• 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!

Diplomats: Iran has means to test bomb in 6 months

No, Saddam crossed that line, and where is he now? Right where he belongs...

Look at North Korea. Iran. Burma. China. Huh. Lots of crossed lines. And you mistake the Iraqi situation. There were plans to invade well before 9/11. It's not like Saddam crossed a line and got hammered for it. The plan was to get him regardless of any lines he crossed. Without 9/11, there wouldn't have been any serious justification to attack.
 
Look at North Korea. Iran. Burma. China. Huh. Lots of crossed lines. And you mistake the Iraqi situation. There were plans to invade well before 9/11. It's not like Saddam crossed a line and got hammered for it. The plan was to get him regardless of any lines he crossed. Without 9/11, there wouldn't have been any serious justification to attack.
Of course there were plans to invade Iraq prior to 911. There were many reasons for that.....like Kuwait? At the pentagon there are plans to invade many countries to be prepared for any contingency. Let me ask you, were there any pentagon plans on the books during the Clinton Administration?-for invading Iraq that is. And let me ask you, are there any plans made for contingency situations in countries we hardly think of right now? It's what they do-with resolution 1441 in existence alone, it's no big surprise that there would be multiple plans for military action on the books, it's called PLANNING, and I'm glad they do it.;
 
Of course there were plans to invade Iraq prior to 911. There were many reasons for that.....like Kuwait? At the pentagon there are plans to invade many countries to be prepared for any contingency. Let me ask you, were there any pentagon plans on the books during the Clinton Administration?-for invading Iraq that is. And let me ask you, are there any plans made for contingency situations in countries we hardly think of right now? It's what they do-with resolution 1441 in existence alone, it's no big surprise that there would be multiple plans for military action on the books, it's called PLANNING, and I'm glad they do it.;

And nothing you said addressed what I was talking about in terms of crossed lines. Please read "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward.

It's not about crossed lines when they were out to invade from the beginning.
 
And nothing you said addressed what I was talking about in terms of crossed lines. Please read "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward.

It's not about crossed lines when they were out to invade from the beginning.
Anybody else out there, read what I said....
 
It seems obvious to me what Obama has chosen to do.

Nothing much more than talk.

He will let Israel go to war and THEN we will respond if necessary.

Iran has been told no boom-boom. They will listen or they WILL regret it.
 
Iran has been told no boom-boom. They will listen or they WILL regret it.

Tell me if some other country told America to do something or else, would you as an American citizen agree to follow that?

If not, then why would you think Iran would do the same?

Iranians may not like their government, but they (like Americans) don't like another country trying to push them around.

You want a quick way to unite Iranians in favor of their religious leaders? Have someone attack their facilities and kill their country men in the process.

The only way to bring down Iran's government is their citizens and when we kill those at those facilities, you will make them martyrs and only force them to side with their government.

If ANY American facility was under attack by another country, you are damn right that would unite ANY faction in America against those attackers. To think otherwise is not only foolish, but would cost lives.
 
Tell me if some other country told America to do something or else, would you as an American citizen agree to follow that?

If not, then why would you think Iran would do the same?

Iranians may not like their government, but they (like Americans) don't like another country trying to push them around.

You want a quick way to unite Iranians in favor of their religious leaders? Have someone attack their facilities and kill their country men in the process.

The only way to bring down Iran's government is their citizens and when we kill those at those facilities, you will make them martyrs and only force them to side with their government.

If ANY American facility was under attack by another country, you are damn right that would unite ANY faction in America against those attackers. To think otherwise is not only foolish, but would cost lives.
....but American facilities aren't being built by a country that believes another should be "pushed into the Sea" based entirely on their ethnicity. Gee it's tough when you have to try to explain the difference between Americans and the Mullahs, but I suppose you think the Holocaust is a silly exaggeration too, right?
 
Can't phrase it right
 
Last edited:
....but American facilities aren't being built by a country that believes another should be "pushed into the Sea" based entirely on their ethnicity. Gee it's tough when you have to try to explain the difference between Americans and the Mullahs, but I suppose you think the Holocaust is a silly exaggeration too, right?

Let's just say that America had a plan to attack Saudi Arabia with nukes. Saudi Arabia struck first and hundreds of American Citizens are now dead.

Do you think America would rally behind the American Government or Saudi Arabia even though America was planning the aggression?

The American civilians would rally behind the American Government.
 
Let's just say that America had a plan to attack Saudi Arabia with nukes. Saudi Arabia struck first and hundreds of American Citizens are now dead.

Do you think America would rally behind the American Government or Saudi Arabia even though America was planning the aggression?

The American civilians would rally behind the American Government.
Planning is not agression, if it were, we'd be dealing with pre-emptive strikes from ....Canada. I guarantee you we have plans of attack for just about every country in the world-as we should have. Again, are you suggesting we had no plans on the books for an Iraqi contingency during, say, the Clinton Administration?.....................praying you'll take the bait.....did I say that out loud?.......
 
Planning is not agression,

Tell that to those that say Iran getting a nuke is reason to attack.

People say that if Iran gets the nuke, they are PLANNING to use it against Israel and that is justification to attack them.

Obviously PLANNING is an aggression to some that support this plan to attack Iran.
 
Last edited:
Tell that to those that say Iran getting a nuke is reason to attack.

People say that if Iran gets the nuke, they are PLANNING to use it against Israel and that is justification to attack them.

Obviously PLANNING is an aggression to some that support this plan to attack Iran.
Gee whizzz! I don't know why they'd think that!!! The powers that be in Iran have made it clear in no uncertain terms that Israel has no right to exist! Then they're getting nukes. Hmmmmm, you're right we should just trust their intentions. I'm sure all that "Pushing them into the sea", and the "delusional holocaust" syndrome should not be of any concern....PRAISE ALLAH!!!
 
Gee whizzz! I don't know why they'd think that!!! The powers that be in Iran have made it clear in no uncertain terms that Israel has no right to exist! Then they're getting nukes. Hmmmmm, you're right we should just trust their intentions. I'm sure all that "Pushing them into the sea", and the "delusional holocaust" syndrome should not be of any concern....PRAISE ALLAH!!!

The point being that whatever the government plans, the civilians (Even Americans) are loyal to that government.

And when another country attacks them, they will unite against that country. If Isreal attacks, and another country supports Israel, Iranians will rally behind their government because they don't want to be invaded by another country.

Liberals, conservatives, and libertarians of America would unite if another country attacked us. Why would you think the Iranians wouldn't?
 
The point being that whatever the government plans, the civilians (Even Americans) are loyal to that government.

And when another country attacks them, they will unite against that country. If Isreal attacks, and another country supports Israel, Iranians will rally behind their government because they don't want to be invaded by another country.

Liberals, conservatives, and libertarians of America would unite if another country attacked us. Why would you think the Iranians wouldn't?
I used to think reincarnation was just a bunch of hokey pokey BS. But I'm convinced...you are Neville Chamberlain, aren't you.............? You're comparing apples and oranges.......expected
 
I used to think reincarnation was just a bunch of hokey pokey BS. But I'm convinced...you are Neville Chamberlain, aren't you.............? You're comparing apples and oranges.......expected

Ok so you have nothing to add, so you try to compare me to a dead guy, got it.

I'm talking of what will happen, and you are comparing me to a dead guy. Ok, I will admit you are comparing apples to oranges.
 
I used to think reincarnation was just a bunch of hokey pokey BS. But I'm convinced...you are Neville Chamberlain, aren't you.............? You're comparing apples and oranges.......expected
And no... I don't think Iranians are particularly "loyal" to that government...
 
Tell that to those that say Iran getting a nuke is reason to attack.

People say that if Iran gets the nuke, they are PLANNING to use it against Israel and that is justification to attack them.

Obviously PLANNING is an aggression to some that support this plan to attack Iran.

Because there is no way to know when or if Iran is prepared to launch a nuke the only way to assure Israel's survival is to attack Iran once they have a nuke.
 
And no... I don't think Iranians are particularly "loyal" to that government...

And if the Israelis attack a facility in Iran, you REALLY think the Iranian civilians are going to rally with Israel?
 
Because there is no way to know when or if Iran is prepared to launch a nuke the only way to assure Israel's survival is to attack Iran once they have a nuke.

There is no way to know when or if America was going to launch a nuke against Russia or if Russia was going to launch a nuke against America either.

Neither side launched an attack on the others facilities because of it.
 
And if the Israelis attack a facility in Iran, you REALLY think the Iranian civilians are going to rally with Israel?

Based on what I'm seeing right now?...Could be. But go on APPEASE AT ALL COSTS!!! I wonder who wears the pants in your family!:rofl Ok, that's a lie, I don't wonder...
 
There is no way to know when or if America was going to launch a nuke against Russia or if Russia was going to launch a nuke against America either.

Neither side launched an attack on the others facilities because of it.

The Americans and the Soviets believe in the here and now but the Iranian Mullahs believe in the hereafter.

That's why MAD is an imperfect template to use in determining Iran's future actions.
 
Based on what I'm seeing right now?...Could be. But go on APPEASE AT ALL COSTS!!! I wonder who wears the pants in your family!:rofl Ok, that's a lie, I don't wonder...

Um so let me get this straight, you think if the Israelis attack an Iranian Nuclear facility and Iranian citizens die in that facility, you think the majority of Iranians are going to side with Israel?

Are you ****ing kidding me? Would you personally side with a foreign country that killed your friend/family member that was working at a facility that a foreign country destroyed.
 
Last edited:
The Americans and the Soviets believe in the here and now but the Iranian Mullahs believe in the hereafter.

That's why MAD is an imperfect template to use in determining Iran's future actions.

Um the MAJORITY of Americans believed in the hereafter during that time too.
 
Um so let me get this straight, you think if the Israelis attack an Iranian Nuclear facility and Iranian citizens die in that facility, you think the majority of Iranians are going to side with Israel?

Are you ****ing kidding me? Would you personally side with a foreign country that killed your friend/family member that was broking at a facility that a foreign country destroyed.
I'm not sure what "broking" is..
 
Back
Top Bottom