• 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!

Bargain With Iran

Make the Deal?


  • Total voters
    41
:lamo So that means Israel has no concern if Iran develops nuclear weapons (and goes against an international treaty doing so). Are you being serious?

Well what do you expect from Anti-American, Anti-Israel, pro-socialist, pro-Sharia Law, leftwing fanatics?
 
I think your example is too simple. It's easy to figure out. If we could identify nuclear material coming from Pakistan or NK, then obviously we go after the people responsible. We shouldn't go after Iran just because another country suddenly got retarded.


Sure, if we are attacked, I have no problem going after those who attacked us. My problem is attacking countries based on what we fear they may do. Just like we did in Iraq.
 
Last edited:
Well what do you expect from Anti-American, Anti-Israel, pro-socialist, pro-Sharia Law, leftwing fanatics?

Today's bombings in India were Israeli targets... and the current conversation is about .. Will this stop India from trading with Iran???
 
Sure, if we are attacked, I have no problem going after those who attacked us. My problem is attacking countries based on what we fear they may do. Just like we did in Iraq.

I think we've shown good restraint. But it's very difficult to trust the world's leader in state-sponsored terrorism with a nuke. Ahmedinajad promised news of a great leap forward in their nuclear program. I'm hoping Haifa is not under mushroom cloud after this news.
 
Simply put, if Iran offered to end their nuclear program if we dismantled some of our nuclear weapons, would you take the offer?

I don't think they would ever offer that and it's doubtful they would follow through...but yes...it would be hypocritical if we didn't take it as well is ridiculous.
 
I think we've shown good restraint. But it's very difficult to trust the world's leader in state-sponsored terrorism with a nuke. Ahmedinajad promised news of a great leap forward in their nuclear program. I'm hoping Haifa is not under mushroom cloud after this news.

Gosh.. the last time Haifa was bombed was in December 1947..........
 
Would a preventative war on Saudi Arabia have stopped the 19 Saudis that attacked the US on 9/11?
Thats a non question and pointless in context. The context being that people asserted that the US was safe from any large scale terrorist attacks. I said nothing about preventing the attack through war. Did you miss the part where I said there was no reason to attack Iran at this point? Come on actually read what I type.
BTW, the US has attacked more countries than has Iran. Just sayin....................
Yup that was the stretch of propaganda that I was referring too. WHy is it that you support Irans Military industry complex so much? Who do you think all those arms are going to? peaceful groups?
 
Sure, if we are attacked, I have no problem going after those who attacked us. My problem is attacking countries based on what we fear they may do. Just like we did in Iraq.
It's not a matter of a full-scale ground invasion. Israel made surgical strikes against Iraq years ago over this exact same issue and I have no doubt if diplomacy fails they'll do it again in Iran.
 
Gosh.. the last time Haifa was bombed was in December 1947..........

No ma'am. That would be in 2006 when the Iranian-backed Hezbollah were firing Katyusha artillery rockets into Haifa.
 
It's not a matter of a full-scale ground invasion. Israel made surgical strikes against Iraq years ago over this exact same issue and I have no doubt if diplomacy fails they'll do it again in Iran.

Well Its not quite that simple..

Iran learned a lot from the attacks on Iraq and Syria..

They have 22 sites all over the country that are deeply embedded underground.

Israel states it will take a thousand sorties.. and IMO a civilian bloodbath.
 
No ma'am. That would be in 2006 when the Iranian-backed Hezbollah were firing Katyusha artillery rockets into Haifa.

How many people died in Haifa?

( this is not a trick question.. I really don't know)
 
I think we've shown good restraint. But it's very difficult to trust the world's leader in state-sponsored terrorism with a nuke. Ahmedinajad promised news of a great leap forward in their nuclear program. I'm hoping Haifa is not under mushroom cloud after this news.

I cannot characterize our invasion and almost a decade of occupation in Iraq as restraint. Sorry!
 
I meant our restraint in not attacking Iran...so far.

Or you know.. we could absolutely do the unprecedented and guarantee Iran's security.. Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants?
 
Thats a non question and pointless in context. The context being that people asserted that the US was safe from any large scale terrorist attacks. I said nothing about preventing the attack through war. Did you miss the part where I said there was no reason to attack Iran at this point? Come on actually read what I type.
Yup that was the stretch of propaganda that I was referring too. WHy is it that you support Irans Military industry complex so much? Who do you think all those arms are going to? peaceful groups?

We didn't have any large scale attacks, we had a 19 Saudi terrorists steal some of our own airliners. Attacking and invading Iraq sooner would not have stopped that. I don't support Iran, I am just not paranoid about Iran.
 
It's not a matter of a full-scale ground invasion. Israel made surgical strikes against Iraq years ago over this exact same issue and I have no doubt if diplomacy fails they'll do it again in Iran.

Well, I guess they better hope that Iran does not strike back then.
 
Well Its not quite that simple..

Iran learned a lot from the attacks on Iraq and Syria..

They have 22 sites all over the country that are deeply embedded underground.

Israel states it will take a thousand sorties.. and IMO a civilian bloodbath.
So you think the advances in bunker penetrating weaponry developed for Afghanistan has been exaggerated?
 
I meant our restraint in not attacking Iran...so far.

I'm hearing the same saber rattling I heard leading up to our attack on Iraq.....................
 
How many people died in Haifa?

( this is not a trick question.. I really don't know)

I don't have the number off the top of my head. I suggest you google it, just as I would.

I do remember an interview with an Arab businessman who's warehouse was destroyed by a Katyusha. He was holding his hands up and asking, "Why me? I'm not even Jewish!"
 
I'm hearing the same saber rattling I heard leading up to our attack on Iraq.....................

I know, and I hope a full-scale invasion is NOT planned. I hope military action of any kind is unnecessary. But if it does, it will be most likely limited strikes on very specific targets. I could not support anything more than that.
 
I know, and I hope a full-scale invasion is NOT planned. I hope military action of any kind is unnecessary. But if it does, it will be most likely limited strikes on very specific targets. I could not support anything more than that.

I don't know how limited strikes are possible with 22 deeply embedded targets .. and without a massive slaughter of civilians.
 
I know, and I hope a full-scale invasion is NOT planned. I hope military action of any kind is unnecessary. But if it does, it will be most likely limited strikes on very specific targets. I could not support anything more than that.

I could not support that based on what we know at present, no more than I could support another country making very limited strikes on very specific military targets in this country just because they thought we might be a threat to another country someday.
 
We didn't have any large scale attacks, we had a 19 Saudi terrorists steal some of our own airliners. Attacking and invading Iraq sooner would not have stopped that. I don't support Iran, I am just not paranoid about Iran.
Iraq? WTF are you talking about? What does Iraq have to do with anything?
 
Iraq? WTF are you talking about? What does Iraq have to do with anything?

You tell me, we spent $2 trillion dollars going to war with them and it didn't make us any safer! It would be more than silly to repeat the same mistake in Iran, wouldn't it?
 
I don't know how limited strikes are possible with 22 deeply embedded targets .. and without a massive slaughter of civilians.

"Limited Strikes" is a common phrase that really means, "limited to specific targets to achieve the goal." You're thinking about this in terms of civilian casualties because (and I'm only surmising here), you're thinking like the Hamas. They launch weapons to anything within range to express displeasure. Casualties are their goal, and since they have an unlimited budget, they don't worry about how effective they are. This does more to harm their cause than help, but they don't seem to realize that.

A modern military cannot afford such childishness. A modern military is extremely expensive so when they expend munitions (spend money) they MUST have a measurable effect. Therefore strikes on Iran, cannot be launched at just anything. They must hit the target, and only that target. Anything else is a waste of time, material, money, and lives. ANY civilian death is counter-productive to a modern military's goal. So limited strikes on Iran must be exactly on target or the mission is considered a failure.

Absolutely no other country in the world is as good as the US at this. No other country in the world spends the billions the US does at preventing civilian casualties. The best way to do this this hit your target and only your target. Blasts wasted on anything but the target are wasted blasts.

Lastly, the latest deep penetrators the US has can blow through 200ft of hardened concrete. If that's not enough, well then 200 ft of material have been removed or rendered ineffective. The next one will surely have the desired effect. Iran's very expensive buried facilities have no chance. Honest negotiations are Iran's only real opportunity.

Oh, and only a few of Iran's nuclear facilities are deeply embedded. Everyone talks about them, but the deeply embedded ones are the minority. Most are very easily removed targets with common munitions.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom