• 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!

Trump asked for options for attacking Iran last week, but held off -source

Except, again, they are prisoners of war captured in the process of planning or orchestrating acts of mass murder, and your claims that they were “kidnapped” are as pathetic as always.

But I get that you are upset that there was no location revealed for a death squad to try and storm in order to torture and or murder more Americans.

Except they were not treated as prisoners of war. And I get that you brush aside that the vast majority of the detainees in Guantanamo were released and we know that the US does not release terrorists...
 
The Iran deal didn't end Iran nuclear program.
It expires in 2025-- in which case Iran can go build one.

There is no policy that can end the Iranian nuclear program, and it is stupid to believe that bombing Iran will end the nuclear program. On the contrary, bombing countries based on the whims of Americans will give a much stronger incentive to acquire the nuclear bomb. The only thing that makes sense is to have an agreement similar to the one Obama put in place and international observers to monitor its implementation.
 
Last edited:
You need to use your eyes. Trump has stabilized things in the ME.

Tensions still exist in the ME but the reason for the stability in the ME is those actors who mainly caused the tension in the ME (Saudi Arabia and Iran) are currently being constrained by the Trump administration.

Side note: I doubt the Biden administration knows how to keep the ME stabilized. In fact, I think the Biden administration will fuel the fire of destabilization in the ME with the Biden administration's apparent love of one of the main protagonists in the ME, Iran.

You need to open your eyes and realize that as long as the route case of the tension exist, it is irrational to claim that any president stabilized things in the ME.Trump has created a stronger incentive for Iran to become a nuclear power when they notice Trump's timid behavior with the nuclear armed North Korea. Kurds and Palestinians will continue to seek independence and whenever national aspirations exist by people who are weak in the conventional battlefield, , there will be also blood and terrorism. Iraq can very well see a civil war between the Kurds and the rest of the Iraqis, etc.
 
Last edited:
Your argument is complaining that the Iranian regime is held responsible at all, and then listed a long line of whataboutisms to defend your moaning. By your own standards the Kurds would have every right to set off all the bombs they could assemble in Turkey wherever they pleased, since the Turkish regime has brought it upon themselves via their oppression of the Kurds.

Historically desperately trying to handwave away state sponsored terrorism because ”but America” is as pathetic as ever.

You cannot deal with my points, so you choose to distort them.

Those who an read English can very well see that .

Read again the post you addressed with such blatant dstortions. Particularly the following part:

With respect to terrorism, my argument is not about finding excuses to justify terrorism. My argument is about the irrationality of holding Iran to unreasonably high standards simply because it violates the international law when it uses some terrorist groups to accomplish its objectives. The US, Russia, Syria, Iraq and Israal have used terrorist groups for years to accomplish their objectives and all of them have violated the international law in many ways with much heavier consequences for the victims. A single aggressive conventional war which violated international laws has cost wayyyyy more innocent victims and civilian lives than all Iranian terrorist actions combined.

I did not say that the Kurd are evil because unlike you I am consistent when I see things in context. The Kurds, like other groups have done some evil things, including terrorist acts that killed innocent Turkish civilians (as I showed in my previous link). But again, this does not put them at some unique level of moral deprivation compared to their antagonists in the region. Notice by the way that if I were to use your double stadards of selectively using "context," I would have criticized you for your attempt to brush off Kurdish terrorism, but I do not criticize you about such thing. I am just criticizing your double standards of examining things within a broader "context"

Historically, it has been, indeed, much better to take the chances of becoming victim of the Iranian sponsored terrorism than becoming a victim of the Syrian sponsored terrorism, or Iraqi sponsored terrorism or a victim of the Israel's "peaceful" expansion policies or of the US "liberation" policies. Iran does not have the capabilities to surpass the harm that other states have inflicted on innocent civilians in the region.



Now point at the part where I say anything remotely close tho what you want me to say...
 
Id say the UN resolutions requiring the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden were promulgated under and a part of international law.

I am still waiting for the resolution that required the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden to the US and the resolution that authorized the use of force as a result of the Taliban's failure to turn over Bin Laden.
 
There is no policy that can end the Iranian nuclear program, and it is stupid to believe that bombing Iran will end the nuclear program. On the contrary, bombing countries based on the whims of Americans will give a much stronger incentive to acquire the nuclear bomb. The only thing that makes sense is to have an agreement similar to the one Obama put in place and international observers to monitor its implementation.

Sanctions might.wreck the econony. make it impossible for them to support terrorism.
 
You need to open your eyes and realize that as long as the route case of the tension exist, it is irrational to claim that any president stabilized things in the ME.Trump has created a stronger incentive for Iran to become a nuclear power when they notice Trump's timid behavior with the nuclear armed North Korea. Kurds and Palestinians will continue to seek independence and whenever national aspirations exist by people who are weak in the conventional battlefield, , there will be also blood and terrorism. Iraq can very well see a civil war between the Kurds and the rest of the Iraqis, etc.
Go ahead. ignore the willingness of many countries of the ME to join in peace accords (and embrace Israel).
Go ahead. Ignore that Saudi Arabia is not so belligerent in its 'pro-Sunni' activities under the Trump administration. Go ahead. Ignore that Iran is not so belligerent in its 'pro-Shia' activities. under the Trump administration.:rolleyes:

Tensions in the ME (as long as the KSA and Iran have anything to say about it) will remain no matter what. You should acknowledge that the Trump administration has stabilized things in the ME, er, has stabilized things in the ME until Biden's administration screws things up, IMO:rolleyes:.
 
Would said generals expect their orders to be carried out, unquestionably, by subordinates in the military?:rolleyes: BTW, do you know what would happen to subordinates in the military that refused to carry out orders from superiors?
Actually, this depends on a lot of factors. There are unlawful orders, even from the President.

For instance, when President Bush visited our ship, we held a training session that involved explaining to all watch standers that the President could not touch certain panels or equipment and that he could not order anyone to explicitly do anything. Our orders, by SOP, had to come through the Officer of the Watch for each plant or someone in a direct supervisory capacity. These are safeguards to ensure that our nuclear reactors do not have "incidents" because someone above with no understanding of how they work gave an order that would put people in danger. And we were close to the coast of San Diego at the time, so a possible reactor accident wouldn't just put all the Sailors aboard and the President himself in danger, but also potentially millions of civilians as well.
 
Go ahead. ignore the willingness of many countries of the ME to join in peace accords (and embrace Israel).
Go ahead. Ignore that Saudi Arabia is not so belligerent in its 'pro-Sunni' activities under the Trump administration. Go ahead. Ignore that Iran is not so belligerent in its 'pro-Shia' activities. under the Trump administration.:rolleyes:

Tensions in the ME (as long as the KSA and Iran have anything to say about it) will remain no matter what. You should acknowledge that the Trump administration has stabilized things in the ME, er, has stabilized things in the ME until Biden's administration screws things up, IMO:rolleyes:.
What "peace accords"? If you're referring to the UAE and Bahrain restoring diplomatic relations with Israel that is emphatically not a peace deal. The UAE and Bahrain were perfectly stable, non-threatening and moderate in their dealings with Israel before this so-called "peace deal".
The only genuine peace deal I'm interested in would be between Palestine and Israel-and a deal which benefits both parties and disadvantages neither, not just benefiting Israel at the expense of the Palestinians which has been the cause of breakdowns in peace negotiations for decades.
 
Actually, this depends on a lot of factors. There are unlawful orders, even from the President.

For instance, when President Bush visited our ship, we held a training session that involved explaining to all watch standers that the President could not touch certain panels or equipment and that he could not order anyone to explicitly do anything. Our orders, by SOP, had to come through the Officer of the Watch for each plant or someone in a direct supervisory capacity. These are safeguards to ensure that our nuclear reactors do not have "incidents" because someone above with no understanding of how they work gave an order that would put people in danger. And we were close to the coast of San Diego at the time, so a possible reactor accident wouldn't just put all the Sailors aboard and the President himself in danger, but also potentially millions of civilians as well.
Correction. Do you know what an authoritarian would order if their edicts were disobeyed? Well. they'd order jail time...Tells you Trump isn't authoritarian (while many governors (and military leaders)are authoritarian when it comes to violating state Covid restrictions and military orders)).:rolleyes: Need I remind you that an authoritarian has one foot in the fascist bucket?
 
Last edited:
What "peace accords"? If you're referring to the UAE and Bahrain restoring diplomatic relations with Israel that is emphatically not a peace deal. The UAE and Bahrain were perfectly stable, non-threatening and moderate in their dealings with Israel before this so-called "peace deal".
The only genuine peace deal I'm interested in would be between Palestine and Israel-and a deal which benefits both parties and disadvantages neither, not just benefiting Israel at the expense of the Palestinians which has been the cause of breakdowns in peace negotiations for decades.
Yeah, well, Palestine and Israel aren't gonna come to any willful agreement on anything since both claim the same lands.:rolleyes:

Get the KSA and Iran out of the way and watch peace blossom in the ME.:D
BTW, peace blossoming in the ME isn't something the, for example, United Nations can foster.:rolleyes:...Probably 'cause there are too many Islamic countries (who're all authoritarian) in the UN and probably 'cause there are too many Israel-hating countries in the UN.

EDIT: Come to think of it, it's a good thing Trump is the anti-UN.
 
Last edited:
What "peace accords"? If you're referring to the UAE and Bahrain restoring diplomatic relations with Israel that is emphatically not a peace deal. The UAE and Bahrain were perfectly stable, non-threatening and moderate in their dealings with Israel before this so-called "peace deal".
The only genuine peace deal I'm interested in would be between Palestine and Israel-and a deal which benefits both parties and disadvantages neither, not just benefiting Israel at the expense of the Palestinians which has been the cause of breakdowns in peace negotiations for decades.

The cause of the breakdowns has been Palestinians refusing to accept the existence of Israel. They have been backed in this by the Arab states for decades.
The change that is happening is that UAE and Bahrain is accepting that Israel is there to stay. It sounds like Saudi Arabia is next up.
This is happening because the Arab states are recognizng in the mid-east is Iran, not the lack of a Palestinian state. Perhaps that realization will spur the Palestinians to be serious in their dealings with Israel.
 
The cause of the breakdowns has been Palestinians refusing to accept the existence of Israel. They have been backed in this by the Arab states for decades.
The change that is happening is that UAE and Bahrain is accepting that Israel is there to stay. It sounds like Saudi Arabia is next up.
This is happening because the Arab states are recognizng in the mid-east is Iran, not the lack of a Palestinian state. Perhaps that realization will spur the Palestinians to be serious in their dealings with Israel.
Rubbish! The cause of the breakdowns have been Israel's intransigence over the illegal settlements, Netanyahu's deliberate derailing of the Oslo peace accords, Israel's refusal to allow Palestine an army for self defense as part of any agreement among many other pro-Israeli pre-conditions to talks. 'Peace only on my terms' is no peace at all.
 
Rubbish! The cause of the breakdowns have been Israel's intransigence over the illegal settlements, Netanyahu's deliberate derailing of the Oslo peace accords, Israel's refusal to allow Palestine an army for self defense as part of any agreement among many other pro-Israeli pre-conditions to talks. 'Peace only on my terms' is no peace at all.

Well, the problems in the mid-east are being caused by Iran, and not by Israel vis a vis the Palestinians. ISIS had nothing to do with the Palestinian issue either.
The Arab states are recognizing the mid-east doesn't revolve around the Palestinians.
 
He's either lying or embarrassing you with the truth of US belligerence. Which is it, with examples please.

He‘s blatant lying. For example(to use just one of many), his claim that the US deliberately bombed the Chinese embassy during the intervention against the Serbs’ genocidal campaign— a statement with zero evidence to support it, but one which he repeated in the course of wailing about how awful the US putting a stop to the genocide was.
 
Go ahead. ignore the willingness of many countries of the ME to join in peace accords (and embrace Israel).
Go ahead. Ignore that Saudi Arabia is not so belligerent in its 'pro-Sunni' activities under the Trump administration. Go ahead. Ignore that Iran is not so belligerent in its 'pro-Shia' activities. under the Trump administration.:rolleyes:

Tensions in the ME (as long as the KSA and Iran have anything to say about it) will remain no matter what. You should acknowledge that the Trump administration has stabilized things in the ME, er, has stabilized things in the ME until Biden's administration screws things up, IMO:rolleyes:.


Give me one event where the ME was destabilized because of a confrontation between the countries you mention. If you cannot , then you should realize that Trump has not contributed anything to the stabilization in the ME.

The real issues of destabilization are the ones that Trump made it more difficult to resolve by choosing to show a pro-Israeli favor. Encouraging and rewarding it for settlement expansion makes the real peace process wayyy more difficult.
 
Sanctions might.wreck the econony. make it impossible for them to support terrorism.

When did this work?

Not to mention the fact that Iran uses an oil thirsty China.

.

Millions of Barrels of Iranian Oil Are Piled Up in China’s Ports

Good luck expecting the Chinese to actually side with your objectives (in the middle also of a trade war)



Defying U.S., China and Iran Near Trade and Military Partnership
The investment and security pact would vastly extend China’s influence in the Middle East, throwing Iran an economic lifeline and creating new flash points with the United States.





For the US, the objective with respect to Iran seems to be (again) regime change to make sure that a new pro-western regime will not develop nuclear weapons in secrecy . Which Iranian leader will accept such objective? On the contrary, developing nuclear weapons will seem as the rational thing to do because nuclear armed rivals are treated with more respect (see N. Korea).
 
Last edited:
I'm quite old enough to remember Operation Desert Storm. We attacked the much vaunted Republican Guard of Iraq. They were supposedly the most elite fighting force in the entire Middle East. American and allied forces had them on the run literally within minutes of the commencement of the battle. The war was over and done within four days. The U.S. suffered less than 150 battle casualties.

Iran has absolutely nothing even close to what Iraq had back then, and they certainly have no allies in the area who would be willing to go up against the U.S. in a shooting war.
 
You cannot deal with my points, so you choose to distort them.

Those who an read English can very well see that .

Read again the post you addressed with such blatant dstortions. Particularly the following part:

With respect to terrorism, my argument is not about finding excuses to justify terrorism. My argument is about the irrationality of holding Iran to unreasonably high standards simply because it violates the international law when it uses some terrorist groups to accomplish its objectives. The US, Russia, Syria, Iraq and Israal have used terrorist groups for years to accomplish their objectives and all of them have violated the international law in many ways with much heavier consequences for the victims. A single aggressive conventional war which violated international laws has cost wayyyyy more innocent victims and civilian lives than all Iranian terrorist actions combined.

I did not say that the Kurd are evil because unlike you I am consistent when I see things in context. The Kurds, like other groups have done some evil things, including terrorist acts that killed innocent Turkish civilians (as I showed in my previous link). But again, this does not put them at some unique level of moral deprivation compared to their antagonists in the region. Notice by the way that if I were to use your double stadards of selectively using "context," I would have criticized you for your attempt to brush off Kurdish terrorism, but I do not criticize you about such thing. I am just criticizing your double standards of examining things within a broader "context"

Historically, it has been, indeed, much better to take the chances of becoming victim of the Iranian sponsored terrorism than becoming a victim of the Syrian sponsored terrorism, or Iraqi sponsored terrorism or a victim of the Israel's "peaceful" expansion policies or of the US "liberation" policies. Iran does not have the capabilities to surpass the harm that other states have inflicted on innocent civilians in the region.



Now point at the part where I say anything remotely close tho what you want me to say...

You repeateding your same patehtic attempts at excuses for the Iranian regime doesn't change the facts. Historically, deapite the squealing of fans of the Islamic Republic, it has been Tehran which has actively assisted in terrorist attacks across the globe from Lebanon to Argentina, with many other failed attempts.

And again, if a 1953 coup is sufficient to justify the decades of terrorism committed by the Iranian regime, then the Kurds have every right to set off all the bombs they want in Turkey.
 
Except they were not treated as prisoners of war. And I get that you brush aside that the vast majority of the detainees in Guantanamo were released and we know that the US does not release terrorists...

Except that only in the minds of Iranian fanboys were terrorists captured on the battlefield “kidnapped”.
 
Except that only in the minds of Iranian fanboys were terrorists captured on the battlefield “kidnapped”.

I did not use links from Iranian fanboys. And it was shown also that the vast majority of the Guantanamo detainees were freed. The only thing you accomplish with such name calling is to expose your inability to counter the points that were made. But feel free to argue now that the U sponsors terrorism because it apparently frees terrorists.
 
You repeateding your same patehtic attempts at excuses for the Iranian regime doesn't change the facts. Historically, deapite the squealing of fans of the Islamic Republic, it has been Tehran which has actively assisted in terrorist attacks across the globe from Lebanon to Argentina, with many other failed attempts.

And again, if a 1953 coup is sufficient to justify the decades of terrorism committed by the Iranian regime, then the Kurds have every right to set off all the bombs they want in Turkey.

Agan, nobody said anything about justifying terrorism. Nor does it make sense to argue that the ocupation of the Tehran embassy is an act of terrorism. The issue is the DOUBLE standards which people use when they selectively the bar high for Iran compared to other countries.

Here are some embassy occupations when Kurds were potesting


Kurds leave Greek embassy in London

and here are some indefinite detentions in Israel without charges



Israeli authorities used renewable administrative detention orders to hold Palestinians without charge or trial. Some 4,638 Palestinians from the OPT, including 458 administrative detainees, were held in Israeli prisons as of 30 November, according to the Israel Prison Service. Many families of Palestinian detainees in Israel, particularly those in Gaza, were not permitted entry to Israel to visit their relatives.

Palestinian civilians, including children, from the OPT were prosecuted in military courts that did not meet international fair trial standards.



By the way, just yesterday we had an act of terrorism killing a scientist in Iran and Israel and the US are silent. Don' t countries have supposedly an obligation to cooperate against terrorism? So spare with your nonsense!
 
Last edited:
I did not use links from Iranian fanboys. And it was shown also that the vast majority of the Guantanamo detainees were freed. The only thing you accomplish with such name calling is to expose your inability to counter the points that were made. But feel free to argue now that the U sponsors terrorism because it apparently frees terrorists.

The only “point“ you made was that the ACLU has a laughably broad definition of “kidnapping”.
 
Sanctions might.wreck the econony. make it impossible for them to support terrorism.
Kim has shown that poverty does not slow a determined nation from acquiring nuclear weapons. Hurting the Iranian people with sanctions only strengthens the hardliners who believe aggression is the only way to keep Iran safe from invasion. Inviting Iran to join the league of respectable nations is the only way to take power from those that want war with the west.
 
Back
Top Bottom