• 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!

Should the US launch a military strike on Iran?

Should the US launch a military strike on Iran?

  • Total voters
    41
pbrauer said:
You just lied, I never said all of the problems were due to President Bush invading Iraq. In fact you quoted me as they were the exact words i wrote. Not even close dude.

And if you don't know how the Sunni and Shia sects fit in the story, there no sense speaking to you.
Click to expand...

As if there was any point in speaking to you.

I do not care how you nuance the great Obama, you are worse off today whether it is because sunni's are killinmg babies or shiites. in the end you have had NOTHING BUT 'trouble" the middle east no matter how much you whine about George W. Bush''
 
Glen Contrarian said:
You mean, like getting us completely out of Iraq, Almost completely out of Afghanistan, taking us from losing 800K jobs per month to a record fifty-plus (and counting) consecutive months of private-sector job growth, growing the government at a slower pace than any president since Eisenhower, having the federal tax burden on individuals lower than at any time since Truman, having the Dow hit record territory fifty-odd times last year (after it was below 7000 two months after he took office), and now even the S&P and Nasdaq are near record territory...yeah, Obama's really tried to destroy America, huh?




Really? How, exactly, are you arriving at SEVEN wars? Are you counting Libya, wherein we had ZERO boots on the ground? Are you counting Syria, where we also have ZERO boots on the ground? Are you STILL counting Iraq and Afghanistan as if you think that Obama should have been able to just wave his magical pen and make those two wars end the day he took office? Really, guy, why the heck do you think that Bush Sr. said that NO, we shouldn't go to Baghdad because there was no viable EXIT strategy????



FAR better, yes!



So...now you're counting Iran as a war? And as far as Yemen and Pakistan go, how many troops have we lost in those places? Are we spending TWELVE BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH specifically on war and occupation? How many soldiers are we losing every freaking month as compared to under Bush Jr.?

In other words, guy, I suggest you go find a dictionary, look up the word "objectivity", and learn to abide by it.



Um, as I recall, Bush allowed Russia to come in and effectively annex Georgia and did NOTHING about it. And gee, when Putin was able to do that without any real action from the West, did that give him the idea that he could do so with the Crimea? Yep! And perhaps you should not forget that preventing all-out war - which could result in a general thermonuclear exchange resulting in the effectively complete destruction of America (and Russia, and most of the rest of the free world) is infinitely more important than sending in the U.S. Army to try to take back the Crimea or to support the Ukraine.



If you want to lay blame, the blame, sir, belongs with the insurance companies that - AFTER Obamacare was passed - STILL continued to sell policies that they knew damn well wouldn't meet Obamacare standards. These, sir, were the plans that had to be changed.



Funny! Of course, Politifact says he broke 22% of his promises. Oh, that's right - I forgot! Politifact is biased...probably because reality has a liberal bias....



And I want to thank you for showing all and sundry how the Right has lost all semblance of objectivity, that reality means far less to them than does taking every possible opportunity to tear down Obama.
Click to expand...



You waste your time.

I have stated that I do not believe you. why fill a page with a rant from everything from how the war was "ended" and other outright lies of your "you can keep your plan president to ****ing nasdaq, in the end it's all White House propaganda.

You are losing the war on terror. Terrorists control more territory now than ever before.

Thanks for playing

Good bye
 
Fearandloathing said:
You waste your time.

I have stated that I do not believe you. why fill a page with a rant from everything from how the war was "ended" and other outright lies of your "you can keep your plan president to ****ing nasdaq, in the end it's all White House propaganda.

You are losing the war on terror. Terrorists control more territory now than ever before.

Thanks for playing

Good bye
Click to expand...

Of the measurable claims I made in my post, could you point out which of them are false?
 
Fearandloathing said:
You waste your time.

I have stated that I do not believe you. why fill a page with a rant from everything from how the war was "ended" and other outright lies of your "you can keep your plan president to ****ing nasdaq, in the end it's all White House propaganda.

You are losing the war on terror. Terrorists control more territory now than ever before.

Thanks for playing

Good bye
Click to expand...

How exactly do you win a war on an ideology?

You are correct when you say the terrorist control more territory now than before. The before is before President Bush invaded Iraq, you don't seem to understand he upset the apple cart.
 
sawdust said:
I'm not a pacifist. Obama, and to a lesser point Bush, dialed back our rules of engagement that soldiers should have a lawyer to accompany them to justify wether or not they should engage the enemy. As long as these conditions exist, I'm not in favor of putting them in harms way. I won't support any war until the rules of engagement lets us kill em all and lets God sort it out. We should use overwhelming power, eliminate the enemy and then leave. Modern warfare is too PC to fight.

In the interim, the occasional drone strike kills families and pisses off the neighborhood all in the name of not acquiring captives so the empty beds in GITMO can be filled.
Click to expand...

So you are bothered because we aren't killing ENOUGH civilians. Now I get it. I don't understand why we should risk lives to capture terrorists. What are we going to do with them? Feed and house them for the rest of their lives?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
So that means that the Iran-Iraq war was our war, too, huh?
Click to expand...

Well, lessee now. We gave Saddam precursors for poison gas and satellite info and we gave Iran spare parts for the aircraft etc. that we had sold them. It's the good ol' USA where, "War is good business, and business is good." Don't be missin' no marketing opportunities, eh?
 
DaveFagan said:
Well, lessee now. We gave Saddam precursors for poison gas and satellite info and we gave Iran spare parts for the aircraft etc. that we had sold them. It's the good ol' USA where, "War is good business, and business is good." Don't be missin' no marketing opportunities, eh?
Click to expand...

Well, the problem is, you're one of the very few who think that if we sell a bullet to one side or both sides in a war, we're somehow at war, too. Of course the fact that very few think this way doesn't automatically mean you're wrong...but dude, you're going to have a very, very hard time convincing almost every historian ever born that they're wrong about what constitutes wartime status of a nation.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Nah, he would only forecast what is to be bomnbed and when so they can get free.

He's afraid of losing his peace prize
Click to expand...
LOL - but the only reason they'd take his peace prize away is to upgrade it to an appeasement prize, so he's got nothing to fear. ;)
 
iguanaman said:
So you are bothered because we aren't killing ENOUGH civilians. Now I get it. I don't understand why we should risk lives to capture terrorists. What are we going to do with them? Feed and house them for the rest of their lives?
Click to expand...

You don't get anything.. If we fight a war, we fight to win or we don't fight. War isn't something to do half way. That seems to be what the Obama administration has mastered.
 
sawdust said:
You don't get anything.. If we fight a war, we fight to win or we don't fight. War isn't something to do half way. That seems to be what the Obama administration has mastered.
Click to expand...

Actually Obama has mastered the withdrawal of troops from 2 war zones. I guess getting our men out of harms way is not a priority for you like it is for Obama. Dying for nothing is a Republican thing.
 
iguanaman said:
Actually Obama has mastered the withdrawal of troops from 2 war zones. I guess getting our men out of harms way is not a priority for you like it is for Obama. Dying for nothing is a Republican thing.
Click to expand...

Oh yea, you're right, his withdrawal from Iraq caused us to go back in and now we are bombing ISIS while they and their affiliates are taking over the Middle East and Africa. Tell me what a freaking genius Obama is. If he didn't learn his lesson in Afghanistan when we leave they will have to change the name to Talibanistan. Yemen was a model for his leading from behind strategy. Please tell me how that's working out.
 
sawdust said:
Oh yea, you're right, his withdrawal from Iraq caused us to go back in and now we are bombing ISIS while they and their affiliates are taking over the Middle East and Africa. Tell me what a freaking genius Obama is. If he didn't learn his lesson in Afghanistan when we leave they will have to change the name to Talibanistan. Yemen was a model for his leading from behind strategy. Please tell me how that's working out.
Click to expand...

Well then there is how he left Libya....and what it has become today.

He has failed in Foreign Policy in almost every way. Plus where is that trade treaty?
 
a351 said:
Iran is already attacking US troops and allies through proxies and the support of terror groups throughout the regions/ That ship has sailed long ago. Whether or not sanctions could survive the attack is another matter. The degradation of their facilities lessens the need for sanctions in the short term, which have proven to be marginally effective at best to date. The financial capability to rebuild their facilities is less pertinent than the human capital and time necessary to do so. Just how many times will Iran build up their castle if we make it clear we'll knock it down and with successively greater force. My broader point stands however, Cenk is simply fear mongering and being intellectually lazy as usual. An invasion is not a inevitability, nor is a prolonged military campaign. :shrug:
Click to expand...

To the bolded. Yes, it's to be expected. We have troops in their backyard, engaged in activity that's not in Iran's best interest.
 
MMC said:
Well then there is how he left Libya....and what it has become today.

He has failed in Foreign Policy in almost every way. Plus where is that trade treaty?
Click to expand...

Funny, how those in foreign countries see the President in a very different light than some Americans view him

How the World Sees Obama

Beleaguered at home, U.S. President Barack Obama remains beloved in many nations abroad. And he is far more popular than his predecessor George W. Bush. But the bloom is definitely off the Obama rose.

Obama’s election in 2008 was widely approved of around the world, and there were high expectations for the incoming American leader, whose election seemed to promise an end to the anti-Americanism that had plagued Washington’s relations with the rest of the world for the past several years.

And, despite revelations such as National Security Agency spying on foreign leaders and the growing sense in the United States that President Obama is already a lame duck domestically, his continued (if somewhat diminished) favorability abroad suggests he remains a force to be reckoned with in international affairs.
Click to expand...
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Remember, even Colin Powell was lied to:

Ex-secretary of state Colin Powell called on the CIA and Pentagon to explain how he was given unreliable information which proved key to the US case for invading Iraq, the Guardian reported Wednesday.

Powell’s landmark speech to the United Nations on February 5, 2003, cited intelligence about Iraq leader Saddam Hussein’s bioweapons programme gained from a defector, codenamed Curveball.

But he has now admitted that he lied to topple the dictator, in an interview with the Guardian.

“It has been known for several years that the source called Curveball was totally unreliable,” Powell told the British newspaper.

“The question should be put to the CIA and the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) as to why this wasn’t known before the false information was put into the (report) sent to Congress, the president’s state of the union address and my 5 February presentation to the UN.”
Click to expand...

It was known, but like Downing Street said, Bush was fixing the intelligence around the policy. And of course Bush entered the WH with a policy of regime change in Iraq. His first foreign policy meeting was to discuss just that. And as PNAC stated, all that was needed was a new Pearl Harbor and the neocons could implement everything they wanted to.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Well, the problem is, you're one of the very few who think that if we sell a bullet to one side or both sides in a war, we're somehow at war, too. Of course the fact that very few think this way doesn't automatically mean you're wrong...but dude, you're going to have a very, very hard time convincing almost every historian ever born that they're wrong about what constitutes wartime status of a nation.
Click to expand...

Well, in a sense I suppose. But seemed to me that as the largest military arms dealer in the world, that Dave was focussing more on the typical MIC (business) capitalisation of it.
 
Somerville said:
Funny, how those in foreign countries see the President in a very different light than some Americans view him
Click to expand...

Oh gee that's nice you found something favorable on BO. :roll: They like him. :lamo Did you miss the French calling BO an Amateur in the Iranian Negotiations just a little over a weak ago?

What happened with the Saud not contacting BO with their offensive into Yemen....until their planes were in the air and ready to cross over into Yemen? Why do you think they called BO at the very last minute? Why has the Saud criticized him saying he can't be trusted?

Which says nothing of Netanyahu who has criticized him. Nor the UAE and Egypt.

Why do the reports with those in South and Central America don't find him so favorable?????
 
kjwins said:
Obama, Bush. same guy different party. More than enough blame to go around. Lets just not turn Bush into a hero. As the right has done with Reagan.

Thing is these guys are just tools for the corporate state. That's were the power is. Only the American people can fix this. But it won't be by fighting over who is worse.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of DP posters are partisans on one or the other side, and protection and perpetuation of their parties power trumps what's good for America.
 
MMC said:
Oh gee that's nice you found something favorable on BO. :roll: They like him. :lamo Did you miss the French calling BO an Amateur in the Iranian Negotiations just a little over a weak ago?

What happened with the Saud not contacting BO with their offensive into Yemen....until their planes were in the air and ready to cross over into Yemen? Why do you think they called BO at the very last minute? Why has the Saud criticized him saying he can't be trusted?

Which says nothing of Netanyahu who has criticized him. Nor the UAE and Egypt.

Why do the reports with those in South and Central America don't find him so favorable?????
Click to expand...

Criticism by one politician does not necessarily equate with public opinion in the politician's nation.

All this said, however much disappointment global publics may have in Barack Obama, they still prefer him to his predecessor George W. Bush. In 2008, the year he left office, a median of just 19 percent in 20 nations had confidence in Bush’s handling of world affairs, compared with 57 percent that still have confidence in Obama in those same countries.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I did miss the French calling Obama an amateur - care to provide a link?
 
Somerville said:
Criticism by one politician does not necessarily equate with public opinion in the politician's nation.



Yeah, I did miss the French calling Obama an amateur - care to provide a link?
Click to expand...


Its not just one politician.....and its not just about calling BO an Amateur. Worse is all those not trusting us all due to BO and His Team.


French leaders think the U.S. president is dangerously naïve on Iran's ambitions, and that his notion of making Iran an "objective ally" in the war against ISIS, or even a partner, together with Putin's Russia, to find a political solution to the Syrian crisis, is both far-fetched and "amateurish."

When Claude Angéli says that both France's Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius, and its President, François Hollande, have told friends that they rely on "the support of the US Congress" to prevent Obama from giving in to Iran's nuclear ambitions, it is the kind of quote you can take to the bank. French diplomats worry that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, every other local Middle East power will want them. Among their worst nightmares is a situation in which Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia join the Dr. Strangelove club.

The French are still smarting from the last-minute reprieve Obama granted Syria, as the French air force was about to bomb the Assad regime's military positions back in 2013, because the U.S. President had been convinced by Russia that they had succeeded in making Syrian President Bashar al-Assad give up on the use of his chemical weapons. "Our Rafale fighters were about to scramble," a French air force officer is quoted as saying; "Hollande was furious."....snip~

What France Really Thinks of U.S. Iran Policy






NBC’s Richard Engel reported Friday that U.S. officials were stunned they were not given any notice before Saudi Arabia launched attacks against Houthi rebels. According to Engel, military leaders were finding out about the developments on the Yemen border in real time.

Engel said officials from both the military and members of Congress believe they were not given advanced warning because the Arab nations do not trust the Obama administration after they befriended Iran.

“Saudi Arabia and other countries simply don’t trust the United States any more, don’t trust this administration, think the administration is working to befriend Iran to try to make a deal in Switzerland, and therefore didn’t feel the intelligence frankly would be secure. And I think that’s a situation that is quite troubling for U.S. foreign policy,” Engel said......snip~

Richard Engel: Military Officials Say Allies No Longer Trust Us, Fear Intel Might Leak to Iran | Washington Free Beacon
 
Under our current leadership, I would have to say no. If we had decent leadership, then the answer would undoubtedly be no. A "military strike" is not the answer, complete annihilation of the current regime would have to be the goal. Iran, besides seeking nuclear weapons, is a major supporter of terrorism and the unrest in the region.

We have seen Iranians in Bosnia-Herzegovina during that conflict. We saw them coming in from Syria during our struggles in Iraq and were suppliers for the Shia faction "insurgents". We see them behind unrest in Yemen and other Shia backed uprisings in many areas in the region. They are supporters of the Assad regime. They have in past and continue to sponsor terrorism against Israel. They are the key sponsors and supporters of almost all Shia faction terrorism throughout the world.
 
Montecresto said:
It was known, but like Downing Street said, Bush was fixing the intelligence around the policy. And of course Bush entered the WH with a policy of regime change in Iraq. His first foreign policy meeting was to discuss just that. And as PNAC stated, all that was needed was a new Pearl Harbor and the neocons could implement everything they wanted to.
Click to expand...

But of course the conservative line is that the Dems in Congress voted for it...and they refuse to acknowledge that the Dems who voted for it had been lied to just like even Colin Powell had been lied to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom