• 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!

PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

And the reason that I am not bothering to refute any of it is for the simple fact that when I go to dispute something I do my homework beforehand. And I don't feel like spending hours looking up and pointing at every little thing wrong with that site that I come across.

If you're disputing the inheritance of Hegemony by the US...
I suggest propelling yourself against a brick wall, as denying the wall is there is comparably accurate.
 
I didn't disagree he said it, my point was that it was irrelevant as evidenced by the lack of an official statement from the US or the UN that Iran was a military threat to the US.



If you cannot provide proof the US or the UN has stated Iran is a military threat, then it would indeed appear to be the end of this discussion.

You are suggesting that I prove your point. That is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Don't you understand we need to fight for Israel?

They are our only ally in the region.
You forgot to mention Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Pakistan, and Morocco. That's quite an omission.

Turkey is host to approximately 90 B61 nuclear bombs at Incirlik Air Base. Other allies include Qatar, where 3,500 US troops are based.
 
Last edited:
Tell ya what Catawba I'll tell you the problem that I had with the first paragraph that I read and then we'll just leave it at that as I am not going to go through the whole thing when there are already errors in the first paragraph.

The US maintains to this day over a dozen direct dependencies, the largest of which is Puerto Rico. Its military forces are active over most of the globe: at last audit about 226 countries have US military troops, 63 of which host American bases, while only 46 countries in the world have no US military presence - a projection of military power that makes the Roman, British, and Soviet empires pale in comparison. The bulk of this document will deal with what is alternatively referred to as "neo-colonialism", "hegemony", "proxy rule", or "informal empire": roughly, a system of "dual elite" political rule, in which domestic elites (the proxy) recieve backing from (are dependent on - to varying degrees) a foreign elite, and in return protect (to varying degrees) the foreign power's interests in the country (security, economic, or domestic political interests). This is, at least, the framework within which I use the terms - as it is generally accepted by students of history. To take an explanation cited by Ariel Cohen as "One of the more successful attempts made to create a coherent theory of empires" in Russian Imperialism:

First off there are 196 Countries in the world, not 226. So anything based off that number is going to be wrong.

Second it gives no frame of reference for just how many "troops" are in those countries. For all you know there is 1. Granted I'm sure there's a few more but generally any place that we have an embassy at there is going to be a few troops at that embassy for reasons of security for the US citizens stationed there. That is hardly a "a projection of military power" that that one paragraph says.
 
Tell ya what Catawba I'll tell you the problem that I had with the first paragraph that I read and then we'll just leave it at that as I am not going to go through the whole thing when there are already errors in the first paragraph.



First off there are 196 Countries in the world, not 226. So anything based off that number is going to be wrong.

Second it gives no frame of reference for just how many "troops" are in those countries. For all you know there is 1. Granted I'm sure there's a few more but generally any place that we have an embassy at there is going to be a few troops at that embassy for reasons of security for the US citizens stationed there. That is hardly a "a projection of military power" that that one paragraph says.


I agree.

The "author" of the site states clearly:


"Necessary Disclaimers

This is essentially just a collection of links, with some vague notes with links to where the information comes from, when and if it is, as such, available. I carry no pretense that it is authoritative: the web is a harsh mistress for anybody looking to read a little non-fiction. I'm trying my best though: the only thing new in the world is the history you don't know.

Objective interpretation is left as an exercise for the reader, as I'm obviously still getting a handle on that myself."



Mr. Buermann also cites snopes.com and Wikipedia as sources for his information.

His resume is attached together with his qualifications. Josh Buermann ....:lol:
 
Let me see if I have this straight. Its okay for Israel or the US to attack Iran because they violated a treaty, but its not ok for the Palestinians to attack Israel for violating a treaty?

By 'Palestinians', you mean terrorists?
 
Wait...so you're denying american hegemony.

It really depends on your definition of "hegemony". Is America a dominating force in the world? Most definitely. Does it try to influence other nations or society? Name me one country that doesn't...dominating or not. Hell, a single terrorist cell fits the definition of hegemony, as does a religious group.

Unfortenately when most speak about "American hegemony" they talk about it in the negative aspect. Catawba's own link mentions things like "projection of military power" insinuating that the US is trying to force the world into subjugation by means of subterfuge and behind the scene's conquests. So in this sense, no I don't believe in American hegemony. But I do believe that the normal, neutral definition of hegemony could be applied.
 
Last edited:
You are suggesting that I prove your point. That is ridiculous.


My point, that Iran is of no military threat to the US, is made by the absence of and such declaration of threat by the US or by the UN. You have yet to present in evidence to the contrary.

As David Stockman pointed out on GPS today, Iran is not part of the Axis of Evil, they are part of the Axis of Midevil, because they are so backward technologically.
 
I don't understand Iran. They are obviously crazy. You would have to be right? Do these guys really think they can fight off The United States? Countries like this scare the s**** out of me. Instead of giving up their nuclear program, they are prepared to go toe to toe with the world. I just don't get it. The leader of this country is obviously not putting his citizens well-being before his own urge to not be seen as weak. This is called psycho leadership.

A country like this possessing a nuclear weapon just cant happen. The middle east is still in the stone age of religion based terror and suppression. Our world will be a short one of these guys get nuclear.
 
Last edited:
My point, that Iran is of no military threat to the US, is made by the absence of and such declaration of threat by the US or by the UN. You have yet to present in evidence to the contrary.

As David Stockman pointed out on GPS today, Iran is not part of the Axis of Evil, they are part of the Axis of Midevil, because they are so backward technologically.

Doesn't matter how backward a country is when you have other countries that are not backward helping ya out.
 
Tell ya what Catawba I'll tell you the problem that I had with the first paragraph that I read and then we'll just leave it at that as I am not going to go through the whole thing when there are already errors in the first paragraph.



First off there are 196 Countries in the world, not 226. So anything based off that number is going to be wrong.

Second it gives no frame of reference for just how many "troops" are in those countries. For all you know there is 1. Granted I'm sure there's a few more but generally any place that we have an embassy at there is going to be a few troops at that embassy for reasons of security for the US citizens stationed there. That is hardly a "a projection of military power" that that one paragraph says.


Congratulations, you found an error in the number of countries in the world.


I guess that proves there's been no wars for US hegemony. Boy, you are good!!!
 
Last edited:
By 'Palestinians', you mean terrorists?

Oh, you want to go by the Iraq war definition of terrorists, people who resist invasion of their land. I see.
 
Doesn't matter how backward a country is when you have other countries that are not backward helping ya out.

If you wish to panic, knock yourself out. The US isn't and neither is the UN.
 
Congratulations, you found an error in the number of countries in the world.


I guess that proves there's been no wars for US hegemony. Boy, you are good!!!

Did I not say that I would point out errors? Did you not believe me when I said this? Is that not an error? Funny how you laught at one point and totally ignore the other point.
 
If you wish to panic, knock yourself out. The US isn't and neither is the UN.

Whose panicing? How many years has everyone been trying to talk Iran out of going nuclear? How many years have we had sanctions on them now? There does come a point when those things are obviously useless. How many more years are you willing to talk and sanction? Are you willing to wait until they DO have nuclear weapons?
 
Last edited:
This really makes me mad. What does Iran have to do to satisfy the United States that it is abandoning its efforts to make nuclear weapons? What proof do we have that they are even trying? They are being put in a no-win scenerio. And, yes, it is Iraq all over again. WMDs that didn't exist. Nuclear bombs that don't exist. And even if they do exist, what business is it of ours?

You don't want Iran to have nukes, not because of what the Iranian government will do with them, but what happens when others in the region react to them having them and what becomes of them when the Iran eventually becomes a failed state. Imagine Pakistan without a decent central government and a military structure thats actually able to keep things operating at least with a modicum of security and order. Thats what Iran will be once the government falls. Not to mention the 100s of proxy orginizations around the world that have intiment knowledge of Iranian military structures due to being arms of the Iraian Revultionary Guard.
 
My point, that Iran is of no military threat to the US, is made by the absence of and such declaration of threat by the US or by the UN. You have yet to present in evidence to the contrary.

As David Stockman pointed out on GPS today, Iran is not part of the Axis of Evil, they are part of the Axis of Midevil, because they are so backward technologically.




This was the statement which you have failed to rebut: Iranian ambassador to Moscow, Seyed Mahmoud-Reza Sajjadi declared that Iran has the capabilities to carry out military strikes on US interests around the globe.

Rather you have ignored the statement, decided to inject your own spurious interpretation and failed to provide a source.
 
Whose panicing? How many years has everyone been trying to talk Iran out of going nuclear? How many years have we had sanctions on them now? There does come a point when those things are obviously useless. How many more years are you willing to talk and sanction? Are you willing to wait until they DO have nuclear weapons?


I'm not panicing even if they do, we have 10,000 nukes and spend as much on the military as the rest of the world combined! It would be like a bear being afraid of an ant!
 
This was the statement which you have failed to rebut: Iranian ambassador to Moscow, Seyed Mahmoud-Reza Sajjadi declared that Iran has the capabilities to carry out military strikes on US interests around the globe.

Rather you have ignored the statement, decided to inject your own spurious interpretation and failed to provide a source.

I have not ignored I've told you repeatedly, it is irrelevant. The US does not determine military threat according to the opinion if the Iranian Ambassador.
 
I have not ignored I've told you repeatedly, it is irrelevant. The US does not determine military threat according to the opinion if the Iranian Ambassador.

Again it is the totality of the situation. "Director of the Russian Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation Mikhail Dmitriev in a meeting with Iranian Ambassador to Moscow Seyed Mahmoud Reza Sajjadi stressed that his country will continue its military and technical cooperation with Iran. Dmitriev said last November that Russia would continue military-technical cooperation with Iran in domains not included in the UN Security Council June 2010 Resolution."
 
I'm not panicing even if they do, we have 10,000 nukes and spend as much on the military as the rest of the world combined! It would be like a bear being afraid of an ant!

We don't have 10k nukes. We have 5k. And it doesn't matter how many nukes a country has. It only takes one to start a war.
 
Again it is the totality of the situation. "Director of the Russian Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation Mikhail Dmitriev in a meeting with Iranian Ambassador to Moscow Seyed Mahmoud Reza Sajjadi stressed that his country will continue its military and technical cooperation with Iran. Dmitriev said last November that Russia would continue military-technical cooperation with Iran in domains not included in the UN Security Council June 2010 Resolution."

Sorry, Iran is not pimple on the ass of America, militarily.
 
We don't have 10k nukes. We have 5k. And it doesn't matter how many nukes a country has. It only takes one to start a war.

We have the most powerful military on the planet, Iran has one of the weakest. Iran has not demonstrated they are suicidal. Sorry, I'm not skeered.
 
Back
Top Bottom