• 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'..

EagleAye said:
I don't think anyone believes Iran currently has a nuke. The idea is to prevent them from getting one. To do that, some action must be taken before they actually develop the capability. Intelligence indicates they have assembled some of the pieces and technology to do so. That's why sanctions are in place now.
Click to expand...

But neither the military nor the UN thinks a military strike is in order.

And yes, Iran has opened up the site at Parchin after denying access for...so long. Lots of time to remove anything incriminating. What do you suppose inspectors will find now at this military base? I'm betting nothing but a few metal shavings and a broken fusball table, and seriously nothing else at all in a very large space. It's an obvious shell game, so this article is no surprise:


Iran 'trying to remove evidence that it tested detonators for nuclear weapons' - Telegraph
Click to expand...

Sounds just like when they said Iraq must have moved their WMD.
 
Catawba said:
But neither the military nor the UN thinks a military strike is in order.
Click to expand...

Neither does Obama and neither do I. It's too early to jump. It's preferable to give Iran a way to bow out gracefully (not provided to Iraq) so they don't look weak and more like elder statesmen. They'll be more inclined to play along that way. The military option will always exist, but it's the least preferable one.

Catawba said:
Sounds just like when they said Iraq must have moved their WMD.
Click to expand...
Yup. Give a murderer enough time to hide the murder weapon, he will. The totally unexpected is if they don't hide it.
 
EagleAye said:
Neither does Obama and neither do I. It's too early to jump. It's preferable to give Iran a way to bow out gracefully (not provided to Iraq) so they don't look weak and more like elder statesmen. They'll be more inclined to play along that way. The military option will always exist, but it's the least preferable one.


Yup. Give a murderer enough time to hide the murder weapon, he will. The totally unexpected is if they don't hide it.
Click to expand...


Or, like a creative mind can produce a detailed picture from whole cloth, as was done in Iraq.

Once the world has depleted the last of the cheap oil in the middle east, I'm betting the risk that these little dictatorships present, will decline to the normal proportions their military threat actually represents to the superpowers on the planet.
 
Catawba said:
Once the world has depleted the last of the cheap oil in the middle east, I'm betting the risk that these little dictatorships present, will decline to the normal proportions their military threat actually represents to the superpowers on the planet.
Click to expand...

I suspect you're right. They may have to get used to Camels again.
 
EagleAye said:
I suspect you're right. They may have to get used to Camels again.
Click to expand...

Saudi is investing more heavily in alternative energy than the US!
 
Catawba said:
Saudi is investing more heavily in alternative energy than the US!
Click to expand...

Well yeah, they don't want to be riding Camels when the oil runs out.

If the US doesn't follow, we'll be fighting China for the last scraps and cobbling old bicycle parts together to get around.
 
Catawba said:
The UN has not proposed, nor have they endorsed a military strike on Iran by anyone. What do you feel the UN sanctions should be if someone bombs Iran without UN authority?
Click to expand...
Iran is not Iraq, plain and simple. The UN is providing the facts in this situation, not the US. It's sad you stake so much on UN opinion but apparently believe they'd lie about their weapons inspections. Make up your mind, dude, In or Out?



Whatever the UN may decide to do IF that happens will, I'm sure, be very dependent on exact details of the situation.

Catawba said:
But Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, just as Iraq did not have WMD. And, I just read yesterday that Iran has opened their military base to inspection.
Click to expand...
As long as they get that big OK from the UN inspectors I don't care what they do. The opposite is also true, what they do doesn't matter if the UN inspectors aren't satisfied.

Catawba said:
Sounds just like when they said Iraq must have moved their WMD.
Click to expand...
Was that the UN saying that??? If not there's no reason to bring it up.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Iran is not Iraq, plain and simple. The UN is providing the facts in this situation, not the US. It's sad you stake so much on UN opinion but apparently believe they'd lie about their weapons inspections. Make up your mind, dude, In or Out?

Whatever the UN may decide to do IF that happens will, I'm sure, be very dependent on exact details of the situation.

As long as they get that big OK from the UN inspectors I don't care what they do. The opposite is also true, what they do doesn't matter if the UN inspectors aren't satisfied.

Was that the UN saying that??? If not there's no reason to bring it up.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I have witnessed more unnecessary wars waged than you have. I am distrustful of going to war because of a technical violation of an agreement that the superpowers have also not fully lived up to. What is more worrying is that the US or Israel might act without UN sanction as they did in Iraq.
 
Catawba said:
Perhaps I have witnessed more unnecessary wars waged than you have. I am distrustful of going to war because of a technical violation of an agreement that the superpowers have also not fully lived up to. What is more worrying is that the US or Israel might act without UN sanction as they did in Iraq.
Click to expand...
Doubtful because I don't consider Korea to be an unnecessary war. But for that one I have to rely on other people. I watched the Moon landing on Live TV.

More half lies. Show me the UN sanctions or IAEA reports where the superpowers are in violation of the NPT. You can't. If I trust their facts over the US government, I'm not going to take your word over theirs.

They might act without UN sanctions but you'll have to make a much better case than you have been to convince me it'll "be like Iraq".
 
Last edited:
EagleAye said:
Well yeah, they don't want to be riding Camels when the oil runs out.

If the US doesn't follow, we'll be fighting China for the last scraps and cobbling old bicycle parts together to get around.
Click to expand...

Or driving smaller cars.....
 
MoSurveyor said:
Doubtful because I don't consider Korea to be an unnecessary war. But for that one I have to rely on other people. I watched the Moon landing on Live TV.

More half lies. Show me the UN sanctions or IAEA reports where the superpowers are in violation of the NPT. You can't. If I trust their facts over the US government, I'm not going to take your word over theirs.

They might act without UN sanctions but you'll have to make a much better case than you have been to convince me it'll "be like Iraq".
Click to expand...

There are no sanctions against the superpowers for not fully living up to their agreement to disarm their nukes, even 40 years after they agreed to do so. That is why I don't put much stock in the UN's enforcement of the agreement.
 
Catawba said:
There are no sanctions against the superpowers for not fully living up to their agreement to disarm their nukes, even 40 years after they agreed to do so. That is why I don't put much stock in the UN's enforcement of the agreement.
Click to expand...
Did the NPT give some kind of time-frame for complete nuclear disarmament? I wasn't aware of such, could you please quote it for me?
 
MoSurveyor said:
Did the NPT give some kind of time-frame for complete nuclear disarmament? I wasn't aware of such, could you please quote it for me?
Click to expand...

40 years is not enough time for the superpowers to comply to the agreement, but yet we must jump right on non-compliance by Iran. Sounds fair!
 
Catawba said:
40 years is not enough time for the superpowers to comply to the agreement, but yet we must jump right on non-compliance by Iran. Sounds fair!
Click to expand...
I didn't ask for a repeat of your opinion but I'll repeat, too, if you insist:

What time-frame does the NPT have for nuclear disarmament by the superpowers?
It's a simple question.

On the other hand, the NPT is very clear on the points where Iran is in violation.
If they don't want to comply then let them withdraw from the treaty. That, too, is simple.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I didn't ask for a repeat of your opinion but I'll repeat, too, if you insist:

What time-frame does the NPT have for nuclear disarmament by the superpowers?
It's a simple question.

On the other hand, the NPT is very clear on the points where Iran is in violation.
If they don't want to comply then let them withdraw from the treaty. That, too, is simple.
Click to expand...


There are no time tables to comply with the treaty, either for the super powers or for Iran and the other non-nuclear states. If they are pushed, I expect they will withdraw from the treaty, just as North Korea did.
 
Catawba said:
As we found though with Israel bombing Iraq in 81, the US completely destroying Iraq's military offensive capabilities in 91, multiple air strikes in 98, and even 10 years of sanctions, all of that didn't dispel the paranoia by some that Iraq had WMD. I think it will be the same with Iran.

I think the only real threat Iraq/Iran presented to the US was in disruption of cheap oil to the world oil market from the middle east.

Cheney and his Energy Task Force stated that Iraq sometimes would keep oil production low or withhold oil to drive up world oil prices for political purpose and was one of the reasons they recommended military intervention in Iraq. And when US forces invaded Iraq, their very first mission goal, was not securing the nuclear facilities or searching for WMD, it was to secure Iraq's oil wells.
Click to expand...

What about the PNAC document, who said they needed a "new Pearl Harbor"? (before 9/11 )
 
Kane said:
Hooray for fake and phony journalism!

Hooray for illusionary freedom of the press and fake political rallies!
NYTlies.png

Jon Stewart defends George W. Bush on MSNBC


"Stewart said Bush "is not a war criminal," and said he believed the former president's assertions about Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons programs prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq were what Bush "truly believed" at the time.

Jon Stewart defends George W. Bush on MSNBC - The Washington Scene - TheHill.com


"In contrast, host Rachel Maddow has in the past suggested that the Bush administration knowingly misled the American public about the imminent threat from Hussein's weapons program. She has also argued on air that U.S. actions during the Iraq war violated the Geneva Conventions, making the Commander-In-Chief, technically, a war criminal.

Jon Stewart behaves exactly like lamestream media pro-war hacks, and its not accidental.No war criminal in the WH, and he agreed yesterday with Sarah Palin, right wing hatespeech is not to blame for AZ shooting, just a "lone nut."Stewart has his lamestream media talking points all in order as he performs his role as $6 million dollar man for Uncle Sam.
Click to expand...

Kane said:
Would you lie and propagandize for the State, if you were paid Stewarts 6 million dollar annual salary?
Click to expand...

MoSurveyor said:
Stewart? Jon Stewart???
Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:
You won't mind if I ask for clarification: What the hell are you talking about?
Click to expand...

AdamT said:
He posted something about a position he claims Stewart took on something that he disagreed with, but I can't find it.
Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:
No need to look. I'm only marginally curious. ;)
Click to expand...

The people are sick of being oppressed. It would diffuse the already polarized and highly tense political atmosphere if the television media/news would stop lying to the people and tell them the truth instead of propagandizing them 24-7.

The constant terror scares, the false fears about this "marxist" plot, that "communist," targeting Assange for just releasing confidential files, the overtly oppressive censorship, not to mention the extremely offensive rhetoric coming from the mouths of govmnt officials, Feds or otherwise, make America appear and feel like a dictatorship.
 
I think we're starting to see more-and-more of that veil start to come down. But people like us, Kane, we're the outsiders in all of this. Political dissenters, or whatever its called. We've been indoctrinated just like everyone else, but for some reason, we've been able to rise above the influence and see the world for what it really is.
 
Kane said:
The people are sick of being oppressed. It would diffuse the already polarized and highly tense political atmosphere if the television media/news would stop lying to the people and tell them the truth instead of propagandizing them 24-7.

The constant terror scares, the false fears about this "marxist" plot, that "communist," targeting Assange for just releasing confidential files, the overtly oppressive censorship, not to mention the extremely offensive rhetoric coming from the mouths of govmnt officials, Feds or otherwise, make America appear and feel like a dictatorship.
Click to expand...

I get it. If Stewart doesn't agree with you 100%, and toe the liberal line 100%, then he's a corporate tool? Do you ever watch his show?
 
Kane said:
The people are sick of being oppressed. It would diffuse the already polarized and highly tense political atmosphere if the television media/news would stop lying to the people and tell them the truth instead of propagandizing them 24-7.

The constant terror scares, the false fears about this "marxist" plot, that "communist," targeting Assange for just releasing confidential files, the overtly oppressive censorship, not to mention the extremely offensive rhetoric coming from the mouths of govmnt officials, Feds or otherwise, make America appear and feel like a dictatorship.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I'm just leaping off the ledge with you. ANd I don't see Stewart in that anywhere.
 
Take it for what its worth:

US offered Israel advanced weaponry in exchange for delaying Iran attack: report - NYPOST.com

WASHINGTON -- The US offered to give Israel advanced weaponry -- including bunker-busting bombs and refueling planes -- in exchange for Israel's agreement not to attack Iranian nuclear sites, Israeli newspaper Maariv reported Thursday.
President Obama reportedly made the offer during Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington this week.
Under the proposed deal, Israel would not attack Iran until 2013, after US elections in November this year. The newspaper cited unnamed Western diplomatic and intelligence sources.
Netanyahu said Monday that sanctions against Iran had not worked, adding that "none of us can afford to wait much longer" in taking action against Iran's controversial nuclear program.

However, Netanyahu told FOX News Channel on Wednesday that he did not think war with Iran was inevitable. He added that the only way to deter Tehran was to advocate carrying out a serious military strike against the Islamic Republic.
"The paradox is that if they actually believe that they are going to face the military option, then you probably will not need the military option," Netanyahu said.
The US also believes there is still a "window of opportunity" for the dispute to be resolved diplomatically.
Obama told reporters during a White House news conference Tuesday that the US would apply pressure to Iran, "even as we provide a door for the Iranian regime to walk through" to prove its nuclear program is peaceful.
The President had met Netanyahu in the Oval Office the day before, where he reaffirmed his "unprecedented commitment" to Israel's security in the Middle East.
On Thursday, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei welcomed Obama's support for finding a diplomatic solution to the Iranian crisis.
"This talk is good talk and shows an exit from illusion," AFP reported Khamenei as saying, citing the leader's website. However, Khamenei criticised the continued imposition of international sanctions against Iran.
"The US president continued saying that he wants to make the Iranian people kneel through sanctions, this part of this speech shows the continuation of illusion in this issue," he said.
A statement issued Thursday on behalf of the so-called P5+1 countries -- the US, UK, France, Russia, China and Germany -- urged Iran to enter into a "serious dialogue" and "without pre-conditions" on its nuclear program.
The statement was issued at a meeting of the UN atomic agency in Vienna. "We call on Iran to enter, without pre-conditions, into a sustained process of serious dialogue, which will produce concrete results," it said.
On Tuesday, the P5+1 countries accepted an offer from Iran's chief nuclear negotiator to resume talks.
Click to expand...


Very interesting if it is true.
 
So are all you leftys gonna vote for Obama, even though we all know that he is deliberately delaying wars with Syria and Iran until after the election?

You know those wars will commence as soon as he's re-elected, yes?
 
Kane said:
So are all you leftys gonna vote for Obama, even though we all know that he is deliberately delaying wars with Syria and Iran until after the election?

You know those wars will commence as soon as he's re-elected, yes?
Click to expand...
You guys crack me up. LOL!
 
justabubba said:
iraq not an actual threat to the USA
iran not an actual threat to the USA
lies about iraq military capacity to justify unnecessary war
lies about iran military capacity to justify unnecessary war

looks like a direct parallel to me
Click to expand...

So just for argument, let's say Iran builds a few nukes -- the first three or so obviously go to Israel, but what of the next few? May I suggest that cities on the coasts (NY, DC, LA, etc.) are easy to get within blast radius of if your blast radius is measured in tens of miles. Just a thought. Iran not a threat? Sun not rise in east.
 
onestepfurther said:
So just for argument, let's say Iran builds a few nukes -- the first three or so obviously go to Israel, but what of the next few? May I suggest that cities on the coasts (NY, DC, LA, etc.) are easy to get within blast radius of if your blast radius is measured in tens of miles. Just a thought. Iran not a threat? Sun not rise in east.
Click to expand...

And what exactly shows that Iran's leadership does not subscribe to MAD?

When has Iran's leadership acted in a way that ever risks their lives or power?
When has Iran's leadership ever use its large chemical weapons stocks against Israel during the various wars, more than sufficent to wipe out the country?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom