• 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?

Fortunately, we won't have to worry about that scenario.

All Gopers are chicken Hawks.
 
Didn't Obama say the same thing?
 
Here's the way I'm looking at it. It is not in our best interest for countries like Iran to have nuclear weapons. It's just not and I think everyone would agree they feel safer knowing they don't have that ability. However, if that is truly our goal, to prevent them from building WMD's, then any future military mission should have that as it's stated goal. Any pre-emptive combat in the future should involve a small ground force and a heavy air presence that focuses on highly suspected nuclear facilities. Destroy them, get out of dodge. Even then we had better have a very good reason and very good intelligence to go off of.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Here's the way I'm looking at it. It is not in our best interest for countries like Iran to have nuclear weapons. It's just not and I think everyone would agree they feel safer knowing they don't have that ability. However, if that is truly our goal, to prevent them from building WMD's, then any future military mission should have that as it's stated goal. Any pre-emptive combat in the future should involve a small ground force and a heavy air presence that focuses on highly suspected nuclear facilities. Destroy them, get out of dodge. Even then we had better have a very good reason and very good intelligence to go off of.
Click to expand...

nuke em from a sub and blame the russians ;)
 
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.
 
iran resembles neither Iraq nor afghanistan.american governments must learn not to attack the sovereign states by fabricating some excuses.
 
Medusa said:
iran resembles neither Iraq nor afghanistan.american governments must learn not to attack the sovereign states by fabricating some excuses.
Click to expand...
you mean excuses like I'mabaddenimjob's statement that he wants to wipe Israel off the map?
 
OscarB63 said:
you mean excuses like I'mabaddenimjob's statement that he wants to wipe Israel off the map?
Click to expand...
ı never want a state to be wiped off the map......
 
roughdraft274 said:
Here's the way I'm looking at it. It is not in our best interest for countries like Iran to have nuclear weapons. It's just not and I think everyone would agree they feel safer knowing they don't have that ability. However, if that is truly our goal, to prevent them from building WMD's, then any future military mission should have that as it's stated goal. Any pre-emptive combat in the future should involve a small ground force and a heavy air presence that focuses on highly suspected nuclear facilities. Destroy them, get out of dodge. Even then we had better have a very good reason and very good intelligence to go off of.
Click to expand...

It is not in the United States' interest for Iran to have nuclear weapons. It is even less in our interest to invade the country or use military force. Our military is stretched thin, as is. Sanctions may not have worked, but applying more force certainly won't help either. Engaging the country will do more good than harm.

OscarB63 said:
you mean excuses like I'mabaddenimjob's statement that he wants to wipe Israel off the map?
Click to expand...

Ahmadinejad has about as much real political power as a high school class president. Even if his mistranslated statement constituted his opinion, the real political power in Iran, the Ayatollah and the Guardian Council, have been more rational in their foreign policy. Iran could not win in a fight against Israel. Iran's military budget is smaller than Greece's or Singapore's; the budget is a bit more than half of Israel's. Even if Iran develops a few nukes, something that they are probably years away from doing, Israel is believed to have 200, and Israel probably actually has the capability of delivering a large number of nukes on a moment's notice. Iran's missile technology is woefully inadequate to take on Israel in a nuclear exchange. Also, America, and her 10,000+ nuke arsenal would probably insert itself into the situation, to say the least. Iran would remain largely isolated; other country's hate or distrust Iran, and even then, Israel could probably take on a coalition like it did in 1967 and 1973. There is no way for Iran to wipe Israel off of the map, and the Iranian government knows this.
 
apdst said:
Didn't Obama say the same thing?
Click to expand...

Obama didn't say that sanctions won't work and that a military option is necessary.

The only real way to prevent the regime from getting a nuke is regime change. Therefore, we'd have to occupy a country far larger and more populated then Iraq with terrain more like Afghanistan then Iraq.

Romney is chickenhawk who has no idea what he's talking about.
 
obvious Child said:
Obama didn't say that sanctions won't work and that a military option is necessary.

The only real way to prevent the regime from getting a nuke is regime change. Therefore, we'd have to occupy a country far larger and more populated then Iraq with terrain more like Afghanistan then Iraq.

Romney is chickenhawk who has no idea what he's talking about.
Click to expand...

Neither did Romney.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Meh, I think the the military option should always be on the table. However, generally in these circumstances, if you have to resort to military force, you ****ed up somewhere along the line beforehand.
Click to expand...

That's not true. There are somethings that diplomacy can't fix.
 
muciti said:
Iran should be stopped from obtaining nukes at any cost.
Click to expand...

how about by devoting the funds we would spend on war with Iran to publicly funding and developing a non-fossil fuel domestic alternative?

a lot of the walking around money middle eastern countries have is due to our demand for oil.
 
Helix said:
how about by devoting the funds we would spend on war with Iran to publicly funding and developing a non-fossil fuel domestic alternative?
a lot of the walking around money middle eastern countries have is due to our demand for oil.
Click to expand...
I would love to tell the entire ME to get stuffed. The ME complicates our "life" as a country too much. We compromise a little here and a little there and in the end, the US end up in bed with unsavory characters. We end sharing some portion of the culpability of the terrible things they do to one another over there.
 
Medusa said:
iran resembles neither Iraq nor afghanistan.american governments must learn not to attack the sovereign states by fabricating some excuses.
Click to expand...



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:
 
Goshin said:
The next Third Reich that rears its ugly head is someone ELSE's problem, so there.
Click to expand...
Though the whole Hitler= Hussein thing had already been retired as untenable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom