• 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!

BBC: US weighs Iran military option

There isn't a need to kill innocent civilians. Targeting hardened nuclear facilities in the middle of nowhere with advance warning could easily result in no civilian loss of life at all. When Israel destroyed Saddam's reactor in the 80's, it didn't end up in full scale war and there was very little loss of life.
 
Crunch said:
You don't occupy them.... you blow them back into the stone age until they come to their senses and act like a responsible government.
Click to expand...

Where does one begin with that statement? Wow!
 
Jetboogieman said:
It wasn't on purpose, I meant to say they're both innocent. Niether deserve to die, and are equal as human beings. But I was merely wondering if anyone viewed the Iranian civilian as less of a person then the American one.
Click to expand...

Part of being a member of a nation is believing by virtue of that relationship you are worth more than human beings elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Crunch
You don't occupy them.... you blow them back into the stone age until they come to their senses and act like a responsible government.
Click to expand...

That would stop Iran from getting the nuke, but it would not help our terrorist problem.
 
Last edited:
Jetboogieman said:
It wasn't on purpose, I meant to say they're both innocent. Niether deserve to die, and are equal as human beings. But I was merely wondering if anyone viewed the Iranian civilian as less of a person then the American one.
Click to expand...


I don't view them as less of a person.

However they don't mean as much to me as a generic American woman or child, because.... I'm an American, not an Iranian. They mean far less to me than almost any American I am actually acquainted with, let alone any friend or family of mine.

If you hand me two buttons, and say that if I push one that a million Iranian civilians die; if I push the other one person I know dies; and you put a gun to my head and tell me to choose... do I have to say it? A million Iranians are going into the ground.

Would I prefer that no Iranian noncombatants die? Yes.

Would I rather that millions of Iranian civilians die, as opposed to millions of American or Israeli civillians? If it has to be one or the other, yes.

Yes, I know I'm a nationalist. Hail I'm more than just a nationalist. My family means more to me than your family, because they're mine. People in my community mean more to me than people in your community, because I live here. My home state is more important to me than your home state. I can't care as much about people 7,000 miles across the planet that I don't know and who mostly hate my country anyway, as I care about people who share my language, culture, and national identity.

Truth? MOST people actually feel that way, they just don't want to admit it.
 
The Giant Noodle said:
Im guessing the US military is STILL in the area because they are planning to blow the hell out of Iran sometime in the future :roll:

If Iran decides to go for nuclear weapons, the US may not be able to permanently stop this from happening unless it is willing to occupy the country.
This is the candid conclusion of one US general testifying in front of the Senate but one that seems to have gone mostly unnoticed amid a flurry of statements on Iran over the past few days in Washington.
Gen James Cartwright, one of America's top uniformed officers, slowly edged towards that conclusion during a Senate testimony last week, underscoring the difficult choices facing the Obama administration as it weighs what do about Iran.

_47684304_iran2104_nuke_cartwright_22.jpg
Gen Cartwright agreed a military strike would only delay Iran


Since the US would probably be extremely apprehensive about even considering putting boots on the ground in Iran, the statement raises a key question - while the Obama administration publicly maintains that it will not allow Iran's current leaders to acquire nuclear weapons, is it privately discussing how to live with a nuclear Iran?
The military is averse to any action against Iran and Adm Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a military strike would be 'his last option" and has warned of the unintended consequences of such a strike.
One of those consequences could be a boost in the life expentancy of the Iranian leadership.
If Iran comes under attack from the outside, Iranians will likely rally around their leaders or be forced to do so.
This would put an end to any internal dissent and delay the prospect of internal pressure for change. After all, a different Iranian leadership that cooperates more with the international community is another way of allaying concerns about Iranian nuclear ambitions.
But during the Senate testimony, which also featured the state department's No 3 official, William Burns, the senators questioning the panel also established that UN sanctions would probably not be tough enough to really have an impact on Tehran.

BBC News - US weighs Iran military option
Click to expand...

If we had to invade a Middle Eastern country under false pretenses, why not Iran?

Only being half serious.
 
Last edited:
We Bomb them to hell and then deport all of out illgeal mexicans there. Actually, not the attractive ones. We keep the attractive illegal mexicans here.

So we bomb them into the stone age, give them horses, cows, plant a few hot peppers and citrus trees along with agave.... deport all the marginally attractive and under illegal mexicans there..... 2 birds... one bomb

Youre welcome :2wave:
 
rathi said:
Its quite possible to simply obliterate nuclear and or rocket facilities from the air leaving the rest of the country untouched. If we announced the attacks ahead of time, we could probably avoid any collateral damage. The Iran would certainly retaliate for such an action, it would result in a lot less money and lives wasted. Obtaining air supremacy, eliminating air defenses and destroying hardened targets is fairly trivial. We could easily do it every few years if required and it would still be far cheaper than a full scale invasion and occupation.
Click to expand...

Actually, obtaining air supremacy, eliminating integrated air defenses and destroying multiple hardened targets is a huge undertaking that comes with many risks and is nothing near trivial.
 
upsideguy said:
No, that would be the last administration, from who's ineptitude we continue to dig our way out from.
Click to expand...

link?

LOL!

Russia says Iran reactor on track for August launch | Reuters

New sanctions on Iran are only path left: Gates | Reuters

China rules out new U.N. sanctions on Iran for now | Reuters

Russia's Putin warns against intimidating Iran | World | Reuters

No effective policy on Iran, Gates says

when is barry gonna meet with the leaders of iran---without preconditions?

LOL!

the most incompetent foreign policy america has ever had to endure
 
Actually, obtaining air supremacy, eliminating integrated air defenses and destroying multiple hardened targets is a huge undertaking that comes with many risks and is nothing near trivial.
Click to expand...

Compared to full scale invasion, it is quite trivial. The Iranian air force and air defense systems are both small in number and relatively out of date. No military operation is entirely without risk, but the odds are heavily stacked in our favor. The military had some foresight in the matter, and has purchased some serious bunker-busting munitions probably for this exact purpose. Air strikes would be far cheaper and safer than even the smallest ground-based attack.
 
Prof:

Obama is screwing the pooch, agreed. That doesn't mean Bush did much better. Without much left over from the Iraq fight, he basically handed this issue off to the Europeans, who assured us that their smarter more sophisticated "soft power" would prove far more effective than the blunt imperialistic US military.



Rathi is correct; we have sufficient resources in the region all we would really need to do is protect Iraq from sudden counterattack. Don't forget, also, that we have Iran surrounded; being in Iraq (to her west), Afghanistan (to her north), Pakistan (to her East), and the sea (to her south).
 
cpwill said:
the target will be Israel. Israel has nukes on subs. Israeli subs will retaliate. you really think the deaths will be limited to 15 or 20 million people? we're talking about the potential glassing of significant chunks of optimism showing through. the entire region.
Click to expand...

Sorry... just my natural optimism showing through. :mrgreen:

Of course another scenario would be for Iran to put a warhead on a Scud, put the Scud on a freighter, and launch just off the East coast of the US with detonation set for max altitude….. That would only kill around 15 to 20 million over the next 4 to 5 months, 80 to 150 million over a year.
 
Jetboogieman said:
I'm getting a sneaking suspicion that to some people in this forum, an innocent Iranian woman or childrens life, has less value than an American woman or childrens life.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm putting the survival of MY country above the survival of a rogue, terrorist regime.
 
Morality Games said:
Part of being a member of a nation is believing by virtue of that relationship you are worth more than human beings elsewhere.



That would stop Iran from getting the nuke, but it would not help our terrorist problem.
Click to expand...

The longest journeys start with but a singe step.
 
Deuce said:
We can handle the Iranian military, but at this time America simply lacks the resources necessary to occupy Iran.
Click to expand...

We can thank Bush and Obama for that.
 
the most incompetent "leadership" america has ever endured, continued:

defense secty gates says we have NO policy for iran

china and russia NIX sanctions

obama himself campaigned on some preposterous proposal to meet with the leaders of iran, sans preconditions

when the bottom fell out of that bankrupt pledge, he set a deadline of january 1, THIS YEAR

well, it's FOUR MONTHS LATER

so affable, gaffe-able, laughable joe biden goes on THE VIEW (LOL!) to proclaim to the planet---SANCTIONS BY THE END OF THE MONTH

Biden: Iran sanctions soon, no Israeli strike likely | Reuters

LOL!

the most inept presidency america has ever produced

even a senator as staunchly progressive as CHUCK SCHUMER can't take it anymore

Schumer: Obama's 'counter-productive' Israel policy 'has to stop' - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
 
Why do we care if Iran gets nukes? We have more nukes. They wouldn't nuke us because we would blow them off the face of the planet.

This whole thing is silly. Let Israel handle their issues themselves. They have one of the best militaries in the world (which we pay for).
 
from the link:

"Tehran has repeatedly refused to bring to justice, publicly identify or share information about detained senior al-Qaida members who murdered Americans and other in the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings."

Ambassador Crumpton says Iran provides improvised explosive devices, or I-E-D's, to insurgents in Iraq:

"Some of the most powerful I-E-D's we're seeing in Iraq today include components that came from Iran."

Ambassador Crumpton says that Iran "is working directly with some of the Iraqi paramilitary forces militia and they provide support, financial and otherwise." Iran, says Ambassador Crumpton, "presents a particular concern given its. . . .sponsorship of terrorism and its continued development of a nuclear program."
Click to expand...
 
rathi said:
Compared to full scale invasion, it is quite trivial. The Iranian air force and air defense systems are both small in number and relatively out of date.
Click to expand...

Trivial? That is a ridiculous statement.
 
The Prof said:
from the link:
Click to expand...

And the IRA not only used components in their bombs, and weapons which were manufactured in the USA, which killed hundreds of Britons, but were supported and financed by Americans. Gerry Adams was given a ticker-tape welcome parade when he visited the USA.

Should a coalition of nations have attacked and/or invaded the USA? Just asking. :2wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom