• 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!

[W;90]Iran’s parliament approves bill to stop nuclear inspections

Russia has more nukes than the US does.
It looks like that is correct. I will adjust my commentary.

I wonder if we know if that is true; I have heard that we don't know what happened to the former Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal.
 
It looks like that is correct. I will adjust my commentary.

I wonder if we know if that is true; we probably don't know what happened to the former Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal.

So far as we know, 5,000 nukes were decommissioned, leaving 6000 and change in service.
 
Russia has more nukes than the US does.

Quite right

Worlds Nuclear Weapons 2020.JPG
However since the number of nuclear weapon detonations required to trigger a "Nuclear Winter" is someplace between 100 and 500, that means that the Russians could destroy the world 12.6 times while the US could only destroy the world 11.4 times (using the high number) or 63.75 times and 58 times respectively (using the low numbers) so let's let it rest at the average and say that the Russians could only destroy the world a mere 38.175 times and the US a mere 34.7 times.
 
The petroleum products that the US buys from Canada it buys at an artificially deflated price (not at the world market price) due to the requirements of NAFTA. The US would get them even cheaper if it didn't actually have to pay for them.

[ASIDE 1 - The reports all indicate that the Canadian resistance to any East-West pipelines (which would allow for sales to countries other than the US) receives the majority of its financing (a majority estimated at around 80%) from Americans involved in/with the American petrochemical industry. Strangely enough those same financial interests do NOT fund resistance to any North-South pipelines (which allow for sale ONLY to the US).]

[ASIDE 2 - Petroleum products that the US sells to Canada are NOT governed by the same pricing restrictions as govern petroleum products that Canada sells to the US and can be at (or even above) world market prices.]

Mexico is a net EXPORTER of petroleum products.
Sounds like an amazingly beneficial agreement for all parties. Hopefully no one decides to toss a wrench into the works.
 
Sounds like an amazingly beneficial agreement for all parties. Hopefully no one decides to toss a wrench into the works.

Well, it is most certainly beneficial to the purchaser to be able to buy "below list". It isn't quite as beneficial to the vendor.

Personally, were I to be negotiating a new NAFTA (from the Canadian side) I would be taking the position that the sections which REQUIRE that Canada sell ANYTHING to the US below the world (or even the US) price (AND was REQUIRED to sell regardless of whether or not the item was needed by Canada to the point where selling it harmed the Canadian economy) simply had to go.
 
Well, it is most certainly beneficial to the purchaser to be able to buy "below list". It isn't quite as beneficial to the vendor.

Personally, were I to be negotiating a new NAFTA (from the Canadian side) I would be taking the position that the sections which REQUIRE that Canada sell ANYTHING to the US below the world (or even the US) price (AND was REQUIRED to sell regardless of whether or not the item was needed by Canada to the point where selling it harmed the Canadian economy) simply had to go.
Well, there was a very recent renegotiation of said trade deal; seems everyone was happy with the terms.
 
Well, there was a very recent renegotiation of said trade deal; seems everyone was happy with the terms.

Not "happy with" but "able to live with".

Of course, Mr. Trump (who does NOT "speak for the government of the United States of America") almost immediately violated (or at least threatened to violate) the terms of NAFTA 2.0 (until Mr. Trudeau [who DOES "speak for the government of Canada"] - essentially - told him where to stick it - at which point Mr. Trump backed down).

Doesn't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy to know that the President of the United States of America had to back down when confronted by the government of Canada?

Strangely enough, most Canadians completely ignored it.
 
If the Israelis were to be given a "homeland" due to the actions of the German people, wouldn't elementary justice dictate that the "homeland" be carved out of GERMAN territory?

Now you are simply arguing Israel shouldnt exist. Which is a view that even the Arabs are beginning to reject.
But not Iran.

It is certainly plausable to make an argument that Mossadegh was wronged in some fashion.
But its not a great argument (the man afer all, sought to violate Iranian law.
But with respect to Saddam-- baseless. We know this because it was never the business of the USSR to send weaponry to allies of the USA.
 
Iran wasn't involved in any of them! What are you suggesting here?

Thats because Iran was a nice western ally at the time.
Now there opinion is no different than the fellows of 48 67 and 73.
 
Not "happy with" but "able to live with".

Of course, Mr. Trump (who does NOT "speak for the government of the United States of America") almost immediately violated (or at least threatened to violate) the terms of NAFTA 2.0 (until Mr. Trudeau [who DOES "speak for the government of Canada"] - essentially - told him where to stick it - at which point Mr. Trump backed down).

Doesn't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy to know that the President of the United States of America had to back down when confronted by the government of Canada?

Strangely enough, most Canadians completely ignored it.
Sounds great. As long as that cheap oil keeps coming, we'll get along great! Saves us from having to be nice to Iran if we don't wish to.
 
Now you are simply arguing Israel shouldnt exist. Which is a view that even the Arabs are beginning to reject.
But not Iran.

I am not, in the least, arguing that.

The actions for which the Jewish people were granted a "homeland" occurred in Europe, were aimed at Europeans, and were carried out by Europeans.

Elementary justice says that the resolution should have taken place in Europe and that the European people who carried out the European murders of other Europeans should have been the ones to provide that "homeland".

In short, if Israel is to exist (something upon which I take no position) then it should have been located in Europe and should have consisted of land that had formerly been a part of Germany.

It is certainly plausable to make an argument that Mossadegh was wronged in some fashion.
But its not a great argument (the man afer all, sought to violate Iranian law.

Yes, I suppose that "wronged in some way" is one way of putting

Mohammad Mosaddegh was an Iranian politician who served as the 35th Prime Minister of Iran, holding office from 1951 until 1953, when his government was overthrown in the 1953 Iranian coup d'état orchestrated by the United States' Central Intelligence Agency and the United Kingdom's MI6. Mossadegh was kept under house arrest at his Ahmadabad residence, until his death on 5 March 1967. He was denied a funeral and was buried in his living room, despite his request to be buried in the public graveyard, beside the victims of the political violence on 30 Tir 1331 (21 July 1952).
[SOURCE]​

I'd be tempted to put it "slightly" more strongly than that. But, then again, I don't have a "national reputation" that I feel that I have to defend in knee-jerk fashion,

But with respect to Saddam-- baseless. We know this because it was never the business of the USSR to send weaponry to allies of the USA.

Nor a national reputation that I have to defend by historical revisionism.
 
As if Iran needs an excuse to want to build nuclear weaponry...

Yet, it does.

It took decades of America playing with nukes during military exercises in South Korea to see North Korea test its first nuke in 2006, based purely on defending itself.

And despite Iran's ulema adhering to Khomeini's Fatwa about nuclear weapons being un-Islamic, America continues to push the issue and push for regime change so that the Iranian military, which does want a nuke, takes over. Clearly, we keep providing the excuses.

Aside from this, Iran proved it had no intention on a nuclear weapon with the deal. It held true until Trump's brutal and unnecessary sanctions pushed it closer to China's orbit. It began enriching again only this year. Thus, Trump robbed America, Israel, and the Arab Middle East a decades worth of time to work on Iran's aggressive foreign policy.
 
Yet, it does.

It took decades of America playing with nukes during military exercises in South Korea to see North Korea test its first nuke in 2006, based purely on defending itself.

And despite Iran's ulema adhering to Khomeini's Fatwa about nuclear weapons being un-Islamic, America continues to push the issue and push for regime change so that the Iranian military, which does want a nuke, takes over. Clearly, we keep providing the excuses.

Aside from this, Iran proved it had no intention on a nuclear weapon with the deal. It held true until Trump's brutal and unnecessary sanctions pushed it closer to China's orbit. It began enriching again only this year. Thus, Trump robbed America, Israel, and the Arab Middle East a decades worth of time to work on Iran's aggressive foreign policy.
Quit with the Iran bashing. It is tiresome, especially since the only Middle East country that has nuclear weapons is Iran's sworn enemy, Israel, and is supported in having an estimated 90 nukes by the USA and Canada while Iran has none. Knock it off!
 
Quit with the Iran bashing. It is tiresome, especially since the only Middle East country that has nuclear weapons is Iran's sworn enemy, Israel, and is supported in having an estimated 90 nukes by the USA and Canada while Iran has none. Knock it off!

Perhaps you should ask another person to read my posts to you and then help you understand them better.
 
Quit with the Iran bashing. It is tiresome, especially since the only Middle East country that has nuclear weapons is Iran's sworn enemy, Israel, and is supported in having an estimated 90 nukes by the USA and Canada while Iran has none. Knock it off!
Try reading the first sentence of the poster's final paragraph again...slowly.
 
Back
Top Bottom