• 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 Test-Fires Its Longest-Range Missile

Charles Martel said:
What would you like for evidence? Uranium being spun into weapons grade? Longe range weapons being developed and tested?
Click to expand...

Does the US do these things?

The promise that Israel is destroyed?
Click to expand...

We have no obligation to attack if they invade another country. We would be justified in attacking though.

The facilitation and funding of international terrorism. The IED and American soldier killing going on in both wars right this second.
Click to expand...

If they are attacking us, directly or indirectly, we should attack.

Hitler hadn't invaded before Chamberlain's peace in our time mistake.

On Oct 1, 1938
Click to expand...

So Germany never should have been allowed to build up a defense? Then why should we?

Germany invaded Poland in September, 1939. Funny, this is exactly your advice here.....go home and sleep and wait until the day before we're attacked.
Click to expand...

The Sudetenland? Did you forget about that?
 
phattonez said:
Did Neville Chamberlain do nothing when Hitler wanted to expand? No, he rolled out the red carpet for him. I would have had no problem with him taking action there, but until then, was he doing anything wrong in terms of foreign policy?
Click to expand...

Yes, Chamberlain was doing TONS wrong with his country's foreign policy.

He rebuffed the Soviets, he didn't tell France to get a backbone, and he didn't do enough to re-arm England, and otherwise abetted Hitler by his incompetence and inaction.

WWII could have been prevented at several points in Hitler's career if only the French and British had had spines.
 
phattonez said:
Does the US do these things?
Click to expand...

Yep. Outside of the present instance, the US isn't led by fanatics, in Iran that's the norm.


phattonez said:
We have no obligation to attack if they invade another country. We would be justified in attacking though.
Click to expand...

Oh?

Ignorant of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? If Iran attacks any NATO member, all NATO members are obligated by treaty to miliarily support the attacked member. Since the US is the only NATO member with a military that can do anything, that means the US is on call when Iran attacks Europe.

phattonez said:
If they are attacking us, directly or indirectly, we should attack.
Click to expand...

How does one attack "indirectly"?

OH! You mean like when Iran is supplying arms and personnel to build and plant IED's in Iraq that kill US soldiers. So you're saying we should attack Iran.

I agree.

phattonez said:
So Germany never should have been allowed to build up a defense? Then why should we?
Click to expand...

According to Versailles, Germany was allowed to build a defense within specified limits.

Nuclear weapons are not defensive weapons.

Period.

phattonez said:
The Sudetenland? Did you forget about that?
Click to expand...

No, haven't forgotten that Hitler trumped up territorial demands on the basis of false allegations of repression in Czechoslovakia.

You are aware, are you not, that the "Sudetenland" was that portion of Czechoslovakia Hitler claimed and which Chamberlain agreed to cede to Hitler at the conference in Munich so he could go home and declare he's achieved "peace in our time", right?
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
Pre 9-11 mentality? Is your mentality the one that says that only we and our friends are allowed to build up our defenses, even nuclear defenses? Does your mentality state that we must destroy another nation that builds up its military even if it does not threaten us? It's my contention that we should build up our defenses rather than plan attacks. When we attack, our defense naturally less than it otherwise could be, plus we make ourselves more prone to attack due to blowback.
Click to expand...

"............even if it does not threaten us?"

LOL - I guess they didn't send you the memo on this one - Iran has been conducting a proxy war against the U.S. since they overthrew the Shah back in the 70's - Iran has been threatening and attacking the U.S. since they overthrew the U.S. emabassy in Tehran and made hostages of 53 people for 444 days, from Nov. 4, 1979 until Jan. 20, 1981, the day President Reagan was sworn into office.

Just think if the U.S. overthrew some country's embassy here in America and held their people hostage for even one day, let alone 444 days.

Then their proxies hit the Marine barracks at the International Airport in Beirut Lebanon killing 241 U.S. soldiers - soldiers who were there to try to keep the security for the airport because of the threat to it.

Iran's proxies have blown up a couple of U.S. embassies, the USS Cole, hotels, nightclubs, market, workplaces - you name it - Iran's proxies have targeted the U.S. and its friends for 30 years - and you insinuate that they have a right to build nukes and long range missiles even if they don't threaten us - they have been threatening and attacking the civilized world for 30 years.

Hezbollah, the PLO, the Taliban, Hamas, and Al Qaeda are but some of Iran's proxies - their proxies are at work in Somalia, Sudan, and quite a few other nations, as well.

Iran's oil money pays for their deeds - that money would be better spent on working toward peace and not domination of the region, which is Iran's plan.

Just what do you think this is all about, anyway?

Do you know that Iran's plan is to take over the region and restore it's Persian glory?

Look at an old map of Persia and you will see exactly where they are doing their deeds with their proxies and the arms they smuggle in.

This is no secret - a lot of people know this, I guess except for those who didn't get the memo - well, I hope you get it.
 
Last edited:
Here's a read I just dug up:

Iran's Proxy War Against America by Thomas Joscelyn
By Brian T. Kennedy

Posted September 11, 2007

Foreword

The Claremont Institute’s National Security Studies series is devoted to the serious discussion of what will be required to defend the United States and the West. Our Declaration of Independence teaches that government is instituted among men to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution’s injunction to provide for the “common defense” requires a vigorous and vigilant approach to national security. American foreign policy dedicated to the security of the interests and rights of its citizens requires not only informed and prudent statesmanship, but also a responsible citizenry that is engaged in the national discussion about friends and foes. It is in this tradition of spirited self-government that we publish these studies.

Iran has long been one of the leading state sponsors of terrorism worldwide. Iran’s ruling mullahs are extending their regional influence in the fog of the Iraq conflict. Their pursuit of nuclear weapons and a robust ballistic missile capability continues apace. Thomas Joscelyn argues that Iran is guilty of far more. An emboldened Iran has vicariously waged war against America for nearly three decades, yet America’s leaders are unwilling to admit what is plain for all to see.

Because of our reluctance to confront this terrorist state openly, we are losing ground on a vital front in our war against radical Islam. Through careful analysis of open sources, Joscelyn explains both the intelligence establishment’s misreading of history and the numerous but unfounded assumptions by today’s elite concerning Iran and its link to terrorist operations.

One of the most damaging and unwarranted assumptions made is that sectarian differences within Islam should prevent cooperation in operations against the West. A brief look at the evidence shows that Iran and others have had no trouble in putting aside differences in theology to harm their enemies, especially America. Specific links include the Iranian connection to al-Qaeda in the Sudan, a partnership brokered by Hassan al-Turabi, one-time leader of Sudan’s ruling party, the National Islamic Front. Next, there is Imad Mugniyah, Hezbollah’s master terrorist, who helped Osama bin Laden upgrade al-Qaeda’s capabilities in the early 1990s. The 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, long suspected to be the handiwork of Hezbollah under direction from Iran, may also have had a junior partner in al-Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission established that the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania were the work of Hezbollah-trained al-Qaeda operatives. There are disturbing signs that may implicate Iran in, at the very least, facilitating travel for some of the 9/11 hijackers. Finally, there is extensive evidence that Iran aided al-Qaeda’s retreat from Afghanistan in late 2001 and has allowed al-Qaeda agents to operate from Iranian soil ever since.

Recognizing this pattern is a prerequisite to restoring a sound policy towards Iran. We must be honest about Iran’s past actions over the last three decades. We must also publicly investigate Iran and Hezbollah’s possible involvement in 9/11 and other al-Qaeda attacks. Evidence not harmful to current national security assets or strategy should be declassified. We should demand that Iran turn over any al-Qaeda fighters seeking refuge on Iranian soil. Finally, we should set about the business of devising a broad and coherent strategy for confronting Iran. How we go about meeting the Iranian threat is open for debate, but we cannot hope to resolve this vital issue by continuing to pretend that Iran does not play a large role in the terrorists’ ongoing war against America.

The American regime has faced down larger and more formidable foes than Iran, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda. But in an age of increasing technological sophistication, it is irresponsible to sit idly by while threats gather and foreign actors are allowed to carry out acts of war. The way forward requires prudence, clear strategic thinking, and statesmanship. Thomas Joscelyn’s compelling case that we must first open our eyes is a vital contribution to what we hope will be a new direction for American foreign policy.

Brian T. Kennedy
President, The Claremont Institute
September 11, 2007
 
phattonez said:
Did Neville Chamberlain do nothing when Hitler wanted to expand? No, he rolled out the red carpet for him. I would have had no problem with him taking action there, but until then, was he doing anything wrong in terms of foreign policy?
Click to expand...

Inaction was his demise...his colossal misunderstanding.
 
phattonez said:
Does the US do these things?
Click to expand...

We'd be idiots not to.

If they are attacking us, directly or indirectly, we should attack.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "if?"

So Germany never should have been allowed to build up a defense? Then why should we?
Click to expand...

Germany should have been permitted to build a defense, Germany should have been faced and with determination when they showed offense.

The Sudetenland? Did you forget about that?
Click to expand...

No...you did. Chamberlain negotiated the Sudetenland, the same with Czechoslavakia. Had Europe and the US stood against Germany long before...in other words...had taken an offensive posture BEFORE Germany's expansion, history might be tad different.

Soviet Russia the next example. Should we have faced Russia down when they refused to recognize Poland and cut off Eastern States.
 
Charles Martel said:
We'd be idiots not to.



What do you mean by "if?"



Germany should have been permitted to build a defense, Germany should have been faced and with determination when they showed offense.



No...you did. Chamberlain negotiated the Sudetenland, the same with Czechoslavakia. Had Europe and the US stood against Germany long before...in other words...had taken an offensive posture BEFORE Germany's expansion, history might be tad different.

Soviet Russia the next example. Should we have faced Russia down when they refused to recognize Poland and cut off Eastern States.
Click to expand...

The problem with what happened when Germany went Nazi-tyranical was the failure to set up a civil government in Germany after WWI and instead allowing a screwball with retarded ideals like Hitler come to power there.
Germany deserved better - and for the world to turn a blind eye and let such monstorousity grow..........

Which is why we can never allow Iran, under its current regime, to obtain nukes.
 
Tom Jones said:
The problem with what happened when Germany went Nazi-tyranical was the failure to set up a civil government in Germany after WWI and instead allowing a screwball with retarded ideals like Hitler come to power there.
Germany deserved better - and for the world to turn a blind eye and let such monstorousity grow..........

Which is why we can never allow Iran, under its current regime, to obtain nukes.
Click to expand...

There was a civil government established in post-WW1 Germany, it was called The Weimar Republic. A Liberal Democracy that was too weak to prevent a tyrrant from taking over the government and voiding the 1919 Constitution.

Look at pre-WW2 Germany and you'll see history repeating itself.
 
The Prof said:
tell it to the man who just announced his ESCALATION of afghanistan

even tho, according to him, the real trouble is al qaeda, not the taliban

and aq is mostly in pakistan

and soon will be almost entirely in pakistan

our foreign policy is being conducted by a child

ask hu
]
Click to expand...

News Flash Professor double space,

He didn't start those wars. But someone has to clean the mess up that Bush left and at least allow us to save face and justify all the fine men and women that had to die there.
 
apdst said:
Look at pre-WW2 Germany and you'll see history repeating itself.
Click to expand...

That's weird. I don't see Iran invading its neighbors. Oh darn don't you just hate it when amateurs try and make parallels in history that don't exist?

:rofl:rofl:rofl
 
Last edited:
EnigmaO01 said:
That's weird. I don't see Iran invading its neighbors. Oh darn don't you just hate it when amateurs try and make parallels in history that don't exist?

:rofl:rofl:rofl
Click to expand...

No one saw Hitler invading Poland, either. Are you claiming there's no way it could happen?

Not that that was my point.
 
apdst said:
No one saw Hitler invading Poland, either. Are you claiming there's no way it could happen?

Not that that was my point.
Click to expand...

No I'm claiming that comparing Iran to WWII, and Hitler (Herr Schiklegruber) is foolishness. Lots of differences.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
No I'm claiming that comparing Iran to WWII, and Hitler (Herr Schiklegruber) is foolishness. Lots of differences.
Click to expand...

I wasn't comparing Iran to pre-WW2 Germany, although some of the same mistakes are being made with regard to pulling Iran's teeth.
 
apdst said:
I wasn't comparing Iran to pre-WW2 Germany, although some of the same mistakes are being made with regard to pulling Iran's teeth.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you weren't but others in the thread seemed to be.

However I see differences in regards to "pulling Iran's teeth" also. Iran can be eliminated and contained, or the very least made to seriously regret it if it does anything aggressive if it really came down to that. Hitler could not, at least at first.

I also see an attempt at pulling Iran's teeth at this point in time -- would make a poor situation much worse -- in that the worlds oil supply will be temporarily halted putting the world economy at the brink.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
That's weird. I don't see Iran invading its neighbors. Oh darn don't you just hate it when amateurs try and make parallels in history that don't exist?

:rofl:rofl:rofl
Click to expand...

Don't you hate it when amateurs deny history repeating itself just to try and prove someone wrong?
 
The Prof said:
no kidding

he's responsible for finishing them

that's why he's ESCALATING
Click to expand...

And if he pulled us out you'd be accusing him of cutting and running. Nothing the man will ever do will make folks like yourself happy. ;)
 
EnigmaO01 said:
And if he pulled us out you'd be accusing him of cutting and running. Nothing the man will ever do will make folks like yourself happy. ;)
Click to expand...

thus spoke svengali

who conducts both ends of his own argument
 
EpicDude86 said:
Don't you hate it when amateurs deny history repeating itself just to try and prove someone wrong?
Click to expand...

You know what I really hate? When someone accuses me of denying history repeating itself to just try and prove someone else wrong. :mrgreen:

History repeats itself no doubt. However some comparisons are simply hogwash. They show the ignorance of the one that attempts it.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Perhaps you weren't but others in the thread seemed to be.
Click to expand...

Ok, fine, then take that up with them

However I see differences in regards to "pulling Iran's teeth" also. Iran can be eliminated and contained, or the very least made to seriously regret it if it does anything aggressive if it really came down to that. Hitler could not, at least at first.
Click to expand...

No attempt is being made to cause that, either. Diplomacy alone won't get us there.

I also see an attempt at pulling Iran's teeth at this point in time -- would make a poor situation much worse -- in that the worlds oil supply will be temporarily halted putting the world economy at the brink.
Click to expand...


How will the oil supply be halted? You think Saudi Arabia is exactly comfortable with Iran having nukes? I'm just guessing, but I would say they aren't.
 
apdst said:
How will the oil supply be halted? You think Saudi Arabia is exactly comfortable with Iran having nukes? I'm just guessing, but I would say they aren't.
Click to expand...

Here's a clue: Strait of Hormuz threat by Iran. If you don't know anything about it Google it.
 
phattonez said:
I'd like to wait until we have evidence that they are going to attack us, otherwise we are creating blowback for no good reason.
Click to expand...

They have been invading and conquering Christian lands since nearly 1400 years ago?!?!? What more evidence do you need?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom