• 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:
No. Iran refused the deal. Maybe The Iranian official accepted (2009) but the higher-ups refused later, halting the deal altogether.
Click to expand...

Still drinking the Republicon Kool-Aid, aye ... well like Iraq and WMD you've been duped again, but 60% of the public or more is not buying the fear campaign and wants to leave Afghanistan/Pakistan, they know the perpetual warfare excuses are a smokescreen for gas companies stranglehold over Washington.

Well, its clear now why the NeoCons in the PNAC document needed a "new Pearl Harbor," so they and Obama/Hillary could always fall back on that 9/11 false flag, as justification to start all the oil wars they want.
 
Kane said:
Still drinking the Republicon Kool-Aid, aye ... well like Iraq and WMD you've been duped again, but 60% of the public or more is not buying the fear campaign and wants to leave Afghanistan/Pakistan, they know the perpetual warfare excuses are a smokescreen for gas companies stranglehold over Washington.

Well, its clear now why the NeoCons in the PNAC document needed a "new Pearl Harbor," so they and Obama/Hillary could always fall back on that 9/11 false flag, as justification to start all the oil wars they want.
Click to expand...

You presume much. Your Daalek circuitry needs a reboot. I want to get out of Afghanistan as much as any one else. I've said so in other threads. I also want to avoid oil wars as much as anybody else and I've expressed that vehemently in other threads. Still think I'm drinking the punch?

The situation with Iran is not an "oil war." It's over the "possible" development of nuclear weapons by Iran (not the same thing as access to oil). No one, including myself, wants a conflict with Iran. We have other, domestic, concerns to worry about without worrying about an insignificant, tin-plated, petty theocracy like Iran. Unfortunately, this insignificant country sees itself as THE middle-eastern superpower and foolishly believes that possession of nuclear power and long range missiles will make it a superpower. This is naive at best. Ultimately this will create more problems for Iran than it solves.
 
The mind set of the One Party State ...

EXTERMINATE !!!
davros4a.jpg
 
We live within such a mindset of paranoia. We're worried about 1 country possibly obtaining 1 nuclear weapon. Israel has 200-300 nuclear weapons and a much more powerful military force. If they want to attack Iran, then fine but they do it under their own conditions. We shouldn't be dragged into another war based on the politics of Israel. We respect their sovereignty and allow them to make decisions on their own and risk the consequences that may come with it.

We're always in a state of perpetual war and it is time to stop allowing the poor to fight the wars of the rich. It is time to stop losing American lives in countries thousands of miles away when we have our own problems here in the United States. We dealt with a country for years that had 30,000 nuclear weapons and we're paranoid about Iran having the possibility of getting 1 with no capability of reaching our shores?

Stop this nonsense! We cannot promote peace with bombs. We cannot spread freedom with blood. I am tired of good people dying in foreign countries for reasons that have NOTHING at all to do with preserving our freedoms. I am tired of people banging on the drums of war when there is no need for it at all!
 
EagleAye said:
You presume much. Your Daalek circuitry needs a reboot. I want to get out of Afghanistan as much as any one else. I've said so in other threads. I also want to avoid oil wars as much as anybody else and I've expressed that vehemently in other threads. Still think I'm drinking the punch?

The situation with Iran is not an "oil war." It's over the "possible" development of nuclear weapons by Iran (not the same thing as access to oil). No one, including myself, wants a conflict with Iran. We have other, domestic, concerns to worry about without worrying about an insignificant, tin-plated, petty theocracy like Iran. Unfortunately, this insignificant country sees itself as THE middle-eastern superpower and foolishly believes that possession of nuclear power and long range missiles will make it a superpower. This is naive at best. Ultimately this will create more problems for Iran than it solves.
Click to expand...

So wait... you believe that a Persian country believes that by acquiring some sort-of magic missile it will magically become a superpower to take over the world for the sake of taking it over a la GI Joe?

...what?
 
EagleAye said:
Wasn't it the US who is accused of being unwilling to negotiate, and therefore being a warmongerer? Yet here is Iran flatly saying they are unwilling to negotiate, and they get a pat on the back. Curious set of standards.
Click to expand...

People applying a double standard to nations in the middle east? Surely not!:eek:
 
AreteCourage said:
We live within such a mindset of paranoia. We're worried about 1 country possibly obtaining 1 nuclear weapon. Israel has 200-300 nuclear weapons and a much more powerful military force. If they want to attack Iran, then fine but they do it under their own conditions. We shouldn't be dragged into another war based on the politics of Israel. We respect their sovereignty and allow them to make decisions on their own and risk the consequences that may come with it.

We're always in a state of perpetual war and it is time to stop allowing the poor to fight the wars of the rich. It is time to stop losing American lives in countries thousands of miles away when we have our own problems here in the United States. We dealt with a country for years that had 30,000 nuclear weapons and we're paranoid about Iran having the possibility of getting 1 with no capability of reaching our shores?

Stop this nonsense! We cannot promote peace with bombs. We cannot spread freedom with blood. I am tired of good people dying in foreign countries for reasons that have NOTHING at all to do with preserving our freedoms. I am tired of people banging on the drums of war when there is no need for it at all!
Click to expand...

Do you have a credible link for Israel having 200-300 nuclear weapons, or is this just more of the anti-Israeli propaganda so popular here?
 
MKULTRABOY said:
So wait... you believe that a Persian country believes that by acquiring some sort-of magic missile it will magically become a superpower to take over the world for the sake of taking it over a la GI Joe?

...what?
Click to expand...

"a Persian country"? There's more than one?
 
MKULTRABOY said:
let's have Iran negotiate domestic US nuclear policy...

and get rid of double standards... :)
Click to expand...

Yes, because there is a moral equivalency between a medieval theocracy that employs secret police and suppresses dissidents with violence and a functioning, if imperfect, democracy. Do you people have no perspective at all? Or do you really find Iran an admirable place that can be relied upon to possess nuclear weapons? That last question, by the way, is rhetorical. Of course you do.
 
MKULTRABOY said:
'a' dodge?

I'm sure you can do more...
Click to expand...

Look, your loathing for the United States and your desire to see Iran prospering as a nuclear nation is crystal clear. Hoping for a quick strike on Tel Aviv to solve all of the middle east's problems in one instant?
 
"The U.S. has about 5% of the world’s population, yet the U.S. accounts for about 50% of global military spending. China and India, two countries with the potential to dominate global economics, have 37% of the population but only account for 9% of global military spending. Such a disproportionate relationship begs the question, has the U.S. lost its ability to persuade with reason and to lead by example?"

military_spending_population.gif


No Time To Kill - Hegemony Breeds Contempt
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
"The U.S. has about 5% of the world’s population, yet the U.S. accounts for about 50% of global military spending. China and India, two countries with the potential to dominate global economics, have 37% of the population but only account for 9% of global military spending. Such a disproportionate relationship begs the question, has the U.S. lost its ability to persuade with reason and to lead by example?"

military_spending_population.gif


No Time To Kill - Hegemony Breeds Contempt
Click to expand...

Exporting imperialism costs money.
 
Wiggen said:
Yes, because there is a moral equivalency between a medieval theocracy that employs secret police and suppresses dissidents with violence and a functioning, if imperfect, democracy. Do you people have no perspective at all? Or do you really find Iran an admirable place that can be relied upon to possess nuclear weapons? That last question, by the way, is rhetorical. Of course you do.
Click to expand...

less than half of Americans vote...

Look, your loathing for the United States and your desire to see Iran prospering as a nuclear nation is crystal clear. Hoping for a quick strike on Tel Aviv to solve all of the middle east's problems in one instant?
Click to expand...

Wow... put away the tussin...
 
Blue_State said:
Exporting imperialism costs money.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have seen the national debt grow over the last 30 years as a result of the costs of exporting imperialism. How long can we continue to afford to do that before we go the way the USSR did???
 
Kane said:
Still drinking the Republicon Kool-Aid, aye ... well like Iraq and WMD you've been duped again, but 60% of the public or more is not buying the fear campaign and wants to leave Afghanistan/Pakistan, they know the perpetual warfare excuses are a smokescreen for gas companies stranglehold over Washington.

Well, its clear now why the NeoCons in the PNAC document needed a "new Pearl Harbor," so they and Obama/Hillary could always fall back on that 9/11 false flag, as justification to start all the oil wars they want.
Click to expand...

EagleAye said:
You presume much. Your Daalek circuitry needs a reboot. I want to get out of Afghanistan as much as any one else. I've said so in other threads. I also want to avoid oil wars as much as anybody else and I've expressed that vehemently in other threads. Still think I'm drinking the punch?

The situation with Iran is not an "oil war." It's over the "possible" development of nuclear weapons by Iran (not the same thing as access to oil). No one, including myself, wants a conflict with Iran. We have other, domestic, concerns to worry about without worrying about an insignificant, tin-plated, petty theocracy like Iran. Unfortunately, this insignificant country sees itself as THE middle-eastern superpower and foolishly believes that possession of nuclear power and long range missiles will make it a superpower. This is naive at best. Ultimately this will create more problems for Iran than it solves.
Click to expand...

Yes, like I said, Kool-Aid. With Hillary pushing for regime change all over the world, using the cover of American funded NGO's and color revolutions, do you think the State Dept./DoD wants anything less in Iran?

Go to a search engine and type in "Total Spectrum Dominance" and you'll find the true NeoCon objective behind all US policy machinery. Wikileaks already exposed much of this.

Iran is not about oil?

Heh, heh. The whole point is to cut off and take control of the entirety of Russian supply/ influence in the region. Never go by what politicians say, what they do is the important thing. And this is the age of 1984, so politicians talk in Newspeak.
 
Last edited:
Kane said:
Iran is not about oil?

Heh, heh. The whole point is to cut off and take control of the entirety of Russian supply/ influence in the region. Never go by what politicians say, what they do is the important thing. And this is the age of 1984, so politicians talk in Newspeak.
Click to expand...

Cut off the Russian supply? Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly. You do realize that Russia is the number one "producer" of oil in the world, yes? They don't need Iranian oil. Stopping Iranian nuclear ambitions will not cutoff Russia from anything.
 
EagleAye said:
Cut off the Russian supply? Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly. You do realize that Russia is the number one "producer" of oil in the world, yes? They don't need Iranian oil. Stopping Iranian nuclear ambitions will not cutoff Russia from anything.
Click to expand...

Saudi Arabia surpasses Russia in oil production


Russia oil imports:

"Oil - imports: 42,750 bbl/day (2009 est.)

Definition: This entry is the total oil imported in barrels per day (bbl/day), including both crude oil and oil products.

Source: CIA World Factbook - Unless otherwise noted, information in this page is accurate as of January 9, 2012"
Russia Oil - imports - Economy
 
Catawba said:
Saudi Arabia surpasses Russia in oil production

Russia oil imports:

"Oil - imports: 42,750 bbl/day (2009 est.)

Definition: This entry is the total oil imported in barrels per day (bbl/day), including both crude oil and oil products.

Source: CIA World Factbook - Unless otherwise noted, information in this page is accurate as of January 9, 2012"
Russia Oil - imports - Economy
Click to expand...

Okay, Russia had been the top producer for the last 6 years and now they've switched places. My point is, Russia doesn't need Iranian oil. Stopping Iranian nuclear fuel development will not cut off Russia's source of oil.
 
Kane said:
Shock and Awe
by Gary Corseri

"They told us it would be over soon;
They told us it would save our lives.
But our children’s eyes hardened like peach pits.
More years passed than our youth.

They told us we needed more and more—
More cars, more “house,” more lovers, more money.
And we followed like rats on a treadmill
Cascading through a labyrinth.

We could not remember the unpronounceable names
Of battlefields, special ops, psy ops—the droned lands.
They told us we killed far more of their fathers.
And we rubbed that balm like salt in our wounds.

They cloaked themselves in our gory flag.
They went to our games, ate hot dogs… cheered!
Our warriors shone in their feral eyes.
They consoled us and wept with us, dribbling lies."

(more)

Shock and Awe | Dissident Voice
Click to expand...



Kane said:
Don't you think there is something inherently evil about Obamas unending war machine in order to bolster American corporations at the expense of innocent lives and our citizens standard of living?

Now we have multiple regime changes at once by Obama/Hillary - Libya, Syria, while invoking 9/11 like Dubya, and if you think the goal in Iran is any less than over turning the government there, it is a short sighted viewpoint, is it not?

In fact, the reason Reagan is pilloried among the left is due primarily to his reckless foreign policies, lies about Iran Contra, the October Surprise, Grenanda, etc. than anything Ronny did domestically, true?
Click to expand...

EagleAye said:
Cut off the Russian supply? Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly. You do realize that Russia is the number one "producer" of oil in the world, yes? They don't need Iranian oil. Stopping Iranian nuclear ambitions will not cutoff Russia from anything.
Click to expand...

I refer you again to my previous question - left unanswered.
 
EagleAye said:
Okay, Russia had been the top producer for the last 6 years and now they've switched places. My point is, Russia doesn't need Iranian oil. Stopping Iranian nuclear fuel development will not cut off Russia's source of oil.
Click to expand...

I agree it will not cut off Russia's oil supply but it could increase their energy costs. Who does Russia import their 42,750 bbl/day of oil from?
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
I agree it will not cut off Russia's oil supply but it could increase their energy costs. Who does Russia import their 42,750 bbl/day of oil from?
Click to expand...

Well, if it's Iran, it's probably so they can turn around sell it again for a profit, not because they "need" it. I checked, and in half of 2011 Russia imported no Iranian oil. If they're doing it now, it's only to bolster the economy of their flagging sycophant.
• Oil imports from Iran 2011 | Statistic
 
EagleAye said:
Well, if it's Iran, it's probably so they can turn around sell it again for a profit, not because they "need" it. I checked, and in half of 2011 Russia imported no Iranian oil. If they're doing it now, it's only to bolster the economy of their flagging sycophant.
• Oil imports from Iran 2011 | Statistic
Click to expand...

Reluctant to slash production, which can do permanent harm to the oil fields, Iranian officials are storing the excess in a growing armada of supertankers that are anchored in the vicinity of the country’s main oil terminals in the Persian Gulf, according to the International Energy Agency, a platform for oil consuming countries.

While exact figures are not available, industry insiders say that if Iran were to use the entire fleet of 39 ships belonging to the National Iranian Tanker Company, it would be able to store up to 80 million barrels of oil, or roughly 25 days of production at current levels.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/world/middleeast/iran-oil-production-drop-seen.html
 
EagleAye said:
Okay, Russia had been the top producer for the last 6 years and now they've switched places. My point is, Russia doesn't need Iranian oil. Stopping Iranian nuclear fuel development will not cut off Russia's source of oil.
Click to expand...
In fact, Russia would be the most likely source of enriched uranium for Iran, if Iran ever agreed to buy it from others instead of producing it for themselves - but I doubt that would be a big source of revenue. Since Russia is the builder for the Iranian reactor I'd guess they're more concerned about that and future business than anything else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom