• 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!

Panetta: US may have to use military force against Iran

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
[h=2]"We have to remain strong," says former US secretary of defense.
[/h]
“It is the Supreme Leader [Ali Khamenei] who is key, and he is not likely to give up [uranium] enrichment,” Panetta warned. “We have to remain strong. We have to remain consistent.”

The fact remains that we live in a very dangerous world,”...


Panetta: US may have to use military force against Iran | JPost | Israel News

Clinton sent Sec. of Def. Cohen all over the place warning America and the world about Saddam's WMD threat...

... Why do I get the feeling these words are not aimed at the world, or Americans, but Obama?
(Can't wait to see the responses from the likes of ecofarm)

"We have to remain strong"?????????
"We live in a dangerous world"???????
"We have to remain consistent"???????

Doesn't sound like he believes this administration is "strong", or "consistent".

Based on Obama's words and actions... or lack thereof, and Obama's Melting Red Line, his Lead from Behind, his Take it from Behind, his abandoning Americans in Benghazi... I can understand Panetta's fears.
 
Last edited:
This just in: people who are part of the military industrial complex like war. Up next sun rises in the east, but many are surprised to find that it sets in the west.
 
This just in: people who are part of the military industrial complex like war. Up next sun rises in the east, but many are surprised to find that it sets in the west.

I wouldn't exactly call retired Sec. of Def. Panetta part of the IMC. Look at the party he's part of. The Treasonous Left. Sending troops to war and then stabbing them in the back for political expediency. Now, Panetta wasn't in government then, but it's his party.

He's a Demokrat and it's just a little odd he would come out with such warnings... as noted in the OP... I think it's to send a shot towards The Incompetent One.
 
Last edited:
Clinton sent Sec. of Def. Cohen all over the place warning America and the world about Saddam's WMD threat...

... Why do I get the feeling these words are not aimed at the world, or Americans, but Obama?
(Can't wait to see the responses from the likes of ecofarm)

"We have to remain strong"?????????
"We live in a dangerous world"???????
"We have to remain consistent"???????

Doesn't sound like he believes this administration is "strong", or "consistent".

Based on Obama's words and actions... or lack thereof, and Obama's Melting Red Line, his Lead from Behind, his Take it from Behind, his abandoning Americans in Benghazi... I can understand Panetta's fears.

The words are certainly aimed at the USA and not at the world at large. It is in the US that the decisions on how to spend the cash are going to be made.

The Words are correct, however. The world is a dangerous place and it is getting much more dangerous as we go. There is hardly any doubt that the world will become so difficult, that we will not be able to guaranty security in the international theater no matter what we spend. But for the next 10 or 20 years we are safe from direct attack against us. Probably.
 
I wouldn't exactly call retired Sec. of Def. Panetta part of the IMC. Look at the party he's part of. The Treasonous Left. Sending troops to war and then stabbing them in the back for political expediency. Now, Panetta wasn't in government then, but it's his party.

He's a Demokrat and it's just a little odd he would come out with such warnings... as noted in the OP... I think it's to send a shot towards The Incompetent One.
I made no reference to party. Both political parties like profiting from war. Unlike your immature blind partisan hatred.

Oh and about stabbing the troops in the back...
Republicans pushed for the war in Iraq but then refused to give them proper equipment. So you can just put the lid on that.
 
I made no reference to party. Both political parties like profiting from war. Unlike your immature blind partisan hatred.

Oh and about stabbing the troops in the back...
Republicans pushed for the war in Iraq but then refused to give them proper equipment. So you can just put the lid on that.
ROTFLOL...

Yes, I'm a partisan, and one who knows that the Left are a treasonous lot who send troops to war for political expediency, and then abandon them for the same reason. You do recall the Libs voted against the war, and then after the public supported it, asked for a second vote to make up for their political miscalculation.

You see, the majority of D's do not vote conscience when it comes to sending troops to war, for them it's all a political calculation. Just as their treasonous stabbing of the troops in the back was when things got tough.

The Republicans sent the troops to war with the military we had; I recall the cry for up-armored vehicles, but hey... that was again the result of years of Clinton neglect.

And yes... the Republicans are always for cutting the military and neglecting troops the best equipment. (rolling eyes icon)

Now... back to the OP... the statements by Panetta seem to be aimed at Obama because he has proven to be both weak and inconsistent.
 
Clinton sent Sec. of Def. Cohen all over the place warning America and the world about Saddam's WMD threat...

..
. Why do I get the feeling these words are not aimed at the world, or Americans, but Obama?
(Can't wait to see the responses from the likes of ecofarm)

"We have to remain strong"?????????
"We live in a dangerous world"???????
"We have to remain consistent"???????

Doesn't sound like he believes this administration is "strong", or "consistent".

Based on Obama's words and actions... or lack thereof, and Obama's Melting Red Line, his Lead from Behind, his Take it from Behind, his abandoning Americans in Benghazi... I can understand Panetta's fears.




Because that's what you want to believe.

President Obama has issued the same warnings.

This is nothing new except for the conspiracy theorists and the Anti-Obama far right.
 
Last edited:
Because that's what you want to believe.

President Obama has issued the same warnings.

This is nothing new except for the conspiracy theorists and the Anti-Obama far right.
Well...

That being said, why do you suppose Panetta took the opportunity to say these things now then? Think it is because the President seems sufficiently strong and consistent in this dangerous world... or not so much?

Would that also mean in your mind that Panetta has switched sides, is now a part of the conspiracy theorists and the Anti-Obama far right... or maybe just a very concerned ex-S of D ?
 
Well...

That being said, why do you suppose Panetta took the opportunity to say these things now then? Think it is because the President seems sufficiently strong and consistent in this dangerous world... or not so much?

Would that also mean in your mind that Panetta has switched sides, is now a part of the conspiracy theorists and the Anti-Obama far right... or maybe just a very concerned ex-S of D ?




I see this as total BS which some people on the far right are happy to try to spread.
 
Last edited:
Because that's what you want to believe.

President Obama has issued the same warnings.

This is nothing new except for the conspiracy theorists and the Anti-Obama far right.
Obama's actions are contrary to Panetta's words.

ROTFLOL... I smell one pissed of Socialist...
It's not a conspiracy theory; Panetta publicly spoke those words about what this administration must do.

We have to remain strong... that wasn't the call when our troops were in Iraq. Retreat was the call of the Socialists. Obama's included.
We have to remain consistent... Obama has been inconsistent. He's been leading from his behind; he's been setting melting Red Lines.

Obama acts decisively and uses strong language against his enemies... Republicans. But Panetta wasn't referencing his handling of those enemies.
 
Doesn't sound like he believes this administration is "strong", or "consistent".

Based on Obama's words and actions... or lack thereof
Should probably give your own articles a read for accuracy's sake.

“Engagement is not appeasement, nor is it containment,” he said. “We know what those are, we know where they lead, and we will not pursue them. And President Obama has repeatedly made clear that words are not enough. Action must match words.”
 
Iran's more worried about Israel face stomping them. I'm making sure my cars never dip below half tank right now.
 
Clinton sent Sec. of Def. Cohen all over the place warning America and the world about Saddam's WMD threat...

... Why do I get the feeling these words are not aimed at the world, or Americans, but Obama?
(Can't wait to see the responses from the likes of ecofarm)

"We have to remain strong"?????????
"We live in a dangerous world"???????
"We have to remain consistent"???????

Doesn't sound like he believes this administration is "strong", or "consistent".

Based on Obama's words and actions... or lack thereof, and Obama's Melting Red Line, his Lead from Behind, his Take it from Behind, his abandoning Americans in Benghazi... I can understand Panetta's fears.

Apparently the best way to remain strong is to continue to feck with countries far away, choose their leaders for them, impose "democracy" on them, slaughter their innocents, destroy their infrastructures, exploit their national resources, send in select corporations to become local "partners", kill many of their adult males and drone the general population into submission. It's what America does to the rest of the world. Do all of this by sending the American People to do this. Do not send your own kith and ken. In Washington your job is to make everyone suffer but everyone in Washington. In Washington your job is to prosper. Walk proud, neocons, walk proud.
 
Last edited:
Should probably give your own articles a read for accuracy's sake.
Those you quoted were Hagel's, not Panetta's, words... and just what do those words mean to you... what exactly does Hagel, for instance, mean here by engagement? Appeasement we know and we know it does not work...containment, on the other-hand, sometimes we know from history, in conjunction with a bit of economic and political backbone, perhaps a few clashes here and there, can and has worked.

What do you think the likelihood of Obama actually using force to back up his commitment to, as Panetta put it, "...use military force to back up our policy,” ? Ten percent chances, maybe 20%? What do you think Israel thinks he will do? What do our allies think Obama might actually do? What do you think our enemies think he will actually do? And what do you think Iran thinks he would actually do?

Scary.
 
[/COLOR][/B]




I have said all that I'm going to say on this topic.

Have a nice day as we watch the GOP fade away.
Why thank you for those two rather myopic views... and for, I guess, just for adding your two cents.

Obama is nowhere near making a decision on how, when, or even if, to stop Iran. Just sitting there holding his watcha-callit so he won't pee his pants thinking about it.
 
Iran's more worried about Israel face stomping them. I'm making sure my cars never dip below half tank right now.
Israel does that... then what? Do we, under an Obama leadership, aid Israel? Seems I remember Biden telling the "community" we possibly would not come to our allies side in the future... searching right now trying to find that instance when he said that and what exactly he said, if I remember it was a guarded phrase, hard to tell what he meant...
 
Apparently the best way to remain strong is to continue to feck with countries far away, choose their leaders for them, impose "democracy" on them, slaughter their innocents, destroy their infrastructures, exploit their national resources, send in select corporations to become local "partners", kill many of their adult males and drone the general population into submission. It's what America does to the rest of the world. Do all of this by sending the American People to do this. Do not send your own kith and ken. In Washington your job is to make everyone suffer but everyone in Washington. In Washington your job is to prosper. Walk proud, neocons, walk proud.
While I might, with much revision, agree to some of what you have to say... what is your solution? We do, indeed, live in a dangerous world, the United States is in the position we are in... what then to do?

Casting aspersions are easy, they only show mess on the other guy... what is the Risky Thicket independent view of how we should shoulder, or run away, or any dot on the spectrum between the two, from where we are right now in world history?
 
Hagel, Pannetta, Obama, Clinton, all the same mindset, all neocons. All "American exceptionalists"
 
I made no reference to party. Both political parties like profiting from war. Unlike your immature blind partisan hatred.

Oh and about stabbing the troops in the back...
Republicans pushed for the war in Iraq but then refused to give them proper equipment. So you can just put the lid on that.


LOL. Identify the proper equipment to conduct war.
 
While I might, with much revision, agree to some of what you have to say... what is your solution? We do, indeed, live in a dangerous world, the United States is in the position we are in... what then to do?

Casting aspersions are easy, they only show mess on the other guy... what is the Risky Thicket independent view of how we should shoulder, or run away, or any dot on the spectrum between the two, from where we are right now in world history?

We don't have enough space and I don't have enough time to list everything, but thank you for asking.

1. Toss the War Powers Act. Only Congress can declare war. Invading foreign lands are acts of war. Droning the people of other nations are acts of war. The point is that, per the Constitution only Congress can declare war. For various self-serving reasons Congress and the White House have subverted the Constitution for decades. That must end.

2. Women should be required to register for Selective Service. (Actually, I favor conscription with NO, ZERO, exemptions for the sons and daughters of the rich and powerful. The point being war SHOULD BE a national sacrifice, currently it is not. If you want to go to war you must know that you will likely sacrifice and that the sacrifice may be great.)

3. War taxes. I don't have specifics but corporations should not make huge profits as a result of armed conflict. Doing so and "owning" many members of Congress ensures a constant state of war. Killing people should not be good for business.

4. The US should leave Afghanistan, Iraq and North Africa soonest. We have no business there. Let the region deal with the region. Let the region deal with Iran. Israel is not an American state. We give them more support than we give Puerto Rico. If Israel didn't have our promised physical and fiscal support they would be more encouraged to be a better neighbor in their regional community. No matter, we cannot have Israel's safety dictate US policy. The US needs to leave the region. If the US wants to sacrifice for Israel then everyone needs to face the reality of sacrifice. It must be palpable. See number 2.

5. Declarations of war - by Congress - must have specific, clearly defined reasons. Iraq and Afghanistan are perfect examples of that. You cannot know when to leave if you don't have a realistic and well defined mission. The "War on Terror" is nothing more than marketing bull**** that ensures the perpetuation of America's involvement in armed conflict.

6. Honor the nation's commitment to veterans. No more feel good yellow ribbon, flag waving, support the troops, invite a veteran to stand and wave at half-time horse sh*t, make the home folk feel good, garbage. In the consideration of war, realistic, long term costs related to veterans must be considered and/or debated in Congress openly and up front. The American People must know the long term costs of honoring their commitments to veterans and their families. Veterans deserve first rate assistance and services. Those things should be guaranteed BEFORE sending American men and women into the breech. Costs must be realistic and taxes must be agreed upon and levied as a consequence of declaring war.

These are a few things off the top of my head. Most if not all of the above will not/would not be popular because they require real sacrifice for all Americans. And that is the over arching point. War is just too damned easy for most Americans.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom