• 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: evacuate Tehran

We’re responding to years of getting poked in the eye by the regime. The worm has turned.
The US happily helped Saddam gas Iranian civilians. This pretense that the US is the one which has been abused by Iran is throughly pathetic.
 
If the regime falls, my hazy crystal ball tells me the clerical establishment will continue to exert their historical influence. But factions within the majority Persians will compete among themselves and with competing factions from the oppressed minority Arabs, Kurds, and Turkic peoples. (Not to mention about ten other smaller minority groups.) In other words, no matter which outsiders have a plan for post Islamic Iran, internally there will be chaos with no clear favorite in sight.
Out of chaos may come order.
Egypt is a good example of that.
 
If you're going to debate the Israeli-Iran crisis, then do it using common sense and what it means to Israel's existence and peace in the region.
That's an interesting term that's been used to justify all sorts of things that are the opposite of what that means. The "common sense" question here is whether Israel's security is worth destabilizing the region by eliminating the current regime; devil you know and all that.

If the dying snake is still deadly, then cut off its head and/or get rid of what makes it deadly to the region.
It's a bit optimistic to say Iran is a dying snake, since their military is still intact despite Israeli air dominance. For there to be the kind of change some are advocating, it would take a lot more than just air superiority, hence the question of what comes next in the minds of those pushing this approach.
 
If the regime falls, my hazy crystal ball tells me the clerical establishment will continue to exert their historical influence. But factions within the majority Persians will compete among themselves and with competing factions from the oppressed minority Arabs, Kurds, and Turkic peoples. (Not to mention about ten other smaller minority groups.) In other words, no matter which outsiders have a plan for post Islamic Iran, internally there will be chaos with no clear favorite in sight.
That's my main concern given US actions in the region over the past few decades. The optimistic view is moderates will assume control, but the moderates aren't the ones with the guns, so a lot of things to sort out there. Now, the short term solution is Israel/US don't have to worry about Iran backed groups or this supposed threat of Iran having a nuclear weapon, which Netanyahu has been warning about for decades; it's the equivalent of the 2 weeks for Trump's infrastructure plan. The long term outcome is the big question mark should the regime be deposed.
 
What a mess. One has to wonder if the world would be in this position if Trump hadn't cancelled the Accord. Nonetheless, we are. The worrisome thing is that what this war, the war in Gaza, as well as other attacks Israel has made in the region , guarantees a new generation of terrorists. The cycle will never stop until negotiations and treaties replace wars.
Good question. It would have likely been a cat and mouse game with Iran, but the advantage of the JCPOA is it gave us more access to what they were up to and what they were hiding. Once we were out of it we lost that outside of what we knew from intel. What I'm more interested in seeing play out is how this attack affects sentiment in the Arab world because while the governments of nations in the region want a closer relationship with Israel, their respective populaces aren't keen on that because of precisely these kind of situations.

Iran's made this bed as well, because it has sought to exert its influence through militant groups that have been a headache to some in the region as well. It would be great to have a reset, but what isn't clear is who would lead that reset.
 
me as well. now they call it kinetic military action, or deny a proxy war funding is complicit in the war...like Ukraine.
Anyways that's a topic to itself. Peace out brother
Sometimes they call it a "special military operation" and you're fine with THAT.
 
What a mess. One has to wonder if the world would be in this position if Trump hadn't cancelled the Accord. Nonetheless, we are. The worrisome thing is that what this war, the war in Gaza, as well as other attacks Israel has made in the region , guarantees a new generation of terrorists. The cycle will never stop until negotiations and treaties replace wars.
FTFY
 
Given that all of this just breeds more terrorists, I fear you are right.
If you draw a box around what used to be the Byzantine empire, Iran, and the entire Arab peninsula, they have never been anything other than what they are right now. People have been fighting there over grudges since the early bronze age at least, and they aren't going to stop tomorrow.
 
If you draw a box around what used to be the Byzantine empire, Iran, and the entire Arab peninsula, they have never been anything other than what they are right now. People have been fighting there over grudges since the early bronze age at least, and they aren't going to stop tomorrow.
Then they fought each other. Now they attack us as well...and with good reason sometimes.
 
Or rather terrorists breed the need to strike in defense.
Chicken and egg. If you were a little boy watching bombs fall on your home, seeing your father and mother die, maybe brothers or sisters losing limbs. Tired hungry , terrified.......you learn to hate the people that did that to you. Even if they had a reason.
 
Chicken and egg. If you were a little boy watching bombs fall on your home, seeing your father and mother die, maybe brothers or sisters losing limbs. Tired hungry , terrified.......you learn to hate the people that did that to you. Even if they had a reason.
Well, no. Apparently you should be grateful to your "liberators". You don't want JD Vance showing up and ask you when was the last time you showed some gratitude would you?
;)
 
Well, no. Apparently you're supposed to be grateful for your "liberators". You don't want JD Vance showing up and ask you when was the last time you showed some gratitude would you?
;)
I remember all those cheering, American flag-waving Iraqis that greeted us during and after the ground invasion.
 
Chicken and egg. If you were a little boy watching bombs fall on your home, seeing your father and mother die, maybe brothers or sisters losing limbs. Tired hungry , terrified.......you learn to hate the people that did that to you. Even if they had a reason.
There were many hardships suffered by humans throughout the ages that didn't result in people deciding to murder completely innocent people in the name of their God.
In fact even most people in the relevant situations discussed don't turn to terrorism.
The problem is incitement. Victim blaming isn't going to help.
 
The last thing Trump wants is human lives lost while trying to carry out a goal he's been crystal clear about (that Iran cannot have nuclear bombs). Frankly, that's also a big difference in many of the tactics we've seen used by Israel and Iran. Iran's tactics are geared toward killing civilians. Israel's tactics are geared toward dismantling capabilities.

I don't think his statements and actions now, are ambiguous. Trump wanted to reach a deal with Iran and he gave it the 60 days he was clear about. Ambiguity was his purposeful tactic then. It isn't now.
The nauseating lies coming from the anti-Trumps is to be expected. Trump has been clear. Iran cannot have nuclear weapons/capabilities. He is trying to save lives, but look at them spin the narrative into something evil.
 
During his campaigns, (both), Trump repeatedly criticized U.S. involvement in "endless wars" and positioned himself as a peacemaker, vowing to avoid new conflicts. He gave Iran 60 days to come to their senses, and they rejected his offer. As a longtime ally, and under specific military acts granted to the POTUS to employ, Israel would be fully within their right to use what they need from the US's military to stop the nuclear threat. That's it.

If there is direct U.S. involvement, like an act of war or a declared war, and I've yet to see it, I will say Trump didn't keep his word to us.
 
That's my main concern given US actions in the region over the past few decades. The optimistic view is moderates will assume control, but the moderates aren't the ones with the guns, so a lot of things to sort out there. Now, the short term solution is Israel/US don't have to worry about Iran backed groups or this supposed threat of Iran having a nuclear weapon, which Netanyahu has been warning about for decades; it's the equivalent of the 2 weeks for Trump's infrastructure plan. The long term outcome is the big question mark should the regime be deposed.
If the regime appears to teeter on collapse, will the Islamic Republican Guard have the strength and resources to prop it up? They have economic as well as political interests to protect. If you remember back to the early mass street demonstrations, they were confronted not by the military but by motorcycle riding rural loyalists.

The political moderates may not be armed, but the insurrectionist Kurds most likely are. Or they can get them from their Iraqi cousins via the Peshmerga. Then again, if the IRGC survives intact, they might ruthlessly put down any resistance just as they did in 1979 and later.

SNAFU. The situation and the fortune telling will change with every sortie Israel flies across Iran.
 
That's an interesting term that's been used to justify all sorts of things that are the opposite of what that means. The "common sense" question here is whether Israel's security is worth destabilizing the region by eliminating the current regime; devil you know and all that.


It's a bit optimistic to say Iran is a dying snake, since their military is still intact despite Israeli air dominance. For there to be the kind of change some are advocating, it would take a lot more than just air superiority, hence the question of what comes next in the minds of those pushing this approach.
Ask yourself the simple question: What is Israel's security worth to them? Isn't that what's important?
Or do you feel we should dictate to that sovereign country what's important to them?
The decapitation of the head of the snake, the Supreme Mullah, could result it total chaos in Iran or it could lead to regime change benefiting the entire region. No one knows.
 
The US happily helped Saddam gas Iranian civilians. This pretense that the US is the one which has been abused by Iran is throughly pathetic.
I don’t think anyone on here pretty much gives a shit what you think anymore. You’re like a broken record.
 
During his campaigns, (both), Trump repeatedly criticized U.S. involvement in "endless wars" and positioned himself as a peacemaker, vowing to avoid new conflicts. He gave Iran 60 days to come to their senses, and they rejected his offer. Israel would be fully within their right to use what they need from the US's military to stop the nuclear threat. That's it.

If there is direct U.S. involvement, and I've yet to see it, I will say Trump didn't keep his word to us.
The nuclear threat according to who, Netanyahu? He's been saying Iran's 2 weeks from a nuclear bomb for decades; it's the longest 2 weeks ever. Gabbard, who works for the administration, is not aligned with that assessment and Trump threw her under the bus in favor of Netanyahu who views the US as the tool needed to complete his mission, not the US mission. He basically upended the ongoing negotiations and went straight to military conflict. If Trump had any sense, he would have pumped the brakes on this but since he doesn't, now things have gone south.
 
I don’t think anyone on here pretty much gives a shit what you think anymore. You’re like a broken record.
Poor tiger, No one understands him the way he does.

Where was it ever recorded the U.S."happily" assisted Hussein in the use of poison gas against his own people?

Tiger's view of geopolitics will always remain crystal clear in his own mind.
 
The nuclear threat according to who, Netanyahu? He's been saying Iran's 2 weeks from a nuclear bomb for decades; it's the longest 2 weeks ever. Gabbard, who works for the administration, is not aligned with that assessment and Trump threw her under the bus in favor of Netanyahu who views the US as the tool needed to complete his mission, not the US mission. He basically upended the ongoing negotiations and went straight to military conflict. If Trump had any sense, he would have pumped the brakes on this but since he doesn't, now things have gone south.
You wrote "If Trump had any sense, he would have pumped the brakes on this but since he doesn't, now things have gone south."
How far south have we gone? Are we using our weapons offensively in Iran? Do we have boots on the ground there?
Your judgment is being clouded by your distaste for Trump. It's visible in every one of your posts.
You want him to lose and you want America to lose because of your concrete ideology against America.
 
I don’t think anyone on here pretty much gives a shit what you think anymore. You’re like a broken record.
If that were even remotely true you wouldn’t have replied to begin with.
 
Back
Top Bottom