• 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:
Actions separated by 5 YEARS. They are part of the same operation.
Click to expand...

Thanks but no thanks!


It's true they are not a people, but a government that actively encourages and even employs terrorism, can be focused upon as a source of terrorism. Most of the world actively combats terrorism, Iran by contrast, uses it as a weapon. So we aren't attempting to bomb the world, just concentrations of those for whom civilian deaths are a primary goal (e.g.,"terrorists"). So while Iran is not a military threat, they remain a threat to the civilian populace of the US (and other countries). This makes terrorists (and anyone who supports their activities) enemies of the US, and therefore a viable military target.
Click to expand...


That argument might work if the reality were not that we (the US) have killed more civilians in modern history than have the "terrorists" that we are supposedly protecting everyone from.

Oil is just not that important to me. Sorry.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Unless Iran invades a neighbor and holds that position for several months, as happened with Iraq/Kuwait, I wouldn't expect to see a UN Resolution "allowing" any kind of military action. That won't happen even if they're in violation of the NPT for decades (they already have 8 years of violations). If I gave any impression to the contrary I'm sorry 'cause it's not going to happen, ever, and I never expected it to happen. If you expected proof of that kind then I missed it somewhere and I'll agree flat out that it won't happen. Even if Iran built 100 functioning nukes the UN won't "sanction" an invasion or any other kind of military action.
Click to expand...

I agree, nor should they, unless they also plan to hold the superpowers to the nuclear disarmament requirements under the NPT.

The point, however, is that Israel (especially) and other Western countries will not allow things to get that far before carrying out surgical strikes to cripple the ability of Iran to make a nuke. Personally, I think it's an uphill battle and that if Iran wants them they will eventually have them, though it may take a decade or more. What I'm hoping is Russia or China will at some point step in and convince them otherwise.
Click to expand...

I think if President Obama makes it clear to Israel they will be on their own of the strike Iran, the people in Israel opposed to war with Iran will not allow it.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Don't kid yourself, they knew going in it would be no short-term picnic. That's why we didn't take down Baghdad and Saddam in 1991, because there was no exit strategy. Bush Sr said as much. (I think it was in his book, too, but not sure.) We knew it would take years to get out and declined in '91. Do you honestly think we would have settled on the No Fly Zone option if it would have only taken another 2-3 weeks to end the whole thing permanently?

The Shrub was an idiot who didn't want to listen to his generals, or it was his intention all along, I don't know which and it doesn't matter, really. Regardless of the public rhetoric DoD knew what was coming. Those guys aren't stupid even if they're sometimes portrayed that way for political reasons.
Click to expand...

I don't buy that we invaded because Bush was an idiot, although I will agree with you that Bush was an idiot. I believe we invaded because we wanted military hegemony of the middle east oil supplies. Cheney's Energy Task force spelled out the need for a military option in Iraq 2 years before we invaded.

I think the only reason we would attack Iran is for the same reason.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Iran will present a deadly threat to a very close ally if they are allowed to develop nukes. Unlike the US, Israel isn't big enough to survive even a very limited nuclear war.
Click to expand...

Iran won't nuke Israel for the same reason they haven't attacked Israel in the past, because they are not suicidal. They know they would be turned into a smudge spot if they did.


As for the others:
Korea was fought under the UN flag. If you have a problem with the Korean War I request you blast out at UN policy, not US policy.

Afghanistan was given plenty of opportunity to cooperate with the US to hunt down the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks and they declined repeatedly. The UN was aware of and, at least tacitly, 'allowed' the Afghan War to proceed. See Resolutions 1368 (12 Sep 01), 1478 (14 Nov 01), 1383 (6 Dec 01), and the Bonn Agreements (Dec 01) as well as others. Notice that after Dec 01 we were no longer at war with Afghanistan. The provisional government and the UN allowed the US-led coalition to remain in country to counter anti-government forces, specifically the Taliban and Al Qaeda. If you want to complain about this war I request you condemn the UN and, in this case, the internationally recognized government of Afghanistan.

I won't discuss Vietnam. I wasn't quite old enough for required participation but I was certainly a part of America at the time and no side of that war was pretty. To me it was the last war (except for the on-going Israeli situation) of the post-WWII era when European countries broke up their former empires, which had various repercussions all over the globe.
Click to expand...



Technical violations do not a military threat make, and I refuse to sanction US military hegemony as justification for killing civilians. We already have way too much blood of innocents on our hands.
 
Catawba said:
Iran won't nuke Israel for the same reason they haven't attacked Israel in the past, because they are not suicidal. They know they would be turned into a smudge spot if they did.
Click to expand...
I said I wasn't going to discuss Vietnam but I guess I must regress to point out what should be an obvious fact. Vietnam was not North v South it was Russia v US. It was a proxy war. I mention it because this is how Iran conducts war. It supports organizations that do attack Israel and they have (almost) complete deniability using this strategy. I don't know if they would be stupid enough to pass on a nuke to their puppets but no one, least of all Israel, is going to take that chance.

No amount of pressure by the US is going to stop Israel, either, and it's wishful thinking to believe there will be some popular uprising in Israel to stop it. Israel doesn't want to invade Iran and won't. But they will surgically strike to remove an immanent threat of Iran building a nuke.

Catawba said:
Technical violations do not a military threat make, and I refuse to sanction US military hegemony as justification for killing civilians. We already have way too much blood of innocents on our hands.
Click to expand...
It's not "US military hegemony" if it's under a UN flag or at the request of another nation inside their own borders. I'm sorry UN policy doesn't agree with you on this. Again, I suggest you take your complaints about Korea to the UN or current war to the government of Afghanistan.

Catawba said:
I don't buy that we invaded because Bush was an idiot ...
Click to expand...
I didn't comment on why we invaded just that the DoD was NOT taken by surprise by the length of Shrub's Iraqi War.

I don't see Obama getting us into a ground war in Iran - sorry. At most it'll be surgical strikes against potential nuclear bomb-making facilities or auxiliaries. Assuming we get involved at all I'd guess cruise missiles and/or some B-2 strikes depending on what they decide are the most efficient targets to hit.



Catawba said:
I agree, nor should they, unless they also plan to hold the superpowers to the nuclear disarmament requirements under the NPT.
Click to expand...
We've been providing you with evidence as requested, now it's your turn. Where are the UN resolutions saying we are in violation of the NPT?
 
Catawba said:
We weren't planning to "give Iraq Democracy" when we carried our our air strike in 1998. There was no need to invade and occupy Iraq either, but we did.



Like with Iraq, Iran does not present a military threat to the US. I don't believe in going to war with a country that is not a threat to us. That has worked poorly when we did it in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Click to expand...

North Korea is not a threat to world peace? :lamo
Is this the new level, Cat?
 
Proud South Korean said:
North Korea is not a threat to world peace? :lamo
Is this the new level, Cat?
Click to expand...
You're actually THERE so if you don't mind answering:
Do the US forces over there fly the UN flag or just the US flag or ...?
 
Proud South Korean said:
Well, I wasn't alive back in the 1950s....so.....
Click to expand...
That would make you very old now if you were old enough to remember it! Pretty sure the old units had a UN flag.

But aren't there US forces still in S.Korea or has the world moved on without me?
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
"The U.S. also had nuclear warheads targeted at North Korea, a non-NWS, from 1959 until 1991. The previous United Kingdom Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, has also explicitly invoked the possibility of the use of the country's nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states".[8] In January 2006, President Jacques Chirac of France indicated that an incident of state-sponsored terrorism on France could trigger a small-scale nuclear retaliation aimed at destroying the "rogue state's" power centers."
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Israel deploys nuclear cruise missiles near Iran"
(Gulp) Israel deploys nuclear cruise missiles near Iran | Mondoweiss


Click to expand...


Total crap, no one can know this classified information. Use your head man. And Iran didn't "detect" the submarine, unless you want to count seeing a periscope as detection. Hahahaha, pullleaze.
 
Catawba said:
I don't buy that we invaded because Bush was an idiot, although I will agree with you that Bush was an idiot. I believe we invaded because we wanted military hegemony of the middle east oil supplies. Cheney's Energy Task force spelled out the need for a military option in Iraq 2 years before we invaded.

I think the only reason we would attack Iran is for the same reason.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's what Obama would do.
 
MoSurveyor said:
You're actually THERE so if you don't mind answering:
Do the US forces over there fly the UN flag or just the US flag or ...?
Click to expand...

Bases that we rent/lease/own in South Korea have American Flags. Nato bases that are leased/rented/owned have UN flags. If a mission is developed under the Nato side, the vehicles will have a Nato flag. I think mostly in S. Korea now are US flags.
 
American said:
Total crap, no one can know this classified information. Use your head man. And Iran didn't "detect" the submarine, unless you want to count seeing a periscope as detection. Hahahaha, pullleaze.
Click to expand...

It is equivalent to saying they detected the Sub after it torpedoed them.
 
Proud South Korean said:
Yo serious, mon?
Click to expand...

Perhaps he meant 'Americans'. The Iranian army/super-guard funds, supplies and trains terrorists in Iraq that target Americans as well as civilians. That's a fact, right? 'American interests' could also work regarding Hez, Hamas and who knows what in Africa and Pakistan.
 
ecofarm said:
Perhaps he meant 'Americans'. The Iranian army/super-guard funds, supplies and trains terrorists in Iraq that target Americans as well as civilians. That's a fact, right? 'American interests' could also work regarding Hez, Hamas and who knows what in Africa and Pakistan.
Click to expand...

please show us evidence of what you offer up as a "fact"
 
MoSurveyor said:
I said I wasn't going to discuss Vietnam but I guess I must regress to point out what should be an obvious fact. Vietnam was not North v South it was Russia v US. It was a proxy war. I mention it because this is how Iran conducts war. It supports organizations that do attack Israel and they have (almost) complete deniability using this strategy. I don't know if they would be stupid enough to pass on a nuke to their puppets but no one, least of all Israel, is going to take that chance.

No amount of pressure by the US is going to stop Israel, either, and it's wishful thinking to believe there will be some popular uprising in Israel to stop it. Israel doesn't want to invade Iran and won't. But they will surgically strike to remove an immanent threat of Iran building a nuke.
Click to expand...

I disagree and stick to my earlier statements, Iran won't nuke Israel for the same reason they haven't attacked Israel in the past, because they are not suicidal. They know they would be turned into a smudge spot if they did. And if the President makes it clear that Israel would be on their own if the strike Iran, I think the majority of people in Israel opposed to a war with Iran will not allow an act of war against Iran.



We've been providing you with evidence as requested, now it's your turn. Where are the UN resolutions saying we are in violation of the NPT?
Click to expand...

I've never claimed there were UN resolutions saying we were in violation of the NPT, I've just noted the facts that indicate we are.
 
Catawba said:
I disagree and stick to my earlier statements, Iran won't nuke Israel for the same reason they haven't attacked Israel in the past, because they are not suicidal. They know they would be turned into a smudge spot if they did. And if the President makes it clear that Israel would be on their own if the strike Iran, I think the majority of people in Israel opposed to a war with Iran will not allow an act of war against Iran.
Click to expand...

I referenced this in the blogs section, but worth noting:

The survey also asked whether Israel should strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Just 19 percent said Israel should make the move, even without the support of the U.S., while 42 percent said is should only strike with American support.

The University of Maryland/Dahaf Institute poll was conducted Feb. 22-26 among 500 Israelis, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.


Read more: Obama, Mitt Romney too close to call -- in Israel - POLITICO.com
Click to expand...
 
Proud South Korean said:
North Korea is not a threat to world peace? :lamo
Is this the new level, Cat?
Click to expand...

Reading is fundamental. Here is what I said,

"Like with Iraq, Iran does not present a military threat to the US. I don't believe in going to war with a country that is not a threat to us. That has worked poorly when we did it in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
 
AdamT said:
I referenced this in the blogs section, but worth noting:
Click to expand...

The survey also asked whether Israel should strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Just 19 percent said Israel should make the move, even without the support of the U.S., while 42 percent said is should only strike with American support.

The University of Maryland/Dahaf Institute poll was conducted Feb. 22-26 among 500 Israelis, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Click to expand...


Thank you Adam, this supports what I was saying very well.
 
Iran won't nuke Israel for the same reason they haven't attacked Israel in the past
Click to expand...

Considering Hez and Hamas, the above doesn't really work. It's like someone is trying to deny Iran is involved in attacks against Israel by playing on the reasoning that nuking is probably a bad idea. The statement is backwards thinking and presents an obviously untrue claim to all but the least educated.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Considering Hez and Hamas, the above doesn't really work. It's like someone is trying to deny Iran is involved in attacks against Israel by playing on the reasoning that nuking is probably a bad idea. The statement is backwards thinking and presents an obviously untrue claim to all but the least educated.
Click to expand...

By your reasoning, the US would then be responsible for the killing of innocent civilians by all those that we have provided funding to. In which case, we would be a bigger threat to innocent civilians around the world than Iran.
 
Catawba said:
By your reasoning,
Click to expand...

I really think you ought not presume my reasoning. Frankly, you putting words in my mouth is laughable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom