• 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!

Israel Plans Iran Strike; Citizens Say Government Serious [W:52]

I think you're right. Still, I think he wants to get us out, but just like in Iraq, we don't have a good exit strategy. The Taliban and other sundry groups are just waiting us out at this point. They know they can't win toe-to-toe with the US. So instead they wait under cover in their rat holes. They'll nibble around the edges, sacrificing the young among their numbers to claim they're still fighting, but accomplishing almost nothing. When the US leaves, they'll just claim victory. It's hard to have a good exit strategy to defeat that kind of propaganda.

Bin Laden's prediction was that the US would be defeated not on the battlefield, but by spending itself to bankruptcy on endless war. Many here seem dedicated to make his prediction come true!
 
Bin Laden's prediction was that the US would be defeated not on the battlefield, but by spending itself to bankruptcy on endless war. Many here seem dedicated to make his prediction come true!

I don't think we've spent ourselves into bankruptcy, but we've wasted a lot of money trying to bring democracy to people's incapable and unwilling to accept it. If people aren't ready for it, it's time to let them muddle through on their own.
 
I don't think we've spent ourselves into bankruptcy, but we've wasted a lot of money trying to bring democracy to people's incapable and unwilling to accept it. If people aren't ready for it, it's time to let them muddle through on their own.

Evidently the GOP thinks the debt is bad enough they have to cut back on benefits to our seniors and the rest of the 99%.
 
I think you're right. Still, I think he wants to get us out, but just like in Iraq, we don't have a good exit strategy. The Taliban and other sundry groups are just waiting us out at this point. They know they can't win toe-to-toe with the US. So instead they wait under cover in their rat holes. They'll nibble around the edges, sacrificing the young among their numbers to claim they're still fighting, but accomplishing almost nothing. When the US leaves, they'll just claim victory. It's hard to have a good exit strategy to defeat that kind of propaganda.

Sooo you are saying the occupiers are waging war against little kids? Time to get the **** out.
 
@sherman123
Its good to read someone's original post before you start arguing with them and probably good to read the post they were responding to in the first place. What are you talking about? Last time I checked we are discussing possible outcomes of the US getting involved in a conflict between Iran and Israel.
 
I don't think we've spent ourselves into bankruptcy, but we've wasted a lot of money trying to bring democracy to people's incapable and unwilling to accept it. If people aren't ready for it, it's time to let them muddle through on their own.

Good point.. Democracy is organic .. and it requires a literate population, a free press and a robust middle class. In the muslim world there is no history or concept of civic participation for the vast majority.

And, I'm not knocking them.. I am particularly fond of the ME... if not Afghanistan.
 
@sherman123
Its good to read someone's original post before you start arguing with them and probably good to read the post they were responding to in the first place. What are you talking about? Last time I checked we are discussing possible outcomes of the US getting involved in a conflict between Iran and Israel.

I did, I was addressing the point. I've been arguing in this thread for some time.
 
Good point.. Democracy is organic .. and it requires a literate population, a free press and a robust middle class. In the muslim world there is no history or concept of civic participation for the vast majority.

And, I'm not knocking them.. I am particularly fond of the ME... if not Afghanistan.

What was the history of civic participation in absolutist Europe? An ancestral memory to Rome and Greece? I think the issue is not that the people in the Middle East have no heritage of civil democracy, it is that orthodox Islam clashes with the creation of a strong secular authority. This is an issue that will be addressed and dealt with as time goes on, but remains a core problem.
 
@sherman123
Its good to read someone's original post before you start arguing with them and probably good to read the post they were responding to in the first place. What are you talking about? Last time I checked we are discussing possible outcomes of the US getting involved in a conflict between Iran and Israel.

I did, I was addressing the point. I've been arguing in this thread for some time.

so you think we should be involved? im basing that on what youve said to me thus far, correct me if im wrong. if im not wrong, then why should we be involved? how does that help America and more importantly, American citizens?
 
so you think we should be involved? im basing that on what youve said to me thus far, correct me if im wrong. if im not wrong, then why should we be involved? how does that help America and more importantly, American citizens?

My first point was questioning how on earth the 'communist powers' would get involved if we struck Iran and how it would become a global conflict. As to your question yes I do think we should be involved if need be, because we have an interest in preventing Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. It is a strategic region of the world and an Iran with a nuclear weapon would be emboldened to act more aggressively to say the least.
 
My first point was questioning how on earth the 'communist powers' would get involved if we struck Iran and how it would become a global conflict. As to your question yes I do think we should be involved if need be, because we have an interest in preventing Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. It is a strategic region of the world and an Iran with a nuclear weapon would be emboldened to act more aggressively to say the least.

It's a good point than Iran would become more "emboldened" with a nuke than they have in the past. They may believe a nuke "makes" them stronger, but it's far more complex than that. They may engage in far more overt aggression than they have in the past, thus destabilizing the region. If they got nukes, they would find out quickly it doesn't make you immune to attack.
 
It's a good point than Iran would become more "emboldened" with a nuke than they have in the past. They may believe a nuke "makes" them stronger, but it's far more complex than that. They may engage in far more overt aggression than they have in the past, thus destabilizing the region. If they got nukes, they would find out quickly it doesn't make you immune to attack.

I'm not sure I follow. I agree that an Iran with nuclear weapons would make them emboldened and willing to much more aggressively pursue regional objectives via proxies and in limited cases overt confrontation. But I don't see why it wouldn't provide them with strategic security. Putting out the fires of increased Iranian support and bolder objectives to groups in north Yemen, Iraq, the Eastern Province, Bahrain, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories etc would certainly be a new challenge and they would be fought on those fronts. But I don't see how it would lead to a serious attack on Iran proper. If we wait for them to establish nuclear weapons and wed it with a delivery system, even if the chances of a successful first strike are high (which they likely would be) I'd be stunned if a US president chose to accept the risks and attack. Even if that was an option the threshold would be so much higher than it ordinarily would be, perhaps impossibly high.
 
I'm not sure I follow. I agree that an Iran with nuclear weapons would make them emboldened and willing to much more aggressively pursue regional objectives via proxies and in limited cases overt confrontation. But I don't see why it wouldn't provide them with strategic security. Putting out the fires of increased Iranian support and bolder objectives to groups in north Yemen, Iraq, the Eastern Province, Bahrain, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories etc would certainly be a new challenge and they would be fought on those fronts. But I don't see how it would lead to a serious attack on Iran proper. If we wait for them to establish nuclear weapons and wed it with a delivery system, even if the chances of a successful first strike are high (which they likely would be) I'd be stunned if a US president chose to accept the risks and attack. Even if that was an option the threshold would be so much higher than it ordinarily would be, perhaps impossibly high.

It won't provide strategic security. I just think that, Iran thinks, that it will. Even a lot of people on this board think a nuclear-armed Iran would suddenly be secure from attack. This is false. A nuclear nation must also have a very strong conventional military to protect the weapon from attack, otherwise that weapon will be quickly targeted and destroyed. I don't believe that Iran understands well enough. What is more likely to happen if Iran gets nukes, is it will trigger more attacks on Iran than they would have experienced without them!
 
It won't provide strategic security. I just think that, Iran thinks, that it will. Even a lot of people on this board think a nuclear-armed Iran would suddenly be secure from attack. This is false. A nuclear nation must also have a very strong conventional military to protect the weapon from attack, otherwise that weapon will be quickly targeted and destroyed. I don't believe that Iran understands well enough. What is more likely to happen if Iran gets nukes, is it will trigger more attacks on Iran than they would have experienced without them!

I actually disagree with you. Yes a strong conventional military is required for a variety of reasons, but I think there is no reason to think that an Iranian nuclear weapon wouldn't significantly alter the strategic equation in their favor. I would be hard pressed to imagine a US President taking the risk to retaliate against Iran conventionally without an enormous security in the decision and a compelling reason to take that risk regardless of our certitude.
 
I actually disagree with you. Yes a strong conventional military is required for a variety of reasons, but I think there is no reason to think that an Iranian nuclear weapon wouldn't significantly alter the strategic equation in their favor. I would be hard pressed to imagine a US President taking the risk to retaliate against Iran conventionally without an enormous security in the decision and a compelling reason to take that risk regardless of our certitude.

As it stands, the possibility that Iran might get a nuke soon already has given the US compelling reason to consider taking the risk of a strike on Iran. Luckily, diplomatic efforts are being tried first, but who knows how long that will last.

Right now, there is a lot of talk about an impending strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. It may happen, it may not. This is partly because they don't actually have one right now. Also there is debate on whether they actually plan to build one. For me, if they aren't flat one trying to build one, they are trying to establish the breakout potential to make one quick if they so choose. So without an actual nuclear weapon, no attack is happening and we're taking time while diplomatic and economic efforts to dissuade them are being tried. But if Iran actually built a nuclear warhead and placed it on a Shahab-3, there would be little discussion. A strike to destroy that missile would happen almost immediately. With stealth bombers it could be done easily and the strike completed long before the actual missile site could be notified. Yes, some nations with weak conventional arms would be intimidated, but not the US and not Israel. Any such weapon would go up in smoke before the manufacturer's paint dried. It must be this way because the khomeinis simply cannot be trusted with the immense responsibility of possessing a nuclear weapon.
 
I think you're right. Still, I think he wants to get us out, but just like in Iraq, we don't have a good exit strategy. The Taliban and other sundry groups are just waiting us out at this point. They know they can't win toe-to-toe with the US. So instead they wait under cover in their rat holes. They'll nibble around the edges, sacrificing the young among their numbers to claim they're still fighting, but accomplishing almost nothing. When the US leaves, they'll just claim victory. It's hard to have a good exit strategy to defeat that kind of propaganda.
So let's just stay. Encourage our young men to take Afghani wives. Let us be like Alexander the Great and encourage our army to commingle with the local populations.
 
Bin Laden's prediction was that the US would be defeated not on the battlefield, but by spending itself to bankruptcy on endless war. Many here seem dedicated to make his prediction come true!
Perhaps it was Islam who sent us the Marxist.
He should have said we would spend ourselves into bankruptcy chasing green jobs and funding the welfare state. He might have said that Obamacare would lead the defeat of the last best hope for mankind.
 
Evidently the GOP thinks the debt is bad enough they have to cut back on benefits to our seniors and the rest of the 99%.
Or as Bin Laden might have said funding the welfare state will bring about our defeat.
 
So let's just stay. Encourage our young men to take Afghani wives. Let us be like Alexander the Great and encourage our army to commingle with the local populations.

I'd rather not. It's time for Afghans to stand on their own two feet. We can leave a token force to support the Afghans we've trained, but no more.
 
Back
Top Bottom