Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    22 Mar '15 13:033 edits
    YouTube


    Obama has said in the past that Iran was a terrorist state that should never and will never, under his watch, obtain nuclear weapons. Did he say these things just to get elected knowing all along what he was really going to do?

    Why the change of heart?

    "Iran’s Supreme leader Ali Khamenei called for “Death to America” on Saturday, a day after President Barack Obama appealed to Iran to seize a “historic opportunity” for a nuclear deal and a better future, and as US Secretary of State John Kerry claimed substantial progress toward an accord."
  2. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    22 Mar '15 14:12
    So you think Iran will obtain nuclear weapons before 2016?
  3. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    22 Mar '15 15:25
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    So you think Iran will obtain nuclear weapons before 2016?
    Are you implying that Obama is hoping to have some poor sap take over for him in 2016 and stop them from producing a nuke?
  4. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    23 Mar '15 10:01
    Originally posted by whodey
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDLp2qEXfLc


    Obama has said in the past that Iran was a terrorist state that should never and will never, under his watch, obtain nuclear weapons. Did he say these things just to get elected knowing all along what he was really going to do?

    Why the change of heart?

    "Iran’s Supreme leader Ali Khamenei called for “Deat ...[text shortened]... future, and as US Secretary of State John Kerry claimed substantial progress toward an accord."
    he is negotiating a deal. to have them abandon nuclear weapons in exchange for nuclear power technology.


    it is how grownups come to an agreement.

    some of your republicans are under the illusion that iran responds well to threats and demands with no offers in return. that is how bullies operate.
  5. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    23 Mar '15 10:46
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    he is negotiating a deal. to have them abandon nuclear weapons in exchange for nuclear power technology.


    it is how grownups come to an agreement.

    some of your republicans are under the illusion that iran responds well to threats and demands with no offers in return. that is how bullies operate.
    If you think that Iran's intent is to not develop nukes then I have a bridge I'd like to sell ya.

    The issue is letting them develop nuclear power that will get them close to being able to develop nukes. If they are allowed to continue there will be very little Obama or anyone else can do to prevent them from obtaining them.

    It seems Obama is going it alone. From what I hear, even Middle Eastern countries are worried the deal will cause Iran to obtain nukes. Wiki leaks offered us a rare glimpse into the mind of governments in the region like Saudi Arabia. They have all feared Iran for a long time.
  6. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    23 Mar '15 10:51
    Originally posted by whodey
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDLp2qEXfLc


    Obama has said in the past that Iran was a terrorist state that should never and will never, under his watch, obtain nuclear weapons. Did he say these things just to get elected knowing all along what he was really going to do?

    Why the change of heart?

    "Iran’s Supreme leader Ali Khamenei called for “Deat ...[text shortened]... future, and as US Secretary of State John Kerry claimed substantial progress toward an accord."
    Did you watch your own video link? It shows Obama attacking Iran as a supporter of terrorism in the region and saying that he is committed to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. He also says (about one minute in) that it is premature to talk about using violence to achieve this end when we have not yet exhausted the possibility of negotiating a peaceful solution.

    Where do you get your argument about the Iranian president calling for death to America. I asked Google for clues. Possibly the Times of Israel (that independent minded and objective source of dispassionate news reporting)? http://www.timesofisrael.com/khamenei-calls-death-to-america-as-kerry-hails-progress-on-nuke-deal/

    But even this article contans nuances that you omit. Khamenei is quoted not offering up this suggestion, but responding to calls from the crowd crying out "Death to America." And that is clearly a popular slogan among people subject to American led sanctions and intimidation. But it is also empty rhetoric with its own meaning, coming from people presenting zero realistic threat to the USA.

    More to the point, Khamenei in this Times of Israel article is only one Iranian voice and others are optimistic of a peaceful settlement with the USA. so why are you shrieking in that hysterical manner about what can only be called the boring, day to day tattle of diplomacy? May we assume that the American electorate (represented herre by whodey) is no more open minded and no better informed and no less susceptible to propaganda than the Iranian electorate also is? Much the same really.

    Khamenei told a crowd in Tehran that Iran would not capitulate to Western demands. When the crowd started shouting, “Death to America,” the ayatollah responded: “Of course yes, death to America, because America is the original source of this pressure.

    “They insist on putting pressure on our dear people’s economy,” he said, referring to economic sanctions aimed at halting Iran’s nuclear program. “What is their goal? Their goal is to put the people against the system,” he said. “The politics of America is to create insecurity,” he added, referring both to US pressure on Iran and elsewhere in the region.

    Khamenei’s comments contrasted with those of Iranian President Hassan Rohani, who said “achieving a deal is possible” by the March 31 target date for a preliminary accord.

    Kerry was more circumspect, as he spoke to reporters after six days of negotiations in the Swiss city of Lausanne. The talks, made “substantial progress,” he said, but “important gaps remain.

    “We have an opportunity to get this right,” Kerry said, as he urged Iran to make “fundamental decisions” that prove to the world it has no interest in atomic weapons.

    But Khamenei warned against expectations that even a done deal would mend the more than three-decade freeze between the two nations in place since the Iranian revolution and siege of the American Embassy, proclaiming that Washington and Tehran remained on opposite sides on most issues.

    “Negotiations with America are solely on the nuclear issue and nothing else. Everyone has to know that,” Khamenei said.

    In a reflection of the delicate state of negotiations, other officials differed on how close the sides were to a deal.

    The Americans (and notably Obama who is no peace monger) approach negotiations from a position of serious and credible threats of war if Iran does not comply. In what diplomatic manual does it advise the Iran should approach the negotiations from a public position of fear and cowering and a cringing promise to do whatever the Americans ask of them? Would that get Iran a better deal than acting tough?
  7. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    23 Mar '15 10:581 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    If you think that Iran's intent is to not develop nukes then I have a bridge I'd like to sell ya.

    The issue is letting them develop nuclear power that will get them close to being able to develop nukes. If they are allowed to continue there will be very little Obama or anyone else can do to prevent them from obtaining them.

    It seems Obama is going it a ...[text shortened]... mind of governments in the region like Saudi Arabia. They have all feared Iran for a long time.
    From what I hear, even Middle Eastern countries are worried the deal will cause Iran to obtain nukes. Wiki leaks offered us a rare glimpse into the mind of governments in the region like Saudi Arabia. They have all feared Iran for a long time.

    You hear correctly that Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni led Muslim countries would love to see Shia led Iran humiliated and ideally seriously damaged in a military attack. Given that Iran is surrounded by such aggressive neighbours then would you not expect them to have real concerns about their security? What a world of innocence you require among America's humble foreign subjects. You turn out to be an advocate of American imperialism and militarism, which sits oddly with your other opinions on the subject. America has already sponsored a major war against Iran by Iraq, which went badly, before they turned on their ally and killed Saddam Hussein and reduced Iraq to the shambles we see today. Just what would Iran hope for in American policy to make them compliant?
  8. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    23 Mar '15 11:15
    Originally posted by finnegan
    From what I hear, even Middle Eastern countries are worried the deal will cause Iran to obtain nukes. Wiki leaks offered us a rare glimpse into the mind of governments in the region like Saudi Arabia. They have all feared Iran for a long time.

    You hear correctly that Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni led Muslim countries would love to s ...[text shortened]... shambles we see today. Just what would Iran hope for in American policy to make them compliant?
    All I'm saying is that I believe Iran is out to produce nuclear weapons. If so I believe it will lead to war whether someone attacks them before they produce them or after.

    The entire regime is pretty scary, don't you think? You distance yourself from the fact that America is so hated, as well as Israel. Where will this hatred end do you reckon? Will they be able to control their hatred and restrain from pursuing nukes and using them?

    As Neville Chamberlin once said, will the end of sanctions lead to peace in our time?
  9. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    23 Mar '15 11:441 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    All I'm saying is that I believe Iran is out to produce nuclear weapons. If so I believe it will lead to war whether someone attacks them before they produce them or after.

    The entire regime is pretty scary, don't you think? You distance yourself from the fact that America is so hated, as well as Israel. Where will this hatred end do you reckon? Will t ...[text shortened]... g them?

    As Neville Chamberlin once said, will the end of sanctions lead to peace in our time?
    Why would you imagine Iranians might hate the USA or Israel? Why do you assume that the source of the problem lies with Iran?

    How would you describe American and Israeli attitudes to Iran? I think one could be forgiven for describing the attitude as one of hatred.

    Why do you hate Iran as you clearly do?

    Why do you assume that Iran wants nuclear weapons for offensive use, when that is no longer the case for any other nuclear power? Do you imagine they are uniquely stupid and American or Israeli militarists are uniquely wise in contrast?

    Does Iran have grounds to fear attack by Israel which has nuclear weapons? What would be Iran's best defence against nuclear threat from Israel, other than abject surrender?
  10. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    23 Mar '15 12:21
    Originally posted by whodey
    If you think that Iran's intent is to not develop nukes then I have a bridge I'd like to sell ya.

    The issue is letting them develop nuclear power that will get them close to being able to develop nukes. If they are allowed to continue there will be very little Obama or anyone else can do to prevent them from obtaining them.

    It seems Obama is going it a ...[text shortened]... mind of governments in the region like Saudi Arabia. They have all feared Iran for a long time.
    iran definitely wants to develop nukes. they believe they absolutely have to.

    show them that they have nothing to fear, that in the preposterous scenario that israel invades them, the US , China and Russia will step in. that the US will not interfere in their internal affairs. that sanctions against them will be lifted.

    the biggest problem with iran isn't that they can't be reasoned with.
    the biggest problem is that you and people like you think so.
  11. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    23 Mar '15 13:35
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    iran definitely wants to develop nukes. they believe they absolutely have to.

    show them that they have nothing to fear, that in the preposterous scenario that israel invades them, the US , China and Russia will step in. that the US will not interfere in their internal affairs. that sanctions against them will be lifted.

    the biggest problem with iran ...[text shortened]... that they can't be reasoned with.
    the biggest problem is that you and people like you think so.
    Here is the disconnect.

    Obama said previously that Iran was a terrorist state. He also said that everything should and would be done to stop them from obtaining nukes.

    Now was he lying about this just to get elected, or did he have a change of heart about Iran being a terrorist state?
  12. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    23 Mar '15 14:171 edit
    Obama's opposition to the Zionist state should not be surprising.

    http://ztruth.typepad.com/ztruth/2008/03/rev-wrights-fre.html

    REV. WRIGHT REPRINTS "HAMAS' STAND" IN CHURCH BULLETIN!



    Finding an article written by the deputy leader of Hamas, Mousa Abu Mazook, in Trinity Church of Christ's bulletin on Rev. Jeremiah Wright's "Pastor's Page" is beyond shocking. Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel and has the distinction of being labeled a global terrorist organization by the United States government. Marzook, himself, has been named a global terrorist. Wright picked Marzook's article for his pastor's page, folks. What does that tell you about Rev. Wright?

    Obama blasted what was in his church's bulletin in a strategic e-mail sent to the Jewish publication, JTA, after it became public this week. Notice how Obama refers to his pastor, his personal friend and mentor, as "my former pastor". All part of a strategy to distance himself from Wright that was discussed between Obama and Wright over a a year ago. One tiny little problem, Wright is still shown as the pastorof Trinity Church of Christ. Is the "former pastor" rhetoric all for show?


    I have already condemned my former pastor's views on Israel in the strongest possible terms, and I certainly wasn’t in church when that outrageously wrong Los Angeles Times piece was re-printed in the bulletin," Obama said in a statement emailed to JTA late Thursday, and referring to critics who noted that Obama had been in church when Wright had made controversial statements. "Hamas is a terrorist organization, responsible for the deaths of many innocents, and dedicated to Israel's destruction, as evidenced by their bombarding of Sderot in recent months. I support requiring Hamas to meet the international community's conditions of recognizing Israel, renouncing violence, and abiding by past agreements before they are treated as a legitimate actor."

    Earlier, I wrote about Obama's apparent backing off of support for Palestine as noted by Ali Abunimah, co-founder of the Electronic Intifada in order to get elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004. Abunimah recounted a conversation he had with Obama the last time he saw him:


    Obama to Abunimah: "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!"

    This is just another deeply troubling insight into Barack Obama's character, judgment and believes.


    The July 22, 2007 Trinity United Church of Christ bulletin reprinted an article written by Mousa Abu Marzook, deputy of the political bureau of Hamas. Originally printed in the LA Times as "Hamas' stand", Pastor Wright added a new title, "A Fresh View of the Palestinian Struggle". The Times was criticized for giving a "Platform To Genocidal Terrorist." Where does that leave Obama's church?
  13. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    23 Mar '15 14:21
    So as we can see, Obama condemned the stance his church took on Israel and Hamas, that is, publically. But is this just more double speak like the speech he gave about Iran being a terrorist state and should never be allowed to have nukes?
  14. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    23 Mar '15 14:24
    Originally posted by whodey
    Here is the disconnect.

    Obama said previously that Iran was a terrorist state. He also said that everything should and would be done to stop them from obtaining nukes.

    Now was he lying about this just to get elected, or did he have a change of heart about Iran being a terrorist state?
    "He also said that everything should and would be done to stop them from obtaining nukes"
    yes, he is still saying that.

    he is suggesting that a way to do that is provide them with nuclear power plants in exchange for promise to not develop nukes, access to UN inspections and so on. the deal could also include lifting sanctions.


    we do not know yet what that deal will look like. that is why we are talking, again, like adults do sometimes.
    he said, every time he was asked, that he will do everything in his power to stop Iran from getting nukes. he just wants to exhaust every option before resorting to war, which should ALWAYS be the last option considered.


    the idiots that signed that letter (which could be considered undermining national security) don't have any options except "don't give them anything". which is stupid. it is obvious that doesn't work and it is obvious the US cannot bully anyone anymore into accepting ultimatums that offer nothing in return.
  15. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    23 Mar '15 14:47
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "He also said that everything should and would be done to stop them from obtaining nukes"
    yes, he is still saying that.

    he is suggesting that a way to do that is provide them with nuclear power plants in exchange for promise to not develop nukes, access to UN inspections and so on. the deal could also include lifting sanctions.


    we do not know yet ...[text shortened]... vious the US cannot bully anyone anymore into accepting ultimatums that offer nothing in return.
    So Iran is a terrorist nation that we should trust by lifting sanctions and crossing our fingers they will do the right thing?

    Is that what you are saying?

    Do you even agree with Obama's comment that Iran was a terrorist nation?
Back to Top