• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • 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.

Realistic solutions for dealing with the Iran problem

Karmashock said:
no, I've read enough of your posts to know you've got a problem with the jews.
Click to expand...

Rather then painting with such a wide brush - how about manning up and pointing out the posts in question?
 
Moderator's Warning:


Before this thread becomes just one more thread about the Middle East that devolved into something other than what it is supposed to be, all parties need to cease all exponentially growing innuendos. Individuals that wish to turn this into yet another thread to bash or defend jews in Israel will be bounced.
 
rivrrat said:
And yet the US spends billions a year to maintain and modernize nuclear forces. We have not decreased our nuclear arsenal, we're making it better.

Where's the outrage? Where's the righteous indignation? Where's the thread discusing what "to do" about the USA and their NPT violations?
Click to expand...
I agree wholeheartedly. Everyone should totally eliminate nuclear arsenals. I am a member of the Federation of American Scientists which is dedicated to ending nuclear proliferation and bringing about total nuclear disarmament.

The only reason I soley address Iran in this thread is because this thread is purposefully Iran-oriented per the thread title. You are more than welcome to author a thread about the US nuclear arsenal in the appropriate forum.
 
Tashah said:
I agree wholeheartedly. Everyone should totally eliminate nuclear arsenals. I am a member of the Federation of American Scientists which is dedicated to ending nuclear proliferation and bringing about total nuclear disarmament.

The only reason I soley address Iran in this thread is because this thread is purposefully Iran-oriented per the thread title. You are more than welcome to author a thread about the US nuclear arsenal in the appropriate forum.
Click to expand...

And I voiced my opinion about Iran based on the world view about other countries. If other countries can have nukes, so can Iran, IMO. That is my opinion. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. And a country such as the US - who is the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons - and who continues to create nuclear weapons despite the NPT, is completely unjustified in demanding (via the UN or otherwise) that Iran stop their nuclear program.
 
Tashah said:
First, some current reality.


ABC News: Iran may produce first nuclear bomb by 2009

Secondly, knowledge in three critical areas is necessary to understand this complex situation.

1) A technical understanding of the nuclear fuel cycle for power generation.
2) A technical understanding of methods to enrich uranium and plutonium.
3) An understanding of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and methods used by the IAEA to detect NPT violations.

Most posters at DP lack this knowledge-base and technical expertise.
Click to expand...

Tashah, you hit the nail right on the head there with me.:3oops:
 
rivrrat said:
And I voiced my opinion about Iran based on the world view about other countries. If other countries can have nukes, so can Iran, IMO. That is my opinion. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. And a country such as the US - who is the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons - and who continues to create nuclear weapons despite the NPT, is completely unjustified in demanding (via the UN or otherwise) that Iran stop their nuclear program.
Click to expand...
Your opinion is always valued, and I agree that it is disingenuous doublespeak.

Nations that already have nuclear weapons are disinclined to give them up. This is a major problem that the IAEA and the international community refuse to confront. India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea each acquired their nuclear capability surreptitiously, and in some cases illegally. This situation needs to be addressed by the world community... and the sooner the better.

Per ongoing proliferation such as Iran... once the nuclear genie is out of Pandora's Box, it cannot easily be returned. Disarmament experts are of the opinion (and rightly so) that once a nation acquires nuclear weapons, it is almost impossible to convince them to disarm. The lone exception here being South Africa. The working doctrine of the IAEA is to first prevent new WMD states, and then concentrate world opinion and pressure on the existant WMD states.

It seems to me that we need a different approach, as present efforts are not successfully working on any level.
 
rivrrat said:
And I voiced my opinion about Iran based on the world view about other countries. If other countries can have nukes, so can Iran, IMO. That is my opinion. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. And a country such as the US - who is the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons - and who continues to create nuclear weapons despite the NPT, is completely unjustified in demanding (via the UN or otherwise) that Iran stop their nuclear program.
Click to expand...

Just what is it about "survival" that doesn't make sense to you?

Sure we are the only nation that had used nuclear weapons. And given the fact that instead of dropping them around the world on our enemies ever since, we have sent American Marines and soldiers abroad to fight bleed and die. We have proven to be quite responsible in our ownership. Of course, there is also the fact that we developed them in a race against the Germans.

What is good for the goose is not good for the gander. I own a gun. I do not think a maniac across the street with a history of hatred, terrorist support, and boasting to wipe another house off of the map has show the responsible to own one himself. This is not a campus classroom led by philosophical instruction and we are not united in global peace and prosperity. We have every right to identify a country that would use such weapons to harm us or an ally. And the threat from a nuclear Iran is not a launch as so many seem to have simplistic focus on. The threat is the tens of millions of Radicals that cheer at events like 9/11 and the terrorists within that would destroy themselves just to please his vision of a vengeful god. A nuclear armed Iran led by embittered Mullahs in Tehran could easily slip a device to one of their "martyrs" and we wouldn't know it until millions of Americans or other county's population perished under a cloud.

And what will our response be? Wait for another as we launch investigations against an entire Middle East that send half hearted condolensces and deny any responsibility for their creations? Or will we simply launch our own weapons and wipe out half of the Middle Eastern desert to deny the lords of terror another shot to give the "West what they deserve?"

This is the threat. And this is the fear of a nuclear armed Iran. Apparantly even our "allies" in Europe and our Russian and Chinese others have the same appreciations for the nature of this enemy. This is the real world we live in.

The question now, in present day (as is the thread's), is what do we do to prevent a nuclear armed Iran?
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
Just what is it about "survival" that doesn't make sense to you?

Sure we are the only nation that had used nuclear weapons. And given the fact that instead of dropping them around the world on our enemies ever since we have sent American Marines and soldiers abroad to fight bleed and die,...we have proven to be quite responsible in our ownership. Of course, there is also the fact that we developed them in a race against the Germans.

What is good for the goose is not good for the gander. I own a gun. I do not think a maniac across the street with a history of hatred, terrorist support, and boasting to wipe another house off of the map has show the responsible to own one himself. This is not a campus classroom led by philosophical instruction and we are united in global peace and prosperity. We have every right to identify a country that would use such weapons to harm us or an ally. And the threat from a nuclear Iran is not a launch as so many seem to have simplistic focus on. The threat is the tens of millions of Radicals that cheer at events like 9/11 and the terrorists within that would destroy themselves just to please his vision of a vengeful god. A nuclear armed Iran led by embittered Mullahs in Tehran could easily slip a device to one of their "martyrs" and we wouldn't know it until millions of Americans or other county's population perished under a cloud.

And what will our response be? Wait for another as we launch investigations against an entire Middle East that send half hearted condolensces and deny any responsibility for their creations? Or will we simply launch our own weapons and wipe out half of the Middle Eastern desert to deny the lords of terror another shot to give the "West what they deserve?"

This is the threat. And this is the fear of a nuclear armed Iran. Apparantly even our "allies" in Europe and our Russian and Chinese others have the same appreciations for the nature of this enemy. This is the real world we live in.
Click to expand...

ALL the bullets are right on tagret!
GySgt said:
The question now, in present day (as is the thread's), is what do we do to prevent a nuclear armed Iran?
Click to expand...
1. Get US troops together in Iraq and send them to attack Iran.
2. Dismantle Nuclear facilities and the gov-nt in Iran
3. Take 360 defense position in Iran.
4. Iraqi’s goes into genocide and one side wins.
5. Leave Iran and attack and dismantle the winning side in Iraq.
6. Take 360 defense position in Iraq.
7. Iranians goes into genocide and one side wins.
8. Go to step 1. (but step 7 will not occur – because the winning side would be committing suicide)

In 10 years we will have the same amount or lesser of casualties as we WILL have whatever we do – surge, withdraw or use UN. We will not sustain more casualties, but we will win ‘’the war on terror. ‘’ We will walk in airports as we used to do… All the casualties will be sustained within 3 first years.
In 3 years we would have peace and friendship in ME. In 10 years we would have rebuilt economy and beginning of prosperity.
 
justone said:
ALL the bullets are right on tagret!

1. Get US troops together in Iraq and send them to attack Iran.
2. Dismantle Nuclear facilities and the gov-nt in Iran
3. Take 360 defense position in Iran.
4. Iraqi’s goes into genocide and one side wins.
5. Leave Iran and attack and dismantle the winning side in Iraq.
6. Take 360 defense position in Iraq.
7. Iranians goes into genocide and one side wins.
8. Go to step 1. (but step 7 will not occur – because the winning side would be committing suicide)

In 10 years we will have the same amount or lesser of casualties as we WILL have whatever we do – surge, withdraw or use UN. We will not sustain more casualties, but we will win ‘’the war on terror. ‘’ We will walk in airports as we used to do… All the casualties will be sustained within 3 first years.
In 3 years we would have peace and friendship in ME. In 10 years we would have rebuilt economy and beginning of prosperity.
Click to expand...

The tragic thing about how we are currently trying to soothe this determined enemy away, is that in the long run we will have sufferred much more than we had to and the civilian casualties will have amounted to unnecessary numbers. The lessons of Iraq should be clear. A strong hammer accompanied with a strong presence - one that gives the enemy absolutely no confusion of his defeat - is how to deal with Iran.

With today's tactics of facing down an identified enemy, we would have drawn WWII out for many years instead of trampling our way across Europe and bringing it to a close in a year and a half. Were we too afraid of global opinion and heightened moral levels, the war in Europe would have lasted much longer than it had to and many more would have died.

The object of war is to win....not necessarily follow the rules. Victory is forgiven rather quickly.
 
GySgt said:
The tragic thing about how we are currently trying to soothe this determined enemy away, is that in the long run we will have sufferred much more than we had to and the civilian casualties will have amounted to unnecessary numbers. The lessons of Iraq should be clear. A strong hammer accompanied with a strong presence - one that gives the enemy absolutely no confusion of his defeat - is how to deal with Iran.

With today's tactics of facing down an identified enemy, we would have drawn WWII out for many years instead of trampling our way across Europe and bringing it to a close in a year and a half. Were we too afraid of global opinion and heightened moral levels, the war in Europe would have lasted much longer than it had to and many more would have died.

The object of war is to win....not necessarily follow the rules. Victory is forgiven rather quickly.
Click to expand...

Your express views of a real pacifist, as it often happens to men in military or with military experience. You are right, it IS a tragedy and it makes me sad, if not sick.

It is like we have war with an objective of having war, instead of the objective of victory and peace. Victory is always glorious and it brings peace. Our troops, military officers and commanders are not supposed to fight and die for war, but for peace; their purpose is to be peacemakers and peacekeepers. This is their profession and their job.

It is like the world up side down, when military is not allowed to do its job bringing victory to us and peace to the world. If we do not allow military to do its job why do we have it all? Why would we go to any war without the objective of achieving peace by all means? Just to entertain TV viewers? Are our soldiers some kind of gladiators as some college educated aristocracy tries to impose on us? I know, these are meaningless rhetoric questions, but in some way I feel like letting some steam out,… just in order not to feel so sick.. I am a pacifist, too.
 
GySgt said:
The tragic thing about how we are currently trying to soothe this determined enemy away, is that in the long run we will have sufferred much more than we had to and the civilian casualties will have amounted to unnecessary numbers. The lessons of Iraq should be clear. A strong hammer accompanied with a strong presence - one that gives the enemy absolutely no confusion of his defeat - is how to deal with Iran.

With today's tactics of facing down an identified enemy, we would have drawn WWII out for many years instead of trampling our way across Europe and bringing it to a close in a year and a half. Were we too afraid of global opinion and heightened moral levels, the war in Europe would have lasted much longer than it had to and many more would have died.

The object of war is to win....not necessarily follow the rules. Victory is forgiven rather quickly.
Click to expand...

The lesson in Iraq should be clear. But apparently it is not, and we will be doomed to repeat it again, I suppose.

The lesson is do not commit troops to an occupation or long term mission based on false pretenses or questionable legitimacy. Those you mean to occupy will more likely not support you, and the American public in general will not stand for it over the long term

Germany and WWII has absolutely no analogy to Iraq. In WWII, the enemy was a whole nation at war, and their guys wore uniforms clearly identifying them our opponents. There were clear and identifiable targets. There was not even a doubt as to the legitimacy of America's engagement in that war.

We tampled over Iraq far faster that we did in Europe, because the Germans, even after being deciminated by the Ruskies, were a far more capable foe than the Iraqis. We crushed the Iraqi military and won the Iraq war in weeks.

But it was the illegitimacy of the attack based on a "mistake", the displacement of the ruling minority, and the consequent occupation by infidels of their country that have generated the resistance in Iraq and fueled the fire of anti-American radicalism throughout the region.

There is no identifiable target in Iraq. By definition, a successful occupation requires at least a compiant, if not supportive, local population, which you do not get by "not necessarily follow the rules" and killing innocent civilians.

Those were the clear lessons from Vietnam, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, and now Iraq. If not the history of European colonialism before that.

But lessons aren't learned, and Iraq will probably not be the last of the list.
 
Last edited:
Iriemon said:
The lesson in Iraq should be clear. But apparently it is not, and we will be doomed to repeat it again, I suppose. The lesson is do not commit troops to an occupation or long term mission based on false pretenses or questionable legitimacy.
Click to expand...



This is the example of the world up side down. The military is not to question legitimacy of a war. The military does not have representatives in Congress and Senate. Questioning legitimacy of a war brings only a defeat in a war. This is your agenda, to bring a defeat. False pretenses are a very proper way of conducting a war (just to remind you: we are in war with Islamists) - it is warfare science 101. The military is to bring victory and end to a war. The military does not know long or short missions, the military is to bring the victory and peace in the shortest way with as less casualties as possible. And a part of the job is to calculate casualties, prepare hospitals and burial teams and caskets for so many thousands. How long is the shortest way and the # of casualties? –it depends on many variables and often those variables are very fluid. This is the skill of a commander is - to react to unexpected changes in a proper way.


Military should not be used to occupy, but to bring peace, and it must be allowed to bring peace in a professional way.

Iriemon said:
Germany and WWII has absolutely no analogy to Iraq. In WWII, the enemy was a whole nation at war, and their guys wore uniforms clearly identifying them our opponents. There were clear and identifiable targets.
Click to expand...

It is false:
1. there was a plan and there were werewolves, - the difference is that now you question legitimacy of military ways to deal with them, - by crashing and tramping and rooting them out before they bite turning others into werewolves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf

Iriemon said:
There was not even a doubt as to the legitimacy of America's engagement in that war.
Click to expand...

If a doubt about legitimacy of acts authorized by Congress and Senate is now legitimate in US, we cannot count on any victory in any war. Such kind of doubts was dealt very swiftly within US in WWII. You would have not opened your mouth.
(Roosevelt did quite a job against isolationists – but it is another subject)
Iriemon said:
We tampled over Iraq far faster that we did in Europe, because the Germans, even after being deciminated by the Ruskies, were a far more capable foe than the Iraqis. We crushed the Iraqi military and won the Iraq war in weeks.
Click to expand...

Military did the same – what military is supposed to do - to tramp, crash, get initiative, win, and this is all SySgt is asking about – to let military do its job.

Iriemon said:
But it was the illegitimacy of the attack based on a "mistake",
Click to expand...

ALL intelligence ALWAYS pre-supposes a mistake, it is a property of intelligence.

The Senate and the Congress knew a priory – it was a property of intelligence, they knew that intelligence was false, - because the intelligence is always false, it is never 100% correct.
Correction of the mistakes “on fly” is the task and skill of military commanders.

Iriemon said:
the displacement of the ruling minority, and the consequent occupation by infidels of their country that have generated the resistance in Iraq and fueled the fire of anti-American radicalism throughout the region.
Click to expand...

It is not true. First it was very quiet. Iraqis did not use to resist even to the ruling MINORITY. Then they tried ‘’peaceful demonstrations.’’ If military was allowed to do the job, it would have dealt with the demonstrations in the same way as it could do in Germany and/or Japan – bullets and arrests.

Iriemon said:
There is no identifiable target in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was – it was always possible to sort out a leader in those demonstrations and to arrest and to do what WWII military would do, especially when the leaders are wearing uniforms of imams, mullahs etc.
The situation created by questioning legitimacy of the war on Islamists is even more antimilitary –IT IS ABSOLOTELY CRAZY, UNREAL – it is like the military would be allowed to invade France and Italy (Iraq) in WWII, but some kind of peace treaty would be made with Germany (Iran).

Iriemon said:
By definition, a successful occupation requires at least a compiant, if not supportive, local population, which you do not get by "not necessarily follow the rules" and killing innocent civilians.
Click to expand...

The military does not kill innocent civilians. Wars do kill innocent civilians. Authorizing act of war Senators, including Hillary, were authorizing killing of innocent civilians.
And successful occupation of Germany was a result of killing millions of civilians by war. Germans and Japanese were terrorized and DEMORALISED. The civilians in Iraq were compliant for quite a while until the leaders figured out that the US military was not allowed to maintain the compliance in a professional way.



Iriemon said:
Those were the clear lessons from Vietnam, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, and now Iraq. If not the history of European colonialism before that.
Click to expand...

You are accusing US in colonization and that is the world upside down.

Iriemon said:
But lessons aren't learned, and Iraq will probably not be the last of the list.
Click to expand...

No it will not. The war started by Jihad will not be over until Jihad is crashed and trumped and DEMORALISED, the only difference is that you are demanding to loose as many American and Iraqi lives as possible before Jihad is crashed, when SySgt’s job is to minimize casualties and save as many lives as possible; and he wants to crash Jihad as soon as possible, while you are enjoying being in war with Jihad. Or may be you want to help Jihad? So far it looks like it is your goal.
 
justone said:
Your express views of a real pacifist, as it often happens to men in military or with military experience. You are right, it IS a tragedy and it makes me sad, if not sick.

It is like we have war with an objective of having war, instead of the objective of victory and peace. Victory is always glorious and it brings peace. Our troops, military officers and commanders are not supposed to fight and die for war, but for peace; their purpose is to be peacemakers and peacekeepers. This is their profession and their job.

It is like the world up side down, when military is not allowed to do its job bringing victory to us and peace to the world. If we do not allow military to do its job why do we have it all? Why would we go to any war without the objective of achieving peace by all means? Just to entertain TV viewers? Are our soldiers some kind of gladiators as some college educated aristocracy tries to impose on us? I know, these are meaningless rhetoric questions, but in some way I feel like letting some steam out,… just in order not to feel so sick.. I am a pacifist, too.
Click to expand...

Actually, you are assigning poetic terms and mission elequence to our roles. Our mission is quite simply to kill the enemy. The Marine Corps' role, specifically, is to win battles. Peace and security should also be the end statement, but such things are for the politicians.

By the way...did you call me a "pacifist?"
 
Iriemon said:
We tampled over Iraq far faster that we did in Europe, because the Germans, even after being deciminated by the Ruskies, were a far more capable foe than the Iraqis. We crushed the Iraqi military and won the Iraq war in weeks.
Click to expand...

You are still missing the point about this. While you continually reflect on the "unjust" and "illigitimacy" of the war in Iraq as if that is the sole reason for the stumbling about, you are still failing to recognize the enemy. What exactly about Iran makes it "just" and "legitimate?" Because they want the same capabilities that we have? If you identify the enemy (the tens of millions of Radicals that for cheer for their terrorists wihtin) and the environment they are bred, then such "just" reasons and such adherences to out dated "legitimacies" haven't a place in this effort.

Iraq never felt defeated. Germany did. And this is the difference.

We did not trample over Iraq. We dodged the major cities and spared as much life (to include our enemies) as possible just to face them in the form of an insurgency later. We hadn't the numbers to "trample" and even if we did, in a world where the media dictates our every movements, we would have catered to global opinion over doing what we know to be best in the long run.


Iriemon said:
There is no identifiable target in Iraq. By definition, a successful occupation requires at least a compiant, if not supportive, local population, which you do not get by "not necessarily follow the rules" and killing innocent civilians.
Click to expand...


And what is it about not following rules that means just killing off "innocent" civilians? The majority of Iraq was glad to see Saddam go. We had the populaiton and lost it to our refusals to conduct warfare the way we know how.

1) Aside from the campus theories of what is needed for a military occupation, the historical rules and our own demand a strong troop presence. Nothing else matters without it. The enemy had to have seen a "beat cop" on every corner.

2) By avoiding the cities where we would have faced off with militants in hiding and ensuring a few of our own deaths, we satisfied the world audience by acting in a manner that would minimize the civilan body count for the time being. As we saw in Iraq, this type of tactic merely kills them and us later and dooms the project.

3) By wincing at our efforts in Fallujah and pulling back for fear of global opinion after the media exaggerated events ran wild and our own politicians catered to their White House election rather than the mission at hand, we merely set the environment for Fallujah II, where we had to employ harsher tactics which killed more "innocent" civilians in the end. A solid military rule is to identify the target, determine the fire power necessary, and hit it with one step above it. This very much is a psycological effort across the Middle East. Our attacks should leave them breathless and even shock our allies. As we continue to see, by catering to the rules of warfare which civilians around the world and the media place upon us, we are merely setting up the death for later over time.

Iriemon said:
But lessons aren't learned, and Iraq will probably not be the last of the list.
Click to expand...

You've learned the wrong lessons. Anything is possible if you do it correctly. Ever since WWII, we have had trouble defeating an enemy. This is because we have not committed. In Korea, we were lagely alone because we were basically the last standing (beside Russia) as a power to act. The UN granted U.S. Marines to be Truman's world police force and American soldiers and Marines engaged in Korea. Because we were largely alone and we didn't fully commit, the country was split in half. In Vietnam, we were alone and we didn't commit. The country couldn't quite get it together and payed for it after we left. Then Somalia, then Kosovo, then Afghanistan, then Iraq.

And getting back on topic, we now face the same mistakes with Iran. When it is time, we will engage this effort largely alone. Those allies that do choose to stand beside us will send a minimum force and they will be given a mission that places them out of our way. Because the truth is that even if countries like France and Germany support us, they do it on the conditions that we do the majority of all the work (and then complain about a fractricide). This isn't pessimism. This is realitiy and historical. But what ever we do it will satisfy those that are thousands of miles away that voice opposition every time they see a dead civilian through real time media. And our politicians will cater to those opinions and thusly so will our tactics of warfare. No matter what we do with Iran, they will never feel the defeat that an enemy needs to feel if a conflict is to come to a decisive end and a successful occupation is to follow.
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
Actually, you are assigning poetic terms and mission elequence to our roles. Our mission is quite simply to kill the enemy. The Marine Corps' role, specifically, is to win battles. Peace and security should also be the end statement, but such things are for the politicians.

By the way...did you call me a "pacifist?"
Click to expand...

1. it is poetic.
2. it is your mission - not to be poetic.
3. It is not my mission, - you do your job well here.
4. I do call you a pacifist because your mission is to kill enemies of peace. You are not a murderer at all, as Billo wants to paint you.
5. I was steaming out my emotions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom