• 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:
The entire world is worried about Iran's military threat huh???? :lamo

What the entire world is worrying about is Israel or the US doing something stupid that would cause oil prices in the Middle East to spike, furthering the world's economic recession
Click to expand...

No. We tend to worry far more about autocratic dictatorships who feel they are on a mission from Allah than we tend to do about democracies, where the leadership is answerable at the ballot box.

Well, most of us do anyway.
 
EagleAye said:
I see something about North Korea 20 years ago, that France would use nukes on anyone who uses nukes on them, and nothing about the US aiming nukes at Iran.


How does Philip Weiss know about the armament configuration of Israeli subs? Just because a sub can be nuclear-armed doesn't mean it is. What are Philip Weiss' credentials? Is he an insider into Israeli operational procedures?

Nice video of a periscope. No markings anywhere. Not nearly enough is seen for positive identification. That might have been an Iranian sub for all we know. It seems mighty convenient for the periscope to look directly at the boat, but stay there to pose for video.

On the other hand, I think we do have subs operating in the Persian Gulf. But when we call them "nuclear subs" we are referring to their power plant, not necessarily how they are armed. That's classified information that the press cannot know about.
Click to expand...

Exactly correct. That periscope, if that's what it is, could belong to anybody's navy. And nobody outside the defense establishment in the United States knows what nuclear armaments are on U.S. Navy ships.
 
Connery said:
Can you provide the data that supports your position?
Click to expand...

Of course they can't. That's just one of the buzz slogans used by the Far Left.
 
Based on the quality of the "intelligence" the Bush Administration used to justify the Iraq War, how can Americans now have confidence that whatever the government tells them is reliable enough to justify a war?
 
Last edited:
Wiggen said:
No. We tend to worry far more about autocratic dictatorships who feel they are on a mission from Allah than we tend to do about democracies, where the leadership is answerable at the ballot box.

Well, most of us do anyway.
Click to expand...


I second that!

That is exactly why the Western world has a problem with the Iranian Regime having nuclear arms.
 
jgarden47 said:
Based on the quality of the "intelligence" the Bush Administration used to justify the Iraq War, how can Americans now have confidence that whatever the government tells them is reliable enough to justify a war?
Click to expand...
I go by what the UN reports as well as others.
 
Wiggen said:
No. We tend to worry far more about autocratic dictatorships who feel they are on a mission from Allah than we tend to do about democracies, where the leadership is answerable at the ballot box.

Well, most of us do anyway.
Click to expand...

Mya said:
I second that!

That is exactly why the Western world has a problem with the Iranian Regime having nuclear arms.
Click to expand...


Or any nation or entity that poses a threat to the US, it interests or allies
 
jgarden47 said:
Based on the quality of the "intelligence" the Bush Administration used to justify the Iraq War, how can Americans now have confidence that whatever the government tells them is reliable enough to justify a war?
Click to expand...

Because after that last "mostly faulty" assessment, our intelligence services don't want their nutsacks cutoff even worse than last time. They are substantially more reserved this time around.

In Senate testimony on January 31, James R Clapper Jr, the director of national intelligence, stated explicitly that American officials believe that Iran is preserving its options for a nuclear weapon, but said there was no evidence that it had made a decision on making a concerted push to build a weapon.
[...]
"They are certainly moving on that path, but we don't believe they have actually made the decision to go ahead with a nuclear weapon," Mr Clapper told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Click to expand...

This hardly corresponds to the warmongering, war-drum beating that the US is constantly accused of. The US has actually been very reserved. The US has made it clear that "all options are on the table," but have not definitively expressed an interest in attacking Iran. This is primarily the supposition of the press, NOT the assertion of the US government, which is clearly in a holding pattern, waiting for Iran to engage in sincere negotiations.

Critics of the American assessment in Jerusalem and some European capitals point out that Iran has made great strides in the most difficult step toward building a nuclear weapon, enriching uranium. That has also been the conclusion of a series of reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors, who on Friday presented new evidence that the Iranians have begun enriching uranium in an underground facility.

Once Iran takes further steps to actually enrich weapons grade fuel -- a feat that the United States does not believe Iran has yet accomplished -- the critics believe that it would be relatively easy for Iran to engineer a warhead and then have a bomb in short order. They also criticize the CIA for being overly cautious in its assessments of Iran, suggesting that it is perhaps overcompensating for its faulty intelligence assessments in 2002 about Iraq's purported weapons programs, which turned out not to exist.
Click to expand...
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...Iran-to-build-a-bomb/articleshow/12036389.cms

It's pretty much everyone else besides the US that insists Iran is proceeding with nuclear weapons. It's too early to attack at this juncture, but that situation may change. The acknowledgment of this reality does NOT constitute beating war drums, it's simply openly facing a real possibility. That's what the US government is doing.

It's the press who's beating the war drums, so "We got the bubbleheaded bleach-blonde, comes on at 5. She can tell you about the [Iran war] with a gleam in her eye. It's interesting when people die, give us dirty laundry!"
 
Last edited:
EagleAye said:
It's the press who's beating the war drums, so "We got the bubbleheaded bleach-blonde, comes on at 5. She can tell you about the [Iran war] with a gleam in her eye. It's interesting when people die, give us dirty laundry!"
Click to expand...
Props for the Don Henley reference!!!

Definitely have to link that in the Listening thread. Here's the YouTube
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Only to the far right.
Click to expand...


You really do not know what you are talking about I am not the far right...Your sources are horrible written by computer scientists, hobbyists and those who use snopes. com for verification.


Wikipedia is not a reliable source, nor is it recognized as a source itself. The contributors are essentially anyone who wishes to provide content.

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



"Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales, says he wants to get the message out to college students that they shouldn’t use it for class projects or serious research."


Wikipedia Founder Discourages Academic Use of His Creation - Wired Campus - The Chronicle of Higher Education[/QUOTE]
 
EagleAye said:
I see something about North Korea 20 years ago, that France would use nukes on anyone who uses nukes on them, and nothing about the US aiming nukes at Iran.
Click to expand...

I see, our violation of the treaty against N. Korea doesn't count because it was 20 years ago, and 40 years after promising to disarm our nukes as the treaty requires, is not enough time.


How does Philip Weiss know about the armament configuration of Israeli subs? Just because a sub can be nuclear-armed doesn't mean it is. What are Philip Weiss' credentials? Is he an insider into Israeli operational procedures?

Nice video of a periscope. No markings anywhere. Not nearly enough is seen for positive identification. That might have been an Iranian sub for all we know. It seems mighty convenient for the periscope to look directly at the boat, but stay there to pose for video.

On the other hand, I think we do have subs operating in the Persian Gulf. But when we call them "nuclear subs" we are referring to their power plant, not necessarily how they are armed. That's classified information that the press cannot know about.
Click to expand...


Fig.-3-Iran-US-military-bases1-320x320.jpg


http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/13/fallujah-fukushima-and-the-global-radiation-catastrophe-part-i/
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
What would make the region more disestablished is an Israeli/US strike on Iran.
Click to expand...

And you think Israle wouldn't attack Iran? Do you really want a state on the verge of collapse to have nukes?
 
xpiher said:
And you think Israle wouldn't attack Iran? Do you really want a state on the verge of collapse to have nukes?
Click to expand...

An Israeli attack on Iran with out US back up after the fact would be suicidal. I don't believe Israel is suicidal. The USSR had nukes on the verge of their collapse.
 
Catawba said:
An Israeli attack on Iran with out US back up after the fact would be suicidal.
Click to expand...

How do you figure? Israel has the best trained and most experienced combat pilots in the world. The only uncertainty would be if it takes more or less than 3 days for Iran's air force to get wiped out.
 
EagleAye said:
How do you figure? Israel has the best trained and most experienced combat pilots in the world. The only uncertainty would be if it takes more or less than 3 days for Iran's air force to get wiped out.
Click to expand...

Israel knows that without future US protection and financial aid, if they were to attack Iran, they would have half the Arab world descend down upon them.
 
Catawba said:
Israel knows that without future US protection and financial aid, if they were to attack Iran, they would have half the Arab world descend down upon them.
Click to expand...

Half the Arab world has tried that several times and suffered humiliating defeats every single time. Each time accomplished without US protection. No, they wouldn't stick their hand in the IDF meatgrinder again.
 
EagleAye said:
Half the Arab world has tried that several times and suffered humiliating defeats every single time. Each time accomplished without US protection. No, they wouldn't stick their hand in the IDF meatgrinder again.
Click to expand...

If the President decides the most prudent course is to make it clear to Israel that if they attack Iran without our consent, we will terminate all ties and future support, I am willing to bet the majority of people in Israel that do not want war with Iran and others in the region, will dissuade Israel's leaders from attacking Iran.

This is what I consider the best case scenario, as does our former National Security Advisory referenced above.
 
Mensch said:
The bottom line in regards to Iran is that they are a soverign nation, and we have no right, legally or morally, to dictate to other sovereign nations what defense weapons they are and are not allowed to possess.

We should globally promote nuclear disarmament, but that doesn't begin nor does it end with Iran. It begins with the United States and Russia, two nations owning the VAST majority of nuclear weapons (and the only one to actually have used them is the US).

We should concern ourselves with the missing nuclear weapons of the Cold War. Going to war with Iran while we ally ourselves with India, Pakistan, China, Russia, and Turkey is both ludicrous and extremely hypocritical.

We need to get out of the Middle East and remind ourselves of the deadly consequences trying to dictate the domestic policy of other countries.
Click to expand...

Iran has been found in violation of an International treaty. We have a legal right to determine what they are and are not allowed to possess because Iran is a part of NPT. NPT does globally promote nuclear disarment. The two states, Russia and US are considered nuclear weapons states under the NPT, Iran is not. The international community does not believe the US has been violating this treaty (outside of the Non-Aligned Movement) and if they do think that we are, they can go ahead and voice their concerns. It is ludacris to think we can just "get out of the middle east." I have already explained. If we leave the middle east and abandon Israel, the chances of a war is far more likely. Letting Iran have nuclear weapons will cause other countries in the region (ie, turkey, saudi, etc) to pursue nukes of their own. It is extremely niave to think that leaving Iran alone will cause them to stop building nukes and will promote peace. Almost every indicator I see is to the contrary.
 
Catawba said:
If the President decides the most prudent course is to make it clear to Israel that if they attack Iran without our consent, we will terminate all ties and future support, I am willing to bet the majority of people in Israel that do not want war with Iran and others in the region, will dissuade Israel's leaders from attacking Iran.

This is what I consider the best case scenario, as does our former National Security Advisory referenced above.
Click to expand...

Well, I seriously doubt we would do that to one of our longest and staunchest allies. But it's clear to me that Obama has put significant pressure on Israel to cool off.
 
EagleAye said:
Well, I seriously doubt we would do that to one of our longest and staunchest allies. But it's clear to me that Obama has put significant pressure on Israel to cool off.
Click to expand...

The economic sanctions, our military presense in the region, etc are what are keeping Israel from attacking Iran. To prevent that attack we need to insure them that we are doing something to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. How to we get the world to hop on board and support the sanctions. We and Israel give Iran a threat of attack, which now gives everyone else a reason to care. Sanctions and the threat of attack is the strongest combination to prevent an actual attack on Iran. It also may prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, something both Israel and the US care about, and also something that is in the interests of middle east in general. Abandoning Israel would be an extremely detrimental move for US foriegn policy as we would also lose much of our credibility with our other close allies.
 
Last edited:
drz-400 said:
The economic sanctions, our military presense in the region, etc are what are keeping Israel from attacking Iran. To prevent that attack we need to insure them that we are doing something to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. How to we get the world to hop on board and support the sanctions. We and Israel give Iran a threat of attack, which now gives everyone else a reason to care. Sanctions and the threat of attack is the strongest combination to prevent an actual attack on Iran. It also may prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, something both Israel and the US care about, and also something that is in the interests of middle east in general. Abandoning Israel would be an extremely detrimental move for US foriegn policy as we would also lose much of our credibility with our other close allies.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think the sanctions may still work. It's important not to jump too soon, nor too late. I think Iran isn't necessarily building nukes; they're only weighing their options at this time. They may be thinking they can outlast the will of the US and Europe. They can't, but Iran may have to learn this from experience. They may also be wondering if the prestige of having their own nukes is worth the ****storm they're going through. This storm is going to get worse. New sanctions are being devised now. So Iran's troubles are going to pile up very fast. It's been stated by many folks here that Iran is not suicidal, but the course they're on certainly is suicidal. Perhaps they'll wake up soon and stop this nonsense. If all goes well, Iran may figure out a way to back off and forgo dreams of atomic weapons.
 
drz-400 said:
Iran has been found in violation of an International treaty. We have a legal right to determine what they are and are not allowed to possess because Iran is a part of NPT. NPT does globally promote nuclear disarment. The two states, Russia and US are considered nuclear weapons states under the NPT, Iran is not. The international community does not believe the US has been violating this treaty (outside of the Non-Aligned Movement) and if they do think that we are, they can go ahead and voice their concerns. It is ludacris to think we can just "get out of the middle east." I have already explained. If we leave the middle east and abandon Israel, the chances of a war is far more likely. Letting Iran have nuclear weapons will cause other countries in the region (ie, turkey, saudi, etc) to pursue nukes of their own. It is extremely niave to think that leaving Iran alone will cause them to stop building nukes and will promote peace. Almost every indicator I see is to the contrary.
Click to expand...

wow. a reasonable poster basing his reasonable opinions on actual knowledge of the context and history of the situation. and it only took 52 pages.
 
the_recruit said:
wow. a reasonable poster basing his reasonable opinions on actual knowledge of the context and history of the situation. and it only took 52 pages.
Click to expand...

I disagree, there have been many good posts based both on opinion and on supported fact. Each poster, no matter what their position, has given a great deal of thought to their posts and have been sincere in their efforts.
 
EagleAye said:
Well, I seriously doubt we would do that to one of our longest and staunchest allies. But it's clear to me that Obama has put significant pressure on Israel to cool off.
Click to expand...


Obama has already been reluctant to engage in another conventional war as conducted by Bush and believes friendship and conciliation is the answer.

He also realizes the immense cost any type of war with Iran would inflict on the Western world----- however-----whether or not Israel is forced to strike against Iran is outside Obama's control because Israel rightly considers that Iran's position of nuclear devises would be an existential threat!

So pressure or not pressure from Obama .... it doesn't count much here.
 
EagleAye said:
Well, I seriously doubt we would do that to one of our longest and staunchest allies. But it's clear to me that Obama has put significant pressure on Israel to cool off.
Click to expand...



in other words EagleAye , with America or without America..... Israel will do what it has to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom