• 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
The entire nuclear crisis in iran is a spectacle.

The only point of pursuing a nuclear weapon is to deter a nuclear attack from another nation.

It's either 'shucks we cant nukem' or 'shucks, who cares.'
Actually, there are lots of reasons for having a nuclear weapon. Pakistan pursued nukes to deter conventional forces from India, which has a much larger military. NK's nukes change the game in that region, even if no one threatens them with nukes. Israel has nukes to defend against quite a number of enemies, none of which have nuclear capabilities (until/unless Iran develops them). Iran can use the threat of nukes to allow it all kinds of latitude in the use of conventional forces in its region, particularly to control sea lanes in the Persian Gulf.
 
I'm consumed by your insightful take on the issue, I really am, but I believe Israelis are more than capable of defending their own nation, simultaneously, from 5 different nations.
As proven in the 1948 and 1967 wars.

I am sure they are, but with terrible biological/chemical and potentially nuclear developments in the region since 1967 I dont take the prospect very lightheaded.

Israel is definetely important for Christians as well.
 
I think you've hit the nail right on the head. They would like to appear as it they are pursuing nuclear weapons. In reality, they might never actually make any. They can buy the plans, enrich the uranium, and get everything ready, but its their trump card. If they make the weapons, Isreal wll take them out, and there goes their trump card. So, what they should, and will do, is get the materials ready to make them ASAP if they ever need them. But, they will not make them, because that will result in fighting, and the overall end of their dictatorship.

It's very smart of them to do this. They hold the pieces in place so the threat is real, but they don't act upon those pieces to fully establish the threat, so the West cannot react to that threat. It's a wonderful case of shadowboxing, and they are doing pretty well for themselves. And, coincidently, it also helps the West.

Our main concern is that the Iranians actually make the weapons. As long as they do not, and they just maintain the peaceful purposes, everything is fine. And if we can start barking at them to not make the weapons, we don't have to bite them because they won't make those weapons.

So, in the end, they will get all the materials ready, and they will have scientists and weapon experts on standby, but they won't go past that point, because there is no need to go past that point.


Israel may have a high quality military and sophisticated intelligence agencies. But those who believe that the Israelies could just sweep in and take out the Iranian facilities may be a little deluded. This is bit bigger of an udertaking than Entebbe or the Iraq reactor. And Iran has already taken a number of defensive actions to mitigate the Israeli threat.

The Iranian nuclear situation is a complex/messy one. And don't suspect there are going to be any quick or easy answers.


.
 
BBC News - Iran makes new uranium enrichment challenge

Now choose the option you feel appropriate in the poll.
Do you think an armed assault by NATO is due? Surely such a thing is inevitable, if this hard liner insists on dragging down Iran with him.

You are acting like NATO is going to be pulling it's weight, it won't. When you mean NATO you mean the US does 98% of the action and everything else and the rest are consisted of five other countries who really don't give a damn. They might send 60 soldiers at any given time but not anymore.

I don't think it is time for a military action or time for an economic sanction because economic sanctions only hurt the general population not the leaders. The leaders will not be hurting ever. Instead what should happen is that the US waits and sees what Iran does with this enrichment.

IF they use it for energy it would sure make us look stupid for attacking them because not only did we not have a good reason to attack but now we are stuck in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan what a cluster f*ck to be in. So all we can really do is wait and see.
 
True, but they can simply withdraw from that. Nations withdraw from treaties all of the time.
They said Israel should be wiped off the map.
 
They said Israel should be wiped off the map.

If Iran's leaders decide to attack Israel, in any way, shape or form, that's going to be a very sad day for the people of Iran.

Iran's leaders say a lot of stupid things. That doesn't give the United States the authority to control Iran's military.
 
Then I suppose you won't be upset if Israel says it will attack Iran.
 
Israel may have a high quality military and sophisticated intelligence agencies. But those who believe that the Israelies could just sweep in and take out the Iranian facilities may be a little deluded. This is bit bigger of an udertaking than Entebbe or the Iraq reactor. And Iran has already taken a number of defensive actions to mitigate the Israeli threat.
By my reckoning, there are 15 Iranian nuclear facilities that would need to be destroyed to significantly turn back Iran's nuclear-progress-clock.

Israel has a full-spectrum military. The problem is not so much one of Israel's capability, but the Iranian (and international) response to an Israeli application of full-spectrum power.
 
Then I suppose you won't be upset if Israel says it will attack Iran.

No, with proper justification. Israel is free to do whatever they need to do to defend themselves. If they are attacked by Iran in anyway, then they should respond in kind. Every nation has the right to self defense.
 
They are on record as stating that they would like to destroy Israel. They have supported Islamic terrorists with weapons and aid. Nobody was about to attack them until they started pursuing nuclear weapons.

I doubt this is just about deterring some non-existent nuclear threat to them.

I'm sorry the nuclear threats against Iran are as real and legitimate as iran's potential nuclear threat against any other nations.

Their political chest thumping doesn't mean much in the face of political power playing and positioning.

Seeking nukes is about the smartest thing they can do.
 
I'm sorry the nuclear threats against Iran are as real and legitimate as iran's potential nuclear threat against any other nations.

Oh? And who has threatened to nuke Iran unprovoked?

Their political chest thumping doesn't mean much in the face of political power playing and positioning.

And do we really want to take the risk of assuming that? If we do, and we're wrong, millions could end up dead. I don't see why we shouldn't think that their explicitly stated threats are, well, explicitly stated threats.

Seeking nukes is about the smartest thing they can do.

Dumbest, actually, since they will almost certainly be attacked if they get them.
 
No, not the dumbest they've built alot of their nuclear infrastructure underground so when bush threatened them with a tactical bunker buster nuke (which he did), he was actually threatening to irradiate a portion of their country, because they are too deep to hit (thank russia). Now think about that, also think about the fact that Israel doesn't have the capability to perform a satisfactory strike to disarm them of their nuclear infrastructure.

I'm not willing to believe that they would commit state suicide just to kill alot of jews.

Theres your beliefs, then theories about laws which govern the nature of international gameplay.

And whoever attacks them conventionally once they have a nuke is the idiot who escalated to nuclear war and will be seen as the fascist aggressor by history. A conventional attack would be unthinkable once they acquired a nuke.... which is the nukes purpose....

Theres a huge chance that the US (which experiences only moderate state stability) would be willing to perform an attack as they have manufactured reasons to go to war more than once in history at the advent of a more extremist 'conservative' government.

Just in case you didn't notice, they are surrounded by perceived occupiers of their neighboring countries.
 
All I know is Hussein Obama promised dialog, open talks with Iranian leader, but like the rest, they were just promises to get people's votes.

Obama's just another sock puppet.
 
Israel may have a high quality military and sophisticated intelligence agencies. But those who believe that the Israelies could just sweep in and take out the Iranian facilities may be a little deluded. This is bit bigger of an udertaking than Entebbe or the Iraq reactor. And Iran has already taken a number of defensive actions to mitigate the Israeli threat.

The Iranian nuclear situation is a complex/messy one. And don't suspect there are going to be any quick or easy answers.

The thing is, Isreal wouldn't stop until they did take out those nuclear weapons, and that might mean resorting to their own WMD's if they cannot take the weapons out conventionally. Therefore, this supports the idea that Iran would not want to actually build the nuclear weapons, just get them ready to be built.
 
I voted no but I'd vote 'other' on a second thought.

Military action should be the last resort, right now the western powers should strike Iran with massive sanctions.

"Military action should be the last resort" is such a cliche. I absolutely disagree with it. Military action should be the resort when the time is right. When our missions are easier to obtain and when our military won't have to needlessly bleed because we waited until the "last resort." In the end, who defines the "last resort" anyway? Military commanders? Politicians privy to intel? Politicians not privy to intel? The fat couch potato who never laced up a boot but saw a really good expose on T.V.?
 
Last edited:
"Military action should be the last resort" is such a cliche. I absolutely disagree with it. Military action should be the resort when the time is right. When our missions are easier to obtain and when our military won't have to needlessly bleed because we waited until the "last resort." In the end, who defines the "last resort" anyway? Military commanders? Politicians privy to intel? Politicians not privy to intel? The fat couch potato who never laced up a boot but saw a really good expose on T.V.?
According to the Constitution, its supposed to be Congress, but we haven't paid attention to that clause in over 50 years.
 
All I know is Hussein Obama promised dialog, open talks with Iranian leader, but like the rest, they were just promises to get people's votes.

Didn't you know? The region isn't exactly a grave mystery hidden behind the shadows of a curtain. How much talk do you need before you just recognize what this region is and what lies ahead?
 
According to the Constitution, its supposed to be Congress, but we haven't paid attention to that clause in over 50 years.

Then why start now? The Congress of old could be informed of all the details. Steadly over the decades our technology has exponentially threatened our security as much as protected it. Today's Congress is a twitter away from exposing whatever they wish to a media world who would rather see drama, destruction, and death in their papers than peace (and it really doesn't matter what is desgtroyed). Times have changed. Surely if the hero of the Democratic Party and Europe's savior sees enough in the intel that urges him to be more forceful then there must be something there. Of course, acknowledging that Obama isn't a warmonger bent on painting Iran as a false threat means that Bush may have been on to something too.

Ralph Peters predcicted two things about Iran back in 1999. Either we will be forced to deal with an Iran on the nuclear verge or the Iranian people will finally stand up and take the reigns of their destiny away from the tyrants who oppress them. Seems to me that time is running out for the "peaceful" means of ridding the region of another thorn.
 
Last edited:
Then why start now? The Congress of old could be informed of all the details. Steadly over the decades our technology has exponentially threatened our security as much as protected it. Today's Congress is a twitter away from exposing whatever they wish to a media world who would rather see drama, destruction, and death in their papers than peace (and it really doesn't matter what is desgtroyed). Times have changed. Surely if the hero of the Democratic Party and Europe's savior sees enough in the intel that urges him to be more forceful then there must be something there. Of course, acknowledging that Obama isn't a warmonger bent on painting Iran as a false threat means that Bush may have been on to something too.

Ralph Peters predcicted two things about Iran back in 1999. Either we will be forced to deal with an Iran on the nuclear verge or the Iranian people will finally stand up and take the reigns of their destiny away from the tyrants who oppress them. Seems to me that time is running out for the "peaceful" means of ridding the region of another thorn.

Top,

You think Israel is going to strike Iran before they go nuclear?
:confused:
 
Top,

You think Israel is going to strike Iran before they go nuclear?
:confused:

They would be stupid not to. Of course, behind closed doors even Europe will breathe a sigh of relief.
 
What we're going to do is exactly what we have been doing. Like a dog chasing it's tail

Iran's gonna sabre rattle. Russia is going to protect Iran. America is going to protest. China is gonna sell to the highest bidder.

And then one morning, after years of denial, some Iranian guy, who needs a bath and a shave, is going on television and will laughing pronounce that Iran now has a nuclear weapon. Eat **** world.

Study long, study wrong. Pull the trigger, once and for all, on Iran. But the US can't go it alone. (Thanks Dubya. :roll:) And why should we? But since we are already entrenched in Iran's back-yard (Iraq) I would tell Iran to either **** or get off the pot. **** Iran.
 
Last edited:
They would be stupid not to. Of course, behind closed doors even Europe will breathe a sigh of relief.

Yeah, I agree. Iran has needed a foot up its ass for some time now.
 
You are acting like NATO is going to be pulling it's weight, it won't. When you mean NATO you mean the US

Obviously. :)

Hey listen, i dont know what the point of this statement is, perhaps you want to show off your gleaming American war mongrel awards, but trust me we know how to war monger!

:mrgreen:
 
Military action should be the last resort, right now the western powers should strike Iran with massive sanctions.

The western powers should mind their own business and butt out of Iranian affairs.
 
Back
Top Bottom