• 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 tests ballistic missile in defiance of UN resolution, US officials say

j-mac

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
41,104
Reaction score
12,202
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
[FONT=&quot]Iran conducted its first ballistic missile test under Donald Trump's presidency, in yet another apparent violation of a United Nations resolution, U.S. officials told Fox News on Monday.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The launch occurred Sunday at a well-known test site outside Semnan, about 140 miles east of Tehran

[/FONT]http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/01/30/iran-conducts-ballistic-missile-test-us-officials-say.html
Click to expand...

Trump doesn't have to scrap the Iran deal. Iran just did themselves...There is no agreement with Iran, it was always a sham.
 
j-mac said:
Trump doesn't have to scrap the Iran deal. Iran just did themselves...There is no agreement with Iran, it was always a sham.
Click to expand...
Well, darn.

But we certainly could not have expected the O bomb and Kerry to do much about stopping or even slowing Iran down. Its not like those two had a "magic wand" or anything. :lamo
 
j-mac said:
Trump doesn't have to scrap the Iran deal. Iran just did themselves...There is no agreement with Iran, it was always a sham.
Click to expand...

But, what should he do? Ask Putin to solve the problem? The Chinese? The EU?
;)
 
j-mac said:
Trump doesn't have to scrap the Iran deal. Iran just did themselves...There is no agreement with Iran, it was always a sham.
Click to expand...

I think their good friend obama already gave them the money they needed to finish building the bomb
 
j-mac said:
Trump doesn't have to scrap the Iran deal. Iran just did themselves...There is no agreement with Iran, it was always a sham.
Click to expand...

When did Iran sign a no missile agreement? How can Trump scrap something that didn't happen? Is that some new power he has?
 
iguanaman said:
When did Iran sign a no missile agreement? How can Trump scrap something that didn't happen? Is that some new power he has?
Click to expand...

Trump has the same authority to scrap the deal as obama had to make the deal
 
Mac77 said:
Trump has the same authority to scrap the deal as obama had to make the deal
Click to expand...

Again. What agreement did Iran sign to not make missiles? I remember a deal to not make an atomic bomb but missiles were not included in it.
 
j-mac said:
Trump doesn't have to scrap the Iran deal. Iran just did themselves...There is no agreement with Iran, it was always a sham.
Click to expand...

Your quote says it violates a "UN Resolution", not the Obama "deal".

And anyway, it should be noted that the Obama administration fully recognized that the deal would only delay their nuke program at best. Unless you're prepared to advocate for an all-out invasion and occupation - the only thing that we could be sure would stop them from getting nukes - complaining really doesn't get you anything.

Same goes for any "deal" Trump might try to negotiate or impose. We basically need to decide exactly how much blood and treasure it would cost to fully stop Iran, and then decide whether we are willing to spend it.
 
iguanaman said:
Again. What agreement did Iran sign to not make missiles? I remember a deal to not make an atomic bomb but missiles were not included in it.
Click to expand...

I don't think most Americans understood that obama foolishly overlooked preventing iran from developing the missile to carry the bomb they will be allowed to build in just 10 years

And thats why trump might tear up the deal they did sign

Too bad the previous administration already gave them the money they wanted
 
Mr Person said:
Your quote says it violates a "UN Resolution", not the Obama "deal".

And anyway, it should be noted that the Obama administration fully recognized that the deal would only delay their nuke program at best. Unless you're prepared to advocate for an all-out invasion and occupation - the only thing that we could be sure would stop them from getting nukes - complaining really doesn't get you anything.

Same goes for any "deal" Trump might try to negotiate or impose. We basically need to decide exactly how much blood and treasure it would cost to fully stop Iran, and then decide whether we are willing to spend it.
Click to expand...

What the Obama administration fully recognized is that the Iran treaty would never make it through Congress, and so simply ignored his recently signed treaty law and did it anyway. The UN resolution was signed (by Kerry in the US case) but has no weight unless signed by the country itself. That didn't happen except in the single case of Obama, who then used the treaty of one to release 400 million in unmarked bills which can now be used to fund nuclear weaponry and terrorism.

Obama is now gone, but the mess remains.
 
jimbo said:
What the Obama administration fully recognized is that the Iran treaty would never make it through Congress, and so simply ignored his recently signed treaty law and did it anyway. The UN resolution was signed (by Kerry in the US case) but has no weight unless signed by the country itself. That didn't happen except in the single case of Obama, who then used the treaty of one to release 400 million in unmarked bills which can now be used to fund nuclear weaponry and terrorism.

Obama is now gone, but the mess remains.
Click to expand...

What about the rest of my post?

This is a situation where I really see no value to criticizing what Obama did if one does not have a viable alternative. If we really want to stop Iran, it seems the only thing that will do it is a big violent struggle.

Nobody wants to take the lead in advocating that.
 
Mac77 said:
I don't think most Americans understood that obama foolishly overlooked preventing iran from developing the missile to carry the bomb they will be allowed to build in just 10 years

And thats why trump might tear up the deal they did sign

Too bad the previous administration already gave them the money they wanted
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the agreement that "allows" then to build a bomb EVER. But if Trump scraps it they surely will restart their nuclear program. It seems that is what you want.
 
iguanaman said:
There is nothing in the agreement that "allows" then to build a bomb EVER. But if Trump scraps it they surely will restart their nuclear program. It seems that is what you want.
Click to expand...


after 10 years all bets are off and the crazy mullahs can do as they please
 
Mac77 said:
after 10 years all bets are off and the crazy mullahs can do as they please
Click to expand...

Even if that were true. Why do you want them to restart their nuclear program tomorrow instead? You just can't wait for them to get a bomb?
 
Mr Person said:
Your quote says it violates a "UN Resolution", not the Obama "deal".

And anyway, it should be noted that the Obama administration fully recognized that the deal would only delay their nuke program at best. Unless you're prepared to advocate for an all-out invasion and occupation - the only thing that we could be sure would stop them from getting nukes - complaining really doesn't get you anything.

Same goes for any "deal" Trump might try to negotiate or impose. We basically need to decide exactly how much blood and treasure it would cost to fully stop Iran, and then decide whether we are willing to spend it.
Click to expand...

If it means the largest sponsor of terrorism globally, having a nuclear weapon to terrorize the region or further, then I say whatever it takes...They must NOT gain that weapon.
 
Mr Person said:
What about the rest of my post?

This is a situation where I really see no value to criticizing what Obama did if one does not have a viable alternative. If we really want to stop Iran, it seems the only thing that will do it is a big violent struggle.

Nobody wants to take the lead in advocating that.
Click to expand...

That was the meme Obama used for years when selling this piece of c***. As one example we could have further tightened the embargo. Immediately going to the worst case option and saying that is all we could do is not only dishonest, it belittles the people you say it to. It presumes that you are smarter thus tell an obvious falsehood and people will nod their head yes.
 
iguanaman said:
Even if that were true. Why do you want them to restart their nuclear program tomorrow instead? You just can't wait for them to get a bomb?
Click to expand...

When did he ever say that?
 
washunut said:
That was the meme Obama used for years when selling this piece of c***. As one example we could have further tightened the embargo.
Click to expand...



What?

I'm not interested in your opinion of what Obama did to "sell" it or in what he actually did. It's also not a "meme." I'm making the simple point that the only true solution would appear to be all-out war followed by occupation.

He had sanctions. We had embargoes. These things don't work when the leaders have such a strong grip on the populace, since the leaders can simply let their subjects suffer. (Look how quickly the "Arab Spring" in Iran was shut down). We and Israel engaged in various acts of sabotage, but that only slowed things down a bit.

Look at North Korea for a better example. They've been isolated for decades. Their people have starved for decades. Nothing the rest of the world did stopped them from developing nukes or worked any result we wanted. Only now, something like six decades after the fact, do we start hearing an increased number of political elites from NK saying that their leaders' grip is beginning to fail.

We don't have six decades with Iran. We have one, maybe.







washunut said:
Immediately going to the worst case option and saying that is all we could do is not only dishonest, it belittles the people you say it to. It presumes that you are smarter thus tell an obvious falsehood and people will nod their head yes.
Click to expand...

Wait a sec. My stating an opinion that it seems the only thing that will work is war and occupation is "dishonest" and somehow belittled you? Then what the hell are you doing stating an opinion that I'm wrong because an unspecified strengthened embargo would work? Aren't you guilty of the precise thing you accuse me of?




Anyway, I don't understand how strengthening an embargo in an unspecified manner is supposed to produce a new result. You didn't explain how you would strengthen this "embargo" and why it would produce results that all the sanctions, etc. I am at least pointing out that we've tried to do a whole lot of things to stop Iran and it doesn't appear to be working. Why should I believe that more of the same would work this time around?
 
Last edited:
Mr Person said:
What about the rest of my post?

This is a situation where I really see no value to criticizing what Obama did if one does not have a viable alternative. If we really want to stop Iran, it seems the only thing that will do it is a big violent struggle.

Nobody wants to take the lead in advocating that.
Click to expand...

Obama rewarded the iranians with $150 billion dollars that will buy a lot of nuclear missile research over time
 
Mr Person said:
What?

I'm not interested in your opinion of what Obama did to "sell" it or in what he actually did. It's also not a "meme." I'm making the simple point that the only true solution would appear to be all-out war followed by occupation.

He had sanctions. We had embargoes. These things don't work when the leaders have such a strong grip on the populace, since the leaders can simply let their subjects suffer. (Look how quickly the "Arab Spring" in Iran was shut down). We and Israel engaged in various acts of sabotage, but that only slowed things down a bit.

Look at North Korea for a better example. They've been isolated for decades. Their people have starved for decades. Nothing the rest of the world did stopped them from developing nukes or worked any result we wanted. Only now, something like six decades after the fact, do we start hearing an increased number of political elites from NK saying that their leaders' grip is beginning to fail.

We don't have six decades with Iran. We have one, maybe.









Wait a sec. My stating an opinion that it seems the only thing that will work is war and occupation is "dishonest" and somehow belittled you? Then what the hell are you doing stating an opinion that I'm wrong because an unspecified strengthened embargo would work? Aren't you guilty of the precise thing you accuse me of?




Anyway, I don't understand how strengthening an embargo in an unspecified manner is supposed to produce a new result. You didn't explain how you would strengthen this "embargo" and why it would produce results that all the sanctions, etc. I am at least pointing out that we've tried to do a whole lot of things to stop Iran and it doesn't appear to be working. Why should I believe that more of the same would work this time around?
Click to expand...

All out war, or nothing is a false choice....There are many things in between.
 
j-mac said:
All out war, or nothing is a false choice....There are many things in between.
Click to expand...

1. We tried those things in between. None of which has worked thus far.

2. Nobody criticizing Obama has been able to cough up a specific plan and explain why they would think it would work.

That tells me it isn't a false choice in this instance. Of course, it's easy to attack me or attack Obama, but doing so sure as hell doesn't prove that there's some kind of alternate solution that everyone else on Earth has overlooked thus far.

Are you the genius who found the solution literally nobody else came up with - not the military, not the intelligence agencies, not Obama, not Bush, not Israel? If not, stop complaining. There are no easy answers here, but you're telling me that I'm offering a false choice because there is an easy answer that, somehow, nobody can articulate.





Then again, I never said "do nothing." If there's a false choice it's in your response. If we aren't willing to engage in all-out war, then we do have options to slow down Iran's program. But based on your OP, you aren't happy with slowing them down, are you? So increasing sanctions or strengthening an embargo, stuff we already tried, isn't going to work.

Have you heard Einstein's definition of insanity? It applies here.
 
Last edited:
Mr Person said:
1. We tried those things in between. None of which has worked thus far.

2. Nobody criticizing Obama has been able to cough up a specific plan and explain why they would think it would work.




That tells me it isn't a false choice in this instance. Of course, it's easy to attack me or attack Obama, but doing so sure as hell doesn't prove that there's some kind of alternate solution that everyone else on Earth has overlooked thus far.
Click to expand...


Obama turned his back of the iranian students rioting for democracy in 2009

And he gave iran $150 billion to continue their Islamic theocracy


No one else would do either of those two things
 
Mr Person said:
1. We tried those things in between. None of which has worked thus far.

2. Nobody criticizing Obama has been able to cough up a specific plan and explain why they would think it would work.

That tells me it isn't a false choice in this instance. Of course, it's easy to attack me or attack Obama, but doing so sure as hell doesn't prove that there's some kind of alternate solution that everyone else on Earth has overlooked thus far.

Are you the genius who found the solution literally nobody else came up with - not the military, not the intelligence agencies, not Obama, not Bush, not Israel? If not, stop complaining. There are no easy answers here, but you're telling me that I'm offering a false choice because there is an easy answer that, somehow, nobody can articulate.





Then again, I never said "do nothing." If there's a false choice it's in your response. If we aren't willing to engage in all-out war, then we do have options to slow down Iran's program. But based on your OP, you aren't happy with slowing them down, are you? So increasing sanctions or strengthening an embargo, stuff we already tried, isn't going to work.

Have you heard Einstein's definition of insanity? It applies here.
Click to expand...

However, "slowing them down" is what the deal was supposed to have achieved....Tell me, they tested a ballistic missile...Did it slow anything down? Or, was Kerry, and Obama played?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom