• 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!

Report: Iran to Propose New Nuclear Talks

RDS

RDS

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
5,398
Reaction score
1,323
Location
Singapore
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iran under pressure with the latest sanctions now wants to talk.

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran's ambassador to Germany says his country will propose a new round of talks with the six world powers, following the latest sanctions imposed by the West over Tehran's controversial nuclear program.

Ambassador Ali Reza Sheikh Attar says Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, is to send a letter soon to EU's foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton to arrange a new round of negotiations.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/12/31/report-iran-to-propose-new-nuclear-talks/#ixzz1i7ACcgF9
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
We've seen this movie.

Fulfill the NPT obligations and allow the IAEA full and unfettered access to all nuclear documentation/facilities.

Only then can negotiations be informed, meaningful, and productive.
 
RDS said:
Iran under pressure with the latest sanctions now wants to talk.
Click to expand...

Nice to hear, but probably nothing more than a stalling tactic. They could play this out under the guise of "diplomacy" for months if not years. This will hold off a possible attack (you wouldn't attack us while we're "negotiating" would you?) while they continue developing nukes.
 
Moderator's Warning:
The thread OP is not about Israel. Stay on topic.
 
EagleAye said:
Nice to hear, but probably nothing more than a stalling tactic. They could play this out under the guise of "diplomacy" for months if not years. This will hold off a possible attack (you wouldn't attack us while we're "negotiating" would you?) while they continue developing nukes.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's definitely a stall. They ramp up threats then say "we want to cooperate" hoping to continue advancing the program till it's too late. It probably won't work either but I hope they see in it's in their best long term interests to make nice.
 
You choose to be under the NPT, you should follow the NPT or expect the consequences. Just as is the case anytime anyone joins anything. If you choose to agree to something, live up to it or deal with the consequences.
 
RDS said:
Iran under pressure with the latest sanctions now wants to talk.
Click to expand...
Meh, considering that the United States has threatened to invade Iran, has already invaded Iraq among other ME countries and is a good distance away from another nuclear power, I understand why it wants nuclear weapons. If the United States' only position is that Iran can't have nuclear weapons, that that is its mistake and I don't think sanctions do anything but worsen the problem.
 
Does anyone here actually feel comfortable with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad having access to nuclear weapons? Let's be real.
 
theplaydrive said:
Meh, considering that the United States has threatened to invade Iran, has already invaded Iraq among other ME countries and is a good distance away from another nuclear power, I understand why it wants nuclear weapons. If the United States' only position is that Iran can't have nuclear weapons, that that is its mistake and I don't think sanctions do anything but worsen the problem.
Click to expand...

Think abt this. Iran has threatened a few times to wipe off the map a certain middle eastern country.
 
RDS said:
Think abt this. Iran has threatened a few times to wipe off the map a certain middle eastern country.
Click to expand...
That quote has been contested and pretty much been disregarded by the media as an accurate translation. Here's the Washington Post article where they essentially chastize themselves for blindly using it in the past.

Look at what Iran is surrounded by: a nuclear power, the troops of another nuclear power and other states that have already been invaded by those nuclear powers. It's pretty easy to conclude that Iran wants nukes for the same reasons most countries do: the deterrent effect - so it doesn't become another Iraq. Even so, it's also clear from its actions that Iran wants to be a member of the international community (it just wants to do it solely on its own terms which won't ever happen) and that it doesn't want to commit suicide.
 
X Factor said:
Does anyone here actually feel comfortable with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad having access to nuclear weapons? Let's be real.
Click to expand...
You ask that as if Ahmadinejad is calling the shots.

But to the question of "feeling comfortable" with Iran having nukes, then no - I don't think most people feel comfortable, but I also don't feel comfortable with Russia and China having nukes either, so...
 
theplaydrive said:
That quote has been contested and pretty much been disregarded by the media as an accurate translation. Here's the Washington Post article where they essentially chastize themselves for blindly using it in the past.

Look at what Iran is surrounded by: a nuclear power, the troops of another nuclear power and other states that have already been invaded by those nuclear powers. It's pretty easy to conclude that Iran wants nukes for the same reasons most countries do: the deterrent effect - so it doesn't become another Iraq. Even so, it's also clear from its actions that Iran wants to be a member of the international community (it just wants to do it solely on its own terms which won't ever happen) and that it doesn't want to commit suicide.
Click to expand...

Cole said this week that in the 1980s Khomeini gave a speech in which he said in Persian “Een rezhim-i eshghalgar-i Quds bayad az sahneh-i ruzgar mahv shaved.” This means, “This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena of time.” But then anonymous wire service translators rendered Khomeini as saying that Israel “must be wiped off the face of the map,” which Cole and Nourouzi say is inaccurate.
Click to expand...

"This occupation regime over Jerusakem must vanish from the arena of time"

Both quotes are equally disgusting.
 
RDS said:
"This occupation regime over Jerusakem must vanish from the arena of time"

Both quotes are equally disgusting.
Click to expand...
Sure, but one of them gives off a more dangerous impression than the other. In any case, the quote has literally zero impact on everything else I said.
 
X Factor said:
Does anyone here actually feel comfortable with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad having access to nuclear weapons? Let's be real.
Click to expand...

Originally posted here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ms-us-aircraft-carrier-13.html#post1060070882

Mr. Invisible said:
It seems that people in this thread keep forgetting that Iran is an Islamic republic. Ahmadinejad, while he may be the President of Iran, does not hold real power. Real power lies in the hands of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The post of President may not exist for much longer as Kamenei is considering getting rid of it all together (Will Ayatollah Khamenei eliminate the Iranian presidency? – Global Public Square - CNN.com Blogs) (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: the last president of Iran? | Saeed Kamali Dehghan | Comment is free | The Guardian)
Click to expand...
 
RDS said:
Iran under pressure with the latest sanctions now wants to talk.
Click to expand...

They have been wanting to talk for years, but we have not wanted to listen. Why do you think the hardliners eventually took power from the reformists?
 
RDS said:
Iran Backs Off Threat to Close Strait of Hormuz

Read more: Iran Backs Off Threat To Close Strait Of Hormuz | Fox News
Click to expand...

As always, the Iranian regime is full of ****. The only sensible course of action for the regime is to give up its aspirations to acquire nuclear weapons and allow international arms control inspectors unfettered access to all of its nuclear and missile assets, programs and records. This is what the US is demanding, and it is the same demand the US made of Saddam; the Iranian regime is responding exactly as Saddam did before the US destroyed his government.
 
Iran is a state that is just as entitled to nuclear weapons as any other state. Israel alone has enough nukes to wipe the world clean of humanity. That being said I prefer that all nukes be done away with from every nation's arsenal to include the US and Russia. We all must remember that the only nations to ever come close to nuclear war were Russia and the US. Granted Pakistan and India have threatened but I am talking about being hours away from giving the go ahead to blast units into Cuba after Russian subs were spotted by US naval ships during the Kennedy Administration. We have wars and wars have us but folks a nuclear war no one could survive if it were an all out attack. I just re-watched "Failsafe" for the 100th time and even today that movie scars me to death. Not a bit of blood or cursing but the thought of Moscow being eliminated by the US and then New York being eliminated by the US is incomprehensible but totally plauisble. Who wins in a nuclear war?
 
smallstuff said:
Iran is a state that is just as entitled to nuclear weapons as any other state. Israel alone has enough nukes to wipe the world clean of humanity. That being said I prefer that all nukes be done away with from every nation's arsenal to include the US and Russia. We all must remember that the only nations to ever come close to nuclear war were Russia and the US. Granted Pakistan and India have threatened but I am talking about being hours away from giving the go ahead to blast units into Cuba after Russian subs were spotted by US naval ships during the Kennedy Administration. We have wars and wars have us but folks a nuclear war no one could survive if it were an all out attack. I just re-watched "Failsafe" for the 100th time and even today that movie scars me to death. Not a bit of blood or cursing but the thought of Moscow being eliminated by the US and then New York being eliminated by the US is incomprehensible but totally plauisble. Who wins in a nuclear war?
Click to expand...

You must be insane if you think a nuclear war is plausible
 
Proud South Korean said:
You must be insane if you think a nuclear war is plausible
Click to expand...

I have seen crazier **** in my life, like neocons waging an aggressive war against Iraq while labeling Iran as part of the axis of evil as they helped us.
 
Happy to see someone besides me say that. Israeli officials have stated that Israel has at least 260 nuclear warheads, and effective delivery systems...they have never allowed inspection of this arsenal. Israel, Pakistan and India the only three in the region that did not sign the NPT...doesn't anyone find these facts suspicious?

Israel is one of only three states which never signed the NPT, the other two being India and Pakistan.

It is believed to have a nuclear arsenal, though it refuses to confirm or deny its existence
Click to expand...

Also, there's this...

DOHA - There's no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, Prof. Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, the Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) said on Monday, adding that even a recent and critical report by the United Nations' nuclear watchdog did not provide concrete of nefarious nuclear ambitions.

Speaking at the Brookings Doha Center, the Turkish diplomat, who many see as a natural successor to Turkish President Abdullah Gul, also said, in response to an Haaretz query, that every country had a right to develop a peaceful nuclear program.

West has no evidence of Iran atomic bomb program
Click to expand...
 
Tashah said:
We've seen this movie.

Fulfill the NPT obligations and allow the IAEA full and unfettered access to all nuclear documentation/facilities.

Only then can negotiations be informed, meaningful, and productive.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't think it matters how much Iran complies. Most of the western allies, the U.S., and Israel, want a war with Iran. The writing is on the wall in the foreign policy of the last 10 years. The Middle East is a staging ground for western oil economy and strategic deployment. Iran could give full access and we would still find a way to blame them, like we did with Iraq. If there's one thing the past two U.S. administrations have demonstrated, it's that they can manufacture any reason to go to war.

Iran is the only piece missing in the puzzle to oil hegemony in the M-E and that's not something that will be passed up, not after all that has already been accomplished. My main concern is just how willing we are to endanger the world by pushing for the completion of this long-term project.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom