• 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!

PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

let's look at our nation's hypocrisy in singling out iran, which has denounced the processing of plutonium:
[emphasis added by bubba]
Nuclear program of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so, what was the proposed action to be taken against south korea?
 
I agree it will not cut off Russia's oil supply but it could increase their energy costs. Who does Russia import their 42,750 bbl/day of oil from?
This is just a guess but it could be Kazakhstan. It's a pretty big oil exporter, especially to former SSR's, and it could be more of an accounting/transportation arrangement with Russia than anything else. But I couldn't find any direct evidence of where Russia imports it's oil.
 
Or it could be for payment for services rendered instead of cash - though Russia will turn around and sell it, anyway. Kind of like "laundering" oil? LOL!
 
Did we know about the activities at the time?
Are they still doing those things?

If the answers are 'no' then what exactly would you expect to happen? Typically, the UN does not address past actions in some punitive way. Instead, they concentrate on the current state of affairs, to bring everyone into compliance with international treaties.
 

That's what I'm thinking. If they aren't misusing nuclear knowledge now, there's not much to for the UN to do. Perhaps they could write a letter like, "Oh you...Bad you! Don't every do that again!" And that would have to be about, it. We could inspect their nuclear facilities I suppose. But that would hardly be newsworthy since Since South Korea wouldn't make a big issue over it. *sigh* This is really a non-issue.

Or it could be for payment for services rendered instead of cash - though Russia will turn around and sell it, anyway. Kind of like "laundering" oil? LOL!

Ha! That makes a quirky kind of sense. Good one.
 
Last edited:

The economy is important to most nations.
 
The economy is important to most nations.

Yes, it is. But Russia's economy will not collapse without Iranian oil, as Kane asserted. That's like saying Japan wouldn't have enough cars if the US stopped shipping cars there. Certainly, some Japanese may enjoy their American cars, but the whole nation would hardly come to a halt without them.
 

My point was never that it would collapse the Iranian economy, just that it would make everything associated with oil more expensive.
 
Don't you understand we need to fight for Israel?

They are our only ally in the region.

That sounds so 'sweet', but think about that for just a minute. Israel is a nation of about 6 million people, surrounded by well over 300 million that really hate them and don't much care for the U.S. either. As long as Israel remains simply a 'potential' threat, that may allow them to semi-peacefully exist, but once they become a real aggressor, backed by the mighty U.S., by launching a 'preemptive' attack against Iran then the picture changes for them. The U.S. could, with allied support, hold off any nation (perhaps even two or three of them) that attacked Israel, but wars, like the current Jihad, are not fought openly by nations, but by 'rogue' terrorists. Which nation(s) would bear responsibilty, and be forced to pay the ultimate price, for a WMD attack against Israel carried out by 'terrorists'? Even though the 9/11 'terrorists' were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen we chose to 'attack' Afghanistan as our first response, hardly scaring those in ALL of the nations in the region that openly cheered the 9/11 attcks in the streets. We can not, and will not, declare war on ALL of the Islamic nations, yet Israel attacking one of them will surely unite their support of 'terrorists' to retaliate.
 
Last edited:
My point was never that it would collapse the Iranian economy, just that it would make everything associated with oil more expensive.

That just goes to show you that "everything associated with oil [is] more expensive." When a two-bit theocracy can even consider threatening our nation with the price of oil, and even change the direction of US policy, it's time to get away from the double-damned stuff.
 
Last edited:

No argument from me there, I thought it was time 30 years ago!
 
No argument from me there, I thought it was time 30 years ago!

if my memory is accurate - it often isn't - so did Jimmy Carter
 
if my memory is accurate - it often isn't - so did Jimmy Carter

Yes, even our old conservative Senator from Virginia admitted President Carter was right ~

"It took 30 years, but Jimmy Carter finally has gotten recognition for the wisdom of his energy policies. Speaking on Science Friday, Senator John Warner, a Republican from Virginia who first entered the Senate during Carter’s term in office, said that Jimmy Carter “was right” when he called for a massive program of energy conservation and alternative energy research."

John Warner: Jimmy Carter Was Right
 

Too simplistic. Many don't say no to all wars, just reckless and harmful wars. You have to have exact situations to compare properly.

That is the same censorship and lies of the lamestream media you regurgitate. Illegal wars ARE CRIMES by definition no matter how great the manufactured "threat" is, posed by our American profiteers, and the planted Pentagon spokesmen from the Ministry of Truth.

International laws are there for a reason, so no one can pull any Napoleon Bonehead moves on the world stage, but these government stenographers like Jon Stewart or Tom Freidman think they can get away with revisionist history and all the citizenry will be duped?

No way. The NYT and the LATimes are all fronts for war profiteers and these newspapers "of record" will only tell you the truth ex post facto once the Pentagon has subjugated its victims and the bloodbath well under way. Same goes for Time magazine and CNN/Fox with their pro-war stooge reporters, Peter Bergen, Matt Cooper, Judith Miller and so on.

The framers of the Constitution knew this would happen, that the press would be taken over by the government for propaganda, that's why they stuck that clause in there, a law that is currently not being enforced in this country.
 
Last edited:
I do believe that military action will be happening sooner than later once HR 4133 comes to pass.

Full Text of H.R. 4133: United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012 - GovTrack.us

 
I do believe that military action will be happening sooner than later once HR 4133 comes to pass.

Full Text of H.R. 4133: United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012 - GovTrack.us
until i saw this earlier in the week, i would have agreed with you:
Russia and China are against using military force or the threat of force against Iran, and do not approve of directing unilateral sanctions against it
Russia, China Stress Rejection of Military Action against Syria, Iran
those nation's have now drawn their own line in the sands of iran
 
until i saw this earlier in the week, i would have agreed with you:

Russia, China Stress Rejection of Military Action against Syria, Iran
those nation's have now drawn their own line in the sands of iran

Right. I had been anticipating Russia and China's condemnation of military operations, and as you said, to draw their lines in the sand in regards to Iran. At this point, it is a waiting game - for us, that is. Because someone's side is going to lose in all of this. There are too many red lines and lines in the sand for there not to be a loser.

At any rate, I think the rhetoric behind the scenes is a lot more forthcoming than what we're being told. But do I believe that China and Russia would be willing to do anything drastic to protect Iran, or for that matter Syria, I doubt that they'd risk War with the US over it. However, the depths of US loyalty to Israel is the crux of the whole matter. How far will the US go to defend Israel? How committed is Israel to stopping Iran?

Only time will tell.
 
Last edited:

i can see the russians and chinese funneling advanced weaponry to iran as we have been doing with israel
as a bonus, they get to witness how their arms compete against those of the west

Obama will now be a fool if he agrees to place any troops at risk during an iranian assault
while he has disappointed me much over the past three plus years, i pray he is not such a fool
 
Some updating:

S 2165 passed the Senate
China invested $20 billion into Iranian oilfields
 

Or Chinese and Russian loyalty to Syria and Iran are the crux of the problem :shrug:
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…