• 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!

Massive cyber attack on Iran came from U.S., report says

That argument is ridiculous - why would Iran produce nuclear weapons from their own facilities, which would label the bomb, and then give it away to someone else? So when the terrorists used the bomb, everyone would know it came from an Iranian site. Okay...

Quit being mislead by the media, man.

This War with Iran is not about nuclear weapons.

Think about that.

The United States has nuclear weapons.

Israel does too.

Even if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, they would not pose much of a threat to Israel, their defense, or their revamped (pending Senate passing - H.R. 4133) aid packages from the United States.

The CIA and Mossad have already said the Iranian regime ain't building a bomb.


To hell with the moral high ground...

Good grief.

Why do you want Iran to have nuclear weapons? How do you think that enhances the chances for peace in the Middle east?

There isn't a doubt in my mind that if Iran got nuclear weapons, they'd find a little bit for their friends in Hezbollah or any one of the other terrorist groups they fund.
 
So ... What do you think it is about?

Regime change.

Retired General Wesley Clark has spoken about "seven countries in five years."

We're seeing those plans come to fruition.
 
Why do you want Iran to have nuclear weapons? How do you think that enhances the chances for peace in the Middle east?

There isn't a doubt in my mind that if Iran got nuclear weapons, they'd find a little bit for their friends in Hezbollah or any one of the other terrorist groups they fund.

1. I'd prefer if they didn't, but I don't want to see someone's sovereignty raped over it. Besides, the hypocrisy and double standards of the situation is sickening.
2. How does Israel having nuclear weapons enhance peace in the Middle East? And you speak as if Iran is the only thing holding back peace in the region...
3. Believe what you want, but those are the same tired arguments people made when everyone else joined the club. You're just falling for the War Mongering.
 
Again you are not charged with the protection of the US.



Last time I looked, the military is under civilian command and paid for by US taxpayers.
 
Which weapons did we supply to Iran?

I said Iraq, not Iran.

"The provision of chemical precursors from United States companies to Iraq was enabled by a Ronald Reagan administration policy that removed Iraq from the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism."

"Saddam Hussein's government officially blamed Iran for the attack. The international response at the time was muted and the United States even suggested Iran was responsible.[13] The United States government, which at the time was allied with Iraq in its war with Iran, said the images could not be verified to be the responsibility of Iraq."

Halabja poison gas attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
And you would be wrong. The Japanese fought to the last man on every single island we invaded, and you believe that they would have surrendered the sacred homeland without a fight. You are seriously deluded. In fact, they came very close to not surrendering even after the bombs were dropped. I've had this argument so many times with America-haters that it's hardly worth my time any more. So you believe what you want, regardless of history or facts.

"~~~DWIGHT EISENHOWER

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63"

Hiroshima: Quotes
 
Last time I looked, the military is under civilian command and paid for by US taxpayers.

Which makes the taxpayer the guarantor of military expenditures.
 
I said Iraq, not Iran.

"The provision of chemical precursors from United States companies to Iraq was enabled by a Ronald Reagan administration policy that removed Iraq from the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism."

"Saddam Hussein's government officially blamed Iran for the attack. The international response at the time was muted and the United States even suggested Iran was responsible.[13] The United States government, which at the time was allied with Iraq in its war with Iran, said the images could not be verified to be the responsibility of Iraq."

Halabja poison gas attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "funny" thing is, we also supplied Iran during the same War. Israel did too, so there is no telling how many arms we (in)directly gave them.
 
That argument is ridiculous - why would Iran produce nuclear weapons from their own facilities, which would label the bomb, and then give it away to someone else? So when the terrorists used the bomb, everyone would know it came from an Iranian site. Okay...
How's that? Without enough information about the reactor there would be no way to tell any device or material came from their reactor.

The United States has nuclear weapons.

Israel does too.
There's circumstantial evidence only, no verifiable proof.
 
I would say the majority of technologically advanced countries would side with the USA if they were cyber-attacked, as their countries could just as easily be next. Iran is not out concern. The people in the mid-east should worry about it, not us. As soon as they have the ability to reach USA with a nuclear payload, then we will worry about them. till then, why the **** do we care?

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
 
We are really putting it to Iran. ... and now this cyberattack.

Half their tanker fleet is parked at Kharg and is being used as storage.

Saudi is going to drive the price per barrel down to about $75.. and Iran needs $117 to break even.

And some sanctions aren't even in affect yet.
Keep in mind, the virus was running it's course over a year ago, in late 2010. ;)
 
It makes civilians the military's boss.

Yes through their elected representatives, who need to pass it by the corporate entities before the military can be informed what is to be done.:lol:
 
Yes through their elected representatives, who need to pass it by the corporate entities before the military can be informed what is to be done.:lol:

I wonder what went wrong that this president withdrew the troops from Iraq, began drawdown of the troops in Afghanistan and proposed cuts to military spending?
 
I wonder what went wrong that this president withdrew the troops from Iraq, began drawdown of the troops in Afghanistan and proposed cuts to military spending?

Perhaps his loyalty lies elsewhere?
 
I wonder what went wrong that this president withdrew the troops from Iraq, began drawdown of the troops in Afghanistan and proposed cuts to military spending?

The truth of the matter with Iraq and Afghanistan, the withdrawal dates were penciled in during President Bush's presidency, which would mean drawdown talks had occurred at NATO summits prior to actually happening.

Cuts to the military is a separate issue.

And I believe what cuts they've made so far aren't terrible moves. Our budget *needs* reform.

We can't continue to spend so much on the military when so much of that money could be helping our citizens. I mean, I want a justification for the over seven-hundred foreign military bases.
 
Perhaps his loyalty lies elsewhere?

Yes his loyalty is to the 99%, rather than the 1% that profit from military imperialism. That helps explain why the majority of Wall Street donations are going to Romney.
 
How's that? Without enough information about the reactor there would be no way to tell any device or material came from their reactor.

There's circumstantial evidence only, no verifiable proof.

With all of the inspections the IAEA have performed, why would you doubt that documentation exists exhibiting Iranian nuclear markers?

Well, what do you believe?
 
Yes his loyalty is to the 99%, rather than the 1% that profit from military imperialism. That helps explain why the majority of Wall Street donations are going to Romney.

More than 1% profit from military imperialism. CT, for one, would go totally belly up if world peace struck tomorrow.
 
I wonder what went wrong that this president withdrew the troops from Iraq, began drawdown of the troops in Afghanistan and proposed cuts to military spending?

Again, could we stick with the OP please, Massive cyber attack on Iran came from U.S., report says or you can start a new thread....:doh

Catawba, why do you wish to continuously derail this thread?
 
Looks like all those hackers recruited and placed on our payroll has paid off, lol.

This is pandora's box, and it's been opened. Unlike enriched uranium, this can't be traced, it's simple to do (relatively speaking), and just about anyone can do it, though some much better than others.

Things like this are exactly why our government still rellies on paper for so many things, despite budgetary concerns.
 
With all of the inspections the IAEA have performed, why would you doubt that documentation exists exhibiting Iranian nuclear markers?

Well, what do you believe?
How many visits have there been in the past ~20 months? Russia may have enough data on it to pin down any enriched fuel that comes from it but I doubt anyone else does.
 
Is that a serious question? You're asking why we should be concerned if a country that supplies Islamic terrorists with weapons all over the world should suddenly possess nuclear weapons? What planet do you live on?

Ollie North.
 
one of my fears is that this will set off a chain of events that results in an attack on the US. every militaristic nation in the world probably has stuxnet now, and most have probably made used it to make their own weapon.

that's the problem with game changing weapons : it's only a matter of time until your "enemy" gets one.

i'd prefer we use more of our innovative power to address energy and the economy. want to disarm Iran? stop buying oil.
 
Back
Top Bottom