• 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!

Is Iran a Greater Threat Than ISIS?

Is Iran a Greater Threat Than ISIS?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 37.5%
  • No

    Votes: 20 62.5%

  • Total voters
    32
1. The regime change we brought about in Iraq removed a mortal enemy of Iran and put into power a corrupt and very friendly government government to Iran. This made Iran the most powerful Muslim nation in the Middle East.

So what if Iraq...under Saddam...was a mortal enemy of Iran? That didn't ever stop Iran from advancing it's agenda and actions. Actually, they are no more...or less...powerful now than before the fall of Saddam.

2. The Iranians know their actions now have little consequence other than economic sanctions because they know that after we spent 10 years and trillions of dollars nation building in Iraq, the citizens of the United States are simply not going to stand for another full scale war in the Middle East for at least another generation.

3. We cannot bring on other nations because just 10 years ago we lied to the world about the supposed threat that Iraq posed to world peace as well as Iraq's supposed massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that didn't exist. Not to mention their purported advanced nuclear weapons program that didn't exist. Thus we no longer have any credibility with the rest of the world.

4. Iran has no incentive to cooperate with any type of U.N. weapons inspections because it did not prevent war in Iraq despite the fact weapons inspectors were in the country finding nothing other than what was already known and accounted for. Moreover, they now have every incentive to develop nuclear weapons as a safeguard against any attempts at regime change from the United States.

The rest of your post actually supports my last statement about the lack of action by various governments in containing Iran.

Bush, at least, had a plan to hem in Iran so that the US could put more pressure on them. Thanks to the piss poor foreign policy actions by Obama and his administration...especially Hillary...we now find ourselves in the position we are in now: Iran STILL being the danger that Bush told us about and Al Qaeda and its offshoots and ISIS making bigger moves and even threatening more terrorist attacks here in the US.
 
Beau, I would "like" any post that draws attention to the fact that 77% of the attackers on 9/11 were Saudi Arabian, regardless of who posted it, or to whom they were posting it to. It's been a sore spot with me since it happened, I didn't like the quick evacuations that Saudis in the States got after the attacks nor the treatment they have had ever since. Also, I don't appreciate the deal negotiated between Clinton (the US) over the "Arab Spring" suppression in Bahrain for support in Libya, another failed US policy. But that said, I didn't intend to offend you, and though you likely didn't notice it, in post 55, I stood up for you when responding to serato's post that prompted you to terminate your discussion with him. :)

For clarification, I only mentioned that you "liked" his post so he would know where to find your user name if he wanted to PM you to ask. It had nothing to do with whether you agreed or not with his post or how I did or did not feel about that. I can't think of anything that you would do that would offend me. I know where you're coming from and as you've known for the years we've posted on this and other boards, we have a unique relationship that allows me to have a high regard for you that others may not that do not know you like I do.
 
Most worse is that you gave a lesson to the current leaders in ME.

During Iraq-Iran war
Saddam Hussein was given diplomatic, monetary, and military support by the U.S., including massive loans, political clout, and intelligence on Iranian deployments gathered using American spy satellites.
With Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying intelligence, economic aid, and dual-use equipment and vehicles, as well as normalizing their intergovernmental relations.
In 1982, Reagan removed Iraq from the list of countries "supporting terrorism" and sold weapons such as howitzers to Iraq via Jordan and Israel. France sold Iraq millions of dollars worth of weapons, including Gazelle helicopters, Mirage F-1 fighters, and Exocet missiles. Both the United States and West Germany sold Iraq dual-use pesticides and poisons that would be used to create chemical and other weapons, such as Roland missiles.

In 2006, Saddam was gone.

Good or bad, no one trust USA/West in that region anymore. Every puppet leader there does not worth anything and just make things worse.

Presuming your post is accurate... so what? The world supported Iraq having a military before the Iran war, and the US supported Iraq against Iran. The "dual-use pesticides" is a load of crap.

So, agreeing that Saddam have a military before the war and helping him during the war (prior to his first of two genocides) is the primary driver for events 30 years later how? Why do you ignore the genocides and mass graves and instead blame the West for supporting Iraq before it was the Saddam we know.
 
That's interesting! I missed that. I too wonder what Canada knows.

Canada and Iran have been in a diplomatic war since we harbored American agents in the hostage crisis.

From Wiki:

Following the 1979 Iranian revolution, the Canadian embassy provided cover to six American consular staff and assisted in their escape from the country during the Iran hostage crisis.[25] The Canadian embassy in Tehran was closed for eight years thereafter.

Iran established an embassy in Canada in 1991, and in 1996 the two countries reestablished normal diplomatic relations and exchanged ambassadors. The relationship experienced further turmoil in 2003, when Iranian-Canadian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi was killed in custody in Iran.

On September 7, 2012, Canada severed diplomatic ties with Iran, closed its embassy in Tehran, and expelled Iranian diplomats from Canada, citing Iranian foreign policy, support for the Syrian government, violations of human rights, threats against Israel, the Iranian nuclear program, and security concerns for its diplomats in the country. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said that the Iranian government is "unambiguously, a clear and present danger" and that "the appeal of our conscience requires us to speak out against what the Iranian regime stands for."[26] Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs John Baird announces Canada is breaking diplomatic relations with Iran, Friday, September 7, 2012,[27] Calling Iran "the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world"

That isn't likely the full story, but notice Canada closed its embassy and kicked Iranians out just five days before the attack in Benghazi, and had put ALL Canadian missions on high alert. Canadian Irani's though say there is way more to this, that Canada is well aware of Iran's backing of terrorists. Canada has objected to and opposed Obama's removal of sanctions and the restoration of monies in a very rare move of openly disagreeing with a sitting president.
 
In the short time Isis is more dangerous but in the long time Iran most likely is a bigger danger.

I guess that's assuming we can do the same job of decimating the Islamic State that we did at decimating Al Qaeda.
 
Clinton had so much disregard for Al Qaeda that he passed up chances to take out bin Laden...resulting in 9/11.

Oh dear, you too don't know why OBL attacked us on 9/11.
 
1. The regime change we brought about in Iraq removed a mortal enemy of Iran and put into power a corrupt and very friendly government government to Iran. This made Iran the most powerful Muslim nation in the Middle East.

2. The Iranians know their actions now have little consequence other than economic sanctions because they know that after we spent 10 years and trillions of dollars nation building in Iraq, the citizens of the United States are simply not going to stand for another full scale war in the Middle East for at least another generation.

3. We cannot bring on other nations because just 10 years ago we lied to the world about the supposed threat that Iraq posed to world peace as well as Iraq's supposed massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that didn't exist. Not to mention their purported advanced nuclear weapons program that didn't exist. Thus we no longer have any credibility with the rest of the world.

4. Iran has no incentive to cooperate with any type of U.N. weapons inspections because it did not prevent war in Iraq despite the fact weapons inspectors were in the country finding nothing other than what was already known and accounted for. Moreover, they now have every incentive to develop nuclear weapons as a safeguard against any attempts at regime change from the United States.

Great points!
 
The "dual-use pesticides" is a load of crap.
ye, as always

Iraqi chemical weapons program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As part of Project 922, German firms such as Karl Kolb helped build Iraqi chemical weapons facilities such as laboratories, bunkers, an administrative building, and first production buildings in the early 1980s under the cover of a pesticide plant. Other German firms sent 1,027 tons of precursors of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and tear gasses in all. All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin.[citation needed] One of the contributions was a £14m chlorine plant known as "Falluja 2", built by Uhde Ltd, a UK subsidiary of a German company; the plant was given financial guarantees by the UK's Export Credits Guarantee Department despite official UK recognition of a "strong possibility" the plant would be used to make mustard gas.[4] The guarantees led to UK government payment of £300,000 to Uhde in 1990 after completion of the plant was interrupted by the first Gulf War.[4] In 1994 and 1996 three people were convicted in Germany of export offenses.[5]

France also provided glass-lined reactors, tanks, vessels, and columns used for the production of chemical weapons. Around 21% of Iraq’s international chemical weapon equipment was French. 75,000 shells and rockets designed for chemical weapon use also came from Italy. About 100 tons of mustard gas also came from Brazil. The United States exported $500 million of dual use exports to Iraq that were approved by the Commerce Department. Among them were advanced computers, some of which were used in Iraq’s nuclear program. Austria also provided heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for the Iraqi chemical weapons infrastructure, 16% of the international sales. Singapore gave 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard gasses to Iraq. The Dutch gave 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gasses to Iraq. Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors to Iraq and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions. India gave 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gasses. Luxembourg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors. Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraq’s chemical warfare program, 4.4% of the international sales. China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare.[citation needed]

Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prior to the war, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom claimed that Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed a threat to their security and that of their allies.[51][52][53] In 2002, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441 which called for Iraq to completely cooperate with UN weapon inspectors to verify that Iraq was not in possession of WMD and cruise missiles. Prior to the attack, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) found no evidence of WMD.
After investigation following the invasion, the U.S.‑led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear, chemical and biological programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of the invasion, but that they intended to resume production if the Iraq sanctions were lifted.[58] Only degraded remnants of misplaced and abandoned chemical weapons were found.
Some U.S. officials also accused Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of harboring and supporting al-Qaeda,[62] but no evidence of a meaningful connection was ever found.
On 16 March 2003, the U.S. government advised the U.N. inspectors to leave their unfinished work and exit from Iraq.[69] On 20 March[70] the American-led coalition conducted a surprise[71] military invasion of Iraq without declaring war.

Got the point of the hypocrisy now?!
 
Oh dear, you too don't know why OBL attacked us on 9/11.

If you think bin Laden, ISIS and Iran would be no danger to the US...or anyone else...if we would only be nice people, then you are hopelessly naive about the real world.
 
If you think bin Laden, ISIS and Iran would be no danger to the US...or anyone else...if we would only be nice people, then you are hopelessly naive about the real world.

Right, you don't know why OBL attacked us on 9/11.
 
Recently Netanuahu stated at the UN General Assembly that Iran is a greater threat than ISIS. Do you agree with this statement?
Video can be found here: [h=1]Netanyahu: Iran poses greater threat than Islamic State[/h]

Iran has a messed up government that really keeps throwing a wrench into things, but is Iran in general a greater threat than ISIS? Hell no. Iran is potentially one of the greatest allies we could have in the region.
 
Neither article even mentions the US.
The United States exported $500 million of dual use exports to Iraq that were approved by the Commerce Department. Among them were advanced computers, some of which were used in Iraq’s nuclear program.

..........................

The so-called hypocrisy is just a false narrative you push (with unrelated links) to demonize the US.
:shock:
 
You have the ability to watch CNN, look at YouTube videos, read press media reports or for a military perspective do a little research at Janes as to what Hamas and Hezbollah are and want. There are numerous threads here on this very topic that follow the forum rules, which posting them here would not.

Here's how debates work:

You make a point you at least back it up with a link. You don't say look it up or it's common knowledge. If you're too lazy to post a link than it must not be that important.
 
Here's how debates work:

You make a point you at least back it up with a link. You don't say look it up or it's common knowledge. If you're too lazy to post a link than it must not be that important.

You know, you're right - this part of the debate is not that important to me, and if trying to convince you of something you would not believe anyway were important to me, I would take the time to jump through those hoops, but... it isn't. It isn't that I'm lazy, it's that of all the things in my life that are important enough for me to spent an hour or more of my time doing, putting together a list to educate others on what should be obvious to anyone that follows international relations, this doesn't even make the list.

No disrespect intended, but this subject is not that important to me (not saying that you are not, it's just that the subject is not). I just responded to the OP because - well, it took all of 10 seconds to do so, and that was the last I thought I would be involved.
 
So what's your point? This source I read on associated with the post and I believe museum didn't have them deployed there.

The link shows the 10th group stationed at Fort Devens.
 
..........................


:shock:

You failed to prove the US provided any arms to Iraq (there was not even MENTION of the US in the article you cited) and your "dual use" is BS. Spare us the Alex Jones crap.
 
You failed to prove the US provided any arms to Iraq (there was not even MENTION of the US in the article you cited) and your "dual use" is BS. Spare us the Alex Jones crap.
okay then.
 
Back
Top Bottom