wait to find out if all of these third world countries will show restraint. There are other options that don't put us in such great risk of nuclear annihilation.
 
LowDown said:
You apparently think they recognize your rights or else you wouldn't post that crap on a public forum.
Click to expand...

I didn't realise the USA was in charge of the planet?

I suppose fascist regimes are always deluded with their criminally and immorally self induced power stupor

Classic symptoms
 
rocket88 said:
No I should apologize. I forgot you're a True Believer in the GOP, and think that they **** pure gold.
Click to expand...

LOL!!!

Ummm...yeah, right...whatever you say, dude.
 
Thrilla said:
I'm not a true believer in the GOP.. and even I think your deflection was unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Calling it "Obama speak" is misleading. Double speak is lingua franca in politics. Considering how often Romney chages his position -if you don't agree with Romney, wait 5 minutes, he'll agree with you. Vague on his tax proposals, vague on gay rights...please, double speak is his trade. He makes Clinton look steadfast in his convictions. The fact that this wrong headed idea came from someone who is incapable of criticizing a Republican?? Priceless.
 
rocket88 said:
Calling it "Obama speak" is misleading. Double speak is lingua franca in politics. Considering how often Romney chages his position -if you don't agree with Romney, wait 5 minutes, he'll agree with you. Vague on his tax proposals, vague on gay rights...please, double speak is his trade. He makes Clinton look steadfast in his convictions. The fact that this wrong headed idea came from someone who is incapable of criticizing a Republican?? Priceless.
Click to expand...
didn't say your comment is without merit... it just has no place in the discussion.
 
rocket88 said:
Calling it "Obama speak" is misleading. Double speak is lingua franca in politics. Considering how often Romney chages his position -if you don't agree with Romney, wait 5 minutes, he'll agree with you. Vague on his tax proposals, vague on gay rights...please, double speak is his trade. He makes Clinton look steadfast in his convictions. The fact that this wrong headed idea came from someone who is incapable of criticizing a Republican?? Priceless.
Click to expand...

Are you still talking about Romney in an Obama thread???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom