• 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!

Iran sending warships close to US borders[W:623]

Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

US Conservative said:
This is true. The US military recently found a weak spot for ship launched medium/short range missles that could strike Washington DC. Terrorists are bad enough, but terrorists with better weapons are of even more concern.
Click to expand...


Asymmetrical warfare is quickly becoming a greater concern to the US intel forces than ever thought of before. Between critical computer, electrical and service oriented attacks there are many scenarios where we are vulnerable. Just floating a ship into a major metropolises harbor and detonating a nuke or stealing a bio/chem weapon from former Soviet Republics.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

grip said:
Asymmetrical warfare is quickly becoming a greater concern to the US intel forces than ever thought of before. Between critical computer, electrical and service oriented attacks there are many scenarios where we are vulnerable. Just floating a ship into a major metropolises harbor and detonating a nuke or stealing a bio/chem weapon from former Soviet Republics.
Click to expand...

Technology is where the next war may be fought, though asymmetrical warfare, in the post ww2 era is quite common.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

Montecresto said:
Oh for Pete's sake. What an elitist attitude, the US is not the saviour of the world, and those people have been doing there thing over there for millennia and along comes the snot nosed, know it all Americans to tell them how to fix everything. Our domestic problems, unaddressed are eventually going to be dealt with, or we won't be worrying about the foreign. But if its your blood and your money, go for it.

And your reference to the strong military that isn't for conquest is a lie. Everything we've done in the ME region has been conquest of the oil. It's always been about keeping the oil flowing. US foreign policy doesn't think twice about humanitarian concerns, though it sells and is the stated purpose for so many missions. Our military has destroyed too many civilian lives and property damage would by now be in tens of trillions, or more, god knows. Our drone strikes are destroying our credibility, fragile as it was.

The good news is that there is a change in the air, and other countries are asserting themselves more, and hopefully there is a balancing of power underway.
Click to expand...

What a self loathing view....
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

LaMidRighter said:
The most plausible scenario I've heard is that if Iran did try to attack they would use an EMP burst to disable the grid, then try to land ground troops. That would be an absolutely stupid plan, if they land in the south they won't make it past us without massive casualties, a lot of patriots that track game with way more advantages than a human, if they attack the east or west there are tons of military bases and mobilization wouldn't be a problem. Either way they would need an entire new military if they tried it.
Click to expand...

Hey LMR, interesting to see you coming over and discussing foreign policy. You should come over to ME and talk about it some more.

I know from our previous discussions you think I'm respectful, but I'm really just being a pushover because you know more about the Constitution and guns than I do. Trust me, I can be a real douche when talking international relations :lol:
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

Montecresto said:
Oh for Pete's sake. What an elitist attitude, the US is not the saviour of the world, and those people have been doing there thing over there for millennia and along comes the snot nosed, know it all Americans to tell them how to fix everything. Our domestic problems, unaddressed are eventually going to be dealt with, or we won't be worrying about the foreign. But if its your blood and your money, go for it.

And your reference to the strong military that isn't for conquest is a lie. Everything we've done in the ME region has been conquest of the oil. It's always been about keeping the oil flowing. US foreign policy doesn't think twice about humanitarian concerns, though it sells and is the stated purpose for so many missions. Our military has destroyed too many civilian lives and property damage would by now be in tens of trillions, or more, god knows. Our drone strikes are destroying our credibility, fragile as it was.

The good news is that there is a change in the air, and other countries are asserting themselves more, and hopefully there is a balancing of power underway.
Click to expand...

Yes, that must be why, whenever a country wants to emancipate itself from it's dictatorship, they cry for us to come and intervene. :roll: Give me a break, like it or not we have already been deemed to be the world's sugar daddy.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

j-mac said:
What a self loathing view....
Click to expand...

It's extremely narrow-minded view and does not take into consideration other factors whatsoever. I think those who claim our single goal is the conquest of other countries for the purpose of oil are ignorant.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

It's funny how so many of the people here clamoring for action against Iran were opposed to intervention in Syria a few months back. They fail to realize that the surest way to destroy the Iranian regime short of an invasion (and by far a less costly method to do so) is to eliminate Tehran's most crucial client state. That would sever the connection that Iran has to Hamas and Hezbollah and force the regime to collapse inward, where they'll collapse due to internal pressures.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

MadLib said:
It's funny how so many of the people here clamoring for action against Iran were opposed to intervention in Syria a few months back. They fail to realize that the surest way to destroy the Iranian regime short of an invasion (and by far a less costly method to do so) is to eliminate Tehran's most crucial client state. That would sever the connection that Iran has to Hamas and Hezbollah and force the regime to collapse inward, where they'll collapse due to internal pressures.
Click to expand...

Well I don't want to go to war with them or anything. I'm just saying there is a happy medium between kissing their butts and going to war. Yet sanctions don't seem to work (of course not when other countries do not participate), trying to "reach out" to them didn't seem to work either. They kind of leave us with not very many options.

Isn't that why they're angry with us anyway? Because we sent ships over there because of the mess in Syria? That was the gist I got from everything I've heard at least.

I still don't want us involved in the mess in Syria because then we'll just be making NEW enemies.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

ChrisL said:
Well I don't want to go to war with them or anything. I'm just saying there is a happy medium between kissing their butts and going to war. Yet sanctions don't seem to work (of course not when other countries do not participate), trying to "reach out" to them didn't seem to work either. They kind of leave us with not very many options.

Isn't that why they're angry with us anyway? Because we sent ships over there because of the mess in Syria? That was the gist I got from everything I've heard at least.
Click to expand...

My personal method to deal with Iran is similar to how we dealt with the Soviet Union: instead of facing them directly, we go after the proxy militias and client states that serve as Iran's sphere of influence. The Soviet Union's humiliating defeat in Afghanistan and the collapse of the satellite states are the main reasons why the CCCP collapsed. Because Iran is in a similar situation - a large, well-educated population that is discontented with its undemocratic government - we should utilize a similar policy, although being more careful than we were in Afghanistan and less rash than we were in Vietnam.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

MadLib said:
My personal method to deal with Iran is similar to how we dealt with the Soviet Union: instead of facing them directly, we go after the proxy militias and client states that serve as Iran's sphere of influence. The Soviet Union's humiliating defeat in Afghanistan and the collapse of the satellite states are the main reasons why the CCCP collapsed. Because Iran is in a similar situation - a large, well-educated population that is discontented with its undemocratic government - we should utilize a similar policy, although being more careful than we were in Afghanistan and less rash than we were in Vietnam.
Click to expand...

That's actually not a bad idea, but at what cost? I don't see how we could accomplish these goals without advocating for some kind of war or interference, and that's exactly how things got started with the hate we see today from Iran according to some on this site.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

ChrisL said:
That's actually not a bad idea, but at what cost? I don't see how we could accomplish these goals without advocating for some kind of war or interference, and that's exactly how things got started with the hate we see today from Iran according to some on this site.
Click to expand...

Meh, our foreign policy is always going to piss someone off. You can't please everyone, and everyone's a critic :shrug:
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

MadLib said:
Meh, our foreign policy is always going to piss someone off. You can't please everyone, and everyone's a critic :shrug:
Click to expand...

:lol: This is truth! No avoiding that I suppose.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

ChrisL said:
:lol: This is truth! No avoiding that I suppose.
Click to expand...

My list of priorities on what to cater to with our foreign policy:

1. Our national security interests

2. The safety of innocent civilians

3. The security of our allies

4. Our economic interests

(skip a few)

999,648. What some asshole dictator or a rabidly angry fundamentalist thinks of us.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

MadLib said:
Hey LMR, interesting to see you coming over and discussing foreign policy. You should come over to ME and talk about it some more.
Click to expand...
Oh no. No no no no no no no no. Too many heated opinions and land mines in that area. :mrgreen:

I know from our previous discussions you think I'm respectful, but I'm really just being a pushover because you know more about the Constitution and guns than I do. Trust me, I can be a real douche when talking international relations :lol:
Click to expand...
It's such a polarized issue I just don't see how it can be rationally discussed at this point in time, which is one reason I give my opinion and run when it comes to this subject.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

LaMidRighter said:
Oh no. No no no no no no no no. Too many heated opinions and land mines in that area. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
It's kind of weird feeling like I'm posting in the quarantined area of the forum. It's not really that bad; I've heard it was really horrible before, but I've only gotten a glimpse of that.
It's such a polarized issue I just don't see how it can be rationally discussed at this point in time, which is one reason I give my opinion and run when it comes to this subject.
Click to expand...

That's one of the problems with foreign policy. Whenever something interesting or important happens, you suddenly have a swarm of experts who probably couldn't identify a country on a map or name more than two actors in a given conflict. The rest of the time it's a little boring, and there's no one new to talk with.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

j-mac said:
What a self loathing view....
Click to expand...

Self loathing??? That entire view was critical of US foreign policy. It might be considered a loathing of US foreign policy!
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

ChrisL said:
Yes, that must be why, whenever a country wants to emancipate itself from it's dictatorship, they cry for us to come and intervene. :roll: Give me a break, like it or not we have already been deemed to be the world's sugar daddy.
Click to expand...

Neither Afghanistan or Iraq or Iran have cried for America to come do anything.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

MadLib said:
My personal method to deal with Iran is similar to how we dealt with the Soviet Union: instead of facing them directly, we go after the proxy militias and client states that serve as Iran's sphere of influence. The Soviet Union's humiliating defeat in Afghanistan and the collapse of the satellite states are the main reasons why the CCCP collapsed. Because Iran is in a similar situation - a large, well-educated population that is discontented with its undemocratic government - we should utilize a similar policy, although being more careful than we were in Afghanistan and less rash than we were in Vietnam.
Click to expand...

Really, nothing needs to be done to Iran. Besides, this empire is waning, other countries are growing more assertive. There is a balancing of power under way.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

MadLib said:
My list of priorities on what to cater to with our foreign policy:

1. Our national security interests

2. The safety of innocent civilians

3. The security of our allies

4. Our economic interests

(skip a few)

999,648. What some asshole dictator or a rabidly angry fundamentalist thinks of us.
Click to expand...

Yep, just what I figured. Btw, #2 never happens.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

I hope we don't go back to that old mentality of being 911 for the world. We just got through that.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

Beatrice said:
I hope we don't go back to that old mentality of being 911 for the world. We just got through that.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Not sure I understand what that means.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

Well I'm an old foggy, but in the 80's when we were balancing the budget, which by the way we did. There was a female Senator can't think of her name (Patricia Schroeder.) And the middle east was kicking up. And she said words to the effect, let's not be 911 for the world. In that what happens within other countries borders are their problems and not ask us to intervene. Those were the good days.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

Beatrice said:
Well I'm an old foggy, but in the 80's when we were balancing the budget, which by the way we did. There was a female Senator can't think of her name (Patricia Schroeder.) And the middle east was kicking up. And she said words to the effect, let's not be 911 for the world. In that what happens within other countries borders are their problems and not ask us to intervene. Those were the good days.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. Thanks for explaining.
 
Re: Iran sending warships close to US borders

ChrisL said:
The PEOPLE of Iran did.

Iranian Protesters: "Obama, Are You With Us Or Against Us?" (VIDEO)

As did the people of Libya and Syria and so have other countries.
Click to expand...

There's 76 million people in Iran. I know you didn't know that, but your few thousand protesters constitute a very tiny minority. And your wrong about Syria too!

NATO reveals 70% of Syrians support Bashar al-Assad

http://www.voltairenet.org/article178779.html


And this is what the US was supporting in Libya:


The U.S. supported opposition which overthrew Libya’s Gadaffi was largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists.

According to a 2007 report by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center’s center, the Libyan city of Benghazi was one of Al Qaeda’s main headquarters – and bases for sending Al Qaeda fighters into Iraq – prior to the overthrow of Gaddafi.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-di...-the-u-s-ambassador-to-libya-murdered/5311311
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom