• 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 unveils new missiles, drones

j-mac said:
I'd like to see us, as well as the rest of the free world agree to actually neutralize the threat that Iran is racing toward, and I'd like to see the region pitch in on that. The action is clear, allowing Iran to continue to hold on to any capability to develop a nuclear weapon is out of the question, their duplicity, and tactics suggest that they are playing the world as they march forward.

As far as controlling what other countries do, I would say don't be naive. We not only have the responsibility to do so, but the burden of making the right call for the sake of the world. That you and others don't want us to have that responsibility means little as to the fact that we already do.
Click to expand...

You say "the action is clear," but don't actually state the action. Do we invade them? Cruise-missile them? Increase economic sanctions? Leave burning dog poop on the Ayatollah's doorstep?
 
j-mac said:
So it is possible.
Click to expand...

No it isn't.

Back then Japan had the military capability to attack America because their technological and military strength were at a point they could seriously challenge eachother.

Iran has absolutely no military capability whatsoever to attack the US.

I'm surprised a former member of the military doesn't understand that most nations simply don't have the force deployment capabilities that the USA does.

Not even China does.
 
iguanaman said:
The last COUNTRY to attack us was Japan at Pearl Harbor. Your point is?
Click to expand...

No, that would be Afghanistan. The point being that Deuce's silly argument that powerful people don't attack the US because they fear retaliation is easily shown to be false. That may be the restraint on many countries that would love to attack the US otherwise, but it isn't a universal rule that applies to all nations and groups that hate the US.
 
jmotivator said:
No, that would be Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Al Qaeda is an extra-national force and regardless of their status under the Taliban Government (which didn't even control the whole country) Afghanistan as a unitary body never attacked the USA.
 
Jetboogieman said:
No it isn't.

Back then Japan had the military capability to attack America because their technological and military strength were at a point they could seriously challenge eachother.

Iran has absolutely no military capability whatsoever to attack the US.

I'm surprised a former member of the military doesn't understand that most nations simply don't have the force deployment capabilities that the USA does.
Click to expand...


It's funny how whenever the conversation turns to threats to the US there are people so myopic in their thinking that that can't argue on any level other than direct naval engagements and invasion.
 
jmotivator said:
It's funny how whenever the conversation turns to threats to the US there are people so myopic in their thinking that that can't argue on any level other than direct naval engagements and invasion.
Click to expand...

The only possible way Iran could attack the USA is if they did develop nuclear weapons (and have the missile capability to launch an ICBM) in which case their entire country will be reduced to rubble).

Or they sponsor terror attacks in which case their entire country will be reduced to rubble.
 
j-mac said:
I'd like to see us, as well as the rest of the free world agree to actually neutralize the threat that Iran is racing toward, and I'd like to see the region pitch in on that. The action is clear, allowing Iran to continue to hold on to any capability to develop a nuclear weapon is out of the question, their duplicity, and tactics suggest that they are playing the world as they march forward.

As far as controlling what other countries do, I would say don't be naive. We not only have the responsibility to do so, but the burden of making the right call for the sake of the world. That you and others don't want us to have that responsibility means little as to the fact that we already do.
Click to expand...

I remember Reagan saying it wasn't the worlds place to do that. I wonder how he'd be seen today. But, outside of strikes or war, what do you think the world can do?
 
Jetboogieman said:
Al Qaeda is an extra-national force and regardless of their status under the Taliban Government (which didn't even control the whole country) Afghanistan as a unitary body never attacked the USA.
Click to expand...

That is a lot of contortions you need to make your claim. Al Qaeda was an integral part of the Taliban ruling structure of Afghanistan as of the 9/11 attacks. Al Qaeda provided the militant muscle to the Taliban leadership, and Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban and bin Laden were close comrades. AQ and the Taliban in Afghanistan were part of the same governmental structure by 2001.
 
polgara said:
Good morning, CJ. :2wave:

Good point! :thumbs: We have been objecting, and we are ignored! Most sane people all over the world just want to live in peace - but decisions are made by those who don't always have their best interests in mind. They just don't seem to give a damn about collateral damage, but it does make enemies of those who suffer, and that's a given. I'd feel the same way! When pissing contests between leaders is allowed to become a game of "one-upmanship," look for trouble ahead for the little people - always!
Click to expand...

Good morning Lady P - a beautiful day here today - hope yours is nice too.
 
Boo Radley said:
I remember Reagan saying it wasn't the worlds place to do that. I wonder how he'd be seen today. But, outside of strikes or war, what do you think the world can do?
Click to expand...

That is what a lot of people were saying pre-9/11. Pre-9/11 nobody considered locking the door to the pilot cabin of passenger jets. That doesn't mean that that is how we should be doing it today.
 
j-mac said:
Not possible now is it? We are letting ISIS run wild in Iraq, and we are demonstrating that we are timid in our ME policy at present, so I ask again, who do you suggest?
Click to expand...

Do you suggest we invade Iraq so you can complain that we invaded Iraq?
 
Jetboogieman said:
The only possible way Iran could attack the USA is if they did develop nuclear weapons (and have the missile capability to launch an ICBM) in which case their entire country will be reduced to rubble).

Or they sponsor terror attacks in which case their entire country will be reduced to rubble.
Click to expand...

That isn't true. We have porous borders and lax internal security (because we are a free country) that are easily exploitable by anyone. I think war with Iran is inevitable. But for now Iran is happy to just fun proxy wars against the west and claim ignorance whenever they are caught backing radical jihadists. They were very active in the Iraqi insurgency, and fund Hamas among many other radical groups.

There is no doubt we would win a war with Iran, but that isn't to say that they won't make it hurt in the process. The longer it goes like this the more it will hurt.
 
jmotivator said:
That is what a lot of people were saying pre-9/11. Pre-9/11 nobody considered locking the door to the pilot cabin of passenger jets. That doesn't mean that that is how we should be doing it today.
Click to expand...

What about 9/11 changes that. No nation attacked us, no weapons or mass destruction were used, no nukes. So where does the leap come in at?
 
Texmex said:
Do you suggest we invade Iraq so you can complain that we invaded Iraq?
Click to expand...

You won't find many people complaining if the President sends troops into Iraq to end ISIS. I certainly wouldn't.
 
jmotivator said:
We have porous borders and lax internal security (because we are a free country) that are easily exploitable by anyone.
Click to expand...

Well having said that, if there were as many terrorists out there as we are convinced there are, surely we would have been attacked far more by now than we have been?
 
Jetboogieman said:
Well having said that, if there were as many terrorists out there as we are convinced there are, surely we would have been attacked far more by now than we have been?
Click to expand...

Well, first, I have made no argument about the numbers of terrorists in the US. I only said it was exploitable. 9/11 was 5 years in the making and our security back then was terrible. We've also fought our own proxy wars since 9/11 that have, until recently, kept the Islamic radicals on their heels. But once Iran has a nuclear threat -- primarily as a defense against invasion than as an attack on US soil -- it's military conquest of the ME will begin. It would be hard to combat Iran at that point because any base we try to establish to counter their advances would be an immediate target for nuclear attack. Iran is playing the long game.

ISIS would be a more immediate threat for terrorist attacks in the US because they WANT a war with the US. They are in a state of war with the US right now. What they expect from this war is for the US to back down and give them more standing in the region and in the world of radical Islam. They need us to back down in order to get radical groups like Boko Haram, Al Qaeda and Hamas to join their struggle.

If the US doesn't meet the challenge with extreme military action to crush ISIS then we will see their cancer metastasize across the globe.
 
jmotivator said:
Hey look, a comedy central skit from a self proclaimed fart comic. We should heed its expert advice. :roll:
Click to expand...

Conservatives in this thread reminded me of that bit.

Iran isn't run by comic book villains. They don't just do evil for the sake of doing evil. They don't stand to gain anything by attacking the United States.
 
Deuce said:
Conservatives in this thread reminded me of that bit.

Iran isn't run by comic book villains. They don't just do evil for the sake of doing evil. They don't stand to gain anything by attacking the United States.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he has some other witty zingers about people who opposed leaving Iraq and who called Russia our chief geopolitical foe, too.

You should also do some reading on the particular sect of Shi'ism that rules Iran.

Iran and ISIS have the same goal, the return of the Caliphate and the Twelfth Imam. Iran simply thinks that the best way to achieve it is to first get nuclear weapons. Either way they believe the only way to achieve the end goal is through bloodshed.

Look at the Islam.org list of the major signs of the last days before the return of al-Mahdi:

Major Signs of the Last Day

Read it carefully. These signs, unlike the Christian prophecy of end days, require Islamic armies to take an active role in conquering the world, and the last stages are a holy fire that starts in Yemen and moves across the middle east to Syria.

This, they believe, is there duty to bring about.
 
jmotivator said:
I'm sure he has some other witty zingers about people who opposed leaving Iraq and who called Russia our chief geopolitical foe, too.

You should also do some reading on the particular sect of Shi'ism that rules Iran.

Iran and ISIS have the same goal, the return of the Caliphate and the Twelfth Imam. Iran simply thinks that the best way to achieve it is to first get nuclear weapons. Either way they believe the only way to achieve the end goal is through bloodshed.

Look at the Islam.org list of the major signs of the last days before the return of al-Mahdi:

Major Signs of the Last Day

Read it carefully. These signs, unlike the Christian prophecy of end days, require Islamic armies to take an active role in conquering the world, and the last stages are a holy fire that starts in Yemen and moves across the middle east to Syria.

This, they believe, is there duty to bring about.
Click to expand...

Those would be the comic book villain motives I'm talking about.

Iran sees that nations with nuclear weapons don't get invaded. They know they can't stand up to western nations in a conventional military conflict, but nuclear weapons can make an invasion of Iran too costly for any nation to undertake. Even getting nukes, Iran isn't stupid enough to use them on the United States, because that is literally the fastest way possible to get your nation wiped off the map.

No nation on the planet stands to gain anything by attacking us.
 
Deuce said:
Those would be the comic book villain motives I'm talking about.

Iran sees that nations with nuclear weapons don't get invaded. They know they can't stand up to western nations in a conventional military conflict, but nuclear weapons can make an invasion of Iran too costly for any nation to undertake. Even getting nukes, Iran isn't stupid enough to use them on the United States, because that is literally the fastest way possible to get your nation wiped off the map.

No nation on the planet stands to gain anything by attacking us.
Click to expand...

Problem is that by the time it becomes too real for you to deny any longer, it's too late...Good plan.
 
j-mac said:
Problem is that by the time it becomes too real for you to deny any longer, it's too late...Good plan.
Click to expand...

The same could be said for invading Canada. What, do you want to just sit on your ass and wait until Canada nukes us?

It is impossible to survive a nuclear war with the United States. Do you think the leadership in Iran wants to die?
 
j-mac said:
Nero fiddles as Rome burns....How pathetic is this?
Click to expand...

This is a good thing for Iran. Don't you think countries have a right to self defence or influence in their regions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom