• 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]

In my opinion it was a major factor. It is possibly the largest factor. They knew there was no way they could ever catch up. They had spent many hundreds of billions of rubles to develop sophisticated air defenses that were incapable of detecting our first generation stealth systems.


Really? Nonsense. I like you better when you stay a bit closer to the facts. :)



I love hindsight. It is very nearly always perfect. It is one of the reasons for my long, enduring interest in history. I agree with your insights. They should be our starting point for the coming war with Islam. Like the Soviet Union and the Communist world Islam is not monolithic.

war with islam ?

i dont think anyone cares islam or other religions.....

but you can start fighting with islamists.......
 
Only if you have no plans for an actual regime change. Which would require an occupation. Which would resort in an Iraq like asymmetric war in an area far more mountainous and populated then Iraq.

So you're for constant bombardment of Iran then?

The support for regime change is already internal and exists. A war with the US would likely trigger a collapse before much of a war occured, in my view.
 
It never surprises me how all the Republicans on EVERY SINGLE MESSAGE BOARD, refuse to indentify their Party affiliation, or political lean, like the ones posting on this thread.

Lean Conservative --/--> Republican. On this Board we go by political lean not by Party affiliation. I'm a small "l" libertarian since I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party. There are on this Board who are on the "left" who do not show a lean or use a non-disclosed term.
 
this is a justification..if so why do you show respect to the islamist morons in egypt and say " they want islamism." you know usa supported those islamists for so called spring. i think this westerner democracy has no backbone,and dances in every style according to the conditions :mrgreen:

Justification? :shrug: it is a reference to the benefit that many nations saw from colonization.

as for respect to the Islamist morons in Egypt, the people in Egypt want Islamist Fundamentalism. You are wrong that we have no backbone - it is that we are currently led by those who have no idea. The Obama adminstration seems to have bought into the notion that Fundamentalism either A) wouldn't win or B) wouldn't "really" be Islamist Fundamentalism - but would instead by "moderate" Fundamentalism :roll:

For the long game, however, I think that the Islamist Fundy takeover in Egypt will be a boon. They want to go to war with Israel? :shrug: fine. We'll repeat the tenth plague of Egypt and suddenly Islamist Fundamentalists attempting to enforce shariah won't be so popular, anymore.
 
Aside from a very unlikely Russian nuclear strike, we do not face an existential threat from our fellow humans

Actually we are sort of overdue for a plague, likely enabled by weaponized disease. :shrug:
 
Justification? :shrug: it is a reference to the benefit that many nations saw from colonization.

as for respect to the Islamist morons in Egypt, the people in Egypt want Islamist Fundamentalism. You are wrong that we have no backbone - it is that we are currently led by those who have no idea. The Obama adminstration seems to have bought into the notion that Fundamentalism either A) wouldn't win or B) wouldn't "really" be Islamist Fundamentalism - but would instead by "moderate" Fundamentalism :roll:

For the long game, however, I think that the Islamist Fundy takeover in Egypt will be a boon. They want to go to war with Israel? :shrug: fine. We'll repeat the tenth plague of Egypt and suddenly Islamist Fundamentalists attempting to enforce shariah won't be so popular, anymore.


yes we can say indians want to live according to their own religious rules too ,they want it!!'

thAT " modarate" means every islamist country can be left to its own fate and women can be killed under sunni fascist rules as long as their administration gets on well with us government


when it comes to middle east ,you can eassily say " they want islamism" .how did they gain this power??who supported them?

islamism is not better than hinduism........
 
as long as their administration gets on well with us government

Sorry, but that's reality. The US cannot liberate everyone in the world at the same time. Given the need for priorities, first targetting the world's terrorism support who's going for nukes and chants "Death to America" in Parliament makes sense.

Wave a magic wand that gives us 100x our military and cash, and we'll drop that annoying priority thing.
 
yes we can say indians want to live according to their own religious rules too ,they want it!!

I think my attitude towards this can best be summed up by the British Consul who broke Sati:

"Yes, you say that it is your culture to burn women alive. Well, it is our culture to hang men who murder women. You practice your culture, and we shall practice ours."\

But perhaps you can tell us, Medusa. Is it better or worse to to tie women to the funeral pyres of their dead husbands, and let them scream until the flames or the smoke finally overcome them?

You're not much a fan of Islamist Fundamentalism - what is your opinion on Honor Killings? Do you think that - all things being equal - a society that kills young women for talking to boys instead of being married at age 14 to their first cousin is better or worse?

hAT " modarate" means every islamist country can be left to its own fate and women can be killed under sunni fascist rules as long as their administration gets on well with us government

I thought you just said that we should allow these people to live according to their own religious rules?

when it comes to middle east ,you can eassily say " they want islamism" .how did they gain this power??who supported them?

islamism is not better than hinduism........

hey, don't count me as anything except a supporter of the notion that the West should seek to change the Middle Eastern culture. That's the long game in Iraq, after all. It's the long game in Egypt, too. It's just that in order to get there, you have to first discredit Islamism.





Or perhaps I am misreading you. Are you arguing that the West should invade Egypt, Pakistan, and Iran?
 
Sorry, but that's reality. The US cannot liberate everyone in the world at the same time. Given the need for priorities, first targetting the world's terrorism support who's going for nukes and chants "Death to America" in Parliament makes sense.

Wave a magic wand that gives us 100x our military and cash, and we'll drop that annoying priority thing.

what about the other parts of my post?
 
what about the other parts of my post?

If you don't mind, I'd like to just address the "but you don't free everyone immediately!" criticism, and make clear how it is unfair, unrealistic and just a downright ridiculous accusation.

US priorities make CLEAR and PLAIN sense - it doesn't take a geopolitical genius to see why Iran has priority over Saudi Arabia. Deal with it, or you produce a military to take care of the rest of the people TODAY.



The US spends too much on the military!! Why doesn't the US free EVERYONE TODAY?!

That = fail.
 
I think my attitude towards this can best be summed up by the British Consul who broke Sati:

"Yes, you say that it is your culture to burn women alive. Well, it is our culture to hang men who murder women. You practice your culture, and we shall practice ours."\

But perhaps you can tell us, Medusa. Is it better or worse to to tie women to the funeral pyres of their dead husbands, and let them scream until the flames or the smoke finally overcome them?

You're not much a fan of Islamist Fundamentalism - what is your opinion on Honor Killings? Do you think that - all things being equal - a society that kills young women for talking to boys instead of being married at age 14 to their first cousin is better or worse?



I thought you just said that we should allow these people to live according to their own religious rules?



hey, don't count me as anything except a supporter of the notion that the West should seek to change the Middle Eastern culture. That's the long game in Iraq, after all. It's the long game in Egypt, too. It's just that in order to get there, you have to first discredit Islamism.


those are kurds who kill their own women..anad they are put into prison too ,we dont stop keeping kurdish women.............that marriage style is also another ignominy of them too .marriage age can be lowered to some degree but when it is found out that there is a real child abuse ,those monsters are put into prison too

another question??


none of your struggle is enough to make me forget that you tolerate islamists..... hehe ..))

.
 
If you don't mind, I'd like to just address the "but you don't free everyone immediately!" criticism, and make clear how it is unfair, unrealistic and just a downright ridiculous accusation.

US priorities make CLEAR and PLAIN sense - it doesn't take a geopolitical genius to see why Iran has priority over Saudi Arabia. Deal with it, or you produce a military to take care of the rest of the people TODAY.



The US spends too much on the military!! Why doesn't the US free EVERYONE TODAY?!

That = fail.

thats not the answer

you claim you want to bring democracy into ME,but cpwill thinks they can live with islam


??

now tell me what you try to do there?
 
The support for regime change is already internal and exists. A war with the US would likely trigger a collapse before much of a war occured, in my view.

Which historically is way off the mark. Not as bad as Navy Pride, but an actual attack would rally the people to the Mullahs. The Soviet Union thought that the Finnish working class would join them in overthrowing the Finnish government. Instead the working class joined militias and fought back the Reds. There's no question that many within Iran want the Mullahs gone, but external invasion tends to push people towards their leaders and away from the invaders. We saw this in Iraq too as many Shiites fought the US rather than joined us in deposing Saddam.
 
Actually we are sort of overdue for a plague, likely enabled by weaponized disease. :shrug:

That is true, but in terms of nation state conflict, there is no existential threat to America short on a Russian nuclear salvo which frankly will not happen.
 
thats not the answer

you claim you want to bring democracy into ME,but cpwill thinks they can live with islam


??

now tell me what you try to do there?

Unfortunately, they will be living with Islam (meaning militant Muslim?) for the foreseeable future. The hope is that they vote on such things (and they will vote for a traditional Muslim society for some time), which will lead to liberation. A genocidal dictator slaughtering anything that speaks a non-state thought will not get us anywhere. Such a thing with nukes becomes nK + terror export, and that's not ok. So, the nukes must be stopped for internal and external reasons (some overlapping). The only question is: do we stop at destroying the nukes, or do we try to help bring in democracy. I realise that very few people agree with me that we should bring in democracy (neo-cons, and the sort), but I believe in 'no world peace without world freedom'.
 
Last edited:
The USA hated Cuba and Vietnam, for different reasons - and they are still both subject to illegal sanctions

What? What sanctions do we still have on Vietnam (aside from the regular no exporting of certain technologies we levy on all countries)?
 
The USA hated Cuba and Vietnam, for different reasons - and they are still both subject to illegal sanctions

Are the UN sanctions against Iran illegal?
 
Are the UN sanctions against Iran illegal?

that is an interesting question, because Iran hasnt refused any IAEA or UN inspections of its nuclear facilities.

Iran is also a signatory of the NNP treaty, and therefore has the right to pursue nuclear enrichment programs that produce uranium purity of less than 20%.

From my understanding there is only one nation on the planet that refuses IAEA and UN inspections and hasnt signed the NNP treaty

Do you know who that nation is?
 
What? What sanctions do we still have on Vietnam (aside from the regular no exporting of certain technologies we levy on all countries)?

Actually the US is still using the tactic of non-returned US service personell remains as a pretext for blackmailing and illegally sanctioning Vietnam.

I suggest that you research into the list of US corporation and state bodies that will not trade with Vietnam (even though everybody else in the world does)

111
 
Actually the US is still using the tactic of non-returned US service personell remains as a pretext for blackmailing and illegally sanctioning Vietnam.

I suggest that you research into the list of US corporation and state bodies that will not trade with Vietnam (even though everybody else in the world does)

111

Okay, but are there any actual laws on the books barring trade specifically with Vietnam?

I thought all of those sanctions ended when we normalized relations.
 
that is an interesting question, because Iran hasnt refused any IAEA or UN inspections of its nuclear facilities.

Feb '12

Officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency, sent to Iran to defuse tensions over the country’s nuclear program, were denied access to a military base and said the talks “couldn’t finalize a way forward.”

UN Nuclear Regulator Says Iran Denies Request to Visit Key Military Base - Bloomberg



The IAEA has long expressed concern about Iran's nuclear programme, but its latest report (November 2011) lays out the case in much greater detail than before.

Drawing on evidence provided by more than 10 member states as well as its own information, the IAEA said Iran had carried out activities "relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device".

It said that some of these activities could only be used to develop nuclear weapons - though it did not say that Iran had mastered the process, nor how long it would take Iran to make a bomb.

The report documents alleged Iranian testing of explosives, experiments on detonating a nuclear weapon, and work on weaponisation - the processes by which a device might be adapted and hardened to fit into the nose-section of a missile.

There are some allegations that are listed openly for the first time, including the claim that Iran has used computer modelling on the behaviour of a nuclear device.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11709428
 
Last edited:
Okay, but are there any actual laws on the books barring trade specifically with Vietnam?

I thought all of those sanctions ended when we normalized relations.

Not quite normalised relations.

What happened was, US corporations lobbied the US COngress to back off on trade sanctions, because they were losing market share to other nations and corporations (including Australian and Chinese corporations and joint ventures)

There are still some US sanctions still in place with regards to Vietnam

Cuban sanctions are illegal from any angle
 
Unfortunately, they will be living with Islam (meaning militant Muslim?) for the foreseeable future. The hope is that they vote on such things (and they will vote for a traditional Muslim society for some time), which will lead to liberation. A genocidal dictator slaughtering anything that speaks a non-state thought will not get us anywhere. Such a thing with nukes becomes nK + terror export, and that's not ok. So, the nukes must be stopped for internal and external reasons (some overlapping). The only question is: do we stop at destroying the nukes, or do we try to help bring in democracy. I realise that very few people agree with me that we should bring in democracy (neo-cons, and the sort), but I believe in 'no world peace without world freedom'.

okay ,but what everybody was aware of the fact that those rebels were islamists.and syria has no nukes. eco
 
Back
Top Bottom