• 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'..

That sounds great! How many square feet? Also is this an initial install?

Leaving room for access for bi-annual cleaning, about 500 square feet.
 
LOL, i just love that "altenrative energy" crap.

The only reason for still using petroleum to fuel vehicles is because the Oil Companies have enough money to pay the politicians to ban and emerging posibility.

Fact: We have been able to seperate Oxygen and Hydrogen for a very long time now. Either can either be stored in Gasseous state of compressed to a liquid state.

So if Hydrogen can be used in internal combustions engines or even jet engines, then why don't we do it? Following the Hindenburg disaster, strict laws were passed concerning the storage, transportation and use of Hydrogen. Many of those laws remain in place today despite almost 100 years of technological advancements in materials. It would not be legal to place oxygen and hydrogen cylinders on a passenger vehicle and power it's engine from them. Current materials technology could easily build cylinders that would not rupture during accidents. We use flow control and directional control valves for safety on Propane and Natural Gas systems already. Finally, there is only a very small increase in risk during refueling hydrogen/oxygen with modern valve systems vs the dangers involved in the way we pump gasoline today. The only thing stopping us from testing and then potentially adopting these systems is laws. Again, the oil companies lobby and pay politicians to ensure such laws never change.

If all of you are really so concerned about the enviroment and alternative fuel, then why are you not now running hydrogen suplimental systems on your vehicles. Home build systems and instructions on how to build them have been around since at least the 1980s. The system is realy easy, take a post or similer, run a positive wire and a negative wire from your electrical system around the post but seperated. The current then has to flow through the water, releasing H2 (hydrogen) and O2 (oxygen) then just provide a means for it to get sucked into the engine. These systems work best on carburated systems, but only because of the need to adapt computer systems on todays cars to properly get the right fuel/air mix for the gasoline/diesel fuel used. (O2 sensors are used to measure the amount of free oxygen in the exhaust of vehicles which allows to the computer to know if the mixture is correct, rich (too much gas, not enough O2) or lean (not enough gas). The only other problem emplementing these systems is that with the introduction of the OBII computer system (designed by CARB and Cal EPA, mandated on all vehicles federally starting with the 1996 model year), they computer monitors performance and if it goes out of prescribed bounds, the computer readjust to adapt. Ok, this is not necessarily a bad thing on a gasoline engine, however, if you suplement with hydrogen, after a few weeks, the computer readjust everything to where you actually get no performance or efficiency from it's use. The computer knows your supposed to use x amount of gas per mile and it will ensure that you do, how dare you actually use less! These simple, but grossly controlled (the HHO or H2/O2 if you prefer is just sucked into the intake, not controlled like gasoline theoretically is) systems give great performance and efficiency boost and there is not an enviromental check in this country that you cannot pass even without a catalytic converter and your engine poorly tuned. So with all the whining and crying from all the enviromentalist, why have these systems not been mandated for the past 20+ years. Not only have they not been mandated, but laws in some states (and some federal laws depending on how you interpret them) have actually made it almost impossible to legally implement these systems (you have to alter the readings of some sensors, some states like California consider this alteration of emissions equipment.)

While some manufactures (Diemler-Chrysler being one of them) worked with seperating hydrogen and oxygen and running the engine only on the output, unfortunately, the Law of Conservation of Energy and Matter kept them from being sucessful. You cannot seperate the two, burn them in a mechanical system (or even in a non-mechanical system) and get back more energy than you put in. In a zero loss system (not even a good theory, just a bunch of Sci-Fi mumbo jumbo) it would take all the energy you get from the system to seperate out the hydrogen/oxygen you need to run it, nothing left over to actually move the vehicle. For the backyard inventors and college students out there, you might be able to get enough solar energy to seperate the water, unfortunately, no night driving then since the law won't let you actually store/transport any of the H2/O2 you make.
 
Last edited:
LOL, i just love that "altenrative energy" crap.

The only reason for still using petroleum to fuel vehicles is because the Oil Companies have enough money to pay the politicians to ban and emerging posibility.

Fact: We have been able to seperate Oxygen and Hydrogen for a very long time now. Either can either be stored in Gasseous state of compressed to a liquid state.

So if Hydrogen can be used in internal combustions engines or even jet engines, then why don't we do it? Following the Hindenburg disaster, strict laws were passed concerning the storage, transportation and use of Hydrogen. Many of those laws remain in place today despite almost 100 years of technological advancements in materials. It would not be legal to place oxygen and hydrogen cylinders on a passenger vehicle and power it's engine from them. Current materials technology could easily build cylinders that would not rupture during accidents. We use flow control and directional control valves for safety on Propane and Natural Gas systems already. Finally, there is only a very small increase in risk during refueling hydrogen/oxygen with modern valve systems vs the dangers involved in the way we pump gasoline today. The only thing stopping us from testing and then potentially adopting these systems is laws. Again, the oil companies lobby and pay politicians to ensure such laws never change.

If all of you are really so concerned about the enviroment and alternative fuel, then why are you not now running hydrogen suplimental systems on your vehicles. Home build systems and instructions on how to build them have been around since at least the 1980s. The system is realy easy, take a post or similer, run a positive wire and a negative wire from your electrical system around the post but seperated. The current then has to flow through the water, releasing H2 (hydrogen) and O2 (oxygen) then just provide a means for it to get sucked into the engine. These systems work best on carburated systems, but only because of the need to adapt computer systems on todays cars to properly get the right fuel/air mix for the gasoline/diesel fuel used. (O2 sensors are used to measure the amount of free oxygen in the exhaust of vehicles which allows to the computer to know if the mixture is correct, rich (too much gas, not enough O2) or lean (not enough gas). The only other problem emplementing these systems is that with the introduction of the OBII computer system (designed by CARB and Cal EPA, mandated on all vehicles federally starting with the 1996 model year), they computer monitors performance and if it goes out of prescribed bounds, the computer readjust to adapt. Ok, this is not necessarily a bad thing on a gasoline engine, however, if you suplement with hydrogen, after a few weeks, the computer readjust everything to where you actually get no performance or efficiency from it's use. The computer knows your supposed to use x amount of gas per mile and it will ensure that you do, how dare you actually use less! These simple, but grossly controlled (the HHO or H2/O2 if you prefer is just sucked into the intake, not controlled like gasoline theoretically is) systems give great performance and efficiency boost and there is not an enviromental check in this country that you cannot pass even without a catalytic converter and your engine poorly tuned. So with all the whining and crying from all the enviromentalist, why have these systems not been mandated for the past 20+ years. Not only have they not been mandated, but laws in some states (and some federal laws depending on how you interpret them) have actually made it almost impossible to legally implement these systems (you have to alter the readings of some sensors, some states like California consider this alteration of emissions equipment.)

While some manufactures (Diemler-Chrysler being one of them) worked with seperating hydrogen and oxygen and running the engine only on the output, unfortunately, the Law of Conservation of Energy and Matter kept them from being sucessful. You cannot seperate the two, burn them in a mechanical system (or even in a non-mechanical system) and get back more energy than you put in. In a zero loss system (not even a good theory, just a bunch of Sci-Fi mumbo jumbo) it would take all the energy you get from the system to seperate out the hydrogen/oxygen you need to run it, nothing left over to actually move the vehicle. For the backyard inventors and college students out there, you might be able to get enough solar energy to seperate the water, unfortunately, no night driving then since the law won't let you actually store/transport any of the H2/O2 you make.

Good argument against the strawman you created.
 
While some manufactures (Diemler-Chrysler being one of them) worked with seperating hydrogen and oxygen and running the engine only on the output, unfortunately, the Law of Conservation of Energy and Matter kept them from being sucessful. You cannot seperate the two, burn them in a mechanical system (or even in a non-mechanical system) and get back more energy than you put in. In a zero loss system (not even a good theory, just a bunch of Sci-Fi mumbo jumbo) it would take all the energy you get from the system to seperate out the hydrogen/oxygen you need to run it, nothing left over to actually move the vehicle. For the backyard inventors and college students out there, you might be able to get enough solar energy to seperate the water, unfortunately, no night driving then since the law won't let you actually store/transport any of the H2/O2 you make.

Sentinel, et al - this thread is about military action against Iran, and we're straying far off-topic. But Sentinel has some very interesting thoughts. A better place to chop this up is here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/117373-price-gas-depends-83.html I'd like to invite you to join us there.
 
With the new current developments in Iran, this has an erie Iraq feeling to it, with the UN team getting kicked out.
 
LOL, i just love that "altenrative energy" crap.

The only reason for still using petroleum to fuel vehicles is because the Oil Companies have enough money to pay the politicians to ban and emerging posibility.

Fact: We have been able to seperate Oxygen and Hydrogen for a very long time now. Either can either be stored in Gasseous state of compressed to a liquid state.

No kidding. The issue is the cost and the energy required to split water. Tons of research has and is being done to make it more efficient.
 
With the new current developments in Iran, this has an erie Iraq feeling to it, with the UN team getting kicked out.


Yes, it does all sound very much like Iraq. No real military threats, just technical violations.
 
Iran says negotiations under way to hold new nuclear talks | Reuters

Negotiations are under way to hold new talks between Western powers and Iran over Tehran's nuclear program and the most likely venue is Istanbul, but there is no date set, Iran's Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said Wednesday.
Talks benefit both sides: It gives the Iranians more time to develop nuclear weapons, and it gives the West the appearance that they are attempting to do something to stop them.
 
Reagon should of given the Liberals the finger and went ahead and took these bastards out then. Carter didn't have the guts, and thanks to him Reagon didn't have the ability at first, to do it when it should of been done.
The Iranians were funding a pet project iirc. So, I suspect his VP told him it wasn't prudent at that juncture.

George H. Bush also passed up the opportunity, he could of easily taken out that evil bastard Hussein and Iran and would of been more than justified to do so.
GHWB told specifically why he didn't go on and take out Hussein. Remember what he said?

Also, Iran has had a hand in encouraging us to take out Hussein. That hand sat beside Laura Bush at a SotU address.
Taking out Hussein let Iran's decades of harboring the dissident Iraqi groups in Iran come to fruition. More than one main Iraqi party can trace its history to a somewhat subsidized exile in Iran.

fyi for general edification
Arras Kareem Habib
 
Last edited:
Iran says negotiations under way to hold new nuclear talks | Reuters

Negotiations are under way to hold new talks between Western powers and Iran over Tehran's nuclear program and the most likely venue is Istanbul, but there is no date set, Iran's Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said Wednesday.

It always amuses me when people have talks about having talks. I would be more impressed if they just had talks about the salient points and get it over with.
 
The Iranians were funding a pet project iirc. So, I suspect his VP told him it wasn't prudent at that juncture.

GHWB told specifically why he didn't go on and take out Hussein. Remember what he said?

Also, Iran has had a hand in encouraging us to take out Hussein. That hand sat beside Laura Bush at a SotU address.
Taking out Hussein let Iran's decades of harboring the dissident Iraqi groups in Iran come to fruition. More than one main Iraqi party can trace its history to a somewhat subsidized exile in Iran.

fyi for general edification
Arras Kareem Habib

You are on point... and Chalabi was working for Iranian interests..........
 
Don't you understand we need to fight for Israel?

They are our only ally in the region.

Our oldest an most stable ally in the region is Saudi Arabia since 1938... but Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Egypt are also US allies.
 
You are on point... and Chalabi was working for Iranian interests..........

correction: Chalabi was working for Chalabi interests
 
Iran says negotiations under way to hold new nuclear talks | Reuters

Negotiations are under way to hold new talks between Western powers and Iran over Tehran's nuclear program and the most likely venue is Istanbul, but there is no date set, Iran's Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said Wednesday.

appears to be iranian propaganda:
... No further talks were arranged, he [UN Envoy leader] added, contradicting Iran’s envoy to the IAEA, who was quoted by the ISNA news agency as saying discussions “would continue.” ...
Iran pushes on with nuclear after failed IAEA visit | The Raw Story
 
It always amuses me when people have talks about having talks. I would be more impressed if they just had talks about the salient points and get it over with.

From what I have seen of such "talks" about having talks, one side wants to swerve public opinion that they will be reasonable while actually stalling the real talks until they have completed what they want to get done.

Ho Chi Minh's negotiaters spent years arguing about the tabe to be used and wouldn't let the real talks start until it was settled.

Of Course, when Nixon took office, he simply sent B-52 Bombers into North Vietnam and started hitting the targest that Johnson forbade. Shortly after that, Ho Chi Minh decided that the size, shape and color of the table didn't matter, heck, he no longer cared if there was a table, just as long as he could get the bombs to stop.

Personally, I think Teddie Roosevelt had it right "Talk softly and carry a big stick". Talks always seem to come out better for your side if you have good military strength and the otherside does not doubt your will to use it. If the military option is taken off the table or is not credible, then the otherside has no incentive to negotiate in good faith.

In the case of the negotiations with Iran, there is not really a credible military option. Most of Europe has shown that they will not back military operations, The French will probably block any UN actions, not to mention the Russian Federation which shares a border with Iran (and has recently been trending back towards it's Soviet ways). So of the larger Players, that leaves the US and Britain, both of which currently have internal problems and "leaders" who are considered unlikely to actually use military force. That leaves Israel, they have the guts and determination to do it, but it is really questionable if they have the means if going it alone. Israel has a very fine military, but it is small and thus it is questionable if they could actually but together a force large enough to get the job done and project it that far from their border. I personally believe that they will try at some point. Saudi Arrabia has worked for years to try to curb and reduce Iranian influence in the Region, but since it is believed that Israel is the primary target for Iran, SA will do nothing. They want to bring down Iran, but they will not do anything that even remotely could be viewed as helping Israel (well that and the fact that although they have some of the best military equipment available, their military still sucks).

So without a credible military threat, Iran has no real interests in negotiating. Sanctions are also not a credible path. They sound good, but just like times in the past, France, Russia and China (as well as a few others) will talk out of one side of their mouth and turn around a violate the sanctions anyway. Although, France does have it's first president that is not from the socialist, so he might just buck that historical trend.
 
Last edited:
From what I have seen of such "talks" about having talks, one side wants to swerve public opinion that they will be reasonable while actually stalling the real talks until they have completed what they want to get done.

Ho Chi Minh's negotiaters spent years arguing about the tabe to be used and wouldn't let the real talks start until it was settled.

Of Course, when Nixon came took office, he simply sent B-52 Bombers into North Vietnam and started hitting the targest that Johnson forbade. Shortly after that, Ho Chi Minh decided that the size, shape and color of the table didn't matter, heck, he no longer cared if there was a table, just as long as he could get the bombs to stop.
and how did that work out? a lost war
weak attempt at revising history

Personally, I think Teddie Roosevelt had it right "Talk softly and carry a big stick".
here is the actual quote:
Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far

Talks always seem to come out better for your side if you have good military strength and the otherside does not doubt your will to use it.
if this were actually the case, then we would not have lost the war in viet nam

If the military option is taken off the table or is not credible, then the otherside has no incentive to negotiate in good faith.
we see this today. the Palestinians recognize if they stand down they will be run over. only by exercising their military options can they cause israel to want to negotiate to return the land it took and upon which it is now building

In the case of the negotiations with Iran, there is not really a credible military option. Most of Europe has shown that they will not back military operations, The French will probably block any UN actions, not to mention the Russian Federation which shares a border with Iran (and has recently been trending back towards it's Soviet ways). So of the larger Players, that leaves the US and Britain, both of which currently have internal problems and "leaders" who are considered unlikely to actually use military force.
anybody think india and especially china - our creditor - will be pleased with an assault on its trading partner. a partner who oils their nations' industry

That leaves Israel, they have the guts and determination to do it, but it is really questionable if they have the means if going it alone. Israel has a very fine military, but it is small and thus it is questionable if they could actually but together a force large enough to get the job done and project it that far from their border. I personally believe that they will try at some point.
from the rising drumbeats i fear you may be right on this point. israel has no reservations about making unprovoked strikes. and where does israel, a nuclear power which, unlike iran, has NOT signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, get its standing to take our the nuclear capacity of another sovereign nation?

Saudi Arrabia has worked for years to try to curb and reduce Iranian influence in the Region, but since it is believed that Israel is the primary target for Iran, SA will do nothing.
nothing publicly
they WILL allow overflights and they WILL provide refueling of israeli strike aircraft on their 1000+ mile flight to iranian targets
that the backward house of saud is opposed to iran is one reason we should instead consider opening diplomatic talks with iran to forge cooperative agreements with that nation, populated by citizens who appreciate western culture and ideas ... unlike the saudis

They want to bring down Iran, but they will not do anything that even remotely could be viewed as helping Israel (well that and the fact that although they have some of the best military equipment available, their military still sucks).
their help will be covert, not overt. but they will help israel take out iranian facilities

So without a credible military threat, Iran has no real interests in negotiating.
here is why iran has no interest in negotiating: a threat in their region - israel - has nuclear weapons and is a very willing nation when it comes to using its arms against others. iran needs nuclear capacity to prevent israel from taking unprovoked military actions with impunity

want to get iran to stop making nuclear weapons. get israel to eliminate its nuclear capability

Sanctions are also not a credible path. They sound good, but just like times in the past, France, Russia and China (as well as a few others) will talk out of one side of their mouth and turn around a violate the sanctions anyway. Although, France does have it's first president that is not from the socialist, so he might just buck that historical trend.
the price of oil, due to these sanctions, has already risen to the point that the increased oil revenues to iran more than offset the financial losses intended by the sanctions
that has worked out well, hasn't it [/s]
 
Saudi Arrabia has worked for years to try to curb and reduce Iranian influence in the Region, but since it is believed that Israel is the primary target for Iran, SA will do nothing. They want to bring down Iran, but they will not do anything that even remotely could be viewed as helping Israel (well that and the fact that although they have some of the best military equipment available, their military still sucks).

Iran has been the enemy of Saudi Arabia since 1950 because of the British Operation Ajax and the fact that Iran was getting screwed by what is now BP while Ibn Saud had negotiated a 50-50 revenue split...

The British tried to undermine US Saudi relations for decades.. because they were so ticked off that they had lost the Saudi oil concession in the 1930s.

The Saudis have NO ambitions with regard to Iran.. They don't want their land, their oil or to dominate and convert the Shia.

They want the Iranians to stay off the Arabian Peninsula..
 
Last edited:
from the rising drumbeats i fear you may be right on this point. israel has no reservations about making unprovoked strikes. and where does israel, a nuclear power which, unlike iran, has NOT signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, get its standing to take our the nuclear capacity of another sovereign nation?

here is why iran has no interest in negotiating: a threat in their region - israel - has nuclear weapons and is a very willing nation when it comes to using its arms against others. iran needs nuclear capacity to prevent israel from taking unprovoked military actions with impunity

Israel has a vested interest in stopping Iranian nuclear weapons because Israel doesn't want to be the "cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut".

When was the last time Israel took, "unprovoked military actions with impunity," against Iran? I don't seem to remember any. And don't try to claim the killings of Iranian nuclear scientists. Those were intelligence operations not military operations. It's not even proven it was done by Israel.

want to get iran to stop making nuclear weapons. get israel to eliminate its nuclear capability

And I suppose if you asked a mugger to not take your money, "pretty please," he'd do it, right?
 
Isn't Israel in UN violation having nukes? What's the dealio on that?
 
Back
Top Bottom