• 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'..

:doh

Hezbollah is not even a threat to Israel.... Hezbollah was founded and designed to destroy Israel. But I like how you ignore Quds and the rest.
 
I'm not really worried about Iran. After pondering this, I've decided that someone would find out that Iran obtained a nuclear weapon and from who. Every weapon gives off certain signatures designating whose weapon it is. If Iran detonates a single nuclear weapon here or in Israel via themselves, a terror organization or what have you, they, and their nuclear weapon supplier would be vaporized off the earth.

Iran might do little terror attacks but nothing so traceable and final as a nuclear attack.
The signature is only good if there is enough data on the reactor that made the bomb material. Like fingerprints, the data has to be available to be any good for identification. I doubt if there is sufficient data to identify either North Korean or Iranian reactors, though the Chinese or Russians, respectively, might have such data.
 
Last edited:
The signature is only good if there is enough data on the reactor that made the bomb material. Like fingerprints, the data has to be available to be any good for identification. I doubt if there is sufficient data to identify either North Korean or Iranian reactors, though the Chinese or Russians, respectively, might have such data.

And that is more of a putting the condom on after she got pregnant. If that happens within our borders, that is a sign of failure.
 
Yeah... and in general I wouldn't always recommend an over reliance on Tom Clancy to predict the moves of Iran and her affiliates.
 
Compare the number Palestinian deaths by Israel to the number of Israeli deaths by Hezbollah

:doh

you do realize that's not even an argument. ?

seriously, I could post death by car accidents v death by Al Qaeda and argue that we need to be waging war on automobiles with that logic.
 
So are all you leftys gonna vote for Obama, even though we all know that he is deliberately delaying wars with Syria and Iran until after the election?

You know those wars will commence as soon as he's re-elected, yes?

You guys crack me up. LOL!

So just for argument, let's say Iran builds a few nukes -- the first three or so obviously go to Israel, but what of the next few? May I suggest that cities on the coasts (NY, DC, LA, etc.) are easy to get within blast radius of if your blast radius is measured in tens of miles. Just a thought. Iran not a threat? Sun not rise in east.

iran has not initiated military action against another sovereign nation in approximately 200 years we cannot even say that about israel for 200 weeks now, which nation currently possess nuclear weapons but refuses to participate in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty which nation refuses to allow access to neutral observers to assess its military capacity
hint: it is not iran

People on this board have swallowed the entire pro-war Big Brother propaganda narrative. The same people probably supported the Iraq war, like Hillary Clinton. Anyone who tells you that Iraq was a threat, and was a successful, worthwhile war is lying to themselves and everyone else. The Iran nuke threat is just the same lies as Bush/Colin Powell/Cheney told about Iraq.
 
Shock and Awe
by Gary Corseri


"They told us it would be over soon;
They told us it would save our lives.
But our children’s eyes hardened like peach pits.
More years passed than our youth.

They told us we needed more and more—
More cars, more “house,” more lovers, more money.
And we followed like rats on a treadmill
Cascading through a labyrinth.

We could not remember the unpronounceable names
Of battlefields, special ops, psy ops—the droned lands.
They told us we killed far more of their fathers.
And we rubbed that balm like salt in our wounds.

They cloaked themselves in our gory flag.
They went to our games, ate hot dogs… cheered!
Our warriors shone in their feral eyes.
They consoled us and wept with us, dribbling lies.

They told us we needed more and more,
Then shipped our livelihoods elsewhere."

(more)

Shock and Awe | Dissident Voice
 
:doh

you do realize that's not even an argument. ?

seriously, I could post death by car accidents v death by Al Qaeda and argue that we need to be waging war on automobiles with that logic.


It would make as much sense, and be about as effective.


As the Rand Corp report commissioned by the Pentagon reported, the "War on Terror" was a failure.
 
It would make as much sense, and be about as effective.


As the Rand Corp report commissioned by the Pentagon reported, the "War on Terror" was a failure.

We rarely get honesty from the Rand Corp, which I consider a govmnt/nazi front organization.

Is there still hope to stop all the NeoCon policies of Obomber and the killing?

RAND Corporation warns against striking Iran
 
Iran sanctions are not working... military action likely .....September-October....

Friday 17 February 2012
US officials believe Iran sanctions will fail, making military action likely | World news | The Guardian


A follow up on this 17 Feb 2012 news .... this one with date 17 May 2012


" the option to strike Iran is not just available, but it's ready. The necessary planning has been done to ensure that it's ready," said U.S. ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro on Tuesday.


Plans to strike Iran ready, says U.S. Israel envoy | Reuters
 
Wasn't it the US who is accused of being unwilling to negotiate, and therefore being a warmongerer? Yet here is Iran flatly saying they are unwilling to negotiate, and they get a pat on the back. Curious set of standards.

I couldn't agree more!
 
Wasn't it the US who is accused of being unwilling to negotiate, and therefore being a warmongerer? Yet here is Iran flatly saying they are unwilling to negotiate, and they get a pat on the back. Curious set of standards.

you misrepresent what the iranians say
that happens quite frequently to iran, it seems

they did not say they refused to negotiate
in fact they have agreed to participate in negotiations
but iran has put the 5+1 on notice that it will not concede its right to develop nuclear capacity as a sovereign nation
and that is a very rational stance


what is unrational is the US being pushed into assaulting a peaceful nation, one without nuclear armaments, and one which has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty
and that pushing is being orchestrated by an aggressively militant country which possesses a nuclear arsenal, but which refuses to agree to the provisions of the NPT
 
what is unrational is the US being pushed into assaulting a peaceful nation, one without nuclear armaments, and one which has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty
and that pushing is being orchestrated by an aggressively militant country which possesses a nuclear arsenal, but which refuses to agree to the provisions of the NPT


Respectfully I will say that in my opinion US is not the irrational nation, rather Iran is.

USA is not the religious fanatic nation here.
 
Have you ever been to California?

I have I studied at Pasadena City College there for a while ....why? oh you mean the strange cults and all that?

But I don't mean that lol!

I mean different.
 
Last edited:
I have I studied at Pasadena City College there for a while ....why? oh you mean the strange cults and all that?

But I don't mean that lol!

I mean different.

Ok. I see what you're saying. :)
 
you misrepresent what the iranians say
that happens quite frequently to iran, it seems

they did not say they refused to negotiate
in fact they have agreed to participate in negotiations
but iran has put the 5+1 on notice that it will not concede its right to develop nuclear capacity as a sovereign nation
and that is a very rational stance

what is unrational is the US being pushed into assaulting a peaceful nation, one without nuclear armaments, and one which has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty
and that pushing is being orchestrated by an aggressively militant country which possesses a nuclear arsenal, but which refuses to agree to the provisions of the NPT

When has anyone said Iran cannot have a civilian nuclear program? Nobody has denied that. These negotiations have nothing to do with that. It's an Iranian strawman that claims anyone is denying a civilian nuclear program. These negotiations are centered around permitting IAEA inspections, which Iran is denying at Parchin. If Iran isn't testing weapon systems at Parchin, no stalling would be necessary when inspectors request access. Instead, we have negotiations to determine when to hold further negotiations to discuss an outline of further negotiations. By the time Iran permits inspection at Parchin, I imagine they'll find curiously empty buildings more spotless than a clean room.
 
a war before elections would be cool for personal benefits ... :/
 
When has anyone said Iran cannot have a civilian nuclear program? Nobody has denied that. These negotiations have nothing to do with that. It's an Iranian strawman that claims anyone is denying a civilian nuclear program. These negotiations are centered around permitting IAEA inspections, which Iran is denying at Parchin. If Iran isn't testing weapon systems at Parchin, no stalling would be necessary when inspectors request access. Instead, we have negotiations to determine when to hold further negotiations to discuss an outline of further negotiations. By the time Iran permits inspection at Parchin, I imagine they'll find curiously empty buildings more spotless than a clean room.

wrong:
Iranian officials have declared that the West has effectively endorsed Iran’s right to enrich uranium, a step they portrayed as a major strategic coup. American officials insist the United States has not done that and has been deliberately ambiguous about whether it would ever grant Iran the right to enrichment.
[bubba's bold emphasis] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/w...e-promising-signs-for-iran-nuclear-talks.html
notice how the USA is hedging whether iran can enrich its own uranium
now let's look at the previously cited article:
Commenting on the talks between Iran and world powers in Geneva in 2009, in which the issue of 20 percent enriched nuclear fuel had been discussed, Jalili said, “We told them (at the time), ‘If you are willing, we are ready to buy the fuel… otherwise, we will produce it ourselves.’”

“... If Iran had been provided with 20 percent enriched nuclear fuel, it could not have succeeded in producing the fuel itself, he noted.
we stepped in it here, when we reneged on a deal to provide the iranians with access to foreign sourced enriched uranium
we provided justification for iran to pursue its own enrichment capacity

now let's look at the politics of this:
... But American officials said that at a minimum, the Baghdad meeting should be a genuine test of Iran’s willingness to do more than talk. “They’re nervous enough to talk,” said a senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the negotiations. “Whether they’re nervous enough to act, we don’t know yet.” Another senior official said, “We have a tail wind going into this.” ...
[emphasis by bubba]

so delicate, yet we anonymously disclose that the iranians are 'nervous enough to talk'
notice how we trot that out for public perusal for the world to see
that iran is willing to sit at a negotiation table is now pointed to by us as an indication of iran's weakness in this matter
that is beyond stupid
rather than try to resolve this issue we instead embarrass the nation we are trying to move toward our direction
as that story states:
For President Obama, the stakes are huge. A successful meeting could prolong the diplomatic dance with Tehran, delaying any possible military confrontation over the nuclear program until after the presidential election. It could also keep a lid on oil prices, which fell again this week in part because of the decrease in tensions. Lower gasoline prices would aid the economic recovery in the United States, and Mr. Obama’s electoral prospects. ...
[bubba's added emphasis]
and yet his people are leaking embarrassing information about the iranians almost assuring that no progress will result
but the article is correct. for Obama, the implications are huge
he needs oil prices to settle
the last thing he needs is for oil to again spike
that would cause the economy's slow growth to worsen

so, who really has the upper hand, here?
the USA and its need for stable oil prices
or iran and its ability to upset that prospect
 
Shock and Awe
by Gary Corseri

"They told us it would be over soon;
They told us it would save our lives.
But our children’s eyes hardened like peach pits.
More years passed than our youth.

They told us we needed more and more—
More cars, more “house,” more lovers, more money.
And we followed like rats on a treadmill
Cascading through a labyrinth.

We could not remember the unpronounceable names
Of battlefields, special ops, psy ops—the droned lands.
They told us we killed far more of their fathers.
And we rubbed that balm like salt in our wounds.

They cloaked themselves in our gory flag.
They went to our games, ate hot dogs… cheered!
Our warriors shone in their feral eyes.
They consoled us and wept with us, dribbling lies.


(more)

Shock and Awe | Dissident Voice

When has anyone said Iran cannot have a civilian nuclear program? Nobody has denied that. These negotiations have nothing to do with that. It's an Iranian strawman that claims anyone is denying a civilian nuclear program. These negotiations are centered around permitting IAEA inspections, which Iran is denying at Parchin. If Iran isn't testing weapon systems at Parchin, no stalling would be necessary when inspectors request access. Instead, we have negotiations to determine when to hold further negotiations to discuss an outline of further negotiations. By the time Iran permits inspection at Parchin, I imagine they'll find curiously empty buildings more spotless than a clean room.

Don't you think there is something inherently evil about Obamas unending war machine in order to bolster American corporations at the expense of innocent lives and our citizens standard of living?

Now we have multiple regime changes at once by Obama/Hillary - Libya, Syria, while invoking 9/11 like Dubya, and if you think the goal in Iran is any less than over turning the government there, it is a short sighted viewpoint, is it not?

In fact, the reason Reagan is pilloried among the left is due primarily to his reckless foreign policies, lies about Iran Contra, the October Surprise, Grenanda, etc. than anything Ronny did domestically, true?
 
[bubba's bold emphasis] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/w...e-promising-signs-for-iran-nuclear-talks.html
notice how the USA is hedging whether iran can enrich its own uranium
now let's look at the previously cited article:

we stepped in it here, when we reneged on a deal to provide the iranians with access to foreign sourced enriched uranium
we provided justification for iran to pursue its own enrichment capacity

No. Iran refused the deal. Maybe The Iranian official accepted (2009) but the higher-ups refused later, halting the deal altogether.
AFP) – Feb 17, 2010

TEHRAN — Iran will not suspend its sensitive high level enrichment in return for radioisotopes as offered in a letter by three world powers to the UN atomic watchdog, the foreign ministry said on Wednesday.
[...]
"We will not examine offers which lead to the shutting down of Tehran reactor," said the spokesman, in an almost word-for-word repetition of a statement he made on February 10.

Iran started enriching uranium to 20 percent on February 9 to fuel its Tehran research reactor making medical radioisotopes amid international concern over its atomic ambitions.

The move comes as world powers seek to convince Iran to accept a UN-brokered deal to supply Tehran with nuclear fuel for the reactor in exchange for its low-enriched uranium being taken out of the country.
[...]
The three said they "recognise the need in Iran for medical radioisotopes" which are "available on the world market and could be obtained as a responsible, timely and cost effective alternative to the IAEA's proposal."
AFP: Iran refuses to stop enrichment in return for isotopes
 
Back
Top Bottom