• 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!

Iran orders more enrichment, prompting US to call for the world to stand together

Is it time for NATO to take military action against Iran?

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 30.2%
  • No

    Votes: 27 62.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 7.0%

  • Total voters
    43
Are you arguing that Britain did more to win WWII then America?

Or are you arguing that because you were born in the UK, the British did more to defend the country then the Americans?

1. I wasnt born in the UK.
2. British contribution in WW2 was far more valuable than US contribution
3. If the UK had fallen in NAZI hands, the rest of the world would probably also
4. The Brits defended themself for a long time without US help
5. The Soviet contribution is the greatest. Had Soviet fallen and not ruined the German forces like they did, the NAZIs would have won the rest. Eurasia would have been United in a German, Japanese alliance. America would then have had absoulutely no chance.
 
5. The Soviet contribution is the greatest. Had Soviet fallen and not ruined the German forces like they did, the NAZIs would have won the rest. Eurasia would have been United in a German, Japanese alliance. America would then have had absoulutely no chance.

America was perfectly fine across the Ocean. Pearl Harbor was the extent of our damage. After wrecking out the Japanese in the Pacific we were through with out enemy. Hitler was yours. Your kind should have been left to stand up for yourselves instead of getting the American handout you have become so used to.

But as it turns out, America's contribution throughout the 20th century, to include World War II, was everything...

1) WWI ~ After two years of stalemated trench warfare, the British Army had gone though a period of failed offenses and the French army was in complete disentigration. Spirits were raised when they heard that America was crossing the ocean to get into your fight. Even Ludendorf (Germany) planned the Spring Offensive in order to break the stalemate before American forces could determine the outcome of the war. As German stormtroopers were making unprecedented advances into France, they were unexpectedly stopped at the Battle of Chatteu-Thierry and Belleau Wood. American, European, and German media reported that American Marines were in the fight. We can honestly state that this was the turing point of the war, since a series of allied offenses afterwards were succesful in driving German forces further from Paris and back to the border. While American forces did not win WWI for the Allies in Europe, it sure prevented them from losing.

2) WWII ~ This was a result of European inabilities to fairly deal with a defeated Germany post World War I. We are criticized for showing up in Europe late (as we had a duty at all) even though we were fighting our own war in the Pacific largely alone. But we did show up and we were the fist in the west and south of Europe. It was us at Normandy that knocked the German door down and it was us that struck through Italy (with the British along for the ride). And once again it prevented the Allies from losing and helped Britian and Russia free Europe from the Nazi grip. But in this war, France was in need of complete liberation and even with this fact, American forces bled more than Frenchmen to liberate their own home. And the ultimate downfall of Germany came from it's inability to continue oil importation due to American and British efforts to dry them out in the Middle East. It certainly wasn't due to Vichy France or the dictatorship in Spain.

3) Cold War ~ While licking its wounds, most of Europe got away with the bare minimum as American and British forces dealt with one crisis to the next. An American force would remain parked in Western Germany to hold the Wall even as American troops were pick pocketed and mugged in the streets from your kind.

Self interests? Sure. Isn't that the name of the game? But it's funny how our self interests involve saving Europe or benefitting Europe in so many ways. You may argue that this was in the past and doesn't matter any more...at least not enough for acknowledgment. But let's take a look at recent events.....

1) Bosnia? What did that have to do with us? Yet another European problem, but we involved ourselves. It could be that Europe drove the world into World War in 1914 over this region and when it came to genocide and militaristic madness in 1995, America did what Europe wouldn't on its own if only to prevent us from shedding more American blood in an escallated event later.

2) Kosovo? More madness in Europe that continued to be ignored, which may have pulled American forces into a bloodier and messier conflict later.

These, along with the 3 above were all Europe's needs whether America's interests were factors or not. And when it was America's call for aid....

1) Afghanistan ~ European forces sent the bare minimum and would later complain about being there in "America's war" in the first place. Those military forces that were sent were given (as required) rear area dutis far from the fight. And the most casualties have come from American, British, and Canadian forces. All English speaking nations. You may argue that since this is "America's war" then there should be more American blood on the dirt. One may wonder if America should have had this attitude during WWII when more American blood was spilt than even the French who needed their lands liberated.

2) And what of Iraq? It had nothing to do with you people? After all, in the end, it was American and British forces left baby sitting the dictator for the UN's "Food-For-Oil" Program. It was American forces that increasingly developed in numbers due to Hussein's games for 12 years. And in 2002, it was Osama Bin Laden that used our presence in the Gulf and the "starving children of Iraq" as an excuse for 9/11 on American soil. The sins of the UN and that of every single European government that agreed to preserve the dick in the desert helped create this environment and allowed America to take the fall. Did any European governmemt come forward and state that we are all guilty of the mess in Iraq in light of Bin Laden's BS? Of course not....as always...if America can take the fall, the blame, and the criticism, then let it.


The League of Nations? - An American attempt to unite European powers under a roof of unity only to see Europeans wreck it. The U.N.? An American attempt to unite global powers under a roof of unity only to see our enemies (and Europe) use it to exonerate bad morality. NATO? An American attempt to unite European powers under a roof of protection for which Europeans turned it into a club of free loaders. An entire twentieth century of American presence has steered the world in a better direction than European colonialism was ever going to. Two world Wars and a Cold war began in Europe...and America was there. In the 90s, genocide and ethnic cleansings in Europe was threatening to escape borders....and America was there. The world, especially Europe, is a burden to America. When you misbehave it costs American lives. I find it insulting and ignorant that Europeans can stand and breath free democratic air (at the expense of American blood) and dismiss America's involvements and contributions throughout the last century because of some simplistic moronic need to find a little pride in their region.

Maybe it's a way to deny the fact that you damn well do owe us.
 
Last edited:
Then how come they've already done it before, with Iraq?

Operation Opera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Iraq =/= Iran.:doh

Iranian facilities are underground deeper than conventional bunker busters can penetrate. Though the US is devising ways. They can hit some targets, but they cannot satisfactorily 'end' Irans nuclear capabilities in the same way.
 
Iraq =/= Iran.:doh

Iranian facilities are underground deeper than conventional bunker busters can penetrate. Though the US is devising ways. They can hit some targets, but they cannot satisfactorily 'end' Irans nuclear capabilities in the same way.

I don't know a lot about bombs, but in theory, couldn't the entrance to a bunker be found, and then hit with a thermobaric bomb? My understanding is that those are essentially tunnel killers. Would that work if we could get one down the entrance of a bunker?
 
I would assume that the soviets facing imminent nuclear destruction by satanic imperialistic nuclear weapons used on little asian people had properly devised underground nuclear facilities that could not be bombed by foreseeable technological developments for decades. They passed these on to the Iranians...

Right to revolution , biatches.
 
Iraq =/= Iran.:doh

Iranian facilities are underground deeper than conventional bunker busters can penetrate. Though the US is devising ways. They can hit some targets, but they cannot satisfactorily 'end' Irans nuclear capabilities in the same way.

We have been tracking and monitoring Iran's nuclear ambitions since the 80s. Satellite images have shown them to remove structures and erect them over night. They have built structures within structures to disguisey purpose. It's not as simple as just knowing where they are all the time. We could start bombing and miss while they warm up and fire back.
 
I don't know a lot about bombs, but in theory, couldn't the entrance to a bunker be found, and then hit with a thermobaric bomb? My understanding is that those are essentially tunnel killers. Would that work if we could get one down the entrance of a bunker?

The problem is finding them. They would all have to get hit at once. Otherwise, what systems and structures go untouched will begin stepping up no matter the cost.
 
Once again people...recognize the civilization and culture we face.

We face a culture that awkwardly seeks threats to religion just to engage in a religious war. Our enemy fights in plain clothes and seeks the death of not only Westerners, but fellow Muslims who do not subscribe to their beliefs. They fight from within and from behind the people they claim to defend and use primarily sneak tactics. They come from a culture, which is thoroughly humiliated over it's inabilities to progress in a world where all prosper from what comes from under their soil. And the most extreme of them are free to recruit and twist Islam while the overwhelming majority sit and do nothing to correct it.

The launch of a nuclear weapon is not the threat because it does not jive with their idea of warfare. They will threaten and peacock about, but that is it. To survive conflict with us, they sneak murder and destruction. They understand that the media is their best friend and that in the end, the West will criticize its own governments and militaries for their "lack of proof" just to create their foolish illusion of moral superiority over their governments. It's the delivery of a nuke by other means that is the threat. Dealing with a nuclear Soviet Union was one thing. Dealing with a religiously motivated region is another. They have no rules, but their religiously inspired rules. Geneva is a Western phenomena.
 
Last edited:
1. I wasnt born in the UK.
2. British contribution in WW2 was far more valuable than US contribution
3. If the UK had fallen in NAZI hands, the rest of the world would probably also
4. The Brits defended themself for a long time without US help
5. The Soviet contribution is the greatest. Had Soviet fallen and not ruined the German forces like they did, the NAZIs would have won the rest. Eurasia would have been United in a German, Japanese alliance. America would then have had absoulutely no chance.

2 = WRONG.

3 = BS supposition

4 = True ..

Zeebra ... will you have stop haiting America?
 
I have many friends on facebook and twitter who are Persians and I even know 2 immigrants from the country who I've met in person. Just about every conversation I hold with them usually ends with political talk about these issues and they made sure I understood how much they value their country even though many of them do not like the current regime. Conservatives should relate to this. You dislike the current administration but that doesn't mean you aren't a patriot.

Many of the Persians feel like the west is trying to dictate their country's policies and influence their culture, which is a culture that dates back over 2000 years by the way. Simply put, they fear imperialism from a foreign country! Many of them also are not too happy with Israel either because they believe Israel is a satellite state for America. This will probably be hard for many Americans to understand their pain.. But look at it this way:

Imagine Russia occupying Canada and Mexico with an extremely large military force then installing a "Russian friendly president" in both of those countries. How would you feel being right in the middle of this? Well, you would obviously feel like your country would be next on the list to invade and you would probably install a nuclear weapon as an 'insurance policy.' Rightly so you would do everything in your power to save your country, culture, and religious values from the hand of a foreign government.

While I do feel the Persians' pain, I also have sympathy for the Jews and Palestinians at the same time since none of this is their fault. In 1948, the state of Israel was set up by the British to counter anti-semitism. The sad part though is many Palestinian families where displaced. Which in affect created more anti-semitism. So what we have is Israel being trapped and living in fear because of actions taken in the past. Since we can't change history, the only solution I can think of to curve anti-semitism in the region is to let Palestinian families coexist with Jews in Israel. I know many Jewish people would object to this... But it may be the only way to further achieve peace. In the end it's all up to Israel to decide that but just my 2cents.

Now even though I understand the pain in that part of the world, we (western countries) still have do what's natural and take our own national security into account but we most continue to work with Israel, Palestine, and Iran to achieve peace. Don't forget Russia before 1989. We were faced with the threat of nuclear war everyday for DECADES, but eventually they tore down the wall in Berlin and both the United States and Soviet Union came to peace with each other. The history will have to repeat itself with Iran. If we want to prevent world war 3, we have to go through decades of negotiates with Iran just like we did with Russia.

To conclude, we have two paths we can take:

1) Decades of negotiations with Iran while strengthening our national security.
2) Invade Iran now and risk nuclear warfare and possibly a 3rd world war.

P.S. - Sorry for any typ's it is 6:56 Am at the time I posted this and I have not had any sleep. :3oops:
 
2) Kosovo? More madness in Europe that continued to be ignored, which may have pulled American forces into a bloodier and messier conflict later.

I agree with everything else you said, but this was an action taken by war criminal Bill Clinton. We had no business being there and what Clinton and NATO did to the Serbians was unjustified and nothing more than a terrorist operation. Most people think the sex scandal was the evil thing Clinton did while he was in office. I say they should have forgot about the sex scandal and impeached his ass for this illegal war against the Serbians.
 
I agree with everything else you said, but this was an action taken by war criminal Bill Clinton. We had no business being there and what Clinton and NATO did to the Serbians was unjustified and nothing more than a terrorist operation. Most people think the sex scandal was the evil thing Clinton did while he was in office. I say they should have forgot about the sex scandal and impeached his ass for this illegal war against the Serbians.

What war? We bombed their ass into submission. I personally believe that in the 21st century our foriegn policies towards backwards tribal instigated nations should be to either behave or suffer the consequences. In an age of "globalization" we can't afford to allow the dictators of nations to celebrate their tyranny. As the most powerful nation in history, a policy that encourages us to define slaughter and genocode as a "right of soveriegnty" is cowardly and ultimately foolish. Such sentiments encourage the Hitlers of history as long as they slaughter, torture, and massacre within their own borders.
 
Last edited:
What war? We bombed their ass into submission. I personally believe that in the 21st century our foriegn policies towards backwards tribal instigated nations should be to either behave or suffer the consequences. In an age of "globalization" we can't afford to allow the dictators of nations to celebrate their tyranny. As the most powerful nation in history, a policy that encourages us to define slaughter and genocode as a "right of soveriegnty" is cowardly and ultimately foolish. Such sentiments encourage the Hitlers of history as long as they slaughter, torture, and massacre within their own borders.

But at the same time, we can't exactly go and invade, and reform any government we want. We should be the first to bring it up in the UN, and if applicable, demand NATO action. If the atrocities continue, and we have no outside support, I think we should go in and force reform down the dictator's throat.
 
But at the same time, we can't exactly go and invade, and reform any government we want. We should be the first to bring it up in the UN, and if applicable, demand NATO action. If the atrocities continue, and we have no outside support, I think we should go in and force reform down the dictator's throat.

No need to invade at all if our goal is to punish. But even an invasion should be kept to punitive strikes where appropriate. "Nation building" is where we are crossing the line. If people can't do for themselves, they aren't worth our blood. Our ultimate goals should always cater to ridding ourselves and his neighbors (our allies) of the thorns first. Providing opportunities of democracy and such is in keeping with our stated morals and values, but nobody can be forced to behave outside of their culture's prescriptions.

Iraq was always going to be Iraq and Afghanistan is always going to be Afghanistan. The only question was always what Iraqis and Afghanis were going to do with the opportunity presented. Our ultimate goal was Saddam Hussein and the Tali-Ban/Al-Queda.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom