• 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 Launches War On Iran


No shit, did we really need Iran to tell us that? I've been posting it since Israel started bombing them.

You know how for decades Israel has had to keep looking over its shoulder, always searching every person and bag, fearful of snipers and suicide bombers that no wall has stopped?

That's what our involvement in this "war" can bring here. Low-cost to Iran, plenty of extremist Muslims to heed the terrorist call to action, paralyzing to the US and our economy. No need for nukes. The fear will do all the damage they need.

We've had 2 such attacks here by Palestinian-sympathetic terrorists already this past yr...the flamethrower guy and the New Orleans driver. And we didnt attack Gaza.
 
Hamish Howl said:
Apparently they moved the Uranium a week ago, and nobody thought all those trucks at Fordnow were in any way significant.

This is Keystone Kops level shit.
Click to expand...
no. these hits did much more damage then just storage
~~
Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant
Built in secret and buried deep underground, Fordow uses 2,200 centrifuges to produce uranium enriched up to 60%

Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center
Hosts multiple facilities that convert yellowcake to uranium hexafluoride, produce reactor fuel, and make uranium metal for nuclear weapons

Natanz Enrichment Complex
A US strike hit Iran’s largest uranium enrichment site Natanz, Trump said. It contains 14,000 centrifuges located underground, capable of enriching to 60%
 
ClaraD said:
Except shutting down the Internet doesn’t blow babies to bits
Click to expand...
Indeed, shutting down a nation's power grid(s) will cause the mass of people to die a slow death.

People will starve to death to include babies while just born babies will die virtually right away. People who don't get their meds will die as will people in hospitals. There would be an ugly struggle for goods such as remaining food and fuel and so on. If the shutdown is in winter this would accelerate deaths; a shutdown in summer would have its own negatives against human life.

The infrastructure meanwhile will remain intact and not difficult to crank up again for the occupying force to have for its sustainment and its operations. There are many advantages to cyberattacks over the old fashioned bombings, artillery, infantry with tanks and so on.

In the Russo-Georgian war in 2008 initiated by Russia waves of Russian cyberattacks disabled internet communication in the rebellious South Ossetian area of Georgia. When Russian tanks rolled in the whole thingy was quickly over and done with. The capabilities of cyberwarfare have increased exponentially since then.
 
Your posts stricken with fear have surrendered to terrorism and their controllers in Iran and elsewhere in the ME.

This is despite your post reminding us of how evil and sinister are these ayatollahs in Iran whose malevolent operatives roam undetected.

Your trembling hands post reminds us these malicious murderers from top to bottom need to be disabled permanently. Your posts are contradictory however as you run away from the challenge of confronting 'em and taking 'em out. Your posts have no stomach for that. Your posts say to surrender to terrorism and their controllers abroad. Your posts insist on behaving as the ayatollahs demand of us.

Which makes your posts a disaster zone for the USA and the West. Next thing we'd know you'd be a radical Muslim.

Anything to please and mollify the cruel and vicious ayatollahs.
 
One can say that we dislike the leadership of a country snd don’t trust that leadership and still understand its none of our ****ing business who is in charge in another country
 
ClaraD said:
One can say that we dislike the leadership of a country snd don’t trust that leadership and still understand its none of our ****ing business who is in charge in another country
Click to expand...
My post said nothing about regime change in Iran which I oppose the US trying to do.

It anyway is our business indeed who is in charge of countries. Trump for instance broke the USA-Western isolation of NK when he went over there to kiss the arse of Kim. Orban in charge in Hungary needs to be checked as possible and feasible. Whoever is in charge of Venezuela is very much our business to check and contain. And so on.

This is despite your geostrategic myopia. I don't know how Trump missed making you SecState.
 
Questerr said:
The US trained the Shah’s secret police. If we didn’t want the Shah to brutally oppress his people, why did we train the secret police doing that oppression?
Click to expand...
A national police force is not necessary illegitimate. Note the FBI in the United States. Or for a more secretive agency, MI5 in the UK.

And it was the Cold War. The Soviets were eager to topple the Shah and install a Communist regime. We wanted to see to it that that would never happen.
 
Dude **** Trump I don’t believe in war over their programs
 
ClaraD said:
Frankly we don’t have the right to dictate to other countries what they can or cannot do.
Click to expand...
It is international law that dictates to Iran that they are not permitted to have nuclear weapons.

Israel and the United States are merely enforcing international law.
 
Cordelier said:
Fair enough - they and South Sudan are the only four countries that have never signed the NPT... but if Iran withdraws from the Treaty in advance of acquiring a nuclear weapon, wouldn't that put them on the same level?
Click to expand...
Nations can only withdraw from the NPT for specific reasons, like if everyone else in the world started developing nuclear weapons. Or if a nuclear weapon power started using their nukes to conquer nonnuclear states.

"I'm a rogue nation and I want illegal weapons" is not a valid reason for withdrawing. That is why North Korea has harsh sanctions placed on them by the entire world for violating the NPT despite their claims to have withdrawn from the treaty.
 

British investigative journalist, Duncan Campbell, wrote a book, War Plan: UK, discussing Britain's civil defence plans in the event of a thermonuclear attack. It also demonstrates, with much information gleaned from declassified materials, the effects of the bomb/s and radiation, It is both a sobering and frightening exposee of just how unprepared we would be. A couple of points of interest; according to declassified Home Office material, it states that at no time during the Cold War did Russia have plans for either limited or more general war against the West. Of course the propaganda we heard said otherwise.
Highly recommended as it would also apply to the US.

 
Last edited:
Speaking of propaganda....

I suppose the Soviets never invaded Czechoslovakia either.


snakestretcher said:
When has Israel ever enforced or even observed International Law?
Click to expand...
At all points in time throughout the whole of history.

The current bombing of Iran is an example of Israel enforcing international law.


snakestretcher said:
They have been violating it for decades.
Click to expand...
No they haven't.
 
jaypatriot said:
No one ever said the future would ever be calm.
And if you believe Trump said that, then you are at fault for believing what he said.
Click to expand...
Many posters here said the world was so much calmer under Trump and that it would be again if he was elected.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
Speaking of propaganda....

I suppose the Soviets never invaded Czechoslovakia either.



At all points in time throughout the whole of history.

The current bombing of Iran is an example of Israel enforcing international law.



No they haven't.
Click to expand...
Clueless post. Attacking Iran in the first place was an act of war. Then of course we have the IDF using civilians as human shields; a war crime. Denying aid to civilians in Gaza-another crime. Engaging in genocide. A war crime. Smotrich advocating for starving Gazan civilians to death; another war crime. Shooting and killing civilians trying to get food at aid points; another crime. Do tell us how well Israel has observed and obeyed international law, the laws of occupation and international humanitarian law. And, of course, the Nakba; Zionist terrorists forcibly displacing 700,000 Arabs, destroying over 50 of their villages so that Jews could replace them.
As David Ben Gurion said; "All they [Arabs] see is that we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" "If I were an Arab leader I would never sign an agreement with Israel".
 
Last edited:
ElChupacabra said:
Remind us when during Obama's tenure Israel led an aerial attack against Iran that the US followed up with additional attacks in order to destroy Iran's nuclear sites rather than negotiating an agreement.
Click to expand...
Obama left office in 2017. So 8 years ago.
Isnt it possible that Iran wasnt close to finalizing their nukes yet??
 
Desert Storm said:
Obama left office in 2017. So 8 years ago.
Isnt it possible that Iran wasnt close to finalizing their nukes yet??
Click to expand...
Anything is possible. The fact remains that, until Trump stupidly reneged on the JCPOA which the IAEA confirmed Iran was complying with, there were no issues. And now the idiot has dragged you into yet another war you cannot win.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Did you ever figure out if you actually wanted to see my posts or not?
Click to expand...
Well, I'm sure there is no posts of yours condemning Biden's personal wars.
 
CaughtInThe said:
Click to expand...

I don't doubt it one bit. The Fox news coverage was over the top in my view . We saw first hand how it impacted some posters here who were in absolute awe of what Israel was doing. I heard someone or read recently, I cant recall which, that Murdoch is a real war hawk so I did a google search and found this .

Google generated AI

AI Overview

The term "war hawk" is sometimes used to describe Rupert Murdoch, particularly in the context of his media outlets' coverage of foreign policy and military conflicts. This label suggests a tendency towards aggressive, interventionist stances and a strong promotion of military solutions to international disputes.


While it's not a universally accepted label, it reflects a perception held by some that Murdoch's media empire has consistently supported hawkish positions on various conflicts, potentially driven by his own political views and business interests.


Here's why the label might be applied:
  • Promotion of hawkish narratives:
    Some of Murdoch's media outlets have been accused of consistently framing international conflicts in a way that favors military intervention and strongman leadership.

  • Influence on public opinion:
    Critics argue that his media outlets have a significant influence on shaping public opinion, potentially swaying public support for military actions.


  • Personal political views:
    Murdoch himself has been described as having strong personal views on foreign policy, and some believe these views are reflected in the editorial stances of his media outlets.
 
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…