• 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!

Iran is heating up . . . [W:259]

ChrisL said:
I don't think so.
Click to expand...

oh yeh when was the last media piece you read about the danger of Pakistans Nukes, bet you have read more about Iran's which dont yet exsist.
 
ChrisL said:
I wouldn't trust them.
Click to expand...

It's not as bad as the Iranian regime. Pakistan hiding a few Afghanis is nothing compared to Hamas, Hez and Syria. And Pakistan lets the US use its bases to fly strike-drones. There are elements of the Pakistan regime that are willing to work with the US and to pursue peaceful resolution with India (not 'wipe India off the map').

Pakistan doesn't have the same ability to lock down the country as the truly totalitarian Iranian regime enjoys.

Very different, many ways. Pakistan's existence does not and cannot excuse the creation of another North Korea. "It could be worse" and "look over there" are not legit arguments, even if they might make us feel better sometimes.
 
Higgins86 said:
oh yeh when was the last media piece you read about the danger of Pakistans Nukes, bet you have read more about Iran's which dont yet exsist.
Click to expand...

Well I haven't heard anyone cheering about it either. I have read articles about the instability of the Pakistani government and how there is worry about the safety of their nukes before. So there! :lol:
 
Higgins86 said:
I see Pakistan as more as a threat personally the whole country is in a power struggle
Click to expand...

I'm not worried about the threat to the outside, but inside. Iran will become another nK, Pakistan cannot do that for a variety of reasons.
 
Sherman123 said:
In what way is it not reflective of historical evidence or contemporary political behavior on the part of the Islamic Republic? In terms of nuclear weapons providing strategic invulnerability which leads to more aggressive proxy behavior, as well as skirting the conventional edge one need only look to the US and USSR, and in the modern day Pakistan and North Korea. While Iran today has made it a clear point of its foreign policy to extend its influence as aggressively as possible, and Iranian commentators and policy analysts consistently reflect upon the need for Iran to regain its place in the sun and to lead the anti-US anti-Saudi axis in the region which would eventually be in the ascendancy in their vision.
Click to expand...
By historical evidence, I was not only referring Iran, but also to the history of how nations have used nuclear weapons. For the most part, nations haven't used nukes to get regional hegemony and threaten people. They use them as deterrence, period. It is also isn't supported by the current international environment because Iran could not get away with doing whatever it wants because the United States still has the power and will to stop it. Nukes aren't some magic potion that automatically gives a state that power to do whatever it wants. If that were the case, Israel would have crushed Iran by now.

As for Iran specifically, it hasn't invaded another country in hundreds of years, it hasn't given terrorists chemical weapons to attack Israel when it's had the chance for a while now and it consistently says that it will attack Israel only if Israel or the US attacks it first.

Plainly speaking, of course they desire regional hegemony but have been limited and relatively restrained in their ability to act. Why? Because they fear both conventional and asymmetric counter stroke. Why aren't they, and why didn't they pump guns and agents to the Houthi in Yemen? Why have they been so placid with regards to the Shia demonstrations and clashes in the Eastern Province and in Bahrain? Why have they been so keen to keep a tamp on Hezbollah and to limit their arms flow to Hamas? It goes on, and on. Because they fear tipping the scales too far and incurring an American or Gulf led counter stroke. Either conventionally, or through the arming of paramilitaries in Iran, or direct action against Iranian proxies.
Click to expand...
Exactly. They fear tipping the scales and they will continue to have the fear with nuclear weapons.

With that fear obviated by nuclear security Iran would be much more aggressive, and much more capable and unconstrained to use its 'deadly swam of mosquito forces' in all forms. They could surge weapons to Hezbollah and see them used on Israel or the Lebanese government with impunity, knowing retaliation against them will be tremendously limited. They can send military formations to Iraq without fear of the spillover crossing back into Iran. They can arm the Shia in the Eastern Province with explosives, and send weapons and IRGC agents to Yemen, why? Because the ability to act against them has been more or less taken off the table.
Click to expand...
And this is where the problem is. You think that nuclear weapons will stop them from being afraid. However, it won't. The reason they are afraid now is because they know other states are bigger and more powerful. When they get nuclear weapons, other states will still be bigger and more powerful. Moreover, the history of nuclear weapons does not support the notion that Iran will just go crazy with their nukes.
 
MaggieD said:
Iran: We Can Hit 35 US Bases in 'Minutes' - ABC News

This may be the next President's first challenge. So help me God!! If we send troops in there, I'm marching in the streets.
Click to expand...

Good for you Maggie. Our troops have suffered enough.

Iran has a history of blustering behavior to get attention and to stir up support within the country....the sanctions might actually be hurting them more than we think.
 
ChrisL said:
I think that you are MUCH too optimistic about Iran. Why anyone would think they are the victims here, I don't know. Iran is a country run by religious extremists. They would be completely unpredictable with this kind of power. I don't know what is so hard to understand about that.
Click to expand...
Here's the thing though, again. I've provided evidence to support my claims - actual reports of Iran's nuclear programs, reports of the nuclear programs of other ME countries, the opinions ME CIA analysts, academic research, the history of nuclear weapons use by nuclear powers and so on. You have provided ... nothing. You just keep repeating talking points and not responding at all to the reports and research that I've provided. Because of that, your claims don't actually mean anything. Hopefully, you look at the sources I provided and find more information for yourself, but I'm frankly no longer interested in a conversation where I put effort into providing evidence and you don't.
 
Higgins86 said:
well I served in the British army so not sure what the American army was saying but my Army was saying right " lets go get this bastard"
Click to expand...

....according to your leader and head of command, the Honest Reverend and moralist Mr Blair, Saddam was about to fire missiles that only took 45 minutes reach London.

Now we have the worlds largest so called US EMBASSY in Bagdad that cost over 5 billion dollars to construct, contains over 600 buildings that house about 15,000 US personell (most of which are private and US state military personell and spies)

A bit of an overkill for US tourists travelling through Iraq wanting a passport replacement dont you think?

And lets not mention the oil exploration licenses in western Iraq that were almost entirely tendered out to US and some minor western Oil corporations. (thats if you wish to call it a tender process)
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Here's the thing though, again. I've provided evidence to support my claims - actual reports of Iran's nuclear programs, reports of the nuclear programs of other ME countries, the opinions ME CIA analysts, academic research, the history of nuclear weapons use by nuclear powers and so on. You have provided ... nothing. You just keep repeating talking points and not responding at all to the reports and research that I've provided. Because of that, your claims don't actually mean anything. Hopefully, you look at the sources I provided and find more information for yourself, but I'm frankly no longer interested in a conversation where I put effort into providing evidence and you don't.
Click to expand...

So what? All of that is nothing but opinions and educated guesses. It means nothing in real life! You have NO idea what will happen, and neither do I, but you seem to think that because you've read some articles that you hold some kind of special insight. Well, it doesn't take special insight to see what is plain in front of your nose, unless you don't want to see it.
 
I'm not sure how you think nations with nuclear weapons behave, but the prevailing doctrine in both academic and strategic literature and policy analysis is a litany of references to the strategic implications of a nuclear weapon state and how such capability augments the capacity of a country to behave assertively and forcefully within its periphery and abroad. The most highly cited example in history is that of the US and USSR for obvious reasons. Moreover there are plenty of contemporary or near past examples to examine. I'm not sure what you are getting at. This is not a discussion of MAD, that is a separate issue and a valid one.

Furthermore you have missed my point. I'm not saying Iran would pass along chemical weapons to Hezbollah, that probably would cross a redline even if the state had nuclear weapons and would incite a like minded retaliation. The issue is that Iran has consistently, since the 1979 revolution, sought regional hegemony with a religious-nationalist tint. In pursuit of this it has incited and attempted to foment rebellions in Saudi Arabia and along the Gulf littoral, it has battled for control over the future of Iraq in the hopes of winning another firm ally, extended ties to the Houthi rebels of Northern Yemen as a possible conduit for Iranian power to upset Saudi power in Yemen and Najran and Asir, it has pursued the creation of strong proxies in Lebanon to balance against Israel and to assist in the cementing of power with Syria, and of course it has funneled weapons and aid to Hamas as a means to counterbalance the GCC backed Palestinian Authority, etc etc.

A nuclear weapon would significantly reduce Iran's reasons for limited its assistance to these groups and in restraining its activities abroad. Why? Because a nuclear option no matter how weak massively reduces the prospect that a Western or Gulf coalition will strike back at you. It adds a tremendous layer of doubt to every possible conventional or unconventional encounter.
 
iguanaman said:
Good for you Maggie. Our troops have suffered enough.

Iran has a history of blustering behavior to get attention and to stir up support within the country....the sanctions might actually be hurting them more than we think.
Click to expand...

US bases are less than 200km from Iranian borders, I would damn well hope their missiles can hit in far less than 35 minutes. :roll:
 
Sherman123 said:
I'm not sure how you think nations with nuclear weapons behave, but the prevailing doctrine in both academic and strategic literature and policy analysis is a litany of references to the strategic implications of a nuclear weapon state and how such capability augments the capacity of a country to behave assertively and forcefully within its periphery and abroad. The most highly cited example in history is that of the US and USSR for obvious reasons. Moreover there are plenty of contemporary or near past examples to examine. I'm not sure what you are getting at. This is not a discussion of MAD, that is a separate issue and a valid one.

Furthermore you have missed my point. I'm not saying Iran would pass along chemical weapons to Hezbollah, that probably would cross a redline even if the state had nuclear weapons and would incite a like minded retaliation. The issue is that Iran has consistently, since the 1979 revolution, sought regional hegemony with a religious-nationalist tint. In pursuit of this it has incited and attempted to foment rebellions in Saudi Arabia and along the Gulf littoral, it has battled for control over the future of Iraq in the hopes of winning another firm ally, extended ties to the Houthi rebels of Northern Yemen as a possible conduit for Iranian power to upset Saudi power in Yemen and Najran and Asir, it has pursued the creation of strong proxies in Lebanon to balance against Israel and to assist in the cementing of power with Syria, and of course it has funneled weapons and aid to Hamas as a means to counterbalance the GCC backed Palestinian Authority, etc etc.

A nuclear weapon would significantly reduce Iran's reasons for limited its assistance to these groups and in restraining its activities abroad. Why? Because a nuclear option no matter how weak massively reduces the prospect that a Western or Gulf coalition will strike back at you. It adds a tremendous layer of doubt to every possible conventional or unconventional encounter.
Click to expand...

Awesome post, and the last paragraph is something that common sense should tell everybody.
 
Sherman123 said:
US bases are less than 200km from Iranian borders, I would damn well hope their missiles can hit in far less than 35 minutes. :roll:
Click to expand...

Well we would have to worry IF we were going to invade. But we are not.
 
ChrisL said:
You made the claim so you should provide links to substantiate it. That is just proper etiquette.
Click to expand...

I thought that Armajinedad wanted to eradicate Jews?

They seem to love him in Iran

ahmadinejad_meeting_with_jews.jpg
 
Klown said:
we?

why is the US always talking about war?
Click to expand...

I'm afraid it's becoming our number one "export". Romney talking about "Making things happen". sent shudders up my spine. A Gumby as President with Bush's neocons calling the shots is enough to give you nightmares.

223097_533128473380897_2137177408_n.jpg
 
ChrisL said:
LOL! If you expect me to believe some picture, you must be delusional.
Click to expand...

LOL, that picture is actually comical. :lol:
 
ChrisL said:
LOL! If you expect me to believe some picture, you must be delusional.
Click to expand...
actually that picture is quite believable, it's just Dishonestly Uncontexted.
A'jad has regularly met with ultra-orthodox anti-zionist Jews.
Namely, Fringe groups 'True Torah Jews' and the more famous 'Neturei Karta'/NKusa/jewsnotzionists.
Thus you see their garb.
These Jews have shown up at his Holocaust denial conferences as well.
Useful ijots.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ahm...&sugexp=chrome,mod=5&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Klown was caught Lyng a few pages ago about there being "1.5 Million Jews in Iran". ("who don't want to leave")
When caught, he bluffed with the more exact/authoritative "1.47 million."

There are 8500 Jews left in Iran, 1/10th as many as when the Islamist revolution started in 1979 and about 1/3 as many as thought.
Persian Jews - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wiki footnote (18) sources Iranian 2011 Census via AFP.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
actually that picture is quite believable, it's just Dishonestly Uncontexted.
A'jad has regularly met with ultra-orthodox anti-zionist Jews.
Namely, Fringe groups 'True Torah Jews' and the more famous 'Neturei Karta'/NKusa/jewsnotzionists.
Thus you see their garb.
These Jews have shown up at his Holocaust denial conferences as well.
Useful ijots.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ahm...&sugexp=chrome,mod=5&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Klown was caught Lyng a few pages ago about there being "1.5 Mllon Jews in Iran".
When caught, he bluffed with the more exact/authoritative "1.47 mllion."

There are 8500 Jews left in Iran, 1/10th as many as when the Islamst revolution started in 1979.
Persian Jews - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Interesting! Klown likes to embellish the truth and never provides links.
 
ChrisL said:
LOL! If you expect me to believe some picture, you must be delusional.
Click to expand...

Surely not all of the photos are forgeries?

It looks like a life long romance

And after all, there are over 30 Synagogues in Iran today - heard of any protests or bombings at these places of worship? I didn't think so.

Looks like the US and Israel are just addicted to power, dominance and war in the region in order to keep all the dictatorship they prop up int he region in check - up to their old tricks again. The US and Israel loved Mubarak in Egypt right up to the end - a life long romance of fascism for over 25 years - and the Egyptian people had to pay the penalty!

Ahmadinejad+Meets+Iran+Jewish+Leader+1.jpgtumblr_lhowoa50hK1qfo56n.jpg
 
Klown said:
Surely not all of the photos are forgeries?

It looks like a life long romance

And after all, there are over 30 Synagogues in Iran today - heard of any protests or bombings at this places of worship? I didnt think so. Looks like the US and Israel are just addicted to power, dominance and war - up to their old tricks again

View attachment 67135191View attachment 67135193
Click to expand...

Thanks! I love these funny photos. LOL!
 
ChrisL said:
Thanks! I love these funny photos. LOL!
Click to expand...

You welcome - normally you see Amajinedad with Hitler moustaches on and Nazi swastikas. I suppose you think those photos are real and the above are faked
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I know because I've done the research.

Will Iran nukes cause an arms race? History says not likely
Click to expand...

History says likely not? Really? Are we reading the same history books here? :lol:

You don't think that the fact that 8 (9 if you include South Africa) other countries have followed the US's lead and developed their own nuclear weapons supports concerns of proliferation? You don't think the Cold War offers any lessons on the reality of arms races? There's a reason nearly the entire world (including Iran) felt it necessary to sign a sweeping Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Do you feel that such a treaty was necessary/prudent?

ThePlayDrive said:
and current nuclear programs in the Middle East say the same.
Click to expand...

Well, I think you're misrepresenting that paper a bit. Yes, the paper says that right now there does not exist a nuclear arms race in the middle east. But I don't think anyone disputes that. It's a future arms race that would be triggered by Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons that the West is concerned about preventing.

The paper acknowledges such concerns as "real" and concludes that "Over time, however, Iran’s programme could become a powerful regional proliferation driver, building on regional rivalry, security concerns and one-upmanship." If anything, to me that sounds like support of the neocon's concerns.
 
Well lets say Iran is attacked by Israel and the US then, well Iran has every right to defend itself.. Just saying...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom