• 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!

PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

EagleAye said:
Legal problem solved. Once they do so, it will be perceived by many as an admission Iran is making nukes. Obama or any future president would never be able to hold Israel back at that point. An attack on Iran by Israel would happen for certain. The US would probably join in. I prefer it as it stands, then an attack by anyone may not be happen at all.
Click to expand...


Lots of countries have nukes, we have about 10,000 ourselves. All Obama has to do to hold Israel back is say, if you do it, you are on your own, you will get no further military assistance or financial aid from the US.
 
Last edited:
Connery said:
Nonsense you refuse to provide a source.
Click to expand...

Okay, I just completed a thorough search and found no declaration of military threat by the US or the UN. If you don't believe me, prove me wrong.
 
Catawba said:
Okay, I just completed a thorough search and found no declaration of military threat by the US or the UN. If you don't believe me, prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

That was not my position at all I stated the Iranian Ambassador claimed as much. You disagreed kindly site a source or don't. At this point you have provided nothing but opinion. Perhaps we have reached the end of this discussion.
 
Last edited:
justabubba said:
so, if iran withdraws from the NPT like israel, then it can develop nuclear weapons freely, like israel
Click to expand...

Israel was never a part of the NPT as far as I know. As far as your basic question..N. Korea seems to think so.
 
Catawba said:
Lots of countries have nukes, we have about 10,000 ourselves. All Obama has to do to hold Israel back is say, if you do it, you are on your own, you will get no further military assistance or financial aid from the US.
Click to expand...

Yep.. that's exactly what Obama should do..

We have no vested interest in Bibi's games or phony paranoia.
 
Connery said:
That was not my position at all I stated the Iranian Ambassador claimed as much.
Click to expand...

I didn't disagree he said it, my point was that it was irrelevant as evidenced by the lack of an official statement from the US or the UN that Iran was a military threat to the US.

Perhaps we have reached the end of this discussion.
Click to expand...

If you cannot provide proof the US or the UN has stated Iran is a military threat, then it would indeed appear to be the end of this discussion.
 
Catawba said:
I don't follow your reasoning. The US has attacked more nations in modern history than Iran. We have have even used nukes on civilian populations. No other nuclear state has done that.
Click to expand...

First I gotta say, I do find it funny that whenever someone tries to assert something (like this topic or SSM...JUST for example) they always limit history to "modern history", and then go back as far as they can for the worst offense.

Also the US has never used a nuclear weapon on anyone. They did use two Atom Bombs though. And yes there is a difference. One is a hell of a lot more powerful than the other. But that is being semantical so I'll just leave it at this.

Bold: Openly yes. But we do not know how many nations that Iran has attacked through various terrorist groups...like hezbollah. And yes, I do consider them directly responsible for each of Hezbollah's attacks.
 
Catawba said:
I didn't disagree he said it, my point was that it was irrelevant as evidenced by the lack of an official statement from the US or the UN that Iran was a military threat to the US.



If you cannot provide proof the US or the UN has stated Iran is a military threat, then it would indeed appear to be the end of this discussion.
Click to expand...

In fact the last two NIE reports -- the consensus reports of our 16 intelligence services -- have concluded that Iran is NOT trying to develop a nuclear weapon. Odd how no one ever mentions that.
 
Kal'Stang said:
First I gotta say, I do find it funny that whenever someone tries to assert something (like this topic or SSM...JUST for example) they always limit history to "modern history", and then go back as far as they can for the worst offense.
Click to expand...

To what are your referring exactly? Our use of nukes on civilians was within our modern history.

Also the US has never used a nuclear weapon on anyone. They did use two Atom Bombs though. And yes there is a difference. One is a hell of a lot more powerful than the other. But that is being semantical so I'll just leave it at this.
Click to expand...

I agree, that is just semantics.

Bold: Openly yes. But we do not know how many nations that Iran has attacked through various terrorist groups...like hezbollah. And yes, I do consider them directly responsible for each of Hezbollah's attacks.
Click to expand...

Then you would also have to consider any actions by countries that received American aid to be the responsibility of the US. But that is really unnecessary to make the point. The US alone has killed far more people in other countries than Iran and hezbollah combined. We killed a million in Vietnam alone.
 
AdamT said:
In fact the last two NIE reports -- the consensus reports of our 16 intelligence services -- have concluded that Iran is NOT trying to develop a nuclear weapon. Odd how no one ever mentions that.
Click to expand...

Odd indeed. I guess its hard to fear monger if you go with the facts. That was certainly the case with Iraq.
 
Catawba said:
To what are your referring exactly? Our use of nukes on civilians was within our modern history.
Click to expand...

NVM, it was just a whimsical notation by me.

Catawba said:
Then you would also have to consider any actions by countries that received American aid to be the responsibility of the US.
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between giving aid with the intent to help secure peace and feed people and giving aid with the intent to cause harm.

Catawba said:
But that is really unnecessary to make the point. The US alone has killed far more people in other countries than Iran and hezbollah combined. We killed a million in Vietnam alone.
Click to expand...

Lately I have doubted that number for Vietnam because of whats been happening with the death statistics with Iraq. Many people are trying to include the deaths caused by "insurgents" as the fault of the US. I wonder if the same thing happened with the Vietnam statistics.
 
so significant it needs to be repeated:

AdamT said:
In fact the last two NIE reports -- the consensus reports of our 16 intelligence services -- have concluded that Iran is NOT trying to develop a nuclear weapon. Odd how no one ever mentions that.
Click to expand...

but then Joseph Wilson authored What I Didn't Find in Africa to establish that the yellowcake connection to iraqi WMD development was a false positive. and instead of listening, the dicknbush regime outed the covert CIA status of his wife in an attempt to silence him from revealing the truth. let's hope we are now a smarter nation as a result of that experience
 
Kal'Stang said:
There is a huge difference between giving aid with the intent to help secure peace and feed people and giving aid with the intent to cause harm.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there would be if that were true. But in fact, most of our modern wars and attacks on other nations has been about world hegemony to make our fat rich people even richer.

Lately I have doubted that number for Vietnam because of whats been happening with the death statistics with Iraq. Many people are trying to include the deaths caused by "insurgents" as the fault of the US. I wonder if the same thing happened with the Vietnam statistics.
Click to expand...

I guess you are not old enough to remember, that unlike in Iraq, we actually counted our kills in Vietnam. But since that info was used by the anti-war movement to help end the war, the military stopped counting our kills.
 
Catawba said:
Yeah, there would be if that were true. But in fact, most of our modern wars and attacks on other nations has been about world hegemony to make our fat rich people even richer.
Click to expand...

Opinion only.

Catawba said:
I guess you are not old enough to remember, that unlike in Iraq, we actually counted our kills in Vietnam. But since that info was used by the anti-war movement to help end the war, the military stopped counting our kills.
Click to expand...

Yes I am too young. It ended a few short months before I was born.
 
Kal'Stang said:
That does not make it an ad hom.
Click to expand...

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

And you don't need to read much to know when you're on a biased site.
Click to expand...

I posted the info, of which there was a lot, at 2:23. You responded within that same minute, 2:23. How much could you have read?
If you think it is biased, it should be easy for you to refute what it says, though you haven't refuted anything, have you?
Click to expand...
 
Catawba said:
"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.
Click to expand...

I did not say that you or the author of that site was biased. I said the site was biased. The site is not a person and I know nothing of the person that wrote that site so have no opinion on him/her/them either way. Heck from what I saw the site didn't even name an author.

Catawba said:
I posted the info, of which there was a lot, at 2:23. You responded within that same minute, 2:23. How much could you have read?
If you think it is biased, it should be easy for you to refute what it says, though you haven't refuted anything, have you?
Click to expand...

I read the first paragraph. Which was enough for me.

And the reason that I am not bothering to refute any of it is for the simple fact that when I go to dispute something I do my homework beforehand. And I don't feel like spending hours looking up and pointing at every little thing wrong with that site that I come across.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I did not say that you or the author of that site was biased. I said the site was biased. The site is not a person and I know nothing of the person that wrote that site so have no opinion on him/her/them either way. Heck from what I saw the site didn't even name an author.
Click to expand...

Site, author, person, it doesn't matter, you ignored the content based on your perceptions of the source.


I read the first paragraph. Which was enough for me.

And the reason that I am not bothering to refute any of it is for the simple fact that when I go to dispute something I do my homework beforehand. And I don't feel like spending hours looking up and pointing at every little thing wrong with that site that I come across.
Click to expand...

Well if you ever get around to refuting the facts referenced, let me know!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom