Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Obama getting pwned.

Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 8:00:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Even if U.S. President Barack Obama dares to repeat threats of tougher sanction against us as much as 10 times, we will still be determined to pursue our enrichment program, but with a much faster pace"

-Ali Larijani (Speaker of the Parliament of Iran)

http://thehill.com...

I lol'd when I read this.

Iran is basically saying: "We'll step up enrichment every time Obama bitches."
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 8:16:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 8:14:15 PM, bringoutyourdead wrote:
I say sanction them to death. Cut all trade with the country.

That will make them like us!

</sarcasm>
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 8:22:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
We should embargo them, but for other reasons.

Wait to see if they are telling the truth about this, cause first we should have Obama threaten sanction approximately 5 times a minute on webcam for the next few days in the hopes that they accelerate to unsafe levels and accidentally nuke themselves.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 8:22:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Last time I checked, Iran wasn't highly invested in trade with the United States, so I don't think sanctions have any real policy effect on Iran.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
bringoutyourdead
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 8:23:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Who says the purpose of sanctions is to get them to like us?

You either:

1. Overthrow the dictator

2. Persuade by politics

3. Stop all trade and get surrounding nations to do the same.

The goal is to end the nuclear program, not to be liked.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 8:24:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 8:16:50 PM, Nags wrote:
At 2/13/2010 8:14:15 PM, bringoutyourdead wrote:
I say sanction them to death. Cut all trade with the country.

That will make them like us!

</sarcasm>

Our goal isn't to make them like us at this point in time.

But I think he is bluffing. Since what is the point of saying something like this? Unless it is to call us on our bluff?

Saying this is basically saying, "you guys are weak! You need to step it up if you want us to give in!" It's just asking us to attack or bluffing to get us to not bother to raise the sanctions. If they really didn't think that raising sanctions would do anything, they'd keep their mouths shut and keep moving forward.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
bringoutyourdead
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 8:25:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 8:22:31 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Last time I checked, Iran wasn't highly invested in trade with the United States, so I don't think sanctions have any real policy effect on Iran.

The US has the highest GDP and consumer consumption of any economy in the world. Also sanctions involve having China, Russia, France to stop trade.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 8:28:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Today, Iran possesses a good manufacturing industry, despite restrictions imposed by foreign countries.

Sanctions fail.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 8:29:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 8:23:08 PM, bringoutyourdead wrote:
Who says the purpose of sanctions is to get them to like us?

No one. Sanctions do the opposite.

You either:

Foreign policy fail in 3.. 2.. 1..

1. Overthrow the dictator

Iran doesn't have a dictator.

2. Persuade by politics

What? Persuasion with Iran doesn't have a history of working.

3. Stop all trade and get surrounding nations to do the same.

The US doesn't trade enough with Iran for it to have any effect. Surrounding nations won't join, they're on Iran's side, not the United States.

The goal is to end the nuclear program, not to be liked.

If we were liked then we wouldn't have to worry about the nuclear program, now would we?
bringoutyourdead
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 8:41:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 8:29:18 PM, Nags wrote:
At 2/13/2010 8:23:08 PM, bringoutyourdead wrote:
Who says the purpose of sanctions is to get them to like us?

No one. Sanctions do the opposite.

You either:

Foreign policy fail in 3.. 2.. 1..

1. Overthrow the dictator

Iran doesn't have a dictator.

Really?


2. Persuade by politics

What? Persuasion with Iran doesn't have a history of working.

I agree.

3. Stop all trade and get surrounding nations to do the same.

The US doesn't trade enough with Iran for it to have any effect. Surrounding nations won't join, they're on Iran's side, not the United States.

From 1950 until 1978, the United States was Iran's foremost economic and military partner; thus participating greatly in the modernization of its infrastructure and industry.[25][26] After the Iranian Revolution in 1979 though, the United States ended its economic and diplomatic ties, banned Iranian oil imports and froze $12 billion of its assets. In 1996, the U.S. Government passed the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) which prohibits U.S. (and non-U.S. companies) from investing and trading with Iran for more than $20 million annually,[141] with the exception, since 2000, for items like pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, caviar and Persian rugs.

The goal is to end the nuclear program, not to be liked.

If we were liked then we wouldn't have to worry about the nuclear program, now would we?

Apparently you haven't heard some of the things that flies from Iran's president's mouth.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 8:45:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 8:41:24 PM, bringoutyourdead wrote:
Really?

Yes, really.

I agree.

Ok, then you drop this point.

From 1950 until 1978, the United States was Iran's foremost economic and military partner; thus participating greatly in the modernization of its infrastructure and industry.[25][26] After the Iranian Revolution in 1979 though, the United States ended its economic and diplomatic ties, banned Iranian oil imports and froze $12 billion of its assets. In 1996, the U.S. Government passed the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) which prohibits U.S. (and non-U.S. companies) from investing and trading with Iran for more than $20 million annually,[141] with the exception, since 2000, for items like pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, caviar and Persian rugs.

Thanks for proving my point. The US and Iran are currently not trading partners.

Apparently you haven't heard some of the things that flies from Iran's president's mouth.

Like what?
bringoutyourdead
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:12:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 8:45:06 PM, Nags wrote:
At 2/13/2010 8:41:24 PM, bringoutyourdead wrote:
Really?

Yes, really.

So killing hundreds possibly thousands of your citizens because they are expressing freedom of speech doesn't make someone a dictator how?

I agree.

Ok, then you drop this point.

Thus my advocation of sanctions vs ignoring the problem.

From 1950 until 1978, the United States was Iran's foremost economic and military partner; thus participating greatly in the modernization of its infrastructure and industry.[25][26] After the Iranian Revolution in 1979 though, the United States ended its economic and diplomatic ties, banned Iranian oil imports and froze $12 billion of its assets. In 1996, the U.S. Government passed the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) which prohibits U.S. (and non-U.S. companies) from investing and trading with Iran for more than $20 million annually,[141] with the exception, since 2000, for items like pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, caviar and Persian rugs.

Thanks for proving my point. The US and Iran are currently not trading partners.

LOL no this completely disproves your point, it shows that the US and Iran were close trading partners until sanctions.

Apparently you haven't heard some of the things that flies from Iran's president's mouth.

Like what?

"In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don't have that like in your country. ... In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have this."

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

accused Israel of establishing a "cruel and repressive racist regime" over the Palestinians, and said "Zionism" had penetrated mass media and financial systems to extend its domination over other countries.

"There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world, ... The World without Zionism."

"Today, they have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets."[220] The quote has also translated as "They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets."[221]

In August 2006, the Iranian leader was reported to have again cast doubt on the existence of the Holocaust, this time in a letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, where he wrote that the Holocaust may have been invented by the Allied powers to embarrass Germany.[223] During the same month, in a public speech that aired on the Iranian News Channel (IRINN), Ahmadinejad reportedly implied that Zionists may not be human beings, saying "They have no boundaries, limits, or taboos when it comes to killing human beings. Who are they? Where did they come from? Are they human beings? ‘They are like cattle, nay, more misguided.'"[224]

On 26 October 2005 Ahmadinejad gave a speech at a conference in Tehran entitled "World Without Zionism". According to widely published translations, he agreed with a statement he attributed to Ayatollah Khomeini that the "occupying regime" had to be removed, and referred to it as a "disgraceful stain [on] the Islamic world", that needed to be "wiped from the pages of history."[175]
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:21:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 9:12:59 PM, twsurber wrote:
Simply have an SF or SEAL team positively identify the enrichment site(s), and drop a tomahawk (s).

Um, I don't get it. Are you seriously referring to a Native American handaxe?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:25:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 9:21:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/13/2010 9:12:59 PM, twsurber wrote:
Simply have an SF or SEAL team positively identify the enrichment site(s), and drop a tomahawk (s).

Um, I don't get it. Are you seriously referring to a Native American handaxe?

lmfao
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:38:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Iran is an interesting quagmire for President Obama. Despite what the Speaker says, there has been quite a large amount of progress on dealing with Iran. The most noteworthy thing is Iran's agreement to ship out uranium to Russia for refinement. This was something that the Iranians never budged on under Bush.

And for those that are unaware, that is a good thing. Russia is a pretty responsible partner in terms of dealing with Iran which, I now, seems counter-intuitive, but its true, because Russia doesn't want a nuclear-armed, ego-tripped Iran, more than anyone else does. This agreement is an important step towards setting up a working compromise with Iran, whereby Russia agrees to refine the uranium for power production, ship it to Iran, and keeps all the stuff that Iran could use to create bombs.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:44:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 9:38:37 PM, Volkov wrote:
Iran is an interesting quagmire for President Obama. Despite what the Speaker says, there has been quite a large amount of progress on dealing with Iran. The most noteworthy thing is Iran's agreement to ship out uranium to Russia for refinement. This was something that the Iranians never budged on under Bush.

You assume that Iran sent out all it's uranium.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:51:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 9:44:07 PM, Nags wrote:
You assume that Iran sent out all it's uranium.

Well of course, I'm naive. :P

No, I don't assume that. I don't think the Obama administration does either. However, this deal in place is an agreement between these parties, which means that if there surfaces evidence of Iran holding back some of its uranium, the international community has a bigger stick to hit them with. Sanctions against Iran for doing its program without a contract breach is one thing - sanctions against Iran for doing its program in breach of a contract is another. There will be more support in the latter to actually do something, especially after the carrot fails.
bringoutyourdead
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 10:23:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 9:51:56 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/13/2010 9:44:07 PM, Nags wrote:
You assume that Iran sent out all it's uranium.

Well of course, I'm naive. :P

No, I don't assume that. I don't think the Obama administration does either. However, this deal in place is an agreement between these parties, which means that if there surfaces evidence of Iran holding back some of its uranium, the international community has a bigger stick to hit them with. Sanctions against Iran for doing its program without a contract breach is one thing - sanctions against Iran for doing its program in breach of a contract is another. There will be more support in the latter to actually do something, especially after the carrot fails.

aka it just is the appearance of an agreement, not any real progress
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 10:27:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 10:23:03 PM, bringoutyourdead wrote:
aka it just is the appearance of an agreement, not any real progress

As I noted in an earlier post that you conveniently ignored, as is usual, it is progress because something must have happened with the negotiations in order for Iran to accept this deal, a deal that they never made any movements towards under Bush. Plus, it gives leverage to the US, Russia, and the EU to do something if Iran doesn't follow the rules set out in the agreement. They would now have justification to impose truly harsh sanctions against Iran - including stopping all oil exports.

That's progress. Better than Bush ever had.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2010 5:15:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Technically I do not mind an Islamic state gaining power equal to that of some powerful Western states, merely because it saddens me to see how defenseless Muslims are when bigots from the West invade lands of Muslims and force them to live under a worse state than before.

On the other side, I am very much against nuclear weapons. I think it is horrible to think about the fact that they can destroy life [in general] on Earth, even if it's a regional war between India and Pakistan. The Iranian government know very well that a nuclear war between them or any other country would be a defeat for both parties. The worst thing is that they would probably work together with North Korea, and chain reactions are catastrophic. Russia does not support dependent states within Georgia [Abkhazia and South Ossetia], but the West does, therefore this could possibly make Russia join Iran's side, which would also be North Korea's. Ad infinitum...

Therefore I think Iran should stop developing their own defeat; bombs that will be just as heavy on their own land as if they were dropped on another. Rather work with the world about abolishing nuclear weapons, and invest in military that they can catch a glance of victory with.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2010 10:25:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/19/2010 5:15:14 AM, Mirza wrote:
Technically I do not mind an Islamic state gaining power equal to that of some powerful Western states, merely because it saddens me to see how defenseless Muslims are when bigots from the West invade lands of Muslims and force them to live under a worse state than before.

On the other side, I am very much against nuclear weapons. I think it is horrible to think about the fact that they can destroy life [in general] on Earth, even if it's a regional war between India and Pakistan. The Iranian government know very well that a nuclear war between them or any other country would be a defeat for both parties. The worst thing is that they would probably work together with North Korea, and chain reactions are catastrophic. Russia does not support dependent states within Georgia [Abkhazia and South Ossetia], but the West does, therefore this could possibly make Russia join Iran's side, which would also be North Korea's. Ad infinitum...

Therefore I think Iran should stop developing their own defeat; bombs that will be just as heavy on their own land as if they were dropped on another. Rather work with the world about abolishing nuclear weapons, and invest in military that they can catch a glance of victory with.

Plus it's hypocritical for the US to force other countries to get rid of their nukes while they have like the largest stockpile of them(not only that, but they actually used them in combat). Russia too. They better not be preaching for other countries to get rid of their nukes unless they're getting rid of theirs too.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2010 10:28:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/19/2010 10:25:12 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:

Plus it's hypocritical for the US to force other countries to get rid of taheir nukes while they have like the largest stockpile of them(not only that, but they actually used them in combat). Russia too. They better not be preaching for other countries to get rid of their nukes unless they're getting rid of theirs too.

Well unlike the crazy Divinely "inspired" D*cktator Mullahs of Iran, our Nukes are controlled by usually non-crazy elected politicians, and more specifically very grounded and stable military officers.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2010 10:28:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/19/2010 10:25:12 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Plus it's hypocritical for the US to force other countries to get rid of their nukes while they have like the largest stockpile of them(not only that, but they actually used them in combat). Russia too. They better not be preaching for other countries to get rid of their nukes unless they're getting rid of theirs too.

I'd rather democracys like the US have nuclear weapons than any dictatorship like Iran which thinks launching nukes will gain them instant access to 72 virgins.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2010 12:17:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/19/2010 10:28:26 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 2/19/2010 10:25:12 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Plus it's hypocritical for the US to force other countries to get rid of their nukes while they have like the largest stockpile of them(not only that, but they actually used them in combat). Russia too. They better not be preaching for other countries to get rid of their nukes unless they're getting rid of theirs too.

I'd rather democracys like the US have nuclear weapons than any dictatorship like Iran which thinks launching nukes will gain them instant access to 72 virgins.

72 grapes you mean? :D lol