• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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: War Option on the Table


Tell that to Bush. That was his plan too. I will also be the first to say that Bush was right too.
 
Goobieman said:
Do you believe that it would be stupid to implement any of those? Why/why not?
Click to expand...

Feel free to read the thread and get back to me. It's not lengthy.

Why do you feel entitled to jump into a thread without reading it, and then expect people to rehash points they've made because you're too lazy to read the context of the discussion?

I'm not doing it. Seek and ye will find. Otherwise, I'm done with you.
 
danarhea said:
I will also be the first to say that Bush was right too.
Click to expand...

why do you think i'd be in the least interested in what you'd be the first, second or third to say?
 
obama has NO POLICY pertaining to perhaps the most dangerous regime on earth

that's not ME talkin

it's GATES
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Feel free to read the thread and get back to me. It's not lengthy.
Click to expand...
The only thing I see form you directly referencing the validity of the existence of a military plan is:

Most of us think it's still a stupid idea
Click to expand...

You then clarify this to mean that to implement an invasion is a stupid idea.
You HAVE talked about the onyl plan you can see being implemented, but you have not given your judgement of same.

Given that you yourself said there are several other plans, not all dealing with invations, it is then unclear if you think that these plans are also a stupid idea.

You can -easily- clarify this issue.
 
Last edited:
The Prof said:
obama has NO POLICY pertaining to perhaps the most dangerous regime on earth

that's not ME talkin

it's GATES
Click to expand...

Actually, no it is not. It's you making **** up. The memo that is referred to in your article is from January. Now, what has happened since then? Well, let's quote the article you wrote:

Since the three-page memo, written in January, a series of new options have been developed for Mr. Obama, including military means for dealing with Tehran if it should acquire a nuclear weapon,
Click to expand...

Holy ****, it turns out Obama does have a plan, and you proved it to us!
 
the article I wrote?"

LOL!

GATES disagrees


and there are no changes, according to the WHITE HOUSE

"It is absolutely false that any memo touched off a reassessment of our options," said Ben Rhodes, a National Security Council spokesman. "This administration has been planning for all contingencies regarding Iran for many months."
Click to expand...

No effective policy on Iran, Gates says
 
Goobieman said:
So... Are -all- of The Obama's plans stiupid ideas, just as you apparently believed Bush's to be?
Click to expand...

No, some of Obama's plans are stupid, just like The Bush's.
 
The Prof said:
No effective policy on Iran, Gates says
Click to expand...

The article is more nuanced than that.

It states:

Robert Gates, the Pentagon chief, has warned President Barack Obama in a secret "wake-up call" memo that the White House has no effective policy for dealing with a nuclear Iran.

There is a policy for trying to prevent Iran's becoming a nuclear weapons-capable state. Whether that policy is effective or not is a separate matter. Secretary Gates was looking ahead and commenting with respect to a scenario under which Iran had attained a nuclear weapons capability.

The article also notes:

Since the three-page memo, written in January, a series of new options have been developed for Mr. Obama, including military means for dealing with Tehran if it should acquire a nuclear weapon, The New York Times reported.

My guess is that the new options would emphasize deterrence but do include military plans to safeguard vital U.S. interests in the region. Situations that would lead to a U.S. military response could include an Iranian attempt to block the transit of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, an attack on U.S. allies (e.g., Israel) or key international energy suppliers (e.g., Saudi Arabia), among some others.
 
I would simply be stunned if either the US or Israel militarily attacked Iran outright. I estimate a successful preemption would require at least two weeks of intense 24/7 air strikes. Special Ops on the ground would be required along Iran's coastline to keep the Persian Gulf open to oil tanker traffic.

I don't think Obama has the balls to do what would be required. I don't think Israel has the military capability to do what would be required. If either military should attack Iran, the other will certainly be sucked into the resulting fray whether they want it or not. Due to this piggy-back effect, I don't think either would act unilaterally. They would both know well before anyone else.

A tipoff would be any large scale shuttling of diplomatic/military personnel between Washington and Jerusalem.

Or... if I am suddenly and mysteriously re-activated :shock:
 
Redress said:
He may or may not be
Click to expand...

LOL!

the SECRETARY of DEFENSE "may" or "may not be" WRONG when he states the PRESIDENT has NO POLICY

unbelievable
 
Tashah said:
Or... if I am suddenly and mysteriously re-activated :shock:
Click to expand...

We cannot have this, so war with Iran is not allowed.

Thankfully, I am too old for callup from inactive reserves, and the Navy won't need to do callup's anyway.
 
The Prof...do you think if you keep repeating already disposed of arguments, they will magically become true?
 
the reachout didn't work

sad
 
The Prof said:
you gotta work awful hard to nuance "no policy"
Click to expand...

But you don't have to work hard at all to understand the entire context of the article. That is, unless you don't want to because that would go against your own hyperpartisan political agenda.
 
when's obama gonna MEET with the leaders of iran?
 
such a petty, personality prone perspective

it aint my fault the defense secty said he has no clue, the reachout was ridiculed, the sanctions soured, the diplomacy was a dud...

the prez is a putz, sorry

exactly what is the president's answer to the mexican drug cartels that are terrorizing innocents on both sides of the border?

just like iran---NO POLICY

bump?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…