• 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!

Is Obama Bluffing?

Is another WAR Okay?

  • Yes...we need to protect the free world!

    Votes: 1 5.9%

  • No...we have given enough to the world!

    Votes: 6 35.3%

  • Maybe...please explain

    Votes: 3 17.6%

  • You gotta be Kidding me

    Votes: 7 41.2%
  • Total voters
    17
It's not unbelievable the myth that Venezuelan anti-government protestors were being fired on stick like poo on a window for years. If anyone cares there are a handful of investigations that show otherwise. I'm pretty certain foreign media didn't correct itself.
 
The CIA was and is, a renegade paralell government that places disinfo stories in the media to cover up their illegal wars to install puppet govmnts.
 
Helix said:
It is my own opinion that war with Iran is an exceptionally poor option, and I hope that the president is able to steer it away from that.
Click to expand...
In your opinion is there a good option?
 
SypherAL said:
I am so sick and tired of treating crisis overseas with bigger urgency then our current economic problems. There are so many things we need fixed here in America, the last thing I care about is war between two countries that are still fighting religous wars with no end in sight. Iran will never launch a nuclear weapon, they know they would get blown off the map. American's would be shocked to find out that everything would be A.O.K. if we didn't get involved in this B.S.
Click to expand...

what a fascinating duo of assumptions.

Allow me to fill in some other interesting predictions that use the same logic:

"Iran will never send members of its' military to Iraq and Afghanistan to Kill Americans, because it knows that the US Military would respond in kind."
"Iran would never plan to assassinate a Saudi Arabian Ambassador on US Soil because it knows that the backlash would be too great."
"Iran would never claim wiping Israel off the face of the planet as an intention because it knows that it lacks the capability and would lose international good will for doing so."


What in the world makes you think that Iranian leadership believes that they would receive a nuclear response if Israel was wiped out in a successful First Strike that could be successfully pinned on a proxy such as, (say) Hezbollah? Do you really think that the US would nuke Iran? That Obama would nuke Iran post facto? Yeesh, and they say that neocons are always imposing their cultural assuptions on others.

When you think of how Iranians view foreigners, think about a pack of wolves. When we try to negotiate and offer compromise, they interpret that as us turning over on our back and offering our belly. It demonstrates to them that they are A) justified in what they are doing and B) therefore need not worry about response from us. We are, after all, too weak and afraid to wish to do anything. That is why they stopped their development (and it is why Libya gave up its WMD's alltogether) after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and started it up again after the development of a major anti-war movement here in the States. They perceive that we lack the will to stop them.

However, don't kid yourself. Obama will blast these guys into the stone age if necessary.
Click to expand...

I would hope so - it's just that I see no evidence whatsoever to support that claim, and plenty that argues against it.
 
Last edited:
Personally, if I were Netanyahu, and Obama assured me the US would cover my back, I'd be a bit skeptical. He's most likely just campaigning and trying to regain some Jewish votes.
 
lizzie said:
Personally, if I were Netanyahu, and Obama assured me the US would cover my back, I'd be a bit skeptical. He's most likely just campaigning and trying to regain some Jewish votes.
Click to expand...

The US has nothing to gain by attacking Iran..

If Israel is so keen to do it, then they should go right ahead.


Israel Doesn’t Need the West Bank To Be Secure

Martin van Creveld
The Jewish Daily Forward (Opinion)
December 15, 2010 - 12:00am

Israel Doesn
 
sharon said:
The US has nothing to gain by attacking Iran..

If Israel is so keen to do it, then they should go right ahead.


Israel Doesn’t Need the West Bank To Be Secure
Click to expand...

Where did I say or indicate otherwise?
 
lizzie said:
Personally, if I were Netanyahu, and Obama assured me the US would cover my back, I'd be a bit skeptical
Click to expand...

yeah, I think I would ask the Poles how they felt about that before I based my nations survival on my trust and confidence in the current administrations' Iron Will to defend it's allies.
 
cpwill said:
yeah, I think I would ask the Poles how they felt about that before I based my nations survival on my trust and confidence in the current administrations' Iron Will to defend it's allies.
Click to expand...

Israel has been a terrible ally and is of no strategic importance to the US.

If they were attacked by Iran, we should defend them (that's quite a fantasy) but otherwise there is no reason for the US to be goaded into a war by Bibi Netanyahu.
 
I do not beleive he is bluffing by any means. He has many options before an actual war and he is using those tools before he would entertain a war.
 
digsbe said:
The one who is gong to decide if there will be a war or not is Iran, not the US.
Click to expand...

Like Iraq decided there would be a war on them by the most powerful military on the planet???

What will be your sign of an act of war against the US by Iran?
 
Last edited:
I am sick of us being the "save the world" gov. Save our damn country and then I will jump back on the bandwagonof trying to save the damn world. :(
 
Misterveritis said:
In your opinion is there a good option?
Click to expand...

Yes. The best option is the immediate creation of a national program with the mission of transitioning the country away from oil as soon as possible.

If we can put men on the moon with 1960s electronics, we can innovate a non-fossil based domestic energy source. The Iranian nuclear program is funded by oil sales.
 
sharon said:
Israel has been a terrible ally and is of no strategic importance to the US.
Click to expand...

Israels' national rapid response teams were in the air and headed towards New York on 9/11 before ours were. When we went into Kuwait in 1991, Saddam Hussein sent SCUD after SCUD into their cities to kill their children in the streets and they held their fire and did not retaliate - willingly exposing their own lives because we asked them to. Their intelligence gathering operations are second to none in a region where we are often operating blind. They offer the only pocket of stability in a vital region, and the alliance between them and us is probably second in importance only to our alliance with Britain - and as that nation fades, Israel will become more important, as will Australia, Singapore, and India.

If they were attacked by Iran, we should defend them (that's quite a fantasy) but otherwise there is no reason for the US to be goaded into a war by Bibi Netanyahu.
Click to expand...

Under most administrations I would agree that we likely would defend them. Under this one I sadly doubt it. Not without reason did Kissinger and other observors note the current danger of being a US Ally.
 
Kali said:
I am sick of us being the "save the world" gov. Save our damn country and then I will jump back on the bandwagonof trying to save the damn world.
Click to expand...

what a fascinating notion - the US is not effected by events overseas. So what do you suggest we do for an economy once the current one is destroyed following the collapse of world wide trade? Back to subsistence farming, eh?
 
MKULTRABOY said:
To reduce their domestic dependance on oil. :lol:
Click to expand...

no. they have lots of oil. their critical vulnerability is the lack of ability to make gasoline.
 
cpwill said:
what a fascinating duo of assumptions.

Allow me to fill in some other interesting predictions that use the same logic:

"Iran will never send members of its' military to Iraq and Afghanistan to Kill Americans, because it knows that the US Military would respond in kind."
"Iran would never plan to assassinate a Saudi Arabian Ambassador on US Soil because it knows that the backlash would be too great."
"Iran would never claim wiping Israel off the face of the planet as an intention because it knows that it lacks the capability and would lose international good will for doing so."


What in the world makes you think that Iranian leadership believes that they would receive a nuclear response if Israel was wiped out in a successful First Strike that could be successfully pinned on a proxy such as, (say) Hezbollah? Do you really think that the US would nuke Iran? That Obama would nuke Iran post facto? Yeesh, and they say that neocons are always imposing their cultural assuptions on others.

When you think of how Iranians view foreigners, think about a pack of wolves. When we try to negotiate and offer compromise, they interpret that as us turning over on our back and offering our belly. It demonstrates to them that they are A) justified in what they are doing and B) therefore need not worry about response from us. We are, after all, too weak and afraid to wish to do anything. That is why they stopped their development (and it is why Libya gave up its WMD's alltogether) after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and started it up again after the development of a major anti-war movement here in the States. They perceive that we lack the will to stop them.



I would hope so - it's just that I see no evidence whatsoever to support that claim, and plenty that argues against it.
Click to expand...

What kind of evidence would you need to support the claim that Obama would strike Iran if necessary? A crystal ball? A psychic? Obama is smart. He understands using military action is an expense, something our previous president (im not going to name names... but his middle initial was W.) failed to understand which lead to our current economic recession. There are plenty of ways to attack a country without using military action, such as sanctions. Obama's foreign policy is his strong attribute and I really don't think war will emerge with this iran situation. Iran's leader is not crazy, he just wants his country to be recognized as an emerging power. Obama is the President of the United States, he will strike if necessary. I have no idea how you could draw the conclusion otherwise unless you are using "feelings" about our president instead of facts to base your decisions.
 
cpwill said:
:) I've been pretty busy as of late, and only catch bits and pieces. If he said he was willing to bomb Iran to keep them from passing a threshold, all well and good. I'm just relatively suspicious that the actual policy is "delay the decision as to whether or not we are at that threshold until after the election, and hope that that works"; which would go not a little way towards explaining why the White House seeks to argue for pushing that threshold as far to the right as possible.
Click to expand...

Obama Speech Comments:

"Obama said Sunday he too would not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran and would act -- with military force, if necessary -- to prevent that from happening.

But "as president and commander in chief, I have a deeply held preference for peace over war," he said, and "I firmly believe that an opportunity still remains for diplomacy -- backed by pressure -- to succeed.

"The United States and Israel both assess that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon, and we are exceedingly vigilant in monitoring their program."

At the same time, he said Iranian leaders "should understand that I do not have a policy of containment -- I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Containment was a U.S. Cold War policy to prevent the spread of Soviet communism. It represented a middle ground between detente, or developing working relationships with governments, and "rollback," or forcing change in major foreign-government policies, often by replacing a ruling regime.

Obama said the United States would "do what it takes to preserve Israel's qualitative military edge -- because Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat."

Netanyahu, who was on a state visit to Canada before traveling to Washington, responded quickly to Obama's speech.

"I appreciated the fact that he said Israel must be able to defend itself, by itself, against any threat," Netanyahu told reporters in Ottawa, Ontario.

"I appreciated the fact that President Obama reiterated his position that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, and that all options are on the table. I also appreciated the fact that he made clear that when it comes to a nuclear-armed Iran, containment is simply not an option."

Read more: Obama on Iran: 'Speak softly, carry stick' - UPI.com
 
Even as somebody who prefers offensive military strategy I just can't get behind threats of military strikes on Iran. Eventually we've got to force diplomacy to work. We can't afford to keep spending money on strikes which merely piss people off. It's like shooting a beehive with a bb gun.
 
Personally, I don't give a damn about Israel, I think that if we're going to bomb something, we ought to bomb Jerusalem and get rid of the religious reasons for this asinine conflict. Screw the Christians, Jews and Muslims. The only reason we've become a target of the Middle East is because we won't leave them alone. Heck, we all know why Iran wants a nuke, it's a guarantee that the U.S. won't fly over there and start bombing. We only attack people who can't adequately fight back, we never go attack real threats, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Why? They have nukes. Yet all of the 9/11 bombers came from those two countries. Go figure.

If the Muslim world wants to take Israel out, so be it. Nobody has a "right" to exist. If they can't fight their own battles, they haven't earned it.
 
Cephus said:
If the Muslim world wants to take Israel out, so be it. Nobody has a "right" to exist. If they can't fight their own battles, they haven't earned it.
Click to expand...

Hell man- when they have earned it, the rest of the region cries like babies and craps on themselves.
 
lizzie said:
Hell man- when they have earned it, the rest of the region cries like babies and craps on themselves.
Click to expand...

They earned it? You mean we handed it to them on a ****ing silver platter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom