• 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
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?

You must not have read all of what the experts are saying. Sanctions would go back into full effect. Iran's economy was on the verge of collapse due to their own decisions to keep up their 30 Billion with Military and sponsoring terrorism.





Absent the linkage between nuclear and political restraint, America’s traditional allies will conclude that the U.S. has traded temporary nuclear cooperation for acquiescence to Iranian hegemony. They will increasingly look to create their own nuclear balances and, if necessary, call in other powers to sustain their integrity. Does America still hope to arrest the region’s trends toward sectarian upheaval, state collapse and the disequilibrium of power tilting toward Tehran, or do we now accept this as an irremediable aspect of the regional balance?

Some advocates have suggested that the agreement can serve as a way to dissociate America from Middle East conflicts, culminating in the military retreat from the region initiated by the current administration. As Sunni states gear up to resist a new Shiite empire, the opposite is likely to be the case. The Middle East will not stabilize itself, nor will a balance of power naturally assert itself out of Iranian-Sunni competition. (Even if that were our aim, traditional balance of power theory suggests the need to bolster the weaker side, not the rising or expanding power.) Beyond stability, it is in America’s strategic interest to prevent the outbreak of nuclear war and its catastrophic consequences. Nuclear arms must not be permitted to turn into conventional weapons. The passions of the region allied with weapons of mass destruction may impel deepening American involvement.....snip~


Whats Iran going to do.....declare war on the US? Puleeeze don't make me laugh this early in the morning.
 
I vote yes. It makes the world more interesting and I'm all for that. Frankly I think we need to begin "Environmentally Nuking" human ideological problem areas such as ISIS controlled Syria/Iraq and parts of Africa with Islamists.

It would be good for the environment.
This must be the best of sarcasm inc .. lol..
 
You must not have read all of what the experts are saying. Sanctions would go back into full effect. Iran's economy was on the verge of collapse due to their own decisions to keep up their 30 Billion with Military and sponsoring terrorism.

Iran went from like 200 centrifuges to 1700 centrifuges under the sanctions. And the sanction regime requires international support, which would fall away if the US walks away from a deal.

You say you want a 'better deal', but you only advocate for an unattainable deal that will never be on the table under any circumstances whatsoever.
 
War should always be the last thing the US does. But we all know that's not the case. Nobody hates war more than the soldiers that fight it. So maybe we should ask them, & not listen to the people that stand to make a profit off of a war with Iran.
 
MMC, I believe you are supposed to give credit to authors when quoting their work.


matchlight, please remind me of the bombing missions into Cuba back in 1962 that caused the Soviet Union to withdraw.
 
This guy always has a good take on this stuff. Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell

 
Iran went from like 200 centrifuges to 1700 centrifuges under the sanctions. And the sanction regime requires international support, which would fall away if the US walks away from a deal.

You say you want a 'better deal', but you only advocate for an unattainable deal that will never be on the table under any circumstances whatsoever.




Now here is the truth about their centrifuges, with the full article to the WSJ. Oh and how does the International Sanctions fall away with Iran saying they won't accept the deal unless all sanctions come off?

Are you even aware what their Alleged Supreme leader stated and what BO told his lame ass?






Mixing shrewd diplomacy with open defiance of U.N. resolutions, Iran has gradually turned the negotiation on its head. Iran’s centrifuges have multiplied from about 100 at the beginning of the negotiation to almost 20,000 today. The threat of war now constrains the West more than Iran. While Iran treated the mere fact of its willingness to negotiate as a concession, the West has felt compelled to break every deadlock with a new proposal. In the process, the Iranian program has reached a point officially described as being within two to three months of building a nuclear weapon. Under the proposed agreement, for 10 years Iran will never be further than one year from a nuclear weapon and, after a decade, will be significantly closer.

Under the new approach, Iran permanently gives up none of its equipment, facilities or fissile product to achieve the proposed constraints. It only places them under temporary restriction and safeguard—amounting in many cases to a seal at the door of a depot or periodic visits by inspectors to declared sites. The physical magnitude of the effort is daunting. Is the International Atomic Energy Agency technically, and in terms of human resources, up to so complex and vast an assignment?

In a large country with multiple facilities and ample experience in nuclear concealment, violations will be inherently difficult to detect. Devising theoretical models of inspection is one thing. Enforcing compliance, week after week, despite competing international crises and domestic distractions, is another. Any report of a violation is likely to prompt debate over its significance—or even calls for new talks with Tehran to explore the issue. The experience of Iran’s work on a heavy-water reactor during the “interim agreement” period—when suspect activity was identified but played down in the interest of a positive negotiating atmosphere—is not encouraging.....snip~

The Iran Deal and Its Consequences - WSJ
 
MMC, I believe you are supposed to give credit to authors when quoting their work.


matchlight, please remind me of the bombing missions into Cuba back in 1962 that caused the Soviet Union to withdraw.


I did......I said Kissinger and Schultz. Did you miss the post where I said their names? There is a couple of them in here.
 
Here's one that tells the truth of the deal.

 
Hmm, not sure I'd agree - with B.O. in place to stink up the operation proper, :eek:uch: he'd probably broadcast the date and time he planned on striking, with how strong a force, what kind of weapons, how long they'll be over target, altitude, air speed, GPS cords, along with resumes of the men involved; he'd arrange in advance for permission to enter Iranian air space, and probably accommodate the Ayatollahs by offering to go so far as to file a flight plan - in broken Farsi.

And to keep the Israelis from mucking up his brilliant :screwy plan, he'll cut a deal with Hamas and Hezbollah to keep the Israeli defense forces busy in turn for a promise of land in Israel proper once he's successful removing Netanyahu from power.

That, or he'll continue on the path he's most familiar with:

:surrender

:golf



Nah, he would only forecast what is to be bomnbed and when so they can get free.

He's afraid of losing his peace prize
 
You must not have read all of what the experts are saying. Whats Iran going to do.....declare war on the US? Puleeeze don't make me laugh this early in the morning.

You are underestimating the great Iranian fleet. Why, against all those PT boats our huge carriers and cruisers and submarines wouldn't stand a chance. Those boats could roar across the Atlantic and Pacific--refueling a few times en route, of course--and blockade both our coasts! And don't forget the Iranian army. They could load them into old freighters and tankers and bring them here to land on our unprotected coasts, and we'd be helpless to stop them. They'd be really angry, and they'd have rifles, too!
 
Here's one that tells the truth of the deal.





Here is what Netanyahu said in front of Congress.....not to mention. The Saud has already stated that they will have their Nuke. If Iran gets their.




He told the joint session that the emerging deal would allow Iran to retain too much of its existing nuclear infrastructure. And he warned that US and other Western powers are proposing to allow Iran to develop too many nuclear centrifuges, a key component to one day fielding an atomic weapon.

"If anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again.

"The alternative to this deal," Netanyahu said, his voice booming as he pounded the podium with his left hand, "is a much better deal. "A better deal that doesn't leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and short breakout times," Netanyahu said. "A better deal that doesn't give Iran an easy path to the bomb.....snip~

Netanyahu: Iran Deal Could Lead to War
 
The answer *must* be "maybe" even for those (like me) who really, really, really don't want to see this happen. The need for a "maybe" is two fold - one, having the possibility on the table does help keeping the Iranians a bit better behaved, and two, in the very, very, very unlikely possibility that the Iranian regime will end up actually building a bomb and actually using it (again, I find this to be extremely unlikely because I don't see these ayatollahs as being plain suicidal), then yes, not only the US but other Western powers would have to attack them back.

I see the Iranians in a quest for regional influence and a lot of their tough posturing is for internal politics. I don't see them *really* set on nuking Israel or other Western interests. Yes, maybe they'll build a bomb, but probably won't use it. It would be a dangerous development for the Middle East (and also, one might worry about regime change in the future with some rogue group getting hold of this arsenal), but I don't think the current regime would translate into action their tough rhetoric. Still, one never knows what the future might hold.

So, I'm quite surprised with so many "no" and so few "maybe" answers, because one can not entirely discount the possibility of future conflict. Nothing is certain in the world, today. So, a straight "no" without leaving at least a very small possibility of action in case of real catastrophic escalation from the Iranians, seems to me to be a bit naive.
 
Last edited:
Nonsense, Obama has started drone wars all over the globe. He takes no prisoners and kills lots of civilians because drones are indiscriminate. He does this because the only place he can put prisoners is Gitmo, which he's trying to empty.

While we are at it, don't forget enabling the GITMO prisoners by setting them free. Nice to kick the can down the road and inevitably making the next guy look bad.
 
And that deal would include what? Free and immediate inspections anytime anywhere, sanctions lifted over time, a stop to enriching, and closing their underground nuclear facility.

Mornin BF. :2wave: A theory that looks good on paper. :mrgreen:
 
Here is what Netanyahu said in front of Congress.....not to mention. The Saud has already stated that they will have their Nuke. If Iran gets their.




He told the joint session that the emerging deal would allow Iran to retain too much of its existing nuclear infrastructure. And he warned that US and other Western powers are proposing to allow Iran to develop too many nuclear centrifuges, a key component to one day fielding an atomic weapon.

"If anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again.

"The alternative to this deal," Netanyahu said, his voice booming as he pounded the podium with his left hand, "is a much better deal. "A better deal that doesn't leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and short breakout times," Netanyahu said. "A better deal that doesn't give Iran an easy path to the bomb.....snip~

Netanyahu: Iran Deal Could Lead to War

This whole thing is about money & power.

Republicans want to make Obama look bad. Also they want to keep US arms dealers to selling to Saudi Arabia & wealth countries in the ME.

Saudi Arabia & Israel want to be the main powers in the ME. They want to keep the sanctions on Iran or have them fighting a War. The Israeli military police has said that Iran is not making Nukes.
 
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.


OK, an independent observer who has followed the debate in Canada's House of Commons about civilian casualties stemming from the war on terror especially Afghanistan, I have to make a value judgment of what you offer and what is offered in contrast.

What is offered in contrast is journalism, edited and fact checked in the journalistic traditions I practiced for 25 years plus. The Washington Post is a noted right leaning newspaper and is quoting two well known international civil rights organizations who have added their name to Doctors Without Borders in saying the US is less than honest in reporting the number of civilian casualties.

You offer a blog. A blog by a savagely right wing military geek with charts and graphs and nice colors, but doesn't appear to directly address the topic you are defending, that the US is really very efficient in killing.

What I do recall from the Commons debate, where our politicians lose their job if caught in a lie, is that in one drone attack, there were 19 attempts and they never did get the guy. Left unsaid was that each of those 19 attacks claimed lives of some kind and probably human.

We are dealing with a nation that has been waging war on terror for 14 years...and is losing. We began with one war, then two, now there are seven fronts and no sign of ever, ever leveling off let alone ending, a nation that had the criminal mastermind in its sights, but took ten years to assassinate him. A nation's whose intelligence community completely missed the fall of the Berlin Wall, the 911 attacks, misread Arab Spring as friendly and claimed the assassination of a sitting diplomat and three marines was a "spontaneous demonstration" Yes I know that was Obama, but he is your commander in chief and represents the entire US military.

So, with that, you offer as dispute that there aren't too many civilians being slaughtered, an internet blog that doesn't appear to deal with civilian casualties, but reads like a boyscout endorsement of US war policy.

It is a matter of who is believable and it has been my experience in lifetime of research that NGO's like Doctor's Without Borders are far and away, no ****ing light years more believable the United States Pentagon and the Military Industrial Complex that it supports.

I would say you are guilty of what you deny...you only read that which supports your opinion and it doesn't seem to matter what is the source material.
 
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.
As more details emerge it is appearing to be a bad deal.
 
OK, an independent observer who has followed the debate in Canada's House of Commons about civilian casualties stemming from the war on terror especially Afghanistan, I have to make a value judgment of what you offer and what is offered in contrast.

What is offered in contrast is journalism, edited and fact checked in the journalistic traditions I practiced for 25 years plus. The Washington Post is a noted right leaning newspaper and is quoting two well known international civil rights organizations who have added their name to Doctors Without Borders in saying the US is less than honest in reporting the number of civilian casualties.

You offer a blog. A blog by a savagely right wing military geek with charts and graphs and nice colors, but doesn't appear to directly address the topic you are defending, that the US is really very efficient in killing.

What I do recall from the Commons debate, where our politicians lose their job if caught in a lie, is that in one drone attack, there were 19 attempts and they never did get the guy. Left unsaid was that each of those 19 attacks claimed lives of some kind and probably human.

We are dealing with a nation that has been waging war on terror for 14 years...and is losing. We began with one war, then two, now there are seven fronts and no sign of ever, ever leveling off let alone ending, a nation that had the criminal mastermind in its sights, but took ten years to assassinate him. A nation's whose intelligence community completely missed the fall of the Berlin Wall, the 911 attacks, misread Arab Spring as friendly and claimed the assassination of a sitting diplomat and three marines was a "spontaneous demonstration" Yes I know that was Obama, but he is your commander in chief and represents the entire US military.

So, with that, you offer as dispute that there aren't too many civilians being slaughtered, an internet blog that doesn't appear to deal with civilian casualties, but reads like a boyscout endorsement of US war policy.

It is a matter of who is believable and it has been my experience in lifetime of research that NGO's like Doctor's Without Borders are far and away, no ****ing light years more believable the United States Pentagon and the Military Industrial Complex that it supports.

I would say you are guilty of what you deny...you only read that which supports your opinion and it doesn't seem to matter what is the source material.

"The Washington Post is a noted right leaning newspaper"? I can only assume you are joking. Like most big-city U.S. newspapers, it is noted for being left- leaning.

The Long War Journal is by far the most authoritative source of information on this subject that I know of. Obviously a lot of other people think that, too--just look at the list on the site of who has cited them as authority.
 
This whole thing is about money & power.

Republicans want to make Obama look bad. Also they want to keep US arms dealers to selling to Saudi Arabia & wealth countries in the ME.

Saudi Arabia & Israel want to be the main powers in the ME. They want to keep the sanctions on Iran or have them fighting a War. The Israeli military police has said that Iran is not making Nukes.



Well sort of. Then there is the sectarian divide between Sunni and Shia.

Republicans don't need to make BO look bad. Bo has proven he is the worst of the worst. But naturally Republicans should point out when Bo is looking bad. Its not like the Demos are going to say much of anything when he screws up.

Only a few in the Mossad believe that and even Netanyahu's opposition agrees on Iran being a threat to Israel. Which that all just came out with the Israeli election.
 
Well sort of. Then there is the sectarian divide between Sunni and Shia.

Republicans don't need to make BO look bad. Bo has proven he is the worst of the worst. But naturally Republicans should point out when Bo is looking bad. Its not like the Demos are going to say much of anything when he screws up.

Only a few in the Mossad believe that and even Netanyahu's opposition agrees on Iran being a threat to Israel. Which that all just came out with the Israeli election.
The worst of the worst is the president who started this misadventure in Iraq March 20, 2003 and said "Mission Accomplished" May 1, 2003.

 
Back
Top Bottom