• 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

Temporal said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. The US attitude towards Iran has been over possible nuclear weapons. You can claim that's just subterfuge and oil is the real goal. But the US never engaged Saudi Arabia militarily and in fact the two have good diplomatic relations, and Saudi Arabia is the major US supplier of oil. Iran already supplies oil to much of the EU. So oil is already available to the West from Iran without military action. I don't believe that's the primary motivator.
 
Friday13 said:
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?



Also, there's this...
Click to expand...

Not if that country has shown hostile intentions to many countries in the world, and has a history of being unstable, such as North Korea, and recently, Iran.
I suppose that you think that countries such as Somalia, the former USSR all should be allowed to have nukes.
Also, as friendly advice, people (including me) will find your use of italics somewhat irritating
 
Last edited:
Antiderivative said:
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.
Click to expand...

While the liberals stood and watched? The Iraq war was supported both by liberals and conservatives. It's idiotic as to say that the Tories in Britain were against communism during WWII and until 1950
 
toomuchtime_ said:
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.
Click to expand...

False comparison. One cannot compare Iraq to Iran because the US blatantly lied about Iraq's WMDs, making it seems as if they were creating nukes and other weapons when in fact no such thing existed.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
False comparison. One cannot compare Iraq to Iran because the US blatantly lied about Iraq's WMDs, making it seems as if they were creating nukes and other weapons when in fact no such thing existed.
Click to expand...

Whether the US was right about Saddam's nuclear weapons program or not did not effect the outcome just as whether Iran actually has a nuclear weapons program or not will not effect the outcome. In both cases the US demanded international arms control inspectors have unfettered access to all the relevant materials and in each case this demand was met with chest thumping defiance. Saddam promised us the mother of all battles and Iran's navy is doing its little dance in the Strait of Hormuz. It's as if they were both reading from the same script.
 
Antiderivative said:
This is an outright lie.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/world/middleeast/06iran.html
Click to expand...

It's always good to follow up. Abbasi reversed himself a week later.
Has Fereydoun Abbasi Been Called to Order? - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
The change of tone in a week’s time is quite remarkable. First Dr. Abbasi suggests that Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA could be increased (admitting thereby that it is far from perfect) and that he would be prepared to clarify a number of points raised by the IAEA as long as they are limited and in writing. A week later he declares that Iran has fully cooperated with the IAEA so far, and would accept no more obligations, likely meaning not even answering the questions raised by the IAEA concerning “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s nuclear activities.

Dr. Abbasi suggested on September 5 that Iran would accept full IAEA supervision of its nuclear activities during five years provided sanctions against Iran are lifted. This again acknowledges that Iran is not fully cooperating with the IAEA and doesn’t meet the repeated requests of the IAEA Board of Governors that Iran “implement transparency measures which extend beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol, and include access to individuals, documentation relating to procurement, dual use equipment, certain military owned workshops and research and development locations.”4

The day after, the same Dr. Abbasi rejects the idea of accepting more obligations and the implementation of the Additional Protocol.
Click to expand...
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I just hope that any use of military force comes from the U.N. led by a EU member state, not the U.S. despite America being Iran's target of hatred. I'm sure the Obama Administration wouldn't back down should Iran strikes the first blow, but damn! Haven't we committed our Armed Forces to enough fighting abroad?

EagleAye said:
It's always good to follow up. Abbasi reversed himself a week later.
Has Fereydoun Abbasi Been Called to Order? - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Click to expand...

Damn...so much for being hopeful Iran would cooperate even alittle bit. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Keep your insults to your self Proud South Korean..........where do I say nuclear war is plausible? I cease to be amazed by people who see but are unable to read and comprehend.
 
smallstuff said:
Keep your insults to your self Proud South Korean..........where do I say nuclear war is plausible? I cease to be amazed by people who see but are unable to read and comprehend.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of the verb "imply"?
 
Tasha is that because you don't like the truth about Israel being told?
 
Oh to you it is imply but for me I get an infraction for answering to your implied insult. I'm not done with you twit!
 
smallstuff said:
Oh to you it is imply but for me I get an infraction for answering to your implied insult. I'm not done with you twit!
Click to expand...

Calling other people "twit" and such insults directly is not a good idea. You're probably new to forums entirely
 
This is just another ploy to delay sanctions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom