• 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
Is one regime all you could name? There are currently tons of regimes with UN sanctions. North Korea probably the most obvious one, and look, they are sending rockets to space.

In a world where the "average level" of technology increases all the time, its going to be more and more difficult to prevent such things. The ONLY way forward is for humanity to unite in common ideals, goals and equally worthy lives, that protect from anyone needing to be criminal or terrorist.


And with the public opinion on Iraq with the Iraq inquiry, do you think Britain will ever be able to garner enough Parliamentary support to declare war on Iran? To be honest, i highly doubt a UK and French offensive would ever be successful anyway. The UK and France would never even consider war with Iran (or any other European power for that matter) without going in side by side with the Americans.

Wrong. States French policies is to use nuclear weapons on Iran in any scenario of threat or actual attack on them and possibly their allies.
 
Certainly they can withdraw. But then the "peaceful purposes" charade would be plainly exposed. They would become a nuclear rogue state like North Korea. Quite unlike NK, the Iranians are very sensitive about their global reputation.

That's a very good point. I hadn't considered the "global reputation". If that truly is a concern for Iran then they have to do this very carefully. I'm guessing they'll continue to pursue nuclear technology under the "peaceful" loophole allowed in the NPT.

Tricky tricky...
 
Why does Iran not have the right to pursue nuclear weapons?

Because they agreed not to do so... and because it's a bad idea for a violent, murderous, theocracy that is know to be the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism.

Therefore, Iran should never be allowed to posses anything more dangerous than a sling shot.
 
Well they aren't that successful either.
Sanctions could work if the ones that impose them know what they're doing.

Besides, I do not see many other option except going into an all out war.

I like what the Jews have done over the past, a few air strikes here and there to stall progress. A bigger collaboration with Israel and NATO is needed to declare huge airstrikes into the region and destabilize the central government and its nucleur pursuit.

Because Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Come on Tashah, you can do better than that.

Because Iran has opted for the complete destruction of a neighbouring nation as official state policy, because Iran is incapable of civilized diplomacy, and because Iran is one of the worst violators of human rights. Therefore such rights for a country to pursue nuclear ambitions becomes unrealistic if they cannot even be trusted to not drop them all over the ME.

Simple as. :2wave:

In the future if they decide to pursue secular Democracy and human rights they may have there nuclear ambitions back.
 
Israel will probably strike before anyone else has a chance to.

I agree. If I were gambling man, I'd put good money on that one.
 
Because they agreed not to do so... and because it's a bad idea for a violent, murderous, theocracy that is know to be the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism.

Therefore, Iran should never be allowed to posses anything more dangerous than a sling shot.

There are Millions of people around the world who feel the same way about the US and Russia.
 
IWrong. States French policies is to use nuclear weapons on Iran in any scenario of threat or actual attack on them and possibly their allies.

Sure, France likes to Talk the Talk but when it starts to Walk the Walk then ill say your right.
France wont consider any military actions without the US, end of.
 
From what I can tell ... Israel is making plans to do exactly that.

If I was Isreal, I would encourage the people to move back into Europe, to spread the risk, and then use Israel as a western "base" for western interference in the middle east, Africa and central Asia.
 
If I was Isreal, I would encourage the people to move back into Europe, to spread the risk, and then use Israel as a western "base" for western interference in the middle east, Africa and central Asia.

Israel doesnt need to do that. That has been the reality since WW2.
 
From what I can tell ... Israel is making plans to do exactly that.

Israel cannot handle Iran alone.
And NATO will not help. Neither would UK after Iraq.
The chances of Europe getting involved is slim to none. US might tho but they already in alot of debt
 
Sure, France likes to Talk the Talk but when it starts to Walk the Walk then ill say your right.
France wont consider any military actions without the US, end of.

France "walks the walk" all the time, especially in Africa. French forces are engaged around the world actually. They dont need to invade Iran, and it would be difficult.. Therefor they just use the nuclear option.
 
Israel cannot handle Iran alone.
And NATO will not help. Neither would UK after Iraq.
The chances of Europe getting involved is slim to none.

I agree, its the sad truth.
It would probably destroy the very little left of the American image abroad too, despite the casus belli.
 
Israel cannot handle Iran alone.
And NATO will not help. Neither would UK after Iraq.
The chances of Europe getting involved is slim to none.

I would agree with this... I think Israel will have, let's say... clandestine assistance and support, just not OPEN assistance and support in an attack on Iran.
 
If I was Isreal, I would encourage the people to move back into Europe, to spread the risk, and then use Israel as a western "base" for western interference in the middle east, Africa and central Asia.
Really now.
 
It's interesting that no one has mentioned China yet, which is the last SC power unwilling to move forward with a non-military, non-negotiated action against Iran. They say diplomacy can still work. Any idea what they mean? (That's not a rhetorical question, I'm really curious about how Iran can be dissuaded from pursuing nuclear weapons and fully complying with IAEA requirements.)

I voted "no" in the poll, but we have to make SOME progress of some kind at some point.

China is risking gloabal isolation. The world is sick of China's refusal to prevent terrorists from getting nuclear arfms. Moreover, most powers are sick of China's deplorable human rights violations.

I would remind the Russians that they too can be isolated and their economy, which only exists because of the US and her allies, can quickly tank AGAIN.

China can be reminded that their money in this country can quickly vanish. All Chinese made products can be prevented from entering the country. Therefore, their booming economy can AND WILL BE broken if they do not stop protecting terrorists.

The red menance will play ball or we can **** their economy up so bad they will know what extreme poverty feels like.
 
Israel cannot handle Iran alone.

Of course they can. They have nuclear weapons and the most advanced military in the ME.

The problem is, if they do, they need the backing of most of the world to handle the backlash of some creepy arab alliance that will act against Israel as a response to their "unreasonable" attack against Iran, and Israeli/American "imperialism".
 
Israel cannot handle Iran alone.
And NATO will not help. Neither would UK after Iraq.
The chances of Europe getting involved is slim to none. US might tho but they already in alot of debt
Europe is already involved.

Germany and France are two of the biggest speakers against the Iranian nuclear ambition.
 
France "walks the walk" all the time, especially in Africa. French forces are engaged around the world actually. They dont need to invade Iran, and it would be difficult.. Therefor they just use the nuclear option.

France what? :shock:
Wait, are you surprised it oversee's Africa? I mean, they did screw it up down there. French forces are engaged in its territories abroad, in NATO its contribution isn't that great. The UK contributes far more and has much more credibility in attacking Iran alone. I find it very hard to believe France would press any button without the US doing it first. Sorry, but its how it is. I didnt see Europe step a foot in the ME until the Americans did it first.
 
Europe is already involved.

Germany and France are two of the biggest speakers against the Iranian nuclear ambition.

Germany has to be against Iran. I mean with its history and everything, there is little choice in the matter.

But is it not Europe which trades with Iran more?
 
Europe is already involved.

Germany and France are two of the biggest speakers against the Iranian nuclear ambition.

Talk and action are two entirely different things.
 
What tactic is more safe and better?
I don't know, let's begin with something that would not require the scattering of the Jewish citizens of Israel at the disapora again, it pretty much goes against the purpose of Israel's establishment you know.
 
Back
Top Bottom