• 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]

Moderator's Warning:
Friendly reminder to everyone to discuss the topic only please and leave the personal comments directed at other members aside. Thanks.
 
I love pie. Do we really need to discuss irrelevant material on this thread?


Threads are threads.... if you are not going to fight this war.... better sit, watch TV and eat pop corn like others do.
 
Threads are threads.... if you are not going to fight this war.... better sit, watch TV and eat pop corn like others do.

I have two years until, I can, so I guess I will sit down and eat pie until I can serve.
 
How would China launch a 'proxy' war against the US in the region, which really means launching a proxy war against our Gulf allies, whom are their largest energy partners (they have been divesting their Iranian import contracts btw), and with what resources and what 'proxies'? Furthermore that is not how the treasury debt situation works. 'Calling in' the treasury debt is not only not really possible, it would be catastrophic to China which trades in foreign currency reserves, and for a multitude of other reasons.

China wouldn't have to call in the debt. it could simply stop buying new debt. as our creditor, China does hold sway, and i disagree that it would be hurt as much as we would by debt manipulation. it can and does manipulate its own currency, which also could have a big effect on our now delicate economy. not to mention, China makes pretty much all of our electronics now. secondly, China and Russia have the ability to arm the Iranians and anyone else who wants to get on board to the hilt. this would erase any hope of stability in the region, and it also would decrease the safety of Israel.

once again, there aren't any good options. i think that the least bad options are diplomatic and economic until Iran demonstrates that aggression is inevitable.
 
China wouldn't have to call in the debt. it could simply stop buying new debt. as our creditor, China does hold sway, and i disagree that it would be hurt as much as we would by debt manipulation. it can and does manipulate its own currency, which also could have a big effect on our now delicate economy. not to mention, China makes pretty much all of our electronics now. secondly, China and Russia have the ability to arm the Iranians and anyone else who wants to get on board to the hilt. this would erase any hope of stability in the region, and it also would decrease the safety of Israel.

once again, there aren't any good options. i think that the least bad options are diplomatic and economic until Iran demonstrates that aggression is inevitable.

If China stopped purchasing debt it would have the same effect. China has a vested interested in purchasing US treasuries, both to buttress its supply of foreign currency reserves, and to maintain US import demand and capability on which Chinese growth rests. It is why the CIC moved to shore up US banks during the financial crisis, and why China did not suspend its purchase of US treasuries. To think that a strike on Iran would force them to put an economic gun to their head, when a world wide economic crises wouldn't, is absurd.

You have also still failed to explain why they would take the fantastically risky position of equipping Iran with advanced weaponry when they have to date refused to do so, and secondly how they would facilitate the deployment of such systems in a timeline that actually effects an existing campaign. Furthermore you have not addressed China's unwillingness to aggravate its greatest regional energy partners. Why China would intervene to protect a doomed Iran at the cost of losing all of its investments both political and economic with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, etc is beyond me and does not match up with reality.

A Sino-Russian savior intervention in Iran is fantasy.
 
If China stopped purchasing debt it would have the same effect. China has a vested interested in purchasing US treasuries, both to buttress its supply of foreign currency reserves, and to maintain US import demand and capability on which Chinese growth rests. It is why the CIC moved to shore up US banks during the financial crisis, and why China did not suspend its purchase of US treasuries. To think that a strike on Iran would force them to put an economic gun to their head, when a world wide economic crises wouldn't, is absurd.

You have also still failed to explain why they would take the fantastically risky position of equipping Iran with advanced weaponry when they have to date refused to do so, and secondly how they would facilitate the deployment of such systems in a timeline that actually effects an existing campaign. Furthermore you have not addressed China's unwillingness to aggravate its greatest regional energy partners. Why China would intervene to protect a doomed Iran at the cost of losing all of its investments both political and economic with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, etc is beyond me and does not match up with reality.

A Sino-Russian savior intervention in Iran is fantasy.

we're both simply playing the prediction game. my argument is that Russia and China will protect their business interests in Iran with varying degrees of covertness. is your argument that if Israel launches preemptive strikes (nuclear or conventional), China and Russia will pick up stakes, move on, and not respond? what, if any, reaction do you expect from Russia and China following a preemptive attack on Iran?
 
we're both simply playing the prediction game. my argument is that Russia and China will protect their business interests in Iran with varying degrees of covertness. is your argument that if Israel launches preemptive strikes (nuclear or conventional), China and Russia will pick up stakes, move on, and not respond? what, if any, reaction do you expect from Russia and China following a preemptive attack on Iran?

No, you are making claims and predictions far outside the realm of what any analyst at any legitimate institution whether government, non-profit, or private is saying. As for what I'm saying of course they will not respond militarily, it is ludicrous, mark that, ludicrous to believe China would stick its neck out for Iran when they have already started to assist the Saudi's in facilitating defacto sanctions on the country by divesting their Iranian import portfolio. Russia has no reason or means to sincerely intervene, and the decision to arm Iran would led to a catastrophic surge of activity on its periphery (the end of the defacto arms embargo on Georgia, the extension of the Manas Airforce Base lease, the deployment of missile assets to Eastern Europe, the arming of Azerbaijan, etc) for ZERO gain.

Also what business interests? Russia already lost out on a nearly $13 billion contract with Iran because it refused to supply them with S-300 missile batteries, planes, warships, armored vehicles, etc. They have instituted a defacto arms embargo on the country. While China hasn't sold them significant military equipment in some time and has much more important regional trading partners.
 
No, you are making claims and predictions far outside the realm of what any analyst at any legitimate institution whether government, non-profit, or private is saying. As for what I'm saying of course they will not respond militarily, it is ludicrous, mark that, ludicrous to believe China would stick its neck out for Iran when they have already started to assist the Saudi's in facilitating defacto sanctions on the country by divesting their Iranian import portfolio. Russia has no reason or means to sincerely intervene, and the decision to arm Iran would led to a catastrophic surge of activity on its periphery (the end of the defacto arms embargo on Georgia, the extension of the Manas Airforce Base lease, the deployment of missile assets to Eastern Europe, the arming of Azerbaijan, etc) for ZERO gain.

Also what business interests? Russia already lost out on a nearly $13 billion contract with Iran because it refused to supply them with S-300 missile batteries, planes, warships, armored vehicles, etc. They have instituted a defacto arms embargo on the country. While China hasn't sold them significant military equipment in some time and has much more important regional trading partners.

a little more on this issue : Waiting for Russia's Next Move on Iran - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

so, to be clear, you believe that China and Russia will allow a preemptive attack on Iran, and will not respond?

i would disagree. they are already responding.

Russia: New US sanctions on Iran 'overt ... JPost - International
China slams new US-Iran sanctions as 'serious violation of intl rules' — RT

exactly how they will respond is certainly up for debate. whether they will respond is decidedly less so.
 
Sure, and if we are removing moral equivalency from the argument then its fair to say that an Iranian nuclear weapon is inimical to US interests and we should prevent it from coming to pass. Having an Iranian bomb is not a positive thing for the region, or for the US. Nor is it positive for the world as far as the expansion and potential pressures of proliferation.


There it is! We are different and get to decide what is good for the world. Nukes in general are bad for the world but to classify us as having some kind of moral authority is an amazing statement. Read about the history of the Iran since world war 2 and maybe you'll get an idea about our moral authority. Here's a hint they don't dislike us because we have titty bars. The people of Iran are actual people they are not objects that you get to have dominion over.
 
a little more on this issue : Waiting for Russia's Next Move on Iran - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

so, to be clear, you believe that China and Russia will allow a preemptive attack on Iran, and will not respond?

i would disagree. they are already responding.

Russia: New US sanctions on Iran 'overt ... JPost - International
China slams new US-Iran sanctions as 'serious violation of intl rules' — RT

exactly how they will respond is certainly up for debate. whether they will respond is decidedly less so.

Your report acknowledges that Russia has lost billions on willingly canceled military contracts, and secondly NO WHERE does it mention that Russia or China would respond militarily. Which is entirely the point, because no one is saying they would. No one. Their reaction would be diplomatic and peripheral not militant or economic.
 
There it is! We are different and get to decide what is good for the world. Nukes in general are bad for the world but to classify us as having some kind of moral authority is an amazing statement. Read about the history of the Iran since world war 2 and maybe you'll get an idea about our moral authority. Here's a hint they don't dislike us because we have titty bars. The people of Iran are actual people they are not objects that you get to have dominion over.

We do get to decide what is good for the world as the major Democratic power and leader of a coalition of democratic powers. I don't care what the Iranian government wants or thinks is fair. Their acquisition of a nuclear weapon is harmful and cannot be allowed.
 
I suspect that all this sabre-rattling is attributable to Israel's MIC and our own MIC. Scare 'em and sell 'em. Israel has a huge arms industry and they buy or are given a lot of our weapons as well.

Would Israel invade Iran? Not very likely. Would Iran invade Israel? Not very likely.

If I'm wrong, would Israel want or need any US assistance other than arms supply? Again, I doubt that very much.

((IMHO Of Course))
 
We do get to decide what is good for the world as the major Democratic power and leader of a coalition of democratic powers. I don't care what the Iranian government wants or thinks is fair. Their acquisition of a nuclear weapon is harmful and cannot be allowed.

I appreciate your honesty. While I couldn't disagree more with your ideas at least you're not wrapping it in all the bs about good intentions.
 
Can everyone stop using the "Invade Iran" line! No one is suggesting Israel will invade Iran, or that Iran will invade Israel! I also have to strongly disagree with you speckle.
 
I appreciate your honesty. While I couldn't disagree more with your ideas at least you're not wrapping it in all the bs about good intentions.

Oh don't get me wrong, I do believe we have good intentions and that our approach provides greater net utility to the world than Iran's. I'm just not willing to bow to a moral relativism that says because Iran has had a turbulent past, or because we have transgressed, or for the sake of fairness, that it's alright for them to acquire a nuclear weapon.
 
What did I say that you disagree with?

I feel like you just said exactly what I said so where is the point of disagreement?


Can everyone stop using the "Invade Iran" line! No one is suggesting Israel will invade Iran, or that Iran will invade Israel! I also have to strongly disagree with you speckle.
 
What does U.S. elections have to do with israel?

I heard on the news yesterday that Israel stated that unless the US commits to attacking Iran by next June that Israel would go it alone this fall, before the election.

MSNBC, so i havent parsed spin yet.
 
What did I say that you disagree with?

I feel like you just said exactly what I said so where is the point of disagreement?

Apologies. What I meant was that this is about a coordinated air campaign, and Iranian methods of retaliation, but these threads have been replete with references to invasion, which is what I was referring to. My disagreement is that this is part of some desire to drive up arms procurement rates. I think that is unfounded and mildly conspiratorial.
 
Your report acknowledges that Russia has lost billions on willingly canceled military contracts, and secondly NO WHERE does it mention that Russia or China would respond militarily. Which is entirely the point, because no one is saying they would. No one. Their reaction would be diplomatic and peripheral not militant or economic.

If China responds militarily, we could drop all of our debt to them, save our (and the western) economy and then they can decide if they want to go nuke. Our debt to them is a much more powerful weapon than anything short of a nuke.
 
Sure, and if we are removing moral equivalency from the argument then its fair to say that an Iranian nuclear weapon is inimical to US interests and we should prevent it from coming to pass. Having an Iranian bomb is not a positive thing for the region, or for the US. Nor is it positive for the world as far as the expansion and potential pressures of proliferation.

We did this to ourselves by making it clear that the only way to keep Americas dick out of your butt is to have a nuke.
 
It is conspiratorial. You don't believe that our politicians are in a conspiracy to drive up weapons sales? What are those campaign contributions and lobbyists for then?


Apologies. What I meant was that this is about a coordinated air campaign, and Iranian methods of retaliation, but these threads have been replete with references to invasion, which is what I was referring to. My disagreement is that this is part of some desire to drive up arms procurement rates. I think that is unfounded and mildly conspiratorial.
 
We did this to ourselves by making it clear that the only way to keep Americas dick out of your butt is to have a nuke.

That is the only way to prevent that. But I like America being able to intervene and excercise influence in countries and regions like this, hence why I do not want Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. I'm not going to be a self-flagellating American and say that I'd prefer an Iranian nuclear weapon because, come on guys America did bad things during the Cold War. We are a liberal democratic power, and have by and large pushed a liberal agenda when possible in the region. We are the best interlocutor and actor you are going to get for the region, and for the world stage. I support the overthrow of autocracies and the steady advance of liberalism and democratic constitutionalism and the Iranian acquisition of a nuclear weapon and the ensuing increase in pressure and regional action they would be able to take is an impediment to that and would cause significant instability in the region and abroad. So no, they cannot have a bomb.
 
It is conspiratorial. You don't believe that our politicians are in a conspiracy to drive up weapons sales? What are those campaign contributions and lobbyists for then?

No I don't in the least. What are campaign contributions and lobbying for? So that they can get favorable legislation and so that they will look kindly on their product when the time for defense appropriations comes about.
 
Back
Top Bottom