• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Will Romney Invade Iran?

Tashah said:
I can't conceive of any scenario (other than a proven/direct homeland attack) where the US would even consider putting boots on the ground in Iran.
Click to expand...

and interestingly enough, there was nothing in the article that suggested Romney supported such action.

Perhaps I am just a semanticist at heart, but the choice of the term "invade" rather than "attack" was a bit of a dishonest sleight of hand created out of the bias of the thread starter, since the word "invade" does suggest boots on the ground/occupying forces, while "attack" does not necessarily do so.
 
cpwill said:
A study by the Rand Corporation estimates the sedimentary rock in the corner where Utah borders Colorado and Wyoming holds about 800 billion barrels. That's three times the size of Saudi Arabia's oil reserves.

then you start figuring, we start drilling our coasts and alaska?

it's like free money. we are the only nation on the planet stupid enough to be sitting on natural resources like this and not make use of it.
Click to expand...
It doesn't reference proven reserves. I don't see an estimate of technically recoverable amounts nor economically recoverable amounts.

Those are some important details. I also don't see an estimate of the timeline to begin producing nor a rate of production. The rate is another very important factor. A jillion barrels dripped out at 1% of daily usage doesn't actually end up having very much effect for the country economically.

I think that the idea is interesting, but it's not ready. Perhaps after the numbers are better analyzed we could make a better decision.
 
MKULTRABOY said:
That will take decades and not be enough! :smacks forehead: keep drinking the V8!
Click to expand...
cpwill said:
actually it won't and there is more oil in the rocky mountains alone than there is in saudi arabia :smacksforehead: thanks for playing!
Click to expand...
Simon W. Moon said:
Where does this info come from exactly?
Click to expand...
cpwill said:
A study by the Rand Corporation estimates the sedimentary rock in the corner where Utah borders Colorado and Wyoming holds about 800 billion barrels. That's three times the size of Saudi Arabia's oil reserves.
Click to expand...
From that Rand study

http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-anal...nt in the United States - RAND August 200.pdf


Development Timeline. Currently, no organization with the management, technical, and financial wherewithal to develop oil shale resources has announced its intent to build commercial-scale production facilities. A firm decision to commit funds to such a venture is at least six years away because that is the minimum length of time for scale-up and process confirmation work needed to obtain the technical and environmental data required for the design and permitting of a first-of-a-kind commercial operation. At least an additional six to eight years will be required to permit, design, construct, shake down, and confirm performance of that initial commercial operation. Consequently, at least 12 and possibly more years will elapse before oil shale development will reach the production growth phase. Under high growth assumptions, an oil shale production level of 1 million barrels per day is probably more than 20 years in the future, and 3 million barrels per day is probably more than 30 years into the future.​

cpwill said:
we are the only nation on the planet stupid enough to be sitting on natural resources like this and not make use of it.
Click to expand...
Why do you feel the need to put America down to score points on the intarwebz?
Perhaps the US isn't as stupid as you say?
 
Last edited:
Simon W. Moon said:
Development Timeline. Currently, no organization with the management, technical, and financial wherewithal to develop oil shale resources has announced its intent to build commercial-scale production facilities
Click to expand...

well yeah. even trying to build a factory in this country can mean years of fighting the eco-nutters in the courts. However, shale isn't the only picture - it's just the biggest portion of the long term picture. We could open up both coastlines, the full south, and alaska to drilling next week if there was will in the congress and the executive to do so.

Why do you feel the need to put America down to score points on the intarwebz?
Perhaps the US isn't as stupid as you say?
Click to expand...

in this particular policy area, we are.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
well yeah. even trying to build a factory in this country can mean years of fighting the eco-nutters in the courts. However, shale isn't the only picture - it's just the biggest portion of the long term picture. We could open up both coastlines, the full south, and alaska to drilling next week if there was will in the congress and the executive to do so.



in this particular policy area, we are.
Click to expand...

Right, we are complete idiots for not poisening our own environment in order to lower the price of gas by a penny 10 years from now. :lol:
 
MKULTRABOY said:
The mistranslation that never dies...



That will take decades and not be enough! :smacks forehead: keep drinking the V8!
Click to expand...
Then I guess we better get started.
 
AdamT said:
Right, we are complete idiots for not poisening our own environment in order to lower the price of gas by a penny 10 years from now. :lol:
Click to expand...
Damn shame you can't substantiate that hyperbole.
 
Tashah said:
I can't conceive of any scenario (other than a proven/direct homeland attack) where the US would even consider putting boots on the ground in Iran.
Click to expand...
I CAN however see a scenario where Obama, for the greater good...authorizes support of air strikes against Iran...and if he does, liberals will find a way to excuse it, justify it, or simply keep their mouth shut. Again.
 
Of course not. None of the candidates, including Obama, will order the invasion of Iran during the next term, unless we suffer a major terrorist attack or political assassination. I doubt any of them would even authorize a military strike, unless Iran acts first (unlikely).
 
AdamT said:
Right, we are complete idiots for not poisening our own environment in order to lower the price of gas by a penny 10 years from now. :lol:
Click to expand...

You are aware are you not that China is partnering with Cuba to drill off her coasts - which is just not all that far from our coast. Seriously, not drilling by the US does not end all drilling
 
Simon W. Moon said:
It doesn't reference proven reserves. I don't see an estimate of technically recoverable amounts nor economically recoverable amounts.

Those are some important details. I also don't see an estimate of the timeline to begin producing nor a rate of production.
Click to expand...

they've already started in some areas; but our coastlines (which are the easy quick money right now) remain stupidly off-limits.

The rate is another very important factor. A jillion barrels dripped out at 1% of daily usage doesn't actually end up having very much effect for the country economically.
Click to expand...

yes and no - remember the investment and employment that comes with production. oil jobs pay above the national average, and up in North Dakota the unemployment rate is 3.5%; and they are running out of women for the men that have poured in to work on the preemptory fracking.

I think that the idea is interesting, but it's not ready. Perhaps after the numbers are better analyzed we could make a better decision.
Click to expand...

the better decision is to begin; and then irrespective of what the market allocates you are already that much further ahead. we lose nothing and only gain resources, wealth, and jobs by beginning as soon as possible.
 
snilloctjc said:
You are aware are you not that China is partnering with Cuba to drill off her coasts - which is just not all that far from our coast. Seriously, not drilling by the US does not end all drilling
Click to expand...

in fact, they slant drill. China is drilling our oil.
 
AdamT said:
Right, we are complete idiots for not poisening our own environment in order to lower the price of gas by a penny 10 years from now. :lol:
Click to expand...

:) awww, look at that. someone has no idea what they are talking about. :)
 
cpwill said:
:) awww, look at that. someone has no idea what they are talking about. :)
Click to expand...

Don't be so hard on yourself, guy. You can still learn.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
That just means that when they get them, Romney didn't let them get them.
I'll bet my beard that we don't invade Iran anytime in the next decade at least, if not longer.
Click to expand...

It's just tough talk for the base.
 
AdamT said:
Right, we are complete idiots for not poisening our own environment in order to lower the price of gas by a penny 10 years from now. :lol:
Click to expand...

Yet this is another fine example of dropping education standards in the US. Poisening is spelled poisoning. This error even when spell check is available.
 
I haven't read the entire thread, however I must say after Iraq I do not believe a word that comes out of politicians' mouths with regards to the true state of the world. When considering the confessions of an economic hitman, whether or not Iran has nuclear weapons or not is not the complete picture. Once we invade we put in place an American friendly government while exposing a new market to western globalization. There is such a huge push for this because companies are growing to the point that the cost to just break even and start to make a profit is asinine. One strategy corporations have been enacting is to spread their product to markets that have not been exposed. Also, these corporations are able to get labor and resources at a fraction of the cost once a friendly government is put into place.

Now, there very well could be nukes over there. But, we as a people should learn from Iraq and learn of the possibility that there might not be. The government could be inducing fear into the public's perspective, so the public allows for an invasion into a country to essentially exploit their resources, labor, and untapped markets. This has been going on for decades. So I refuse to believe that nuclear weapons is the ONLY reason why people are considering an invasion.

After reading more on peak oil, I think a lot of what has been happening is strictly because of oil. From now until the year 2070 approximately, oil production will be steadily decreasing simply because the world's recoverable oil reserve is being spent up. I am sure that the leaders of this country know about this, especially considering the first papers on Peak Oil were released during the 1970's. Considering how dependent our lifestyle is on oil, it makes sense as to why the events in Libya happened, and now Iran. Libya was for sure about oil. It had nothing to do with the leader of the country; the press just presented him as a horrible person so we were not against some of the military actions that were thrown Libya's way. Now, I am positive that there was mass protests on the streets. But a tactic that the CIA has used to get rid of people from power is to give some agents a lump some of cash, to start a revolution (confessions of an economic hitman).

And now Iran. Why now? Why didn't we consider doing this before? Iran is a much more terror friendly compared to Iraq! I will tell you why. Because once oil production and costs were getting unfavorable, we moved onto Libya. (Egypt I think was for potential markets.) then it was time to move to the next target. Considering that Iran is in the middle east region, I am sure there is some oil there that we could get for cheaper if we occupied the area. If not, then it would for sure expose markets to western corporations, and it would tack on another country that the United States has military occupation in.

IF there is nuclear weapons, then what I am saying is the United States will exploit the area once the nuclear warheads are under control. It really is a win situation if we invade from a leader's perspective. A war is good for the economy, provides new markets that would be fulfilling the leader's end of the deal with the lobbyists of the corpocracy, gets rid of another country having the same weapon of mass destruction that we have (possibly), while at the same time allowing us to exploit that country for labor and resources.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Quite so, quite so. We should stop lying about why we invade these countries, overthrow their rightful dicatorship, then rebuild them and institute democratic governments, then pull out our troops and leave the country to the control of its own citizens.


The next Third Reich that rears its ugly head is someone ELSE's problem, so there.

:roll:
Click to expand...

In your view of the world we have plenty of money for such adventures, so I guess we won't find you suggesting (in other threads) that budget deficits or federal spending are anything to worry about.
 
It isn't democratic to go to a country, point a gun, and say "Become a democracy or we will shoot." That sounds pretty tyrannical to me. We have military bases in over 190 countries across the world. The United States government maybe a representative republic. Our leaders are representing people from their districts as well as themselves. And, if that means we have to occupy more percentage of the world to ensure our way of life, even if it means the detriment of other peoples, then so be it.

That is how individualistic, unempathetic, and selfish our culture has become. By the laws of human rights stated by Jefferson himself, our country has turned into the tyrant that our forefathers declared independence from.
 
If we are going to invade countries, we better damn well make sure that they have something we want as well. Whether its resources, or just some nice beachfront property we can make a buck on, we need to start getting some compensation back from these countries. We are bankrupting ourselves by not retaining the rights to the spoils of war. While we can never replace the lives of our sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, etc..... we could at least get something in return other than dismissive attitudes and remarks by international leaders.
 
BossHogg said:
Israel will bomb Iran if they got nukes, which would bring us into a war regardless of who the President is. If Iran stays committed to developing nukes, then war is inevitable.
Click to expand...

The problem with that scenario is that Israel will be universally condemned for such an act. Even the majority of Americans will likely condemn Israel if it bombs Iran (even with an okay from the U.S.) and drags Amercia into a war with Iran. Moreover, Iran is not Iraq. It will not be so easy to push over. Worse still, Iran is cozy enough with the Russians and the Chinese that an American invasion of Iran could easily turn into WWIII.

Of course, Iran is quite aware of these dynamics and will play its hand accordingly.
 
Sig said:
The problem with that scenario is that Israel will be universally condemned for such an act. Even the majority of Americans will likely condemn Israel if it bombs Iran (even with an okay from the U.S.) and drags Amercia into a war with Iran. Moreover, Iran is not Iraq. It will not be so easy to push over. Worse still, Iran is cozy enough with the Russians and the Chinese that an American invasion of Iran could easily turn into WWIII.

Of course, Iran is quite aware of these dynamics and will play its hand accordingly.
Click to expand...

Not that I am advocating invading Iran - but what makes you say "Moreover, Iran is not Iraq. It will not be so easy to push over."? Do you mean militarily?
 
obvious Child said:
Romney: I will not let Iran get nuclear weapons | Reuters

Sounds like a Chickenhawk.

Did we learn nothing from Iraq?
Click to expand...

by maintaining a regular naval presence in the Mediterranean and Gulf region and by increasing U.S. military assistance to Israel.
Click to expand...

Well now, the answer is obviously "no" to your thread title, and a "Yes, we learned enough" to your in-thread question.

I find it amusing that any hawkish rhetoric is automatically turned into "Operation: Occupy Iran!"
 
Last edited:
Today Obama states that all options including military strikes are still on the table to ensure Iran does not get nuclear weapons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom