• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Will Romney Invade Iran?

Simon W. Moon said:
Though the whole Hitler= Hussein thing had already been retired as untenable.
Click to expand...


No, he probably didn't have the potential to be THAT big of a general threat... but now we'll never know, and I'm okay with that.


It was actually intended as a reminder of at least one occasion, when it was very important that we intervened in the affairs of other nations, and what the consequences of excessive isolationism could be.
 
Goshin said:
No, he probably didn't have the potential to be THAT big of a general threat... but now we'll never know, and I'm okay with that.


It was actually intended as a reminder of at least one occasion, when it was very important that we intervened in the affairs of other nations, and what the consequences of excessive isolationism could be.
Click to expand...

No, he definitely at no point was even close to having that level of threat.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Meh, I think the the military option should always be on the table. However, generally in these circumstances, if you have to resort to military force, you ****ed up somewhere along the line beforehand.
Click to expand...

So....Libya then?

Syria?
 
Nah, I don't think he will, he probably wouldn't make it past the Iranian border, unless he disguised himself as a backpacker...
 
He may forget where he was going and end up in the wrong country anyway :)
 
Goshin said:
Quite so, quite so. We should stop lying about why we invade these countries, overthrow their rightful dicatorship, then rebuild them and institute democratic governments, then pull out our troops and leave the country to the control of its own citizens.


The next Third Reich that rears its ugly head is someone ELSE's problem, so there.

:roll:
Click to expand...

I suppose a good point with these modern wars is America is in from start to finish, rather than letting other countries do all the hard work first.
 
Goshin said:
Quite so, quite so. We should stop lying about why we invade these countries, overthrow their rightful dicatorship, then rebuild them and institute democratic governments, then pull out our troops and leave the country to the control of its own citizens.


The next Third Reich that rears its ugly head is someone ELSE's problem, so there.

:roll:
Click to expand...

dear goshin

are you making irony or not?:)
 
Last edited:
Simon W. Moon said:
I would love to tell the entire ME to get stuffed. The ME complicates our "life" as a country too much.
Click to expand...

i'd certainly like to not be beholden to them for energy.

a country of our size and scope without the capability of producing its own energy is a national security disaster waiting to happen.
 
ı agree with the fact that every state has the right to defend itself in case of an attack...but who attacks US?,if Israel is in danger and threatened by İran,it should defend itself ,US has no reasonable point in invading another state..
 
Goshin said:
No, he probably didn't have the potential to be THAT big of a general threat... but now we'll never know, and I'm okay with that.
Click to expand...
If by "probably didn't have the potential" you mean that there was no indication whatsoever that Iraq was a world class industrialized nation which could wage war on a global scale as Nazi Germany was and did, then I'd agree.
Goshin said:
It was actually intended as a reminder of at least one occasion, when it was very important that we intervened in the affairs of other nations, and what the consequences of excessive isolationism could be.
Click to expand...
I'd be fine with going to war only with countries that are legitimate threats as Nazi Germany was.
 
In more amusing news: Perry would end aid to Israel by cutting foreign aid to zero.

Seriously. I can name some users here who I think have the combined intelligence of a jellyfish who are smarter than Perry.
 
I think our new strategy is to support rebels (give money) to overthrow their government similar to Libya. Will invade Iran if these measures fail. Headline will be "Evil Iran kills it's own citizens" or something to that nature. Either way, a conflict with Iran is inevitable unless we elect a peace candidate. Although im pessimistic even if we do that something won't be stage for us to enter a conflict. Both parties are pro-war anyway.
 
Last edited:
roughdraft274 said:
Here's the way I'm looking at it. It is not in our best interest for countries like Iran to have nuclear weapons. It's just not and I think everyone would agree they feel safer knowing they don't have that ability. However, if that is truly our goal, to prevent them from building WMD's, then any future military mission should have that as it's stated goal. Any pre-emptive combat in the future should involve a small ground force and a heavy air presence that focuses on highly suspected nuclear facilities. Destroy them, get out of dodge. Even then we had better have a very good reason and very good intelligence to go off of.
Click to expand...

see that's why I don't get OC's question. You don't need an invasion (or a nuclear strike) to take out or seriously set back Iran's nuclear program. Hell, someone did some fairly good damage with a computer virus and a couple of targeted assassinations a while back.
 
Last edited:
Simon W. Moon said:
I'd be fine with going to war only with countries that are legitimate threats as Nazi Germany was.
Click to expand...

....not sure if you realize what you're actually saying....
 
Simon W. Moon said:
I would love to tell the entire ME to get stuffed. The ME complicates our "life" as a country too much. We compromise a little here and a little there and in the end, the US end up in bed with unsavory characters. We end sharing some portion of the culpability of the terrible things they do to one another over there.
Click to expand...

....it's almost as if we should open up everything here to drilling..... :smackforehead: wait a minute! that's a brilliant idea!
 
I can't conceive of any scenario (other than a proven/direct homeland attack) where the US would even consider putting boots on the ground in Iran.
 
struggling...... to respond...... can't..... stop...... staring.......
 
OscarB63 said:
you mean excuses like I'mabaddenimjob's statement that he wants to wipe Israel off the map?
Click to expand...
The mistranslation that never dies...

cpwill said:
....it's almost as if we should open up everything here to drilling..... :smackforehead: wait a minute! that's a brilliant idea!
Click to expand...

That will take decades and not be enough! :smacks forehead: keep drinking the V8!
 
The question should be not if Romeny would invade Iran, but how.... Through the mountains of Afghanistan? No bases in Iraq after 1. January, and Saudi Arabia aint bordering Iran. Any attack from sea will have massive costs in lives, since Iran can take pot shots at US ships from land in the Hormuz Straits..
 
MKULTRABOY said:
That will take decades and not be enough! :smacks forehead: keep drinking the V8!
Click to expand...

actually it won't and there is more oil in the rocky mountains alone than there is in saudi arabia :smacksforehead: thanks for playing!
 
cpwill said:
actually it won't and there is more oil in the rocky mountains alone than there is in saudi arabia :smacksforehead: thanks for playing!
Click to expand...
Where does this info come from exactly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom