• 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'..

let's look at our nation's hypocrisy in singling out iran, which has denounced the processing of plutonium:
^ Kang, Jungmin; Hayes, Peter; Bin, Li; Suzuki, Tatsujiro; Tanter, Richard (1 January 05)). "South Korea's nuclear surprise: as more and more countries adopt the IAEA's Additional Protocol, all kinds of nuclear secrets will come spilling out. Currently under microscope: South Korea". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. "South Korea publicly disclosed its past secret nuclear research activities, revealing that it had conducted chemical uranium enrichment from 1979 to 1981, separated small quantities of plutonium in 1982, experimented with uranium enrichment in 2000, and manufactured depleted uranium munitions from 1983 to 1987. The South Korean government had violated its international agreements by not declaring any of these activities to the IAEA in Vienna."
[emphasis added by bubba]
Nuclear program of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so, what was the proposed action to be taken against south korea?
 
I agree it will not cut off Russia's oil supply but it could increase their energy costs. Who does Russia import their 42,750 bbl/day of oil from?
This is just a guess but it could be Kazakhstan. It's a pretty big oil exporter, especially to former SSR's, and it could be more of an accounting/transportation arrangement with Russia than anything else. But I couldn't find any direct evidence of where Russia imports it's oil.
 
Well, if it's Iran, it's probably so they can turn around sell it again for a profit, not because they "need" it. I checked, and in half of 2011 Russia imported no Iranian oil. If they're doing it now, it's only to bolster the economy of their flagging sycophant.
• Oil imports from Iran 2011 | Statistic
Or it could be for payment for services rendered instead of cash - though Russia will turn around and sell it, anyway. Kind of like "laundering" oil? LOL!
 
let's look at our nation's hypocrisy in singling out iran, which has denounced the processing of plutonium:
[emphasis added by bubba]
Nuclear program of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so, what was the proposed action to be taken against south korea?
Did we know about the activities at the time?
Are they still doing those things?

If the answers are 'no' then what exactly would you expect to happen? Typically, the UN does not address past actions in some punitive way. Instead, they concentrate on the current state of affairs, to bring everyone into compliance with international treaties.
 
Did we know about the activities at the time?
Are they still doing those things?

If the answers are 'no' then what exactly would you expect to happen? Typically, the UN does not address past actions in some punitive way. Instead, they concentrate on the current state of affairs, to bring everyone into compliance with international treaties.

That's what I'm thinking. If they aren't misusing nuclear knowledge now, there's not much to for the UN to do. Perhaps they could write a letter like, "Oh you...Bad you! Don't every do that again!" And that would have to be about, it. We could inspect their nuclear facilities I suppose. But that would hardly be newsworthy since Since South Korea wouldn't make a big issue over it. *sigh* This is really a non-issue.

Or it could be for payment for services rendered instead of cash - though Russia will turn around and sell it, anyway. Kind of like "laundering" oil? LOL!

Ha! That makes a quirky kind of sense. Good one.
 
Last edited:
Well, if it's Iran, it's probably so they can turn around sell it again for a profit, not because they "need" it. I checked, and in half of 2011 Russia imported no Iranian oil. If they're doing it now, it's only to bolster the economy of their flagging sycophant.
• Oil imports from Iran 2011 | Statistic

The economy is important to most nations.
 
The economy is important to most nations.

Yes, it is. But Russia's economy will not collapse without Iranian oil, as Kane asserted. That's like saying Japan wouldn't have enough cars if the US stopped shipping cars there. Certainly, some Japanese may enjoy their American cars, but the whole nation would hardly come to a halt without them.
 
Yes, it is. But Russia's economy will not collapse without Iranian oil, as Kane asserted. That's like saying Japan wouldn't have enough cars if the US stopped shipping cars there. Certainly, some Japanese may enjoy their American cars, but the whole nation would hardly come to a halt without them.

My point was never that it would collapse the Iranian economy, just that it would make everything associated with oil more expensive.
 
Don't you understand we need to fight for Israel?

They are our only ally in the region.

That sounds so 'sweet', but think about that for just a minute. Israel is a nation of about 6 million people, surrounded by well over 300 million that really hate them and don't much care for the U.S. either. As long as Israel remains simply a 'potential' threat, that may allow them to semi-peacefully exist, but once they become a real aggressor, backed by the mighty U.S., by launching a 'preemptive' attack against Iran then the picture changes for them. The U.S. could, with allied support, hold off any nation (perhaps even two or three of them) that attacked Israel, but wars, like the current Jihad, are not fought openly by nations, but by 'rogue' terrorists. Which nation(s) would bear responsibilty, and be forced to pay the ultimate price, for a WMD attack against Israel carried out by 'terrorists'? Even though the 9/11 'terrorists' were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen we chose to 'attack' Afghanistan as our first response, hardly scaring those in ALL of the nations in the region that openly cheered the 9/11 attcks in the streets. We can not, and will not, declare war on ALL of the Islamic nations, yet Israel attacking one of them will surely unite their support of 'terrorists' to retaliate.
 
Last edited:
My point was never that it would collapse the Iranian economy, just that it would make everything associated with oil more expensive.

That just goes to show you that "everything associated with oil [is] more expensive." When a two-bit theocracy can even consider threatening our nation with the price of oil, and even change the direction of US policy, it's time to get away from the double-damned stuff.
 
Last edited:
That just goes to show you that "everything associated with oil [is] more expensive." When a two-bit theocracy can even consider threatening our nation with the price of oil, and even change the direction of US policy, it's time to get away from the double-damned stuff.

No argument from me there, I thought it was time 30 years ago!
 
No argument from me there, I thought it was time 30 years ago!

if my memory is accurate - it often isn't - so did Jimmy Carter
 
if my memory is accurate - it often isn't - so did Jimmy Carter

Yes, even our old conservative Senator from Virginia admitted President Carter was right ~

"It took 30 years, but Jimmy Carter finally has gotten recognition for the wisdom of his energy policies. Speaking on Science Friday, Senator John Warner, a Republican from Virginia who first entered the Senate during Carter’s term in office, said that Jimmy Carter “was right” when he called for a massive program of energy conservation and alternative energy research."

John Warner: Jimmy Carter Was Right
 
Hooray for fake and phony journalism!

Hooray for illusionary freedom of the press and fake political rallies!
NYTlies.png

Jon Stewart defends George W. Bush on MSNBC


"Stewart said Bush "is not a war criminal," and said he believed the former president's assertions about Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons programs prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq were what Bush "truly believed" at the time.

"In contrast, host Rachel Maddow has in the past suggested that the Bush administration knowingly misled the American public about the imminent threat from Hussein's weapons program. She has also argued on air that U.S. actions during the Iraq war violated the Geneva Conventions, making the Commander-In-Chief, technically, a war criminal.

Jon Stewart defends George W. Bush on MSNBC - The Washington Scene - TheHill.com



Jon Stewart behaves exactly like lamestream media pro-war hacks, and its not accidental.No war criminal in the WH, and he agreed yesterday with Sarah Palin, right wing hatespeech is not to blame for AZ shooting, just a "lone nut."Stewart has his lamestream media talking points all in order as he performs his role as $6 million dollar man for Uncle Sam.

Too simplistic. Many don't say no to all wars, just reckless and harmful wars. You have to have exact situations to compare properly.

That is the same censorship and lies of the lamestream media you regurgitate. Illegal wars ARE CRIMES by definition no matter how great the manufactured "threat" is, posed by our American profiteers, and the planted Pentagon spokesmen from the Ministry of Truth.

International laws are there for a reason, so no one can pull any Napoleon Bonehead moves on the world stage, but these government stenographers like Jon Stewart or Tom Freidman think they can get away with revisionist history and all the citizenry will be duped?

No way. The NYT and the LATimes are all fronts for war profiteers and these newspapers "of record" will only tell you the truth ex post facto once the Pentagon has subjugated its victims and the bloodbath well under way. Same goes for Time magazine and CNN/Fox with their pro-war stooge reporters, Peter Bergen, Matt Cooper, Judith Miller and so on.

The framers of the Constitution knew this would happen, that the press would be taken over by the government for propaganda, that's why they stuck that clause in there, a law that is currently not being enforced in this country.
 
Last edited:
I do believe that military action will be happening sooner than later once HR 4133 comes to pass.

Full Text of H.R. 4133: United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012 - GovTrack.us

112th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 4133

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 10, 2012

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

AN ACT

To express the sense of Congress regarding the United States-Israel strategic relationship, to direct the President to submit to Congress reports on United States actions to enhance this relationship and to assist in the defense of Israel, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:

(1) Since 1948, United States Presidents and both houses of Congress, on a bipartisan basis and supported by the American people, have repeatedly reaffirmed the special bond between the United States and Israel, based on shared values and shared interests.

(2) The Middle East is undergoing rapid change, bringing with it hope for an expansion of democracy but also great challenges to the national security of the United States and our allies in the region, particularly our most important ally in the region, Israel. Over the past year, the Middle East has witnessed the fall of some regimes long considered to be stabilizing forces and a rise in the influence of radical Islamists.

(3) Iran, which has long sought to foment instability and promote extremism in the Middle East, is now seeking to exploit the dramatic political transition underway in the region to undermine governments traditionally aligned with the United States and support extremist political movements in these countries.

(4) At the same time, Iran may soon attain a nuclear weapons capability, a development that would fundamentally threaten vital American interests, destabilize the region, encourage regional nuclear proliferation, further empower and embolden Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, and provide it the tools to threaten its neighbors, including Israel.

(5) Over the past several years, with the assistance of Iran and Syria, Hizballah and Hamas have increased their stockpiles of rockets, with more than 60,000 rockets now ready to be fired at Israel. Iran continues to add to its arsenal of ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, which threaten Iran’s neighbors, Israel, and United States military forces in the region.

(6) As a result, the strategic environment that has kept Israel secure and safeguarded United States national interests for the past 35 years has eroded.

SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF POLICY.
It is the policy of the United States:

(1) To reaffirm the enduring commitment of the United States to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish state. As President Obama stated on December 16, 2011, ‘America’s commitment and my commitment to Israel and Israel’s security is unshakeable.’. And as President Bush stated before the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel on May 15, 2008, ‘The alliance between our governments is unbreakable, yet the source of our friendship runs deeper than any treaty.’.

(2) To provide Israel the military capabilities necessary to deter and defend itself by itself against any threats.

(3) To veto any one-sided anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations Security Council.

(4) To support Israel’s inherent right to self-defense.

(5) To pursue avenues to expand cooperation with Israel in both defense and across the spectrum of civilian sectors, including high technology, agriculture, medicine, health, pharmaceuticals, and energy.

(6) To assist Israel with its on-going efforts to forge a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that results in two states living side by side in peace and security, and to encourage Israel’s neighbors to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.

SEC. 4. UNITED STATES ACTIONS TO ASSIST IN THE DEFENSE OF ISRAEL AND PROTECT AMERICAN INTERESTS.
(a) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress that the United States should take the following actions to assist in the defense of Israel:

(1) Provide Israel such support as may be necessary to increase development and production of joint missile defense systems, particularly such systems that defend the urgent threat posed to Israel and United States forces in the region.

(2) Provide Israel assistance specifically for the production and procurement of the Iron Dome defense system for purposes of intercepting short-range missiles, rockets, and projectiles launched against Israel.

(3) Provide Israel defense articles and defense services through such mechanisms as appropriate, to include air refueling tankers, missile defense capabilities, and specialized munitions.

(4) Allocate additional weaponry and munitions for the forward-deployed United States stockpile in Israel.

(5) Provide Israel additional surplus defense articles and defense services, as appropriate, in the wake of the withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq.

(6) Strengthen efforts to prevent weapons smuggling into Gaza pursuant to the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access following the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and to protect against weapons smuggling and terrorist threats from the Sinai Peninsula.

(7) Offer the Israeli Air Force additional training and exercise opportunities in the United States to compensate for Israel’s limited air space.

(8) Expand Israel’s authority to make purchases under the Foreign Military Financing program on a commercial basis.

(9) Seek to enhance the capabilities of the United States and Israel to address emerging common threats, increase security cooperation, and expand joint military exercises.

(10) Encourage an expanded role for Israel within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), including an enhanced presence at NATO headquarters and exercises.

(11) Support extension of the long-standing loan guarantee program for Israel, recognizing Israel’s unbroken record of repaying its loans on time and in full.

(12) Expand already-close intelligence cooperation, including satellite intelligence, with Israel.

(b) Report on Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge-

(1) STATEMENT OF POLICY- It is the policy of the United States--

(A) to help Israel preserve its qualitative military edge amid rapid and uncertain regional political transformation; and

(B) to encourage further development of advanced technology programs between the United States and Israel given current trends and instability in the region.

(2) REPORT- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a report on the status of Israel’s qualitative military edge in light of current trends and instability in the region.

(c) Reports on Other Matters- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on each of the following:

(1) Taking into account Israel’s urgent requirement for F-35 aircraft, actions to improve the process relating to Israel’s purchase of F-35 aircraft to improve cost efficiency and timely delivery.

(2) Efforts to expand cooperation between the United States and Israel in homeland security, counter-terrorism, maritime security, energy, cybersecurity, and other appropriate areas.

(3) Actions to integrate Israel into the defense of the Eastern Mediterranean.

(d) Definitions- In this section:

(1) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES- The term ‘appropriate congressional committees’ means--

(A) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives; and

(B) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.

(2) QUALITATIVE MILITARY EDGE- The term ‘qualitative military edge’ has the meaning given the term in section 36(h)(2) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(h)(2)).

SEC. 5. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE LOAN GUARANTEES TO ISRAEL.
(a) In General- Chapter 5 of title I of the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 108-11), as amended, is further amended in the item relating to ‘Loan Guarantees to Israel’--

(1) in the matter preceding the first proviso, by striking ‘September 30, 2011’ and inserting ‘September 30, 2015’; and

(2) in the second proviso, by striking ‘September 30, 2011’ and inserting ‘September 30, 2015’.

(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

Passed the House of Representatives May 9, 2012.

Attest:

KAREN L. HAAS,

Clerk.
 
I do believe that military action will be happening sooner than later once HR 4133 comes to pass.

Full Text of H.R. 4133: United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012 - GovTrack.us
until i saw this earlier in the week, i would have agreed with you:
Russia and China are against using military force or the threat of force against Iran, and do not approve of directing unilateral sanctions against it
Russia, China Stress Rejection of Military Action against Syria, Iran
those nation's have now drawn their own line in the sands of iran
 
until i saw this earlier in the week, i would have agreed with you:

Russia, China Stress Rejection of Military Action against Syria, Iran
those nation's have now drawn their own line in the sands of iran

Right. I had been anticipating Russia and China's condemnation of military operations, and as you said, to draw their lines in the sand in regards to Iran. At this point, it is a waiting game - for us, that is. Because someone's side is going to lose in all of this. There are too many red lines and lines in the sand for there not to be a loser.

At any rate, I think the rhetoric behind the scenes is a lot more forthcoming than what we're being told. But do I believe that China and Russia would be willing to do anything drastic to protect Iran, or for that matter Syria, I doubt that they'd risk War with the US over it. However, the depths of US loyalty to Israel is the crux of the whole matter. How far will the US go to defend Israel? How committed is Israel to stopping Iran?

Only time will tell.
 
Last edited:
Right. I had been anticipating Russia and China's condemnation of military operations, and as you said, to draw their lines in the sand in regards to Iran. At this point, it is a waiting game - for us, that is. Because someone's side is going to lose in all of this. There are too many red lines and lines in the sand for there not to be a loser.

At any rate, I think the rhetoric behind the scenes is a lot more forthcoming than what we're being told. But do I believe that China and Russia would be willing to do anything drastic to protect Iran, or for that matter Syria, I doubt that they'd risk War with the US over it. However, the depths of US loyalty to Israel is the crux of the whole matter. How far will the US go to defend Israel? How committed is Israel to stopping Iran?

Only time will tell.

i can see the russians and chinese funneling advanced weaponry to iran as we have been doing with israel
as a bonus, they get to witness how their arms compete against those of the west

Obama will now be a fool if he agrees to place any troops at risk during an iranian assault
while he has disappointed me much over the past three plus years, i pray he is not such a fool
 
Some updating:

S 2165 passed the Senate
China invested $20 billion into Iranian oilfields
 
Right. I had been anticipating Russia and China's condemnation of military operations, and as you said, to draw their lines in the sand in regards to Iran. At this point, it is a waiting game - for us, that is. Because someone's side is going to lose in all of this. There are too many red lines and lines in the sand for there not to be a loser.

At any rate, I think the rhetoric behind the scenes is a lot more forthcoming than what we're being told. But do I believe that China and Russia would be willing to do anything drastic to protect Iran, or for that matter Syria, I doubt that they'd risk War with the US over it. However, the depths of US loyalty to Israel is the crux of the whole matter. How far will the US go to defend Israel? How committed is Israel to stopping Iran?

Only time will tell.

Or Chinese and Russian loyalty to Syria and Iran are the crux of the problem :shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom