• 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!

Time for War with Iran

What happened yesterday? What about the day before? What happened today?

You claimed that "real terrorism happens daily" and yet you gave examples of mass shootings, which is vastly different than terrorism. It's clear that you haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about. I'm guessing that you think an AR-15 is a "high powered weapon" too, lol.

And you still have yet to tell us what you're prepared to do to stop this. So tell us, what are you prepared to do?

Most western (civilized) nations do not allow civilians to possess AR-15 ASSAULT Rifles.They have reasonable gun laws...Something you trump supporters think infringes on your so-called "freedoms"
 
I appreciate you finally waving the white flag on a topic you know you were proven to have posted a falsehood about.

Have a great day and maybe next time try not to say things that are not true.
 
Most western (civilized) nations do not allow civilians to possess AR-15 ASSAULT Rifles.They have reasonable gun laws...Something you trump supporters think infringes on your so-called "freedoms"

The AR-15 is not an assault rifle and it's certainly not just right-wingers in America that own guns, or feel that you should be able to own guns. In fact, most of the people that think you SHOULDN'T have guns are center-right, corporate types like Hillary Clinton and Obama and ****.

I do agree that America makes itself look bad with the way our gun laws work - not because we're allowed to have them, but that there isn't a more robust and centralized system to handle it. In my state, for instance, there's literally like one lady that has to handle virtually all the paperwork for firearms - concealed carry permits, form 1s, form 4s, whatever.
 
I appreciate you finally waving the white flag on a topic you know you were proven to have posted a falsehood about.

Have a great day and maybe next time try not to say things that are not true.

No white flag, just boredom with you. You've proved nothing more than an old ragged smelly sock Dog refuses to pass on for better toys. It is time to stop honoring yourself for acumen that isn't there. Ta ta.
 
The AR-15 is not an assault rifle and it's certainly not just right-wingers in America that own guns, or feel that you should be able to own guns. In fact, most of the people that think you SHOULDN'T have guns are center-right, corporate types like Hillary Clinton and Obama and ****.

I do agree that America makes itself look bad with the way our gun laws work - not because we're allowed to have them, but that there isn't a more robust and centralized system to handle it. In my state, for instance, there's literally like one lady that has to handle virtually all the paperwork for firearms - concealed carry permits, form 1s, form 4s, whatever.

Don't allow anyone to hijack this thread into another meaningless domestic gun control thread. There is no denying the same foreign liberal anti gun ownership mentality is more about fear of their own civilian populations rising in revolutions for change of power than morality. The evidence lies in how great a market they are for our own myth making entertainment of the good guy with the gun conquering evil. Stars Wars, the franchise of outer space westerns, the most successful international franchise in the world of entertainment, earns more money overseas than it does domestically, and without the naked babes in Game of Thrones. And domestically it has replaced the western with Alan Ladd riding off into the sunset after subduing all evil leaving young boys and women yearning for more as the credits roll on rainy weekend afternoons.

This thread is about imminent war, actually another heated battle for a long running war in progress for more than 1500 years, and denial of the same by fruitless idealistic well wishers. Not gun controls in America.
 
War should be the last option, but Iran is becoming increasingly hostile and aggressive. Would be nice if European leaders would stop keeping their heads buried in the sand as well and clinging to the failure of the Iran nuclear deal.

That 'failure' was of Trump's making. The IAEA and the US Government have both said that Iran has been in full compliance with the nuclear deal. If you want someone to blame look to the retard in the White House who pulled out of the deal and, as a consequence, has increased tensions in the region.
 
Those options were open to the rest of the world since long before an old crippled man in wheel chair was tossed in the ocean to die. Nothing has changed. Ask the Hindi, the Buddhists, who have suffered far more than we in the west. Iran has underwritten and attacked through proxies, as have other muslim nations. Iran has been the worst. Iranians are arrested and deported from Indonesia, the most populated muslim nation in the world, because of the harm they have done there, as soon as they are detected. Muslims from no other nation are treated the same. China, which has no love of any western religions, has put its foot down on the neck of native muslims rather than accept their mayhem, and far more severely than those of any other religions.

Sanctions may topple the current aggressive muslim government in Iran, but they are just another form of diplomacy that will not change the reality that islam requires the submission of the world to the words of a long dead prophet who assumed the mantle of god. You should learn how and why, his motivations, and then recognize what the world faces with this militant religion. A religion with no axial moment discovering a forgiving god. You can declare your self as unbeliever of superstition, it will not change those who believe and their innate hate for you.

We are already in war not of our making. You are the target of the enemy, no matter how nice the people seem on a personal level when they drive you somewhere in a taxi, sell you a newspaper and chewing gum, or serve you halel barbecue street food. Kabobs are tasty, but the price is not about money.

1.7 billion Muslims populate the world, and you're terrified of a tiny minority of fundamentalist idiots? Do you honestly believe 1.7 billion Muslims are bent on global hegemony? The Chinese leadership has been persecuting Muslims for the same reasons Hitler persecuted Jews; they don't conform on demand and follow a faith totally at odds with Chinese communism. You would do yourself a service by learning.
The history of China's Muslims and what's behind their persecution
 
Last edited:
Most western (civilized) nations do not allow civilians to possess AR-15 ASSAULT Rifles.They have reasonable gun laws...Something you trump supporters think infringes on your so-called "freedoms"
So, no examples that "real terrorism happens daily" in the US - strike 1

AR-15's are not assault rifles - strike 2

Comparing the US to other countries, which has nothing to do with "real terrorism happens daily" - strike 3

And you still haven't told us what you're prepared to do to stop all this fantasy bull**** that you keep spewing.
 
No white flag
Of course it is a white flag. You're leaving because you know facts are against you and you won't get away with posting that lie.

You've proved nothing more than an old ragged smelly sock Dog refuses to pass on for better toys.
The IAEA and the US State Department have said Iran is complying. You say they are not, without any evidence.

I guess we can leave it up to others to decide who is telling the truth and who pushing a lie. Not that it will be that difficult for most, I assure you.
 
Of course it is a white flag. You're leaving because you know facts are against you and you won't get away with posting that lie.

The IAEA and the US State Department have said Iran is complying. You say they are not, without any evidence.

I guess we can leave it up to others to decide who is telling the truth and who pushing a lie. Not that it will be that difficult for most, I assure you.

Your fantasies are impressive. Time will demonstrate the truth, not a choir.
 
So, no examples that "real terrorism happens daily" in the US - strike 1

AR-15's are not assault rifles - strike 2

Comparing the US to other countries, which has nothing to do with "real terrorism happens daily" - strike 3

And you still haven't told us what you're prepared to do to stop all this fantasy bull**** that you keep spewing.

Another angry trump supporter trying to define what a "ASSAULT" Rifle is.....The Real terrorists are the NRA fueled gun nuts that advocate easy access to high powered weapons, that make these terrorist acts possible....
 
With 17 months left to election, Trump is starting to lay the groundwork for attacking Iran for his reelection. Seems a bit too soon to me but maybe they figure it will take 6 months to a year to prepare and to rally up the country.

So far Trump has less wars under his belt than the previous admin and has avoided going to war with Syria when both sides of the political aisle were calling for it.
 
Another angry trump supporter trying to define what a "ASSAULT" Rifle is.....The Real terrorists are the NRA fueled gun nuts that advocate easy access to high powered weapons, that make these terrorist acts possible....

I'm not angry nor am I a "Trump supporter" in the paint that you're dipping your preschool sized paintbrush into. The "NRA fueled gun nuts" aren't terrorists and they aren't the ones who are committing these mass shootings. The AR-15 isn't a "high powered weapon" as a matter of fact. You can keep telling yourself the same lie over and over again if it makes you feel important in any minuscule way, but it's a lie nonetheless. I'd also advise you to go look up the word terrorism because you're not using the word correctly by any stretch.

Still waiting on what you're going to do to stop these "terrorists". Why do you keep avoiding that question? Is it because your true colors would come out or is it because you have come to the realization that you are powerless to stop something that isn't what you say it is?
 
Of course it is a white flag. You're leaving because you know facts are against you and you won't get away with posting that lie.

The IAEA and the US State Department have said Iran is complying. You say they are not, without any evidence.

I guess we can leave it up to others to decide who is telling the truth and who pushing a lie. Not that it will be that difficult for most, I assure you.

The dispute over whether or not Iran was in full compliance with the agreement is quibbling over an irrelevancy; the core issue has been whether or not that agreement was a good deal (or at least a better deal than none). As such, being in compliance with a deal that in theory only delays, not eliminates, the development of Iran's nuclear weapons while lacking key verification requirements is cause enough to withdraw.

Mind you, I am not saying that just because Trump had cause he should have necessarily withdrawn from the agreement, even if it was a poorly negotiated or bad deal. But an agreement that removes sanctions levers against a country in return for narrow purposes has repercussions beyond that nuclear issues. Sanctions are a tool that can be used for a variety of inducements to cease aggressive behavior such as Iran's IRBM or ICBM ballistic missile development, terrorism and war against the US and allies, etc.). No agreement can stand if those same revoked sanctions must be (and have) reemployed because of new activities and aggressions.

So Iran got its 150 billion in frozen assets and funds, the west got a weak agreement that at best will delay, not end, the acquisition of nukes by Iran. Iran's still got the billions (that of which it has not spent on terrorism) and its seeming reaction to US voluntary withdrawal by the US and sanctions for terrorism is a shadow war of death and violence against the west.

So Europe will have to make a choice, either join the US in sanctions and military action OR cower and beg the Iranian's to stop hurting them. And in the meantime the Iranian government has a choice, either fully and honestly give up all future nuclear development and cease terrorism and proxy wars, or face a bleak economic future (assuming, of course, the euro's have a spine).

You can side with the US or with Iran; there is no viable third choice. So whose side are you on?
 
Last edited:
So far Trump has less wars under his belt than the previous admin and has avoided going to war with Syria when both sides of the political aisle were calling for it.

First,

Obama slashed the number of U.S. troops in war zones from 150,000 to 14,000, and stopped the flow of American soldiers coming home in body bags. He also used diplomacy, not war, to defuse a tense nuclear standoff with Iran.

Obama DID change the way we fight war and he DID convert it more to drone strikes than what we knew traditionally as war. So, let's see what happened next...

According to a 2018 report in The Daily Beast, Obama launched 186 drone strikes in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan during his first two years in office. In Trump’s first two years, he launched 238.

The Trump administration has carried out 176 strikes in Yemen in just two years, compared with 154 there during all eight years of Obama’s tenure, according to a count by The Associated Press and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

Experts also say drone strikes under President Trump have surged in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.

P.S. And just a quick reminder, it was well into Obama term that we finally got Osama Bin Laden
 
Last edited:
Your fantasies are impressive. Time will demonstrate the truth, not a choir.
You can't even attempt to debate merits anymore. You know you got caught posting a lie.

The IAEA and the US Government both said Iran was complying with the deal, so you posted a lie when you said Trump had a good faith basis for pulling out. You refusing to admit you posted a lie is a you problem.
The dispute over whether or not Iran was in full compliance with the agreement is quibbling over an irrelevancy
No, it was the very debate between OldFatGuy and myself.

If you don't have any idea what you are talking about, it is probably a good idea not to interject.

Mind you, I am not saying that just because Trump had cause
He didn't have cause. That is the point.

Trump defenders are the worst liars.

You can side with the US or with Iran
The United States said Iran was complying and that the agreement was a win for the world.

So, in this case, I am siding with the USA when they say Iran was following the terms of a deal which made the world safer.

So I guess the question for you is why do you not believe the United States?
 
Trump defenders are the worst liars.

You still don't get it. My analysis of the Iranian American issues has nothing to do with Trump. Call me a liar again and I will speak to the mods about a harassment trolling grievance.

The Iranian government has freely admitted it has not been in compliance with the agreement since day one. It has unilaterally admitted it is responsible for the security of the Hormuz Strait as recently as last week. Being deaf and blind is your problem. Your partisan inability to accept world views other than your own is only outdistanced by blind obstinacy to accept reality.

Refusal to agree with you and accept your tunnel vision makes no one else a liar.
 
You still don't get it. My analysis of the Iranian American issues has nothing to do with Trump. Call me a liar again and I will speak to the mods about a harassment trolling grievance.

The Iranian government has freely admitted it has not been in compliance with the agreement since day one. It has unilaterally admitted it is responsible for the security of the Hormuz Strait as recently as last week. Being deaf and blind is your problem. Your partisan inability to accept world views other than your own is only outdistanced by blind obstinacy to accept reality.

Refusal to agree with you and accept your tunnel vision makes no one else a liar.

Please provide evidence of that fact and we might have something to discuss. Its been shown to you that both the IAEA and the US government found Iran to be in compliance. If what you say is so freely available, you should be able to provide the link to that evidence. Until then, since we have facts to the contrary, its easy to understand why its been stated that you are making things up.
 
Please provide evidence of that fact and we might have something to discuss. Its been shown to you that both the IAEA and the US government found Iran to be in compliance. If what you say is so freely available, you should be able to provide the link to that evidence. Until then, since we have facts to the contrary, its easy to understand why its been stated that you are making things up.

He is just another trump loving loud mouth liar.....Enough said
 
Please provide evidence of that fact and we might have something to discuss. Its been shown to you that both the IAEA and the US government found Iran to be in compliance. If what you say is so freely available, you should be able to provide the link to that evidence. Until then, since we have facts to the contrary, its easy to understand why its been stated that you are making things up.

One blind fool is enough. Look up Iranian government radio broadcasts, listen to them and get back to me.
 
One blind fool is enough. Look up Iranian government radio broadcasts, listen to them and get back to me.

Not one of those broadcasts dates back to when Trump pulled us out of the agreement. At the time he did so, Iran, the IAEA and Congress were all in agreement that Iran was in compliance. When I did the search you suggested (I searched "iranian government radio broadcast about compliance with nuclear deal"), all I got was a ton of articles that went back about 16 hours. Last time I checked, we didn't destroy that agreement 17 hours ago, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. For that matter, even those articles and broadcasts simply said they were going to scale back adherence, not completely ignore it. They apparently want to increase the yields they are currently getting, but not even to a level that would allow for a weapon at any rate.

All I'm asking for is ONE article to back up your claim. Its not that hard if it exists.
 
Not one of those broadcasts dates back to when Trump pulled us out of the agreement. At the time he did so, Iran, the IAEA and Congress were all in agreement that Iran was in compliance. When I did the search you suggested (I searched "iranian government radio broadcast about compliance with nuclear deal"), all I got was a ton of articles that went back about 16 hours. Last time I checked, we didn't destroy that agreement 17 hours ago, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. For that matter, even those articles and broadcasts simply said they were going to scale back adherence, not completely ignore it. They apparently want to increase the yields they are currently getting, but not even to a level that would allow for a weapon at any rate.

All I'm asking for is ONE article to back up your claim. Its not that hard if it exists.

Horse manure. I am not responsible for your lack of search skills. Those broadcasts started before Obama was in office. The day of the agreement signing, the broadcasts stated Iran would never be constrained by agreements with infidels. The Iran National Radio is an arm of the Revolutionary Guard.

Frankly, I don't give a damn what you think. Your ignorance is your own to own.
 
Horse manure. I am not responsible for your lack of search skills. Those broadcasts started before Obama was in office. The day of the agreement signing, the broadcasts stated Iran would never be constrained by agreements with infidels. The Iran National Radio is an arm of the Revolutionary Guard.

Frankly, I don't give a damn what you think. Your ignorance is your own to own.

My ignorance may be mine, but your obstinance is yours. You made a claim that has been shown to at least have contrary evidence to that claim. You were asked to provide the evidence you used to make said claim. You are apparently unwilling to do so. I never said you HAD to, simply pointed out that its customary in forum debate to provide evidence of your claim. You do you.

That said, even if you are correct, it doesn't much matter, since the words didn't match thier actions. Why do I say that? Because every agency tasked with ensuring that they adhered to the deal in fact stated that they were in compliance with the deal up to and including when Donald Trump pulled out of that deal. Hell, even after that, the countries that DID stay in the agreement STILL say you are wrong and that that are STILL in compliance. Even if you are correct, it amounts to a teenager grumbling under thier breath about a task thier parent has told them to do, all while doing that very task. They don't have to like it, they simply have to do it, and according to every agency that is tasked with checking to make sure they are, they are.

Unless you have something that says they are currently not in compliance or at some other time weren't in compliance (not that they were claiming they never would comply while they were complying), you are flat out incorrect. As you said to me, your ignorance is yours to own, and you seem to be willing to wear that badge with honor.
 
The dispute over whether or not Iran was in full compliance with the agreement is quibbling over an irrelevancy; the core issue has been whether or not that agreement was a good deal (or at least a better deal than none). As such, being in compliance with a deal that in theory only delays, not eliminates, the development of Iran's nuclear weapons while lacking key verification requirements is cause enough to withdraw.

Mind you, I am not saying that just because Trump had cause he should have necessarily withdrawn from the agreement, even if it was a poorly negotiated or bad deal. But an agreement that removes sanctions levers against a country in return for narrow purposes has repercussions beyond that nuclear issues. Sanctions are a tool that can be used for a variety of inducements to cease aggressive behavior such as Iran's IRBM or ICBM ballistic missile development, terrorism and war against the US and allies, etc.). No agreement can stand if those same revoked sanctions must be (and have) reemployed because of new activities and aggressions.

So Iran got its 150 billion in frozen assets and funds, the west got a weak agreement that at best will delay, not end, the acquisition of nukes by Iran. Iran's still got the billions (that of which it has not spent on terrorism) and its seeming reaction to US voluntary withdrawal by the US and sanctions for terrorism is a shadow war of death and violence against the west.

So Europe will have to make a choice, either join the US in sanctions and military action OR cower and beg the Iranian's to stop hurting them. And in the meantime the Iranian government has a choice, either fully and honestly give up all future nuclear development and cease terrorism and proxy wars, or face a bleak economic future (assuming, of course, the euro's have a spine).

You can side with the US or with Iran; there is no viable third choice. So whose side are you on?

How do you think Europe will choose?
 
Back
Top Bottom