• 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 .
Catawba said:
I have never said one word about not starting preemptive wars based on the size of the country. That is your strawman.
Click to expand...

Catawba said:
I cannot condone preemptive wars against less powerful nations that have not attacked us.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with preemptive strikes? I'll tell you. It allows you to condone Iran striking US targets in Iraq.
 
zstep18 said:
And the Muslim world developed algebra. So, your logic, all the Western world should be prohibited from teaching algebra.
Click to expand...
That was a thousand years ago; what have they done since then? Obviously, it was not in the Arabs' nature to contribute to math, or they'd be getting all the Nobel Prizes now. Retroactive historical analysis would point to the fact that by conquest, they temporarily re-activated Greek science, probably entirely by the Greeks they enslaved. When the West was re-born intellectually starting after the Muslim conquest of Constantinople, they naturally had continuous development and have done a lot since then. Obviously, they would have invented algebra on their own. Islam didn't fill in any gaps and never will.
 
ecofarm said:
What does that have to do with preemptive strikes? I'll tell you. It allows you to condone Iran striking US targets in Iraq.
Click to expand...

I already told you I do not condone the trading of human blood for oil.
 
PrometheusBound said:
That was a thousand years ago; what have they done since then? Obviously, it was not in the Arabs' nature to contribute to math, or they'd be getting all the Nobel Prizes now. Retroactive historical analysis would point to the fact that by conquest, they temporarily re-activated Greek science, probably entirely by the Greeks they enslaved. When the West was re-born intellectually starting after the Muslim conquest of Constantinople, they naturally had continuous development and have done a lot since then. Obviously, they would have invented algebra on their own. Islam didn't fill in any gaps and never will.
Click to expand...

You view on how history works is very bizarre and just incorrect. The Muslim and Arab world of then is different than the Muslim and Arab world of now, just as the Dark Ages of the Christian and European world are much different from the current world today. It's not just some linear progression.

And for you're claim that all what Muslims did was borrow from the Greeks: The Muslims borrowed from the Greeks in the same way that every civilization borrows from other civilizations.
 
Catawba said:
I already told you I do not condone the trading of human blood for oil.
Click to expand...

Very nice. We're all proud of you. Well, you left out animals but they'll forgive. Still, I'm asking about something else: wtf does the power of a country have to do with preemptive strikes being ethical or not?
 
ecofarm said:
Very nice. We're all proud of you. Well, you left out animals but they'll forgive. Still, I'm asking about something else: wtf does the power of a country have to do with preemptive strikes being ethical or not.
Click to expand...

Some people just think it is wrong for someone big and strong to kick the **** out of someone smaller, even the little guy kept kicking the big one on the shins.
 
ecofarm said:
Very nice. We're all proud of you. Well, you left out animals but they'll forgive. Still, I'm asking about something else: wtf does the power of a country have to do with preemptive strikes being ethical or not.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously asking why there has to be a real threat to you before you attack someone?
 
DVSentinel said:
Some people just think it is wrong for someone big and strong to kick the **** out of someone smaller, even the little guy kept kicking the big one on the shins.
Click to expand...

The little guy could be an industrial rapist, town gassing, food selling, woman owning, gay killing genocidal dictator, but as long as he doesn't get a bigger piece of the pie then we should leave him alone?
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
With that I agree.
Click to expand...
You have taken a quote from a third party expert who has proved you to be wrong. You changed the quote and attributted it to me. You have have violated an infinite number of rules regarding civilized and legitimate debate. What you have effectively done was cause me to lose any respect I had for you as a reliable and forthright poster. What you did was underhanded....:2no4:

Moreover, you lost your argument.

The original post and quote:

Connery said:
"Iran: We Can Hit 35 US Bases in 'Minutes'"

"Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force, told reporters the U.S. has 35 bases around Iran and all are "within the reach of our missiles" and could be hit "in the early minutes after an attack," according to an English-language report from Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency. The bases were no threat but instead an "opportunity" for the Iranian military, Hajizadeh said according to Fars "....:shock:


ht_military_drill_iran_dm_120703_wg.jpg

Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps shot off missiles during a televised military drill. (PressTV)
Click to expand...
Iran: We Can Hit 35 US Bases in 'Minutes' - ABC News

What you posted and how you changed the content of the post.

Originally Posted by Connery
The bases were no threat
Click to expand...
 
ecofarm said:
Very nice. We're all proud of you. Well, you left out animals but they'll forgive. Still, I'm asking about something else: wtf does the power of a country have to do with preemptive strikes being ethical or not?
Click to expand...

If a country is not a viable threat to us then we do not need to go to war with them. In the case of Iran, Iran is not a real threat to the security of the United States, right now.
 
Connery said:
What you have effectively done was cause me to lose any respect I had for you as a reliable and forthright poster.
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, you've said that before. No love lost Connery, I have no respect for those that promote optional wars that result in the deaths of innocent civilians without an actual military threat to the US.
 
ecofarm said:
The little guy could be an industrial rapist, town gassing, food selling, woman owning, gay killing genocidal dictator, but as long as he doesn't get a bigger piece of the pie then we should leave him alone?
Click to expand...

Apparently some do feel that way. But since I was in skies over Iraq helping kick the bastards ass, I'm pretty sure that would translate as me not being one of them.
 
zstep18 said:
If a country is not a viable threat to us then we do not need to go to war with them.
Click to expand...

The US should intervene when human rights can be installed, especially where resources for rapid development are present and Asian Tiger development can be expected if representation sticks. That will include even environmental rights as those directly affected by degradation are given a voice in its authority.

In the case of Iran, Iran is not a real threat to the security of the United States, right now.
Click to expand...

Every slaver is a threat to the US. We just need to be sustainable about liberalization. In like 20 years, I bet Iraq is kicking ass (instead of being a hellhole).
 
DVSentinel said:
Apparently some do feel that way. But since I was in skies over Iraq helping kick the bastards ass, I'm pretty sure that would translate as me not being one of them.
Click to expand...

I volunteered 11x(a) during Gulf 1. No worries, I walked it. I didn't see combat, but what could I do; I made it to my unit as quick as I could. If there had been a fight, I'd have been with the first replacements, racing to the front.
 
ecofarm said:
Every slaver is a threat to the US. We just need to be sustainable about liberalization. In like 20 years, I bet Iraq is kicking ass (instead of being a hellhole).
Click to expand...

The United States doesn't have the greatest history of overthrowing governments and installing the governments it intends....
 
zstep18 said:
The United States doesn't have the greatest history of overthrowing governments and installing the governments it intends....
Click to expand...

We just need democracy, freedom will soon follow.
 
Catawba said:
Yeah, yeah, you've said that before. No love lost Connery, I have no respect for those that promote optional wars that result in the deaths of innocent civilians without an actual military threat to the US.
Click to expand...

So you support the existence of Evil and what it does to others, as long as they are not Americans? How very humane of you.

When is a war not optional? Only when you or other Americans are the victims?

You seem to advocate that it is ok for others to kill innocent people, but we shouldn't stop them from doing so because we might kill innocent people to do it? If innocents are going to die either way, what do you suggest we use to value the lives of these innocents so that we know which ones we should allow to be killed? Where they were born?

Is there some reason why you feel that because you were lucky enough to be born in America that your life, freedom and desires somehow are more valuable to the human race than someone born elsewhere?
 
Last edited:
EdWagemann said:
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.
Click to expand...


No sir, you are incorrect.

You need to define your terms.

What does "destroy the world" mean? There are many possible interpretations.

One would be to destroy the planet entirely as a collective body of matter... we have no such ability.
Another would be to wipe out all life on earth... we have no such ability.
A third, much less applicable but humano-centric definition, would be to wipe out all of humanity. We have no such ability.

Your definition appears to be "severely damage all major cities and inflict heavy casualties on urban populations". Yes, we just might have enough nukes to do something close to that. However this is NOT "Destroying the world".... destroying YOUR world perhaps, if you consider city-dwelling humanity to be "the World" (a narrow point of view but understandable). However in reality it is hyperbole... the biggest nuke exchange humanity could manage would not destroy all human life, let alone all earthly life, and does not meet any reasonable definition of "destroy the world".

"CHANGE the world", yes, rather a lot. Destroy it, no.

Can the hyperbole and maybe we can reason together.
 
zstep18 said:
The United States doesn't have the greatest history of overthrowing governments and installing the governments it intends....
Click to expand...

Valid point. One would think that after the number of times we have tried it that we would create an agency/military unit that specializes in it and could keep track of lessons learned instead of the politicians trying to make it up again as they go. Maybe actually plan ahead.

We are very good at kicking the tar out of someone else's military but we seem to get confuse on what to do after that. You know, taking front line combat troops and telling them to be cops on the street once we succeed against a military is probably not the brightest idea in the world. Different mind set, military mind set is pretty much, we are the good guys, they are the bad guys so kill the bad guys. Some people seem to discourage that kind of thinking in cops.
 
DVSentinel said:
So you support the existence of Evil and what it does to others, as long as they are not Americans? How very humane of you.

When is a war not optional? Only when you or other Americans are the victims?

You seem to advocate that it is ok for others to kill innocent people, but we shouldn't stop them from doing so because we might kill innocent people to do it? If innocents are going to die either way, what do you suggest we use to value the lives of these innocents so that we know which ones we should allow to be killed? Where they were born?

Is there some reason why you feel that because you were lucky enough to be born in America that your life, freedom and desires somehow are more valuable to the human race than someone born elsewhere?
Click to expand...

If we are going to intervene every time there is violence and destruction in the world, there will never be a time when we are not at war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom