• 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'..

Catawba said:
Sorry, Iran is not pimple on the ass of America, militarily.
Click to expand...

Now Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said "the growing threat of a military strike on [Iran] alarms Russia, no doubt. If this occurs, the consequences will be truly catastrophic. It is impossible to imagine their real scale."

Still wish to ignore that Iran has the capabilities to carry out military strikes on US interests ?
 
Last edited:
Connery said:
Now Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said "the growing threat of a military strike on [Iran] alarms Russia, no doubt. If this occurs, the consequences will be truly catastrophic. It is impossible to imagine their real scale."

Still wish to ignore that Iran has the capabilities to carry out military strikes on US interests ?
Click to expand...

Just more boogedy-boogedy-boo that apparently you have fallen prey to. Its sort of like in Iraq when some were afraid of an old man with a shotgun, or when some thought if Vietnam fell to communism, so would the rest of the world, like dominoes.
 
Catawba said:
We have the most powerful military on the planet, Iran has one of the weakest. Iran has not demonstrated they are suicidal. Sorry, I'm not skeered.
Click to expand...

Don't underestimate Iran. They are not near as weak as you seem to think.

Global Firepower

Islamic Republic of Iran

International rankings of Iran military (check the military & defense section)

And whats more is they are relatively fresh. The US has been fighting multiple wars on mulitple fronts for over a decade now. Yeah, we could probably defeat Iran in a war. But it would leave us vulnerable.

And seriously, stop with the "skeered" and "panic" crap. This isn't about either one and you know it.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Don't underestimate Iran. They are not near as weak as you seem to think.

Global Firepower

Islamic Republic of Iran

International rankings of Iran military (check the military & defense section)

And whats more is they are relatively fresh. The US has been fighting multiple wars on mulitple fronts for over a decade now. Yeah, we could probably defeat Iran in a war. But it would leave us vulnerable.

And seriously, stop with the "skeered" and "panic" crap. This isn't about either one and you know it.
Click to expand...


Haven't you guys been saying we should be afraid enough to strike Iran? What else is the point of your post?
 
Catawba said:
Just more boogedy-boogedy-boo that apparently you have fallen prey to. Its sort of like in Iraq when some were afraid of an old man with a shotgun, or when some thought if Vietnam fell to communism, so would the rest of the world, like dominoes.
Click to expand...


To dismiss out of hand is foolhardy and thoughtless. According to GlobalFirepower.com Iran ranks 12th, Russia 2, the US 1, for example. The US has been at "war" for many years and has spread itself out all over the world. The US can and will defeat Iran, yet, that is another front that we would have to expand materiel, troops and money. Iran should be taken seriously. They do not stand alone in the international community as they are a strategic holding where they would receive help; Russia has already stated as much.

Global Firepower - 2012 World Military Strength Ranking


BTW the baiting and the nonsense contained in each of your answers is very unbecoming. Please show us all the same courtesy that you would like to receive...:)
 
pie-chart-military-spending.jpg


"Each star marks a US millitary base, but just so we're all clear: Iran is threatening us; - Democratic Underground
 
For those that think that I am argueing against Iran and think that I favor going to war with Iran this is my official post to tell you that I am NOT in favor of a conventional war with Iran. I do think that something should be done about Iran but I think that a straight out war with them would leave the US in a precarious situation even if we win. And this is assuming that we go to war with only Iran. Iran is big enough and important enough to have friends that would more than likely aid Iran. Which would make our situation even worse for the simple fact that it would inevitably lead to a global war. I don't think the US could survive a world war in which we are the leaders. Assuming the world survived the possible nuclear war that would happen in a 3rd world war.

Iran does need to be brought down a peg or two in order to help it grow but it must not be done via a war.

I don't know what it is about the Middle East but that area seems to me to be the most likely place for a 3rd world war to start if we are not careful. Maybe its the oil, maybe its the history surrounding that area. :shrug: I don't know. But I do know that we need to get that area grown-up and out of the middle ages.
 
Catawba said:
pie-chart-military-spending.jpg


"Each star marks a US millitary base, but just so we're all clear: Iran is threatening us; - Democratic Underground
Click to expand...

How much is spent is irrelevent. The US spends tons of money on education compared to other countries yet we are not ranked number 1 in education internationally. We also spend tons of money on healthcare and yet we are not ranked #1 internationally.

What matters is how much their military could hurt our military and how much aid they would get outside of their country (russia for example).

The US is NOT indestructible.
 
Kal'Stang said:
For those that think that I am argueing against Iran and think that I favor going to war with Iran this is my official post to tell you that I am NOT in favor of a conventional war with Iran. I do think that something should be done about Iran but I think that a straight out war with them would leave the US in a precarious situation even if we win. And this is assuming that we go to war with only Iran. Iran is big enough and important enough to have friends that would more than likely aid Iran. Which would make our situation even worse for the simple fact that it would inevitably lead to a global war. I don't think the US could survive a world war in which we are the leaders. Assuming the world survived the possible nuclear war that would happen in a 3rd world war.

Iran does need to be brought down a peg or two in order to help it grow but it must not be done via a war.

I don't know what it is about the Middle East but that area seems to me to be the most likely place for a 3rd world war to start if we are not careful. Maybe its the oil, maybe its the history surrounding that area. :shrug: I don't know. But I do know that we need to get that area grown-up and out of the middle ages.
Click to expand...



Striking Iran would be an act of war. What else have you got in mind?
 
Kal'Stang said:
How much is spent is irrelevent. The US spends tons of money on education compared to other countries yet we are not ranked number 1 in education internationally. We also spend tons of money on healthcare and yet we are not ranked #1 internationally.

What matters is how much their military could hurt our military and how much aid they would get outside of their country (russia for example).

The US is NOT indestructible.
Click to expand...

Neither our military nor NATO has made a determination that Iran is a military threat to to the US, so let's not jump the gun in our level of concern.
 
Catawba said:
pie-chart-military-spending.jpg


"Each star marks a US millitary base, but just so we're all clear: Iran is threatening us; - Democratic Underground
Click to expand...


You quoted from another forum which has relied upon a computer scientist to gather this information as such this is unreliable. This has not been peer reviewed and is not a recognized source. More to the point it does not detract from Iran's military position.


anup.jpg

Anup Shah~~~"There are over 550 articles on this site, mostly written by myself."
I grew up and studied in the UK. However, when I moved to the US for work after graduating from university (with a computer science degree) I started to gain an interest in global issues. I started this site and it remains as a spare time effort, on my own. This guy is even less credible than the Iranian Ambassador.


http://www.globalissues.org/
 
Connery said:
You quoted from another forum which has relied upon a computer scientist to gather this information as such this is unreliable. This has not been peer reviewed and is not a recognized source. More to the point it does not detract from Iran's military position.


anup.jpg

Anup Shah~~~"There are over 550 articles on this site, mostly written by myself."
I grew up and studied in the UK. However, when I moved to the US for work after graduating from university (with a computer science degree) I started to gain an interest in global issues. I started this site and it remains as a spare time effort, on my own. This guy is even less credible than the Iranian Ambassador.


Global Issues : social, political, economic and environmental issues that affect us all
Click to expand...


List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Kal'Stang said:
Only if they find out who did what. Besides, subterfuge doesn't have to mean a strike where something/someone is hurt.
Click to expand...

So you are recommending we do, what you are scared Iran might do?
 
Catawba said:
Neither our military nor NATO has made a determination that Iran is a military threat to to the US, so let's not jump the gun in our level of concern.
Click to expand...

Certainly, the US has nothing to fear from Iran's conventional military. We could swat their entire air force aside within days. And even if they acquired say, 10 nuclear weapons, it would be nothing compared to our thousands. The US would again have the advantage. In fact in any conflict with Iran of any kind the US would win hands down.

But if Iran obtains nukes and actually uses them, would winning that conflict really be that much of a win? If Washington D.C. and Manhattan go up in nuclear flames and then we go pound the snot out of Iran, would you still count that as a win? I would call it a loss. Would you be satisfied with the deaths of Manhattan's 1.5 million souls or Tel-Aviv's 500,000?, knowing that we could still claim vengeance? Would that be enough? Acceptable? It wouldn't be for me. I'm not willing to take that risk. I'd just as soon see no one killed, including Iranians.

The release of even one nuclear weapon is catastrophic. The war is already lost by the time that happens. I would prefer winning in advance by not allowing a weapon like that in the hands of religious fanatics in the first place. I would like to do this without combat of any kind, but accept that the collective megalomania of Iran's leadership may make this impossible.
 
EagleAye said:
Certainly, the US has nothing to fear from Iran's conventional military. We could swat their entire air force aside within days. And even if they acquired say, 10 nuclear weapons, it would be nothing compared to our thousands. The US would again have the advantage. In fact in any conflict with Iran of any kind the US would win hands down.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

But if Iran obtains nukes and actually uses them, would winning that conflict really be that much of a win? If Washington D.C. and Manhattan go up in nuclear flames and then we go pound the snot out of Iran, would you still count that as a win? I would call it a loss. Would you be satisfied with the deaths of Manhattan's 1.5 million souls or Tel-Aviv's 500,000?, knowing that we could still claim vengeance? Would that be enough? Acceptable? It wouldn't be for me. I'm not willing to take that risk. I'd just as soon see no one killed, including Iranians.

The release of even one nuclear weapon is catastrophic. The war is already lost by the time that happens. I would prefer winning in advance by not allowing a weapon like that in the hands of religious fanatics in the first place. I would like to do this without combat of any kind, but accept that the collective megalomania of Iran's leadership may make this impossible.
Click to expand...

Iran has never attacked the US before because they know it would be suicidal, having 10 nukes does not change that equation.

Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, made the point very well on GPS today:

Brzezinski: 'We Don't Need to Go to War'

"We don't need to go to war,” he said in an interview on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS, according to a transcript. “And we have to make that very clear to our Israeli friends. We're not going to go to war. They're not going to go to war by flying over our airspace over Iraq. We're not going to support them. If they do it, they will be on their own. The consequences will be theirs, because the price we'll all pay if they start a massive war, which the Iranians interpret as being done with our connivance, will be disastrous for us in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in the terms of oil, stability in the Middle East more generally."

"Obama, he said, should tell Israel that "the Iranians would blame us for it. They'll take action against us. We'll be paying the price. This is not acceptable and we want you to know that. ... Most Israelis, we also have to remember, most Israelis don't support a war," he said. "The American Jewish community in the majority is not for it. ... So when the president speaks, he speaks with some degree of political credibility, not only here, but also among the Israelis."
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
So you are recommending we do, what you are scared Iran might do?
Click to expand...

I'm not worried about Iran's subterfuge. I'm more worried about Iran gaining nuclear weapons and using them against Israel or in the US. I'm quite sure they'd LOVE to wipe New York and DC with a nuke.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'm not worried about Iran's subterfuge. I'm more worried about Iran gaining nuclear weapons and using them against Israel or in the US. I'm quite sure they'd LOVE to wipe New York and DC with a nuke.
Click to expand...

I'm not worried in the least about Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Because they know that if they ever used one they would be a smudge spot in the middle east. They have never attacked us or Israel in the past for the same reason.


If you want to provide incentive for Iran to cool it with the nukes, the US and the other original members of the Security Council should live up to their end of the treaty.
 
Catawba said:
If you want to provide incentive for Iran to cool it with the nukes, the US and the other original members of the Security Council should live up to their end of the treaty.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I just can't buy that. Iran would more likely take this as a sign of weakness or faltering, and attempt to press their "advantage."

Iran engages in a lot of big talk that they cannot possibly back up. Can we agree on that? They put together this "18th Fleet" which consists of a supply ship and an aging frigate. Anyone else would be embarrassed to call that a mere squadron. But apparently Iran doesn't realize how people in the know are laughing hard at this. Iran apparently believes their own bull**** and don't realize that people who deal with nuts and bolts realities are immune to such crap. People that practice bull**** like this, or present a macho facade, are not impressed by opponents that fail to respond in kind. We, in the US, may treasure high ideals, but we must not presume that everyone else in world thinks the same way.

To capitulate in the manner you suggest would send entirely the wrong signals to Iran. I understand what you intend, I just don't think it would be received in the manner that you would receive it. Iran would suppose that the US is weakening and this would only strengthen their resolve. It would make the situation worse.
 
Last edited:
EagleAye said:
I'm sorry, but I just can't buy that. Iran would more likely take this as a sign of weakness or faltering, and attempt to press their "advantage."
Click to expand...

If we don't comply with the treaty, why should Iran?

Iran engages in a lot of big talk that they cannot possibly back up. Can we agree on that?
Click to expand...

When you don't have squat to defend yourself against the Western powers, bluff is all you got!

They put together this "18th Fleet" which consists of a supply ship and an aging frigate. Anyone else would be embarrassed to call that a mere squadron. But apparently Iran doesn't realize how people in the know are laughing hard at this. Iran apparently believes their own bull**** and don't realize that people who deal with nuts and bolts realities are immune to such crap. People that practice bull**** like this, or present a macho facade, are not impressed by opponents that fail to respond in kind. We, in the US, may treasure high ideals, but we must not presume that everyone else in world thinks the same way.
Click to expand...
You just admit their military is a joke, so why worry about them? Why have they never attacked us in the past? Because they are not suicidal. That won't change if they get a few nukes.

To capitulate in the manner you suggest would send entirely the wrong signals to Iran. I understand what you intend, I just don't think it would be received in the manner that you would receive it. Iran would suppose that the US is weakening and this would only strengthen their resolve. It would make the situation worse.
Click to expand...

"The only thing that would make the situation worse is if we interject ourselves. As our former National Security Advisor noted, "We don't need to go to war,” he said in an interview on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS, according to a transcript. “And we have to make that very clear to our Israeli friends. We're not going to go to war. They're not going to go to war by flying over our airspace over Iraq. We're not going to support them. If they do it, they will be on their own. The consequences will be theirs, because the price we'll all pay if they start a massive war, which the Iranians interpret as being done with our connivance, will be disastrous for us in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in the terms of oil, stability in the Middle East more generally."
Brzezinski: 'We Don't Need to Go to War' - Yahoo! News
 
Catawba said:
You just admit their military is a joke, so why worry about them? Why have they never attacked us in the past? Because they are not suicidal. That won't change if they get a few nukes.
Click to expand...

What if they don't use their military? What if they supply a warhead to the Hezbollah, who sneak it into Manhattan and set it off? Of course we'd blame Iran, but Iran might think if we were foolish enough to believe the line that they would never build nukes, then maybe we'd also believe the claim that they were innocent, that Hezbollah "stole" the warhead. I doubt anyone in the US would believe that for a minute, but consider that Iran actually thought people would be impressed by their piddly "18th Fleet!" If they would think that fools everyone, they might also believe that weak and transparent excuses might also fool everyone.

It's not Iran's military that worries me, it's their narcissism and their unmitigated gall that worries me. Both could easily lead them into astoundingly stupid actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom