• 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 the US launch a military strike on Iran?

Should the US launch a military strike on Iran?

  • Total voters
    41
a351 said:
:doh Drones are not indiscriminate. In fact, they're among the most precise and humane forms of warfare in the history of mankind.
Click to expand...

I've got the bad feeling that you're serious.
 
Hell yeah! Cuba too, and Venezuela. Yemen, Nigeria, Sudan... just stay away from Russia, China, North Korea, anyone who has any kind of real threat.
 
sawdust said:
]

Research isn't finding a website that agrees with you.

Here's the issue with the American drone wars, and there are many more countries in which the strikes have been conducted than Pakistan. Our intelligence is poor and our reaction time is slow in countries like Yemen and Somolia where we have no great military presence. We get information from locals which often consists of person x in house y, with no information about non combatants in the same house. Often the intelligence is used by locals to settle personal scores.




Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits, human rights groups say - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

Although I admire your pacifist demeanor I get the feeling that you think we should use troops instead of drones which is not only stupid and ineffective it is an insult to the value of American lives. If you naively think we can just sit back and let the plotters plot. I beg to differ.
 
a351 said:
Iran is already attacking US troops and allies through proxies and the support of terror groups throughout the regions/ That ship has sailed long ago. Whether or not sanctions could survive the attack is another matter. The degradation of their facilities lessens the need for sanctions in the short term, which have proven to be marginally effective at best to date. The financial capability to rebuild their facilities is less pertinent than the human capital and time necessary to do so. Just how many times will Iran build up their castle if we make it clear we'll knock it down and with successively greater force. My broader point stands however, Cenk is simply fear mongering and being intellectually lazy as usual. An invasion is not a inevitability, nor is a prolonged military campaign. :shrug:
Click to expand...

The suggestion that the U.S. would need to invade Iran on the ground to destroy its nuclear weapons facilities is one of the specters people who want to appease Tehran like to conjure up, dishonestly, to make any military action look impossibly reckless. The facts say otherwise. No military action is completely predictable, but there is not much doubt that the U.S. could quickly cripple Iran's ability to shoot at the planes attacking its nuclear weapons and missile facilities. Even while the air defenses were still intact, some of those planes might have bombed their targets and be flying away without anyone on the ground knowing just where they were.

Iran's air defenses have been probed and studied enough to know they are weak and poorly integrated, with much of the equipment outdated. We know where all the network's main components are--airfields, aircraft in hangars, anti-aircraft missile sites, guidance and warning radars, control centers, communication lines--the works. Almost before an attack on those defenses was even detected, they would already be overwhelmed. A few things might survive, especially anti-aircraft guns, but not enough to be a serious threat.

Anti-aircraft missiles and their guidance radars are very vulnerable, and cruise missiles launched from outside Iran's airspace could destroy many of them. Iran only has about thirty fighters that could present any significant threat to attacking planes, and most of them would probably never even get off the ground. Any that did would be lucky even to get close enough to fire before they were shot down. And once a nation's air defenses are blinded and ruined, planes can bomb anything in it without too much risk to themselves or their pilots.

A fraction of this country's air power could destroy every one of the five facilities that are vital to that program--including Fordow--in a single strike. One reputable study concluded that it would take only four well-placed 2,000 lb. bombs--a fourth of what a single B-2 could carry--to destroy the heavy water and future plutonium installation at Arak. A couple 30,000 lb. bombs would ruin the centrifuges buried at Fordow. Another couple would destroy the centrifuge galleries at Natanz. The Bushehr reactor complex is not a very hard target either--recall that in 1981, it only took a couple direct hits by 2,000 lb. bombs from Israeli planes to destroy the reactor at Tuwaitha in Iraq. It would only take another small fraction of this country's air power also to destroy all the sites where Iran's ballistic missiles are, and all the facilities involved in their testing and production.
 
Last edited:
Grand Mal said:
Hell yeah! Cuba too, and Venezuela. Yemen, Nigeria, Sudan... just stay away from Russia, China, North Korea, anyone who has any kind of real threat.
Click to expand...

The real threat comes from people who wring their hands and never want to do anything at all, using the excuse that it's too dangerous. The most dangerous policy of all is to sit back and do nothing in the face of a clear threat. The U.S. did not back down even to the Soviet Union in October, 1962 in Cuba--and yet now, the very idea of the U.S. using military force on even a third-rate opponent seems to get the anti-Americans in a lather. Their hearts are with the savages of the world, because they share their hatred of this country.
 
Only as a last resort.
 
Amadeus said:
Which resorts should be taken first? Diplomacy? A nuclear deal, perhaps?
Click to expand...

Sanctions led to the negotiations for a deal.
A nuclear deal should be taken, yes, but not any nuclear deal.
In case there is no good deal, sanctions should be restored until a good deal can be reached.
 
Apocalypse said:
Sanctions led to the negotiations for a deal.
A nuclear deal should be taken, yes, but not any nuclear deal.
In case there is no good deal, sanctions should be restored until a good deal can be reached.
Click to expand...

Until the sanctions regime crumbles, which it very well would if the US walks away from a decent deal. The sanctions regime crumbles, the US has very little leverage.
 
Amadeus said:
Until the sanctions regime crumbles, which it very well would if the US walks away from a decent deal. The sanctions regime crumbles, the US has very little leverage.
Click to expand...
The US is the major P5+1 negotiator, but not the sole negotiator. I would surmise a unanimous P5+1 consensus is necessary to either implement a deal or to walk away.
 
Simpleχity;1064517621 said:
The US is the major P5+1 negotiator, but not the sole negotiator. I would surmise a unanimous P5+1 consensus is necessary to either implement a deal or to walk away.
Click to expand...

The more I read about the deal and what cones out of iran, the less it sounds like a good deal can be reached. But don't forget that an American President should be almost forced to use harsh means, if the sanctions broke down. So I guess it would be sort of like before iraq and a question of whether countries like Russia and Germany wanted to push the us into war again.
 
iguanaman said:
Although I admire your pacifist demeanor I get the feeling that you think we should use troops instead of drones which is not only stupid and ineffective it is an insult to the value of American lives. If you naively think we can just sit back and let the plotters plot. I beg to differ.
Click to expand...


I'm not a pacifist. Obama, and to a lesser point Bush, dialed back our rules of engagement that soldiers should have a lawyer to accompany them to justify wether or not they should engage the enemy. As long as these conditions exist, I'm not in favor of putting them in harms way. I won't support any war until the rules of engagement lets us kill em all and lets God sort it out. We should use overwhelming power, eliminate the enemy and then leave. Modern warfare is too PC to fight.

In the interim, the occasional drone strike kills families and pisses off the neighborhood all in the name of not acquiring captives so the empty beds in GITMO can be filled.
 
matchlight said:
Research isn't finding sources that agree with you, and I don't accept any of the sources you cite as accurate. That's all I want to say about it, because it is not the topic of the thread.
Click to expand...


That's the wonderful thing about the internet. Use it, read it and understand that there are many sides to most issues. Do your own work.
 
sawdust said:
That's the wonderful thing about the internet. Use it, read it and understand that there are many sides to most issues. Do your own work.
Click to expand...

I have done lots of research, and I have never relied on the internet for most of it--or on articles by left-wing propagandists who are always trying to defame this country.
 
matchlight said:
I have done lots of research, and I have never relied on the internet for most of it--or on articles by left-wing propagandists who are always trying to defame this country.
Click to expand...

I call BS that you haven't used the Internet for most of your research. And if you haven't, you're pretty silly for ignoring one of the best tools for research in the history of the universe.
 
Amadeus said:
The facts, as told by Fareed Zakaria:

A nuclear deal with Iran is the best option - The Washington Post
Click to expand...


Then the real facts told by some people that shows Fareed. Never was in on the knowing.



Verification can’t prevent an Iranian nuke. Iran is a large nation. We don’t know, with certainty, what facilities they have. Iran has refused to allow the IAEA to conduct snap inspections of the facilities we know about. Russia and China will be running interference for Iran in the UN.

Once sanctions are lifted they will stay lifted. China and Russia will not allow reinstatement of sanctions on Iran. There is no evidence that Congress can muster the votes to force Obama to adhere to existing sanctions.

Iran’s R&D program is untouched. The agreement expires over the course of ten years. In the meantime, their ability to carry out R&D on nuclear weapons is unconstrained.

Iran’s centrifuge stockpile is not touched. In theory some of the centrifuges are put under IAEA seal and subject to periodic, and announced, inspections.

There is no evidence that Iran has an interest in regional stability. To the contrary. Iran has an interest in fomenting conflict and unrest throughout the Middle East because they will not be affected by that conflict. Even in combating ISIS, Iran has still pursued a strategy of treating the US as an enemy.....snip~

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-iran-deal-and-its-consequences-1428447582

http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/221360-iran-deal-and-its-consequences.html
 
MMC said:
Then the real facts told by some people that shows Fareed. Never was in on the knowing.



Verification can’t prevent an Iranian nuke. Iran is a large nation. We don’t know, with certainty, what facilities they have. Iran has refused to allow the IAEA to conduct snap inspections of the facilities we know about. Russia and China will be running interference for Iran in the UN.

Once sanctions are lifted they will stay lifted. China and Russia will not allow reinstatement of sanctions on Iran. There is no evidence that Congress can muster the votes to force Obama to adhere to existing sanctions.

Iran’s R&D program is untouched. The agreement expires over the course of ten years. In the meantime, their ability to carry out R&D on nuclear weapons is unconstrained.

Iran’s centrifuge stockpile is not touched. In theory some of the centrifuges are put under IAEA seal and subject to periodic, and announced, inspections.

There is no evidence that Iran has an interest in regional stability. To the contrary. Iran has an interest in fomenting conflict and unrest throughout the Middle East because they will not be affected by that conflict. Even in combating ISIS, Iran has still pursued a strategy of treating the US as an enemy.....snip~

Kissinger and Schultz: Iran deal brings region closer to nuclear war | RedState
Click to expand...

So what are you proposing, MCC? I see that you haven't voted.
 
OrphanSlug said:
How about... "Hell no!"
Click to expand...
2X

A proposal , to be taken seriously, to the chicken-hawks, how about you , as a conservative supported individual, go to war with Iran -- you can fight their extremist counterparts ..Seems as if fools are everywhere ..check FaceBook .. loaded with racists and bigots .
 
Amadeus said:
So what are you proposing, MCC? I see that you haven't voted.
Click to expand...

I would propose diplomacy at first.....if diplomacy fails. Then we walk away and say nothing.....leaving the Iranians to tremble in fear.

Then we drop in with strategic attacks taking out most of their facilities. Destroying what little Air Force they have. While taking out most of the Military.

Thus leaving them weak and struggling to hold their very own country.

Oh and after we are done.....I would tell them. Don't do anymore **** talking on the Big Stage anymore. Get Right.....or we will be back to finish the job.
 
MMC said:
I would propose diplomacy at first.....if diplomacy fails. Then we walk away and say nothing.....leaving the Iranians to tremble in fear.
Click to expand...

You say you support diplomacy, yet you've already stated that Iran achieving a nuke is a foregone conclusion without an assault. So are you just giving lip service to peace? That's dishonest.

Then we drop in with strategic attacks taking out most of their facilities. Destroying what little Air Force they have. While taking out most of the Military.
Click to expand...

In other words, a preemptive invasion.
 
Amadeus said:
You say you support diplomacy, yet you've already stated that Iran achieving a nuke is a foregone conclusion without an assault. So are you just giving lip service to peace? That's dishonest.



In other words, a preemptive invasion.
Click to expand...



That's Not what Schultz and Kissinger said. Perhaps you should try sticking with reality rather than trying to read crystal balls.
 
MMC said:
That's Not what Schultz and Kissinger said. Perhaps you should try sticking with reality rather than trying to read crystal balls.
Click to expand...

You said inspections and other stipulations in the deal will not suffice, and we all know that sanctions are a temporary solution that cannot be sustained. So what option are you leaving other than a military strike?
 
Amadeus said:
Until the sanctions regime crumbles, which it very well would if the US walks away from a decent deal. The sanctions regime crumbles, the US has very little leverage.
Click to expand...

So now that BO has come out and told the Ayatollah and Iran that, "no". All sanctions will not be removed like they said.....and that if they continue on stating this is their position.

That the US will walk away.

What do you think BO just told him?
 
Amadeus said:
I call BS that you haven't used the Internet for most of your research. And if you haven't, you're pretty silly for ignoring one of the best tools for research in the history of the universe.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that you have learned most of what you know from the internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom