• 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'..

Connery said:
I had not realized that this was a comparison, but, the beginnings of a negative discourse of the US and how "No one has attacked more countries in modern history than the US".
Click to expand...

It is directly related to the relative lack of threat Iran poses to the region and to the US.
 
Catawba said:
It is directly related to the relative lack of threat Iran poses to the region and to the US.
Click to expand...

That is not what you wrote, but, forget that for the moment.

Here is how those in the region feels about Iran:

The poll surveys six Arab nations’ attitudes towards Iran and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) issues. The key finding is that a substantial majority of Arabs believe that Iran plays a negative role in both Iraq and the Arab Gulf region.

Executive Summary

• Most Arabs look askance at Iran's role across their region, with substantial majorities seeing Iran playing a negative role especially in Iraq, Bahrain and the Arab Gulf.

• Iran's favorable ratings have dropped significantly in recent years. It is seen as not contributing to "peace and stability in the Arab World" and there is scant support for Iran's nuclear program.

• Significant majorities desire that the Middle East become a "nuclear free zone". When asked if they "had to choose one nation other than Israel to be a nuclear power in the Middle East" - for most Arabs, Egypt is the preferred choice, followed by Turkey.

• There is regional support for the GCC's new and more assertive role in Bahrain, Yemen, and in their concern with Iran's nuclear program.

• Lebanon's attitudes toward Iran differ from the rest of the region, revealing a troubling sectarian divide.

• Overall, Turkey receives the highest favorable ratings in most Arab countries, with the U.S. Receiving the lowest rating in every country but Saudi Arabia, where Iran is lowest.
Click to expand...

Arab Attitudes Toward Iran: 2011 | The Arab American Institute


As far as the US
On Wednesday the 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.

This comes after President Obama announced the United States would freeze all Iranian assets held in the US. The executive order which was signed on Monday was in reaction to what the US is calling deceptive practices by Iran
Click to expand...

Iran threatens to hit US targets
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
It is directly related to the relative lack of threat Iran poses to the region and to the US.
Click to expand...

I answered the above post.What you ask next is a different question of which, is a position I do not hold.

Catawba said:
I can't find the part where the majority of Arabs think the US should attack Iran. Did i miss it somehow?

Arabs Like Saddam, Hugo Chavez, More Than Obama




"We think that it's not prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran," said Gen. Dempsey."
Click to expand...


The ambassador holds the position that Iran is a threat to the US.
 
Connery said:
The ambassador holds the position that Iran is a threat to the US.
Click to expand...
Who's ambassador? And do they think it is a threat that justifies the US going to war with Iran? Do you have a link for your source? Thanks!
 
Catawba said:
Who's ambassador? And do they think it is a threat that justifies the US going to war with Iran? Do you have a link for your source? Thanks!
Click to expand...


Post 352 will answer your questions. My pleasure.
 
Connery said:
Post 352 will answer your questions. My pleasure.
Click to expand...

Interesting:

"The building provocation by Washington has been cornering Tehran and Sajjadi has stated that a US-led attack on Iran would be like committing suicide. Sajjadi went on to say Iran would by no means attack first. According to Sajjadi, “Even if it (US) attacks, we have a list of counter actions.”

So, the threat is, if the US attacks Iran, then they will fight back. Pretty much what I expected.
 
Catawba said:
Interesting:

"The building provocation by Washington has been cornering Tehran and Sajjadi has stated that a US-led attack on Iran would be like committing suicide. Sajjadi went on to say Iran would by no means attack first. According to Sajjadi, “Even if it (US) attacks, we have a list of counter actions.”

So, the threat is, if the US attacks Iran, then they will fight back. Pretty much what I expected.
Click to expand...

Hmm. That seems contrary to what deputy head of the Islamic republic's armed forces, Mohammad Hejazi says:
"Our strategy now is that if we feel our enemies want to endanger Iran's national interests, and want to decide to do that, we will act without waiting for their actions.

"[We will] not wait for enemies to take action against us."
Click to expand...
Iran nuclear talks a failure, says IAEA | World news | guardian.co.uk

It sounds like Iran plans to strike first and thus, is a threat.
 
this:
... Overall, Turkey receives the highest favorable ratings in most Arab countries, with the U.S. Receiving the lowest rating in every country but Saudi Arabia, where Iran is lowest.
Click to expand...
[emphasis added by bubba]
 
johnny_rebson said:
So you want to sit around and do nothing while the Iranian Army makes plans to attack America?
Click to expand...

Be careful you don't shove your tongue so far into your cheek that it gets stuck...... wait a minute, is there a chance you were not jesting but were, in fact, serious? .... no, not possible, but you had me going for second.
 
justabubba said:
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
Click to expand...

I wish to ask once again, are you justifying 'military action' by Hamas against Israel?

And with those words (in bold), how could Catawba (or anyone) like the post?? I think it is quite obvious that Justabubba is claiming that only through violence can Palestinians bring Israel to the negotiating table.



No one else sees a problem with that claim?!


Also, he claims 'land-stealing' ("land it took") because he's outside the ME forum-section, where ML prohibits such.



Catawba said:
Hopefully, after our needless war on Iraq, we have learned our lesson about waging war based on empty threats.
Click to expand...

You might think it is needless, since it doesn't give any money to government unions, but from the perspective of the people of Iraq it was absolutely necessary. Just ask the Kurds, Marsh Arabs or women. Now that Iraq is free, it will develop like an Asian Tiger and in 20 years people will be amazed that just recently it was a hellhole of government rape rooms, sentences of gang rape for women via the court system and genocidal dictatorship, which routinely threated regional peace.

Iraq will go from warmongering genocidal dictatorship to free and developed. That's worthless?
 
Last edited:
EagleAye said:
Hmm. That seems contrary to what deputy head of the Islamic republic's armed forces, Mohammad Hejazi says:

Iran nuclear talks a failure, says IAEA | World news | guardian.co.uk

It sounds like Iran plans to strike first and thus, is a threat.
Click to expand...

Let's see.... from 1945ish until the late 1980's the US and the USSR pointed thousands of nuclear warheads at one another using this absurd policy of mutually assured destruction (MAD), which oddly worked. So now we are worried about one or two nuclear weapons (which it would be a stretch to say are actually pointed at us, but let's indulge) while we point thousands of warheads at Iran. Yeah, I am going to lose sleep at night over Iran having nuclear arms..... (Psst... there is a much, much bigger threat posed by all the loose nukes, but leave it to a certain group of Americans to be focused on the wrong things, just because it sounds good)

As much as we would like to stop the spread of technology, it can not be stopped. What we need to stop is the hysteria around it. Iran will get nuclear arms. Live with it.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
I wish to ask once again, are you justifying 'military action' by Hamas against Israel?

And with those words (in bold), how could Catawba (or anyone) like the post?? I think it is quite obvious that Justabubba is claiming that only through violence can Palestinians bring Israel to the negotiating table.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Interesting:

"The building provocation by Washington has been cornering Tehran and Sajjadi has stated that a US-led attack on Iran would be like committing suicide. Sajjadi went on to say Iran would by no means attack first. According to Sajjadi, “Even if it (US) attacks, we have a list of counter actions.”

So, the threat is, if the US attacks Iran, then they will fight back. Pretty much what I expected.
Click to expand...


You never seem to want a straight answer to your statement.

Your statement: ...the relative lack of threat Iran poses to the...to the US.

The response: 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.
 
Catawba said:
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?
Click to expand...

No. Iran violated a treaty that encourages distribution of knowledge about nuclear energy in return for permitting inspections (safeguards) and now refuses the inspections. So countries helped Iran get a nuclear reactor going and now Iran is flipping the bird at them. That's gratitude for you. The same agency conducting the safeguards has found evidence that the nuclear knowledge, given in trust, has jump-started a nuclear weapons program. A second possible treaty violation. All anyone is asking of Iran is to prove that this is wrong. Iran has made zero effort to do so.

Meanwhile people are accusing the West of beating war drums and threatening war because the West says things like: "All options are on the table."

The same people claim Iran is harmless and no threat to anyone when Iran says things like: "Israel is a cancerous tumor that must be cut and will be cut." Additionally, the head Iran's armed forces says, "[We will] not wait for enemies to take action against us." And 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.

But somehow, I am expected to believe that Iran intends no harm and it is only the West beating war drums. This is difficult to believe based on the statements from both sides. After trying to sell me on that one I suppose Iran supporters will try to sell me a bridge in Brooklyn, right?. And when it comes to actions, the USN on two occasions rescues Iranian sailors and returns them to Iran. A gesture of good faith and brotherhood. Certainly a peace offering. Iran's response: threaten the departing carrier group (that participated in a rescue) to never come back. That's gratitude for you (seems to be a theme with Iran).

So if Iran wants to claim the have a legitimate need for a nuclear weapon, I would ask for two things: 1) Iran is trustworthy, so I can know they won't release weapons unnecessarily, and 2) Iran has a peaceful, purely defensive intent, so I know they will not use this weapon in a preemptive strike.

Iran has proven none of these things. They have suggested they will use preemptive strikes, so now I must consider the nuke will be used this way. They have threatened to close the straights of Hormuz, threatened the US, Israel, Turkey, and Germany. I would sooner give nukes to Kuwait, Egypt, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, or Qatar. But no way would I let Iran have a nuke.
 
Last edited:
Guys, since this is obviously such an ominous international threat, why don't we just invade every country in the world, put an American soldier on every street corner, and stockpile all the nukes in the US?

I find it wildly hypocritical for the US to shake their finger at anyone for having a nuke when we have more nukes than the rest of the world combined, and are the only ones who have used them on living beings. If we're so against nukes, maybe we should be making the first step towards our own disarmament. This has far more to do with asserting US dominance than it does with world peace. We're being war mongered.
 
Connery said:
You never seem to want a straight answer to your statement.

Your statement: ...the relative lack of threat Iran poses to the...to the US.

The response: 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.
Click to expand...

That's almost as real a threat as the old man with a shotgun in Iraq that we went to war over.
 
EagleAye said:
No. Iran violated a treaty that encourages distribution of knowledge about nuclear energy in return for permitting inspections (safeguards) and now refuses the inspections. So countries helped Iran get a nuclear reactor going and now Iran is flipping the bird at them. That's gratitude for you. The same agency conducting the safeguards has found evidence that the nuclear knowledge, given in trust, has jump-started a nuclear weapons program. A second possible treaty violation. All anyone is asking of Iran is to prove that this is wrong. Iran has made zero effort to do so.
Click to expand...

I fail to see that would be any different than Israel breaking their treaty.

Meanwhile people are accusing the West of beating war drums and threatening war because the West says things like: "All options are on the table."

The same people claim Iran is harmless and no threat to anyone when Iran says things like: "Israel is a cancerous tumor that must be cut and will be cut." Additionally, the head Iran's armed forces says, "[We will] not wait for enemies to take action against us." And 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.

But somehow, I am expected to believe that Iran intends no harm and it is only the West beating war drums. This is difficult to believe based on the statements from both sides. After trying to sell me on that one I suppose Iran supporters will try to sell me a bridge in Brooklyn, right?. And when it comes to actions, the USN on two occasions rescues Iranian sailors and returns them to Iran. A gesture of good faith and brotherhood. Certainly a peace offering. Iran's response: threaten the departing carrier group (that participated in a rescue) to never come back. That's gratitude for you (seems to be a theme with Iran).

So if Iran wants to claim the have a legitimate need for a nuclear weapon, I would ask for two things: 1) Iran is trustworthy, so I can know they won't release weapons unnecessarily, and 2) Iran has a peaceful, purely defensive intent, so I know they will not use this weapon in a preemptive strike.

Iran has proven none of these things. They have suggested they will use preemptive strikes, so now I must consider the nuke will be used this way. They have threatened to close the straights of Hormuz, threatened the US, Israel, Turkey, and Germany. I would sooner give nukes to Kuwait, Egypt, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, or Qatar. But no way would I let Iran have a nuke.
Click to expand...

As far as I am aware the UN has not made the determination that Iran is in violation of the UN treaty. We appear to be jumping the gun here, just as we did with Iraq.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Guys, since this is obviously such an ominous international threat, why don't we just invade every country in the world, put an American soldier on every street corner, and stockpile all the nukes in the US?

I find it wildly hypocritical for the US to shake their finger at anyone for having a nuke when we have more nukes than the rest of the world combined, and are the only ones who have used them on living beings. If we're so against nukes, maybe we should be making the first step towards our own disarmament. This has far more to do with asserting US dominance than it does with world peace. We're being war mongered.
Click to expand...

Amen...........
 
Catawba said:
That's almost as real a threat as the old man with a shotgun in Iraq that we went to war over.
Click to expand...

This answer is not an answer by any means.
 
Connery said:
This answer is not an answer by any means.
Click to expand...

Let me answer for him... if Iran says it can strike US interests around the globe... I think about 80 nations on earth would casually say... 'yeah us too'... then theyd all mope around and think about how silly it would be.
 
MKULTRABOY said:
Let me answer for him... if Iran says it can strike US interests around the globe... I think about 80 nations on earth would casually say... 'yeah us too'... then theyd all mope around and think about how silly it would be.
Click to expand...

Thank you MK , this brings his question to a whole other level. I responded to what he asked and as usual he was unresponsive...:doh Not worth the time, not worth the consideration.
 
Connery said:
Thank you MK , this brings his question to a whole other level. I responded to what he asked and as usual he was unresponsive...:doh Not worth the time, not worth the consideration.
Click to expand...

I happen to 'get' what he means. Because an ant says it can bite an elephant... does that mean the elephant should stomp it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom