• 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!

WaPo : Iran Stronger Than Ever

Cardinal said:
Uh huh. And what will Trump do about Iran? Let's hear this "plan."
Click to expand...

Could he possibly do worse than what is in place?

I mean, aside from surrendering the United States altogether?
 
Fenton said:
Lol !!! WaPo in its haste to attack Trump seems to have accidently reported the truth.
Yes, after 8 years of Obama's disastrous ME policies, and after his legacy defining Iran deal, Iran is more powerful than ever.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...a_story.html?client=ms-android-hms-tmodefinin

I begining to think empowering Iran and extremist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood was his intention all along.
Click to expand...

I've said for the longest time that Obama's FP in the ME had to be methodic or that he was completely inept and incompetent.

The underlying theme so far as I can guess that doesn't swerve off into CTLand is that there are more Muslims than Jews and more to gain from Muslim countries than the single Jewish country so it would be wise and advantageous for US interests to shift allegiances.
 
Erod said:
Could he possibly do worse than what is in place?

I mean, aside from surrendering the United States altogether?
Click to expand...

I don't know, you tell me. You're the one defending the guy. Is his plan better or worse than Obama's?
 
matchlight said:
You never gave him any answer,
Click to expand...
 because you couldn't. Neither could the other poster he had responded to. And the reason neither of you could say what nation the U.S. had invaded "under false pretenses" before 9/11--the clear implication being that the jihadist attack was a response to this illegitimate invasion--is that the U.S. never carried out any such invasion. The claim that the U.S. brought the 9/11 attacks on itself--a version of the equally disgusting claim that women are to blame for being raped because they wear skirts that are too short--has been a staple of anti-American propaganda.

B. Hussein Obama's longtime preacher, the leftist Jeremiah Wright, was one of the first to spread this vile slander when he said, soon after 9/11 and referring to it, "America, your chickens have come home to roost!" About the same time, the commie professor and fake Indian Ward Churchill made an even more vile slander against this country when he called the people murdered at the World Trade Center "little Eichmanns." What he meant by that was that just as Adolf Eichmann deserved to be executed for helping the Nazis murder people en masse in death camps by assuring that the trains which brought them there were scheduled efficiently, the people murdered at the Trade Center deserved to die for helping the evil capitalist system to function smoothly.

The attempts to make Americans afraid to confront Iran militarily by leftist rags like the Washington Post are part of a broader attempt by people who do not like this country much better than the Islamist thugs who rule Iran do to carry water for those thugs. No amount of bluster by the regime in Tehran can hide the fact it is afraid of a military confrontation with the U.S.--for good reason. And so it hopes, with help from Western sympathizers, to persuade enough Americans that it would be too formidable an opponent to tangle with that they shrink from the very thought.

The regime has had some success with this strategy, especially during the past eight years of appeasement by Mr. Obama. But now they are dealing with a different President. And I am sure Mr. Trump's military advisers know just how weak Iran's navy and air force (its ground forces would never be in play) are when compared to this country's, and will inform him thoroughly about that. Meantime, I notice that just within the past week there was a successful interception near Hawaii by an anti-ballistic missile system, followed by a test launch of a Minuteman ICBM from Vandenberg AFB out into the Pacific. I am sure the thugs in the Tehran regime noticed these things too.
Click to expand...



Believe whatever Alt-Right BS that you want to believe.

It will have no effect on reality.



"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch,running out of time,GOP.
 
Cardinal said:
I don't know, you tell me. You're the one defending the guy. Is his plan better or worse than Obama's?
Click to expand...

It couldn't be worse. Perhaps we stop paying them $150 billion and letting them build nuclear weapons? Sounds crazy, I know.
 
Iran's power has been increasing since the US took out Saddam. The Shiites in power in Iraq take their cues from Iran.
 
Erod said:
It couldn't be worse. Perhaps we stop paying them $150 billion and letting them build nuclear weapons? Sounds crazy, I know.
Click to expand...

Is that his plan? Let them build nuclear weapons?
 
Erod said:
It couldn't be worse. Perhaps we stop paying them $150 billion and letting them build nuclear weapons? Sounds crazy, I know.
Click to expand...

So what is the plan and how is it better. It 8s now Trump's responsibility and I don't think Twitter is going to solve this one.
 
shrubnose said:
Believe whatever Alt-Right BS that you want to believe.

It will have no effect on reality.



"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch,running out of time,GOP.
Click to expand...


Your "Alt-Right" jargon is lost on me. I don't even know what that means. I do know, though, that you still have not identified which supposed illegitimate invasion of what nation preceded the 9/11 attacks and presumably prompted them, even though you seem to agree with the poster who brought it up that the U.S. carried out such an invasion. Maybe this alleged invasion was only imaginary.
 
jonny5 said:
Trump having a plan, or not, isnt the topic either. So, since this is a debate forum, lets debate. Whats your opinion on the actual topic, the threat Iran poses. How do we deal with it?
Click to expand...

I think an Iran run by an aggressive Islamist regime and equipped with nuclear weapons would pose a threat the U.S. cannot accept. It must be prevented by force from having those weapons by, because the fanatics in that regime will never give up their pursuit of them voluntarily. They have staked their prestige on getting the bomb.

The most direct and effective way to apply that force would be to destroy, from the air, the five facilities essential to Iran's nuclear weapons program. Any attempt by Israel' to do that would be a very close-run thing. Its air force is not quite strong enough to make sure of the job, nor can any of its aircraft carry the very large bombs that would be needed to destroy the deeply buried centrifuge gallery at Fordo. Israel might be able to destroy the underground galleries at Natanz with several direct hits by its 5,000 lb. bombs, and it could likely destroy the nuclear power plant at Bushehr and the uranium gasification facility at Esfahan. Israeli aircraft could certainly destroy the heavy water/future plutonium production facility at Arak, which is quite vulnerable. The cost to Israel in aircraft and pilots could be very heavy, and the results would be uncertain and incomplete.

The U.S., in contrast, has an enormous amount of air power, including 30,000 lb. bombs which would surely destroy the centrifuges buried at Fordo and Natanz. It also has the B-2's needed to deliver them without running a great risk of being shot down. Hundreds of cruise missiles would also be available to planners to use in breaking down Iran's air defenses without risking any pilots. Several studies of various types of air attacks on these facilities and others related to ballistic missiles have been made. They make clear that the U.S. could do the job using only a fraction of its air power, but they note the damage retaliation by Iran would probably cause.

But here's a thought: Make clear that if the U.S. ever were to launch such an attack, any retaliation by Iran would be answered with far heavier attacks on hundreds of military targets throughout the country. President Kennedy used a similar tactic in his speech to the nation on the Cuban Missile Crisis, when he--significantly--noted that the measures he was ordering were a first step. Plans had been drawn up to invade Cuba with six divisions, if necessary, and the 100,000 or so troops had been moved into forward positions. Khrushchev and his advisors knew they were in place to invade, and that helped make the threat credible. Kennedy was warning that if the blockade of Cuba did not persuade the USSR to remove its nuclear missiles, the U.S. was prepared to use much more serious measures to get its demands met.

An alternative plan would be to blockade Iran, setting up the blockade along shipping channels outside the Persian Gulf and outside the range of Iranian aircraft. Only empty tankers bound for Iranian ports to take on cargo would need to be turned back, with all other ships allowed to pass. I doubt the Tehran regime could survive either the severe economic damage from losing most of its oil exports, or the humiliation of being exposed to the world as powerless to lift the blockade. Oil is fungible, and I am sure other oil-exporting nations around the world would be happy to increase their exports to make up for the shortfall. Again, Iran could be warned that if it responded by attacking other Gulf states or their ships, the U.S. would then use so much force that Iran would be left with no navy or air force worth the name.
 
Last edited:
Fenton said:
Lol !!! WaPo in its haste to attack Trump seems to have accidently reported the truth.
Yes, after 8 years of Obama's disastrous ME policies, and after his legacy defining Iran deal, Iran is more powerful than ever.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...a_story.html?client=ms-android-hms-tmodefinin

I begining to think empowering Iran and extremist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood was his intention all along.
Click to expand...

Funny, they blamed Bush for like 5 years, but they blame Obama for less than a day. Who would've thought!
 
You are out of touch with reality.
 
matchlight said:
I think an Iran run by an aggressive Islamist regime and equipped with nuclear weapons would pose a threat the U.S. cannot accept. It must be prevented by force from having those weapons by, because the fanatics in that regime will never give up their pursuit of them voluntarily. They have staked their prestige on getting the bomb.

The most direct and effective way to apply that force would be to destroy, from the air, the five facilities essential to Iran's nuclear weapons program. Any attempt by Israel' to do that would be a very close-run thing. Its air force is not quite strong enough to make sure of the job, nor can any of its aircraft carry the very large bombs that would be needed to destroy the deeply buried centrifuge gallery at Fordo. Israel might be able to destroy the underground galleries at Natanz with several direct hits by its 5,000 lb. bombs, and it could likely destroy the nuclear power plant at Bushehr and the uranium gasification facility at Esfahan. Israeli aircraft could certainly destroy the heavy water/future plutonium production facility at Arak, which is quite vulnerable. The cost to Israel in aircraft and pilots could be very heavy, and the results would be uncertain and incomplete.

The U.S., in contrast, has an enormous amount of air power, including 30,000 lb. bombs which would surely destroy the centrifuges buried at Fordo and Natanz. It also has the B-2's needed to deliver them without running a great risk of being shot down. Hundreds of cruise missiles would also be available to planners to use in breaking down Iran's air defenses without risking any pilots. Several studies of various types of air attacks on these facilities and others related to ballistic missiles have been made. They make clear that the U.S. could do the job using only a fraction of its air power, but they note the damage retaliation by Iran would probably cause.

But here's a thought: Make clear that if the U.S. ever were to launch such an attack, any retaliation by Iran would be answered with far heavier attacks on hundreds of military targets throughout the country. President Kennedy used a similar tactic in his speech to the nation on the Cuban Missile Crisis, when he--significantly--noted that the measures he was ordering were a first step. Plans had been drawn up to invade Cuba with six divisions, if necessary, and the 100,000 or so troops had been moved into forward positions. Khrushchev and his advisors knew they were in place to invade, and that helped make the threat credible. Kennedy was warning that if the blockade of Cuba did not persuade the USSR to remove its nuclear missiles, the U.S. was prepared to use much more serious measures to get its demands met.

An alternative plan would be to blockade Iran, setting up the blockade along shipping channels outside the Persian Gulf and outside the range of Iranian aircraft. Only empty tankers bound for Iranian ports to take on cargo would need to be turned back, with all other ships allowed to pass. I doubt the Tehran regime could survive either the severe economic damage from losing most of its oil exports, or the humiliation of being exposed to the world as powerless to lift the blockade. Oil is fungible, and I am sure other oil-exporting nations around the world would be happy to increase their exports to make up for the shortfall. Again, Iran could be warned that if it responded by attacking other Gulf states or their ships, the U.S. would then use so much force that Iran would be left with no navy or air force worth the name.
Click to expand...

Thats a good military plan, but what about the political implications? Im not sure we can get into yet another war. Then you have the consequences of creating even more hostility in the region. And why does it have to be us? Where is the UN?
 
Fenton said:
Obama's supporters claim that Bush created ISIS, and the Iraqi Resolution led to all this carnage.
Obama seemed quite impressed back in 2011.
Click to expand...
So you think Obama's aliar and his proclamations are untrustworthy, but you bring up his proclamation because you think it has some bearing with certain people?

Obama was still wrong even if some people believe him.

Fenton said:
Of-course none of that changes the fact that Obama's decision to create a power vacuum and ignore for the next 5 years a rising threat led to ISIS.
Click to expand...
Invading Iraq without a realistic plan for creating a new one created the power vacuum in Iraq.
Letting an Iranian agent and his crew de-Baathify Iraq after the invasion created the power vacuum in Iraq.

Iraq was seriously screwed before Obama was even nominated for candidacy for the PotUS.

Despite the desire of some to believe Obama's pronouncement that Iraq was hunky-dory at some point in recent history, Iraq has continued to be in a state technically known as a mega-cluster**** pretty much since the invasion began.
Not saying that you desire to believe Obama's assertion that Iraq was doing well.
We each know that he was not telling how it was.
But lots of people really, really, really want to buy into Obama's line that Iraq was "stabilized" when we left.

You don't buy into Obama's bull****, do you?
 
jonny5 said:
Thats a good military plan, but what about the political implications? Im not sure we can get into yet another war. Then you have the consequences of creating even more hostility in the region. And why does it have to be us? Where is the UN?
Click to expand...

I don't see how the U.S. can allow the Islamists who rule Iran to get nuclear weapons. They might secretly give one or more of those weapons to Iran's jihadist proxies in Hizballah, and then, for the first time, cities in the U.S. and other countries would be vulnerable to a nuclear terrorist attack. A small suicidal crew could sail an ordinary cargo ship with an atom bomb concealed in its hold from an obscure port, dock it in, say, New York harbor, and set the bomb off. No evidence would remain to prove whose bomb it was, and it would take more than just strong suspicion to justify a nuclear counterattack against Iran.

I don't see any way to stop Iran from getting those weapons other than to destroy the facilities it has built to make them. It will not get rid of them just because we impose some economic sanctions, or because some toothless international body issues a resolution. The United Nations would be as useless in stopping Iran from getting the bomb as its predecessor, the League of Nations, was in stopping Mussolini from invading Abyssinia in 1935.

Why should the U.S. care about "hostility in the region?" Our concern should be the security of this country and its allies--not with whether Islamist fanatics in Tehran or anywhere else like Americans. This is the only nation with a conventional military force strong enough either to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons facilities from the air, or to force it to dismantle them itself through a blockade.

We did not have to come to this. We have come to it because of a policy of appeasing a jihadist regime.
 
Last edited:
matchlight said:
I don't see how the U.S. can allow the Islamists who rule Iran to get nuclear weapons. They might secretly give one or more of those weapons to Iran's jihadist proxies in Hizballah, and then, for the first time, cities in the U.S. and other countries would be vulnerable to a nuclear terrorist attack. A small suicidal crew could sail an ordinary cargo ship with an atom bomb concealed in its hold from an obscure port, dock it in, say, New York harbor, and set the bomb off. No evidence would remain to prove whose bomb it was, and it would take more than just strong suspicion to justify a nuclear counterattack against Iran.

I don't see any way to stop Iran from getting those weapons other than to destroy the facilities it has built to make them. It will not get rid of them just because we impose some economic sanctions, or because some toothless international body issues a resolution. The United Nations would be as useless in stopping Iran from getting the bomb as its predecessor, the League of Nations, was in stopping Mussolini from invading Abyssinia in 1935.

Why should the U.S. care about "hostility in the region?" Our concern should be the security of this country and its allies--not with whether Islamist fanatics in Tehran or anywhere else like Americans. This is the only nation with a conventional military force strong enough either to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons facilities from the air, or to force it to dismantle them itself through a blockade.

We did not have to come to this. We have come to it because of a policy of appeasing a jihadist regime.
Click to expand...

And also in part because we have spent decades at war in the region, both direct and via proxy. Would we be a target of the jihad if we didnt have US soldiers in Saudi Arabia? This was the main complaint of Al Qaeda. Perhaps the only answer is to kill every single jihadist. That seems the only way to make sure you get them all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom