• 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!

Bargain With Iran

Make the Deal?

  • Total voters
    41
sharon said:
In rapid buying and selling internationally.. instant transactions avoid cumulative interest.

Wiki is not always the best source.
Click to expand...



i could argue this point all day but simply spending ten minutes on google will give you plenty of pages to read on the subject from many different sources.
 
Done!!! We've got thousands Israel has hundreds. We could get rid of some and still have enough to effectively destroy the planet.
 
This is a meaningless poll. There is no reason why the US would need to bargain with Iran on nukes. Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, they are under obligation already. No one needs to bargain with them over what they already agreed to do.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
This is a meaningless poll. There is no reason why the US would need to bargain with Iran on nukes. Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, they are under obligation already. No one needs to bargain with them over what they already agreed to do.
Click to expand...


Because that is working so well, right?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
The point of signing an agreement is that if you fail to live up to the agreement you will be punished.
Click to expand...

That was a UN Agreement correct? So has the UN made decision that Iran is in violation?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
This is a meaningless poll. There is no reason why the US would need to bargain with Iran on nukes. Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, they are under obligation already. No one needs to bargain with them over what they already agreed to do.
Click to expand...

There it is! Took three pages but finally someone said it. Thanks...
 
phattonez said:
Are they?

Panetta admits Iran not developing nukes | The Raw Story

Sanctions are not diplomacy. Ending trade is an act of hostility, not peace.
Click to expand...

But a United Nations report released in November 2011 challenged that claim. The International Atomic Energy Agency released a trove of evidence that they said makes a “credible” case that “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device” and that the project may still be under way. The report said the I.A.E.A. had amassed “over a thousand pages” of documents, presumably leaked out of Iran, showing “research, development and testing activities” on a range of technologies that would only be useful in designing a nuclear weapon.


Iran's Nuclear Program - News - The New York Times
 
Catawba said:
That was a UN Agreement correct? So has the UN made decision that Iran is in violation?
Click to expand...

You mean like sanctions from the UN?
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929, adopted on 9 June 2010, after recalling resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008) and 1887 (2009) concerning the topics of Iran and non-proliferation, the Council noted that Iran had failed to comply with previous Security Council resolutions concerning its nuclear program and imposed further sanctions on the country.[1]
The resolution, which adopted a fourth round of sanctions against the country,[2] was adopted by twelve votes for the resolution, two against from Brazil and Turkey, with one abstention from Lebanon.
Click to expand...

So that would be a yes and another yes.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
You mean like sanctions from the UN?

So that would be a yes and another yes.
Click to expand...

From the Resolution:

"There was concern that Iran had not yet fully suspended uranium enrichmentactivities, resumed co-operation with the IAEA or clarified issues relating to a possible military dimension to its nuclear program.[SUP][3][/SUP]The Council recognised that access to diverse, reliable energy was critical for sustainable growth and development, and emphasised the rights of states in international trade. It called upon Iran to ratify theComprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and was determined to take appropriate measures to make Iran comply with provisions in previous Security Council resolutions and requirements of the IAEA.[SUP][3][/SUP]

"There is concern." That's pretty tough language there! ;)

I must have missed the part about any proposed military action. Could you quote that for me?
 
Last edited:
No, because we can't trust Iran to keep it's word any more than North Korea did when it double-dog promised Clinton that if we gave them nuclear energy, they would never, ever even think of creating a nuclear weapon. :roll:
 
DiAnna said:
No, because we can't trust Iran to keep it's word any more than North Korea did when it double-dog promised Clinton that if we gave them nuclear energy, they would never, ever even think of creating a nuclear weapon. :roll:
Click to expand...

Rumsfeld was director of a company which won a $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea .. The company was called ABB.
 
sharon said:
Rumsfeld was director of a company which won a $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea .. The company was called ABB.
Click to expand...

Yep, and Reagan had Iraq removed from the Terrorist Nations Listing and Rumsfeld was over there schmoozing it up with Saddam when he was at his murderous worst.

Funny that, isn't it?
 
Catawba said:
From the Resolution:

"There was concern that Iran had not yet fully suspended uranium enrichmentactivities, resumed co-operation with the IAEA or clarified issues relating to a possible military dimension to its nuclear program.[SUP][3][/SUP]The Council recognised that access to diverse, reliable energy was critical for sustainable growth and development, and emphasised the rights of states in international trade. It called upon Iran to ratify theComprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and was determined to take appropriate measures to make Iran comply with provisions in previous Security Council resolutions and requirements of the IAEA.[SUP][3][/SUP]

"There is concern." That's pretty tough language there! ;)

I must have missed the part about any proposed military action. Could you quote that for me?
Click to expand...
What kind of strawman tactic was that?
 
Catawba said:
Yep, and Reagan had Iraq removed from the Terrorist Nations Listing and Rumsfeld was over there schmoozing it up with Saddam when he was at his murderous worst.

Funny that, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Wow must be an conspiracy. :roll:
 
Catawba said:
Yep, and Reagan had Iraq removed from the Terrorist Nations Listing and Rumsfeld was over there schmoozing it up with Saddam when he was at his murderous worst.

Funny that, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yeah, really funny...just like how you murder history every chance you get. Context means nothing to the uneducated.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
What kind of strawman tactic was that?
Click to expand...

How is pointing out a quote from the Resolution that you sourced a strawman? "Concern" is far from from the paranoia from what some on the far right are expressing about Iran?


"There was concern that Iran had not yet fully suspended uranium enrichmentactivities, resumed co-operation with the IAEA or clarified issues relating to a possible military dimension to its nuclear program.[3]The Council recognised that access to diverse, reliable energy was critical for sustainable growth and development, and emphasised the rights of states in international trade. It called upon Iran to ratify theComprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and was determined to take appropriate measures to make Iran comply with provisions in previous Security Council resolutions and requirements of the IAEA.[3]
 
American said:
Yeah, really funny...just like how you murder history every chance you get. Context means nothing to the uneducated.
Click to expand...

You let me know what I got wrong, How about that? Be sure to include your sources. Thanks!
 
Bodhisattva said:
But a United Nations report released in November 2011 challenged that claim. The International Atomic Energy Agency released a trove of evidence that they said makes a “credible” case that “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device” and that the project may still be under way. The report said the I.A.E.A. had amassed “over a thousand pages” of documents, presumably leaked out of Iran, showing “research, development and testing activities” on a range of technologies that would only be useful in designing a nuclear weapon.


Iran's Nuclear Program - News - The New York Times
Click to expand...

But it does not claim that Iran definitely is building the weapon. That is the propaganda.

Getting ahead of the facts on Iran - The Washington Post
 
Catawba said:
How is pointing out a quote from the Resolution that you sourced a strawman? "Concern" is far from from the paranoia from what some on the far right are expressing about Iran?


"There was concern that Iran had not yet fully suspended uranium enrichmentactivities, resumed co-operation with the IAEA or clarified issues relating to a possible military dimension to its nuclear program.[3]The Council recognised that access to diverse, reliable energy was critical for sustainable growth and development, and emphasised the rights of states in international trade. It called upon Iran to ratify theComprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and was determined to take appropriate measures to make Iran comply with provisions in previous Security Council resolutions and requirements of the IAEA.[3]
Click to expand...

First of all I made no claims about military action nor that the sanctions that there will be. Second, I am not echoing the far right.

It was a strawman argument from you because I did not make such claims instead you are trying to tell me that I am. You asked if the UN made a decision that Iran is in violation? I provided that decision. How you jumped to that meaning something about threatening military action is beyond me. Do you hear voices in your head or something?
 
American said:
Yeah, really funny...just like how you murder history every chance you get. Context means nothing to the uneducated.
Click to expand...

Rumsfeld was on the board of directors of ABB corporation when they sold $200 million in nuclear parts to Norht Korea.............

What was the "context"?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
First of all I made no claims about military action nor that the sanctions that there will be. Second, I am not echoing the far right.

It was a strawman argument from you because I did not make such claims instead you are trying to tell me that I am. You asked if the UN made a decision that Iran is in violation? I provided that decision. How you jumped to that meaning something about threatening military action is beyond me. Do you hear voices in your head or something?
Click to expand...

You provided a resolution of concern. Thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom