• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should the free world put together a military force to invade Iran?

Should the free world put together a military force to disarm Iran?


  • Total voters
    6
  • Poll closed .

Vader

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I honestly believe the only way to assure there is peace in the middle east is to keep countries like Iran and Syria disarmed.

What do you folks think?
 

knicksin2010

New member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Location
NJ, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
No! I don't want to be the one's responsible for starting WWIII. We should let Israel and Iran duke it out alone if it comes to that and use our power to make sure no-one else gets ivolved.

Or else

 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,498
Reaction score
16,290
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I honestly believe the only way to assure there is peace in the middle east is to keep countries like Iran and Syria disarmed.

What do you folks think?
I doubt any of the other nations would do anything.Lets face it the UN is full of pussies.THe US,Britian and few other countries are the only ones with enough balls to do something about Iran.Although I do not like the Idea of invading Iran because the others nation's idea of help is a few thousand troops while the US send in over a hundred thousand.
 
H

hipsterdufus

Vader said:
I honestly believe the only way to assure there is peace in the middle east is to keep countries like Iran and Syria disarmed.

What do you folks think?
What hubris! Who are we to say we can have all the arms and nukes we want, in fact we've even used them, while countries that we don't like can't ? Nuclear disarmament isn't going to happen until we take the lead.
 
Last edited:

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
knicksin2010 said:
No! I don't want to be the one's responsible for starting WWIII. We should let Israel and Iran duke it out alone if it comes to that and use our power to make sure no-one else gets ivolved.

Or else


If Israel and Iran duke it out, they will nuke each other and other countries, whether they want to get involved or not, will be forced to get involved because of the willingness of both Israel and Iran to nuke each other, which the effects of the use of those nuclear weapons will spread to other parts of the globe.
 

SKILMATIC

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
TimmyBoy said:
If Israel and Iran duke it out, they will nuke each other and other countries, whether they want to get involved or not, will be forced to get involved because of the willingness of both Israel and Iran to nuke each other, which the effects of the use of those nuclear weapons will spread to other parts of the globe.
SWEET. Where can i sign up to push the nuke button? :rofl
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Only if Saudi Arabia is included too.
 

MrAchilles

New member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Now you would think after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the United States should have seperated itself from all nuclear connections right? But i guess since we're big bad America we get to keep ours. Well that's not fair to third world countries. How can America expect the Middle Eastern nations t give up their nukes when we still carry them! America has to get rid of their nukes then they should ask other M.E. nations to do the same.
 

SKILMATIC

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
MrAchilles said:
Now you would think after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the United States should have seperated itself from all nuclear connections right? But i guess since we're big bad America we get to keep ours. Well that's not fair to third world countries. How can America expect the Middle Eastern nations t give up their nukes when we still carry them! America has to get rid of their nukes then they should ask other M.E. nations to do the same.
Who in the same hill do you think you are? Do you even know anything about foreign affairs? I swear the mods really need to start screening all the newbs. :lol:
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
MrAchilles said:
Now you would think after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the United States should have seperated itself from all nuclear connections right? But i guess since we're big bad America we get to keep ours. Well that's not fair to third world countries. How can America expect the Middle Eastern nations t give up their nukes when we still carry them! America has to get rid of their nukes then they should ask other M.E. nations to do the same.
I completely had this mind set until I learned about the difference between first and second strike capabilities. First strike capabilty is being able to hit first and limit your enemy's abillity to retaliate to acceptable levels. Second strike capabiltity is the ability to absord an enemy's attack and still have enough weapons to inflict unacceptable damage on them. The US and Russia have second strike capabilty. All developing nuclear powers have first strike capability. Big deal you say. Well, say you're a country with first strike capability and you here news that your enemy is planning on attacking your weapons silos. What do you do? If they attack it, that's it. You won't be able to attack them anymore. So you attack first. That's the danger of countries with first strike capability. It is too easily taken away, so they become trigger happy. A country that only has first strike is tempted to attack by the belief that his opponent could not retaliate. A county that has second strike capabilty knows that it can strike back so it is not tempted to strike first.
 
Last edited:

teacher

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
30
Location
Nomad.Got a couch,beer,meat,cute daughters,Batman
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Kelzie said:
I completely had this mind set until I learned about the difference between first and second strike capabilities. First strike capabilty is being able to hit first and limit your enemy's abillity to retaliate to acceptable levels. Second strike capabiltity is the ability to absord an enemy's attack and still have enough weapons to inflict unacceptable damage on them. The US and Russia have second strike capabilty. All developing nuclear powers have first strike capability. Big deal you say. Well, say you're a country with first strike capability and you here news that your enemy is planning on attacking your weapons silos. What do you do? If they attack it, that's it. You won't be able to attack them anymore. So you attack first. That's the danger of countries with first strike capability. It is too easily taken away, so they become trigger happy. A country that only has first strike is tempted to attack by the belief that his opponent could not retaliate. A county that has second strike capabilty knows that it can strike back so it is not tempted to strike first.

Yea, well...
 

Attachments

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
teacher said:
Yea, well...
Freakin people. I swear. I never said that the Russian military is anywhere near equal to the US's. Not that it is in any way relevant to the disccusion, but they have over 7,000 nukes. Even if we could wipe out...say 5/6 of their missiles in our first strike (which is very optimistic), that would leave about 1200 nukes left for them to retalitate with. Do you think that is acceptable damage? This is why the US and Russia would NEVER attack each other.
 

MrAchilles

New member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
First off I want to say that Skilmatic has some anger management issues and needs to learn how to conduct himself on public forums. Secondly I want to thank Kelzie for clearing that up for me. My political science teacher taught us about first strike last year but i guess he failed to mention second strike. It's actually common sense once you think about, being how strong America is and all.
 

MrAchilles

New member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Thanks a lot teacher. I hope to learn a lot hear. and i already am.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
MrAchilles said:
First off I want to say that Skilmatic has some anger management issues and needs to learn how to conduct himself on public forums. Secondly I want to thank Kelzie for clearing that up for me. My political science teacher taught us about first strike last year but i guess he failed to mention second strike. It's actually common sense once you think about, being how strong America is and all.
:lol: No problem. I just remember thinking the same as you literally a month ago. Like: where was the US getting off saying other countries can't have nukes.

My best choice would be that nobody has them. But my second best would be that only second strike capable countries would have them.
 

teacher

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
30
Location
Nomad.Got a couch,beer,meat,cute daughters,Batman
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Kelzie said:
Freakin people. I swear. I never said that the Russian military is anywhere near equal to the US's. Not that it is in any way relevant to the disccusion, but they have over 7,000 nukes. Even if we could wipe out...say 5/6 of their missiles in our first strike (which is very optimistic), that would leave about 1200 nukes left for them to retalitate with. Do you think that is acceptable damage? This is why the US and Russia would NEVER attack each other.

Oh my..........
 

Attachments

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
teacher said:
Oh my..........
I'm sorry, I'm sorry. It just feels like I've been debating this forever with SKIL who won't get it through his head. The US military is superior. For sure. But Russia's nukes would hurt us too bad to engage in any type of warfare.

My apologies. Didn't mean to take it out on the Commander in Chief of the monkey army.;)
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
And my international affairs Prof. appears to be conservative, by the way. Although, they're all so paranoid about letting their political leaning show that it is hard to tell.
 

teacher

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
30
Location
Nomad.Got a couch,beer,meat,cute daughters,Batman
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Kelzie said:
:lol: No problem. I just remember thinking the same as you literally a month ago. Like: where was the US getting off saying other countries can't have nukes.

My best choice would be that nobody has them. But my second best would be that only second strike capable countries would have them.
Oh dear...
 

Attachments

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
teacher said:
Oh dear...
What?!? That's not what I said. I said they shouldn't have first strike capability.
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
: Should the free world put together a military force to invade Iran?


If Bush wants to see his approval ratings drop down into the single digits, sure, then invade Iran.

We need diplomacy in this regard, not invasion...invading Iran would be absolutely the dumbest, stupidest thing our nation has ever done.

Why would Iran even want the bomb?

one 4-letter word...FEAR.

They see the U.S. attacking neighbors like Afghanistan and Iraq and know they could be next. Our foreign policy is literally forcing Iran to pursue the bomb. We armed Iraq in the past, expressly for keeping Iran in check. Why should they want to negoiate with the U.S.? The 'free world' doesn't need a united military force, it needs a united diplomatic force.

Besides, if Iran continues to pursue nuclear weapons, does anyone doubt that Israel will wage a pre-emptive attack on Iran's facilities...with or without U.S. approval?

Bush would have to be an idiot to get us embroiled in a mess with Iran now. If I could only hold my breath and keep my fingers crossed until Jan, 20th, 2009, when this spoiled little rich kid, who has failed at every facet of his life, is a fading memory in the minds of freedom loving Americans.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hoot said:
: Should the free world put together a military force to invade Iran?


If Bush wants to see his approval ratings drop down into the single digits, sure, then invade Iran.

We need diplomacy in this regard, not invasion...invading Iran would be absolutely the dumbest, stupidest thing our nation has ever done.

Why would Iran even want the bomb?

one 4-letter word...FEAR.

They see the U.S. attacking neighbors like Afghanistan and Iraq and know they could be next. Our foreign policy is literally forcing Iran to pursue the bomb. We armed Iraq in the past, expressly for keeping Iran in check. Why should they want to negoiate with the U.S.? The 'free world' doesn't need a united military force, it needs a united diplomatic force.

Besides, if Iran continues to pursue nuclear weapons, does anyone doubt that Israel will wage a pre-emptive attack on Iran's facilities...with or without U.S. approval?

Bush would have to be an idiot to get us embroiled in a mess with Iran now. If I could only hold my breath and keep my fingers crossed until Jan, 20th, 2009, when this spoiled little rich kid, who has failed at every facet of his life, is a fading memory in the minds of freedom loving Americans.
Because diplomacy has a great chance of succeeding. Like a fart in a cat 5 hurricane.

Iran has already purchased Dual process technology. So other then the power what exactly is the enriched uranium for?

FEAR? how can you be so naive? It Will be used as another tool to oppress there own people and to threaten the west with.

I figure if you get your way we can get a liberal into office. Then iran and the other terrorist nations can go back to picking off our interest, allies and citizens with any fear of reprisal. Course they are well aware we might diplomacy them to death. Course thats going to take about 100,000 years. And they live for diplomacy, it gives them more time to plan another suicide attack
 
Top Bottom