• 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!

Should we bomb Iran to prevent their getting nuclear weapons

Should we bomb Iran to prevent their getting nukes?

  • yes

    Votes: 9 18.8%

  • no

    Votes: 39 81.3%
  • Total voters
    48
  • Poll closed .
ecofarm said:
Why compare it to 911? Let's compare it to the Iraq/Iran war, the genocide of the Kurds, his invasion and plans for Kuwait, the genocide of the marsh Arabs or the sale of food-for-oil. Hell, let's compare it to the number of people and families that 'disappeared' under Saddam. Oh wait, we can't, because no international witness was allowed.
Click to expand...

The Kurds are not blameless in all this. Read about Mustapha and Masoud Barzani circa 1952 to the present.

The Marsh Arabs? Saddam thought he was doing the right thing when he drained the swamps and estuaries.. sort of like Israel reclaiming the swamp land in Palestine.
 
sharon said:
The Kurds are not blameless in all this.
Click to expand...

Whole towns of 10k people were gassed. Women and children dead in the streets.

The Marsh Arabs? Saddam thought he was doing the right thing when he drained the swamps and estuaries.. sort of like Israel reclaiming the swamp land in Palestine.
Click to expand...

It was done in reprisal to an uprising and was ecologically as well as socially devastating. 50k died, more suffered, they were nearly wiped out. It was like dumping the oil on the deep sea corals, plus genocide. Not so much like Israel.
 
Last edited:
DVSentinel said:
Who really cares why we do it, the bastards should of been bombed to their personal versions of hell a longtime ago for many, many different reasons. The only reason necessary is that they have declared themselves our enemy, so we should eliminate that enemy before they have any realistic chance of doing it to us, because if the miliary balance was reversed, we would all be dead or praying to allah several times every day. If you don't want the biggest kid on the yard to stomp you into a bloody mess, then don't make yourself his enemy.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that the British shouldnt have stood up against Hitler? Since he was the biggest kid in the yard?
Your line of thinking has no ethical or logical standing.
the Iranians should ahve the freedoms of expression that all humanity deserves. The people of Iran are just as beautiul as the people of America.
 
Why compare it to 911?
Click to expand...


That was the justification that many politicians gave to us invading and staying in Iraq.
 
ecofarm said:
Why compare it to 911?
Click to expand...

Because it was relevant.

Let's compare it to the Iraq/Iran war, the genocide of the Kurds, his invasion and plans for Kuwait, the genocide of the marsh Arabs or the sale of food-for-oil. Let's compare it to the number of people and families that 'disappeared' under Saddam; oh wait, we can't, because no international witness was allowed.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean back when the US was Saddam's ally, and Reagan had Iraq removed from the terrorists nations listing, and US companies provided the chemical precursor needed to make the illegal mustard gas?
 
ecofarm said:
Whole towns of 10k people were gassed. Women and children dead in the streets.

50k died, more suffered. Not so much like Israel.
Click to expand...

They were caught in the crossfire between Iran and Iraq at Halabja in 1988.. while the US was supplying the gas and helping Iraq "contain" Iran.

Don't exaggerate the numbers........

Basically Churchill and Sir Aurthur Harris did the same thing to Iraqi Kurds and Arabs in 1920.

Doesn't make it right.. so who do you want to pay back and why?
 
Catawba said:
Oh, you mean back when the US was Saddam's ally, and Reagan had Iraq removed from the terrorists nations listing, and US companies provided the chemical precursor needed to make the illegal mustard gas?
Click to expand...

Blaming the US? That's all you got?
 
sharon said:
Don't exaggerate the numbers........
Click to expand...

200-250k dead in a few years. Towns of 10k wiped out with gas, streets with dead people.

Doesn't make it right..
Click to expand...

The land drainage was genocide. There was no ecologic or other upside to make it "the right decision".

so who do you want to pay back and why?
Click to expand...

I don't want 'payback'. I don't believe in such a thing. I want to free Iran.
 
sharon said:
They were caught in the crossfire between Iran and Iraq at Halabja in 1988.. while the US was supplying the gas and helping Iraq "contain" Iran.

Don't exaggerate the numbers........

Basically Churchill and Sir Aurthur Harris did the same thing to Iraqi Kurds and Arabs in 1920.

Doesn't make it right.. so who do you want to pay back and why?
Click to expand...

...................................
 
Oh, I agree with you on this. Israel almost seems to defy us by announcing a new settlement the moment there's even the slightest "breakthrough" in the so-called "peace process".

They really are like an unruly teenager. We love them, they are family but they are also a pain in the ass.

I do think we have been counseling restraint with them. So, I suppose "unleashing" would be more like just shutting up and getting out of the way.

I really hope none of this will be necessary. Iran continuously denies building atomic weapons. So, if they turn up with one, they will look pretty bad.



Cephus said:
Israel doesn't listen to us now, we don't have to unchain them, we don't have them chained now. The second they think they can get away with something, they'll do it in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...
 
I don't want 'payback'. I don't believe in such a thing. I want to free Iran.
Click to expand...

Then you should go fight and die for that cause. The people of Iran that want to be free should fight for that freedom without us sending our people there to die.

I'm sick and tired of hearing story after story of more American lives lost in some far off land. I'm tired of going to funerals of friends and family members who have died in some God forsaken land thousands of miles away.

A free Iran? How noble of you. The truth is that we don't have the money for another long war. We don't have the tolerance for it. Iranians that wish to have a free society will fight for it. If you are talking about supporting them through diplomacy then fine. If you are talking about boots on the ground or planes in the sky...NO!
 
Catawba said:
Not the US, some corrupt leaders of the US.
Click to expand...

If all you got is blaming them, then I guess Saddam is innocent and we should have left a chemical weapon using (on his own people), 17 Chapter 7 UNSCR violating, IAEA dodging genocidal dictator in power. Guess we made a mistake. Let's just remember that if Iran commits genocide to the tune of 300k - don't do anything!
 
ecofarm said:
200-250k dead in a few years. Towns of 10k wiped out with gas, streets with dead people.

The land drainage was genocide. There was no ecologic or other upside to make it "the right decision".

I don't want 'payback'. I don't believe in such a thing. I want to free Iran.
Click to expand...

You should probably document your numbers. They are trying to restore those estuaries which I think is a great idea. But, I suspect mny of the Ma'dan will never return to that life.

Its not our place to "free Iran"... They are capable people... they will free themselves in time... and they will do so based on their own culture, tradition and faith..

Killing them only drives them backwards into far more rigid religious constructs.
 
Goshin said:
Your facts and conclusions are filled with errors.
To destroy the world, whose land surface area is 148,900,000 sq km, compared to bomb destruction area (in km2) of 50 sq km... would require 2,978,000 median-heavy nuclear bombs.

Two million, nine-hundred seventy eight thousand, bombs. We are not anywhere near that number.
Now, people will bring up radiation and fallout and "nuclear winter" and claim it would only take a much smaller number of nukes to eradicate all life on earth. Nonsense. Airbursts do not produce much if any radioactive fallout, and immediate dosage is only of concern to those who are line-of-sight to the blast and moderately close. "Nuclear winter".... well the whole topic is highly debateable and probably would NOT be the end of humanity by any means, especially since airbursts would not be a major factor, but conventional wisdom used to be that 3,000 megatons of nukes could MAYBE cause "nuclear winter"... that would be at least 15,000 of the strategic bombs we're talking about... if there even are that many of strategic yield, and if they are operational as many are not, it is hard to imagine even the worst nuclear exchange using that many warheads.


So there ya have it.... facts.
Click to expand...

Goshin, there are less than 200,000,000 square miles of surface on the Earth. Only 29% of that surface is land or ice. The rest is water. Of that 29% only 1% is inhabited my man.
So that means that there are about 2,000,000 square miles of land that have humans on it. Most of those humans are concentrated in towns and cities. Let's us yoru example of England for instance. England has 50 cities, (cities with an official charter - surely there are a few uncharted villages, but not so much to make a big difference). Just one nuke could easily wipe out any city in Great Britain. In fact in many cases one nuke would wipe out a few cities in England. All things considered Great Britain could easily be wiped off the map with just a couple dozen nukes.
So this idea that we would need 2 million nukes to destroy the world is what I call Glen Beck-talk, i.e. No where in the ball park of Reality.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
If all you got is blaming them, then I guess Saddam is innocent and we should have left a chemical weapon using (on his own people), 17 Chapter 7 UNSCR violating, IAEA dodging genocidal dictator in power. Guess we made a mistake. Let's just remember that if Iran commits genocide to the tune of 300k - don't do anything!
Click to expand...

We had tremendous leverage over Saddam before Gulf War 2... and could have gotten what we wanted.. We failed to use it because of the neo-cons and chicken hawks.
 
sharon said:
We had tremendous leverage over Saddam before Gulf War 2... and could have gotten what we wanted.. We failed to use it because of the neo-cons and chicken hawks.
Click to expand...

So you, also, are going to blame the US (government).
 
ecofarm said:
If all you got is blaming them, then I guess Saddam is innocent and we should have left a chemical weapon using (on his own people), 17 Chapter 7 UNSCR violating, IAEA dodging genocidal dictator in power. Guess we made a mistake. Let's just remember that if Iran commits genocide to the tune of 300k - don't do anything!
Click to expand...

I suggest that we not become allies with Iran like we did with Saddam if they do.
 
sharon said:
Killing them only drives them backwards into far more rigid religious constructs.
Click to expand...

That's not what happened in Japan, and Iraq is rapidly liberalizing. It's no longer legal to treat women like livestock there. They can vote and go to school. No more court mandated gang rape to sentence women for 'false accusations'. A lot of great stuff has been hapening in Iraq, and I don't think women are gonna give that power up anytime soon.

Really, thinking things could get worse than genocidal dictator is absurd. Ask the Kurds what they thought about Saddam losing power.
 
ecofarm said:
So you, also, are going to blame the US (government).
Click to expand...

Absolutely.. It was a huge waste of money and American lives.

Have you spent any time in Iran or Iraq?
 
ecofarm said:
That's not what happened in Japan, and Iraq is rapidly liberalizing. It's no longer legal to treat women like livestock there. They can vote and go to school. No more court mandated gang rape to sentence women for 'false accusations'. A lot of great stuff has been hapening in Iraq, and I don't think women are gonna give that power up anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Iraq was secular... there were over 50 churches in Baghdad until Gulf War 2.
 
Catawba said:
I suggest that we not become allies with Iran like we did with Saddam if they do.
Click to expand...

One solution that would take a bold step would be for the US to guarantee Iran's security in exchange for them not building nuclear weapons.. and to encourage them in their efforts to develop nuclear power and desalination..

We could then incrementally lift sanctions.
 
sharon said:
Have you spent any time in Iran or Iraq?
Click to expand...

Oh, spare me the argumentum ad tourism. I've never played in Sunlife Stadium, but I can tell you the Dolphins suck.
 
ecofarm said:
Oh, spare me the argumentum ad tourism. I've never played in Sunlife Stadium, but I can tell you the Dolphins suck.
Click to expand...

I notice that you skip alot of posts that address your concerns.
 
sharon said:
Iraq was secular... there were over 50 churches in Baghdad until Gulf War 2.
Click to expand...

Yes, a bastion of freedom. Whatever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom