• 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.

Hillary Touts Sanctions

What should we do with Iran, Prof?

We should do nothing! Absolutely, nothing!

We should sit back and let Iran build nukes, until they decide to pop one. At that point, we should chose between continueing to do nothing and watch millions of innocent people die--another Holocaust possibly--or, we can get involved and lose not a few thousand of our best and brightest but tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands.


Allowing things to fester out of control has worked so well in the past, I think we should stick with it.
 
I'd say he's doing the best any President could do under the circumstances. Decades of supporting and bribing tyrannical dictators finally caught up with us when their people had had enough and the instruments of oppression literally had "Made In The USA" stamped on them. The old ways of buying loyalty in the Middle East are over and the best we can hope for is to ride out the turmoil and come out the other side with a few allies when its over. We can't bomb our way into alliances and, frankly, I'm not interested in even entertaining the idea of war with a nation six times larger than Iraq and that actually does have weapons of mass destruction.



Is that so? And what exactly did our dear topiary-in-chief do to prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons aside from bumbling through a few speeches that amounted to little more than calling its leader a big fat meanie? I think "sanctions" might be the word you're looking for.

Yeah, he did a great job. He let one tyrannical dictator--who was pro-US--get overthrown by another tyrannical dictator who hates our guts.

That's awesome!

Looks like the Arab Spring ain't all that some folks promised it would be.
 
Ovomit is a lying, thieving muslim. Shrillary is a lying, thieving commie. They both should be in jail, along with holder, the big stupid dyke, oh hell, everybody in the muslim traitors regime.

I dislike billary so much, I would love to see her dropped naked into any pisslamic hell hole. No money, no phone, no id. Make sure too tattoo a Star of David on her fat commie ass. Maybe then she will see that shilling for koranimals is not the right thing to do.
 
We should do nothing! Absolutely, nothing!

We should sit back and let Iran build nukes, until they decide to pop one. At that point, we should chose between continueing to do nothing and watch millions of innocent people die--another Holocaust possibly--or, we can get involved and lose not a few thousand of our best and brightest but tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands.


Allowing things to fester out of control has worked so well in the past, I think we should stick with it.

Worked well in 1941. Almost got or butts handed to us. Only saving grace was that the Japanese Imperial Staff were focused on Indo-China and didn't listen to their advisers.

And so on, and so on.

Yup, lets just sit back and let them get a nuke. I mean, they have proven by all their actions that they wouldn't use any weapon available to kill westerners or support other terrorist groups that want to do the same. Nope, a peaceful regime just trying to get by and get along with their neighbors. Nothing bad in their intentions at all.
 
Seriously? You don't think they would come after us? I forget, are we the big satan or the little satan?

I'm not saying they wouldn't, he just did not provide an answer to the second half of the question. The missiles the Iranians are currently developing can only hit their neighbors, they cannot touch us at the moment.
 
Worked well in 1941. Almost got or butts handed to us. Only saving grace was that the Japanese Imperial Staff were focused on Indo-China and didn't listen to their advisers.

And so on, and so on.

Yup, lets just sit back and let them get a nuke. I mean, they have proven by all their actions that they wouldn't use any weapon available to kill westerners or support other terrorist groups that want to do the same. Nope, a peaceful regime just trying to get by and get along with their neighbors. Nothing bad in their intentions at all.

That's my point! It worked so well in '41, we should stick with it. Instead of losing 4,000 soldiers--as in Iraq--we can lose a half million.

But...it will be a moral war at that point.
 
I'm not saying they wouldn't, he just did not provide an answer to the second half of the question. The missiles the Iranians are currently developing can only hit their neighbors, they cannot touch us at the moment.

That's irrelevant.
 
You must know that eventually every country will have nuclear weapons. Some will wave them around and some will be secretive. But (IMHO obviously) by the end of this century, you'll probably be able to get them at the 7-11.

Will anyone dare use them? That's a real puzzler. Theoretically, if you use one, the rest of the world should paste your whole country into glass. But many countries automatically choose sides. So, if Iran nukes Israel, we don't have to wipe Iran because Israel has mainly got a doomsday set-up. But what if Pakistan nukes Saudi Arabia? What if NK nukes SK? What would we do about it? Nuke NK over Chinese objections?
 
That's my point! It worked so well in '41, we should stick with it. Instead of losing 4,000 soldiers--as in Iraq--we can lose a half million.

But...it will be a moral war at that point.

Exactly!!!

Some don't get it. They actually think they can negotiate with that regime.

The people are not bad people, But their government is run by fanatics.

If they get a bomb, we could very easily see this scene from "The Sum of All Fears" come true, in this country:

 
It's not. If they can't reach us, how are they currently threatening us?

Currently? They're not. Can they potentially cause us problems in the future? Count on it.

Let's not forget that we're dealing with a culture that believes they get a one way ticket to heaven, if they die for the cause. In what world would it be a good idea to let these clowns get their hands on a nuke?

We encountered that level of fanaticism once before. We lost nearly a half million Americans dealing with them.
 
Exactly!!!

Some don't get it. They actually think they can negotiate with that regime.

The people are not bad people, But their government is run by fanatics.

If they get a bomb, we could very easily see this scene from "The Sum of All Fears" come true, in this country:



I can go along with that--to an extent. However, the people are sittin' back and letting the government do it's thing.
 
I can go along with that--to an extent. However, the people are sittin' back and letting the government do it's thing.

They tried with the Green Movement protest in the last, and this is funny part, ELECTION. they had for President. The leader of the Green Movement was summarily put in house arrest and, surprise, had to be hospitalized not too long ago for an UNKNOWN illness. Haven't heard if he survived.
 
Here.

Check this out: Iranian Green Movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was one of the biggest misfires of the Obama Administration. Not even a misfire, but a non-fire. We had everything we needed there to help them overturn the Khomeini's and the regime as a whole. But no...
 
Currently? They're not. Can they potentially cause us problems in the future? Count on it.

Let's not forget that we're dealing with a culture that believes they get a one way ticket to heaven, if they die for the cause. In what world would it be a good idea to let these clowns get their hands on a nuke?

Do you ever get tired of repeating the same idiotic argument over and over again?

Point to a single instance where the Mullahs have risked their own lives. Try. Just one.

Using a nuclear weapon ends the Iranian regime. No questions. It's done. Gone. Kaput. Glassed. You're saying that in the 40 or so years since the Revolution, that they will end their country to get one weapon off? Furthermore, if they really wanted to eliminate Israel, they would have done in already. They had thousands of tons of chemical weapons in the past. They would have simply given them to the Arab nations during the various wars and had them used on Israel. Did that happen? Nope. Why? Because they would have had massive retaliation likely ending the Iranian Regime.

Now, before you start making **** up to compensate for your utter lack of debate skill, I'm not saying letting Iran have a weapon is good idea. It's not. But it's hardly the outcome that people exorbitantly ignorant of the Iranian government like to think will happen.

Iran is not run by fanatics. It is run by cold calculating people who in 30 years have never risked their own lives or power.
 
Here.

Check this out: Iranian Green Movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was one of the biggest misfires of the Obama Administration. Not even a misfire, but a non-fire. We had everything we needed there to help them overturn the Khomeini's and the regime as a whole. But no...

What makes you think that unarmed protestors could overthrow the strongest military in the region? The Mullahs were willing to unleash the paramilitary on protestors. What makes you think civil protest could remove the regime?
 
They tried with the Green Movement protest in the last, and this is funny part, ELECTION. they had for President. The leader of the Green Movement was summarily put in house arrest and, surprise, had to be hospitalized not too long ago for an UNKNOWN illness. Haven't heard if he survived.

Our president gave the Green Movement nothing more than lip service. That and his denial that the attack on the consulate in Benghazi was more than pissin'-n-moanin' about a cut rate flick, vice a coordinated attack with a chosen "d-day" makes one wonder whose side he's really on...or, maybe it doesn't.
 
You must know that eventually every country will have nuclear weapons. Some will wave them around and some will be secretive. But (IMHO obviously) by the end of this century, you'll probably be able to get them at the 7-11.

Will anyone dare use them? That's a real puzzler. Theoretically, if you use one, the rest of the world should paste your whole country into glass. But many countries automatically choose sides. So, if Iran nukes Israel, we don't have to wipe Iran because Israel has mainly got a doomsday set-up. But what if Pakistan nukes Saudi Arabia? What if NK nukes SK? What would we do about it? Nuke NK over Chinese objections?

Forget Pakistan. Iran-Saudi Arabia is not that far off. They've been in a cold war since the 70s. And Saudi Arabia has been rumored to be working on a weapons program for a long, long time. South Korea tried for a while before they got caught. It's actually easy to make uranium gun types. South Africa had a dozen for years and didn't tell anyone. After Apartheid fell, the Black government dismantled them.

The only real threat of actual usage is usage by non-state actors. States are rational, despite the ravings of the uneducated here, Iran's leaders have never risked their own lives. Using a nuclear weapon ends the Iranian regime. In some ways Iran is entirely predictable because they are rational people with rational goals. Furthermore, unlike India, Iran has a strong central control. One Indian General almost went to nuclear war with Pakistan without the President knowing. Jesus!
 
Do you ever get tired of repeating the same idiotic argument over and over again?

Point to a single instance where the Mullahs have risked their own lives. Try. Just one.

Using a nuclear weapon ends the Iranian regime. No questions. It's done. Gone. Kaput. Glassed. You're saying that in the 40 or so years since the Revolution, that they will end their country to get one weapon off? Furthermore, if they really wanted to eliminate Israel, they would have done in already. They had thousands of tons of chemical weapons in the past. They would have simply given them to the Arab nations during the various wars and had them used on Israel. Did that happen? Nope. Why? Because they would have had massive retaliation likely ending the Iranian Regime.

Now, before you start making **** up to compensate for your utter lack of debate skill, I'm not saying letting Iran have a weapon is good idea. It's not. But it's hardly the outcome that people exorbitantly ignorant of the Iranian government like to think will happen.

Iran is not run by fanatics. It is run by cold calculating people who in 30 years have never risked their own lives or power.

Right! Which illustrates my point that allowing them to get their hands on a nuke, or two, could result in the deaths of millions.
 
Forget Pakistan. Iran-Saudi Arabia is not that far off. They've been in a cold war since the 70s. And Saudi Arabia has been rumored to be working on a weapons program for a long, long time. South Korea tried for a while before they got caught. It's actually easy to make uranium gun types. South Africa had a dozen for years and didn't tell anyone. After Apartheid fell, the Black government dismantled them.

The only real threat of actual usage is usage by non-state actors. States are rational, despite the ravings of the uneducated here, Iran's leaders have never risked their own lives. Using a nuclear weapon ends the Iranian regime. In some ways Iran is entirely predictable because they are rational people with rational goals.

Such as Hamas?--supported by Iran. Or, Hezbollah?--supported by Iran.
 
What makes you think that unarmed protestors could overthrow the strongest military in the region? The Mullahs were willing to unleash the paramilitary on protestors.

They can't. That's the point that Boudreaux and I were alluding to.
 
Right! Which illustrates my point that allowing them to get their hands on a nuke, or two, could result in the deaths of millions.

I'll give you one more chance to actually read what I wrote and respond rather than make up whatever you think I wrote.

Such as Hamas?--supported by Iran. Or, Hezbollah?--supported by Iran.

What makes you think Iran will give organizations it has little real control over the pinnacle of Iranian weapons? The most advanced weapons Iran ships are cheaply made rockets and shaped charges. Which have been around since WWII.
Furthermore, the list of potential sources of such a weapon is real narrow. Iran will be found out extremely quickly.

They can't. That's the point that Boudreaux and I were alluding to.

So you're saying that we should have essentially started a civil war? The Iranian regime is, next to Saudi Arabia, the most well armed military in the region. We would have to do the fighting. Are you willing to go invade Iran?
 
What makes you think that unarmed protestors could overthrow the strongest military in the region? The Mullahs were willing to unleash the paramilitary on protestors. What makes you think civil protest could remove the regime?

Obviously they couldn't since most of them were unarmed. That is part of the point I am making.

Civil unrest is what has taken over in most of the Islamic countries and has done pretty well at overturning regimes. Some with little blood shed, others, like Syria, with a heck of a lot of blood shed. Iran's Green Movement had a lot of blood shed, most of it on their side. We did nothing. Nothing. Even when they asked for it.
 
Back
Top Bottom