• 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

Chomsky said:
Hopefully. But I never saw the reason to go-in, in the first place.
Click to expand...
Thats a legitimate debate.
Chomsky said:
It will unfortunately reverberate for years in terrorist attempts/activity.
Click to expand...
You dont know that. It may just calm the whole place down. Iran and its terrorist proxies seemed to think that they were untouchable. Now they have been neutered. Maybe peace will actually have a chance now.
 
Fletch said:
Thats right. And now we dont have to worry about it.
Click to expand...
We do actually, since there's no confirmation the sites have been destroyed, nor are we sure the centrifuges have been destroyed either. I mean, Donnie Boy's out there rage posting "WE WON!!" but he's the same idiot who said magnets don't work underwater, and didn't know what the Congo is so I'm not sure he's the best source of information about this.

Fletch said:
And?
Click to expand...
 
Ikari said:
Well the Ayatollahs really weren't, there were some that supported the coup but not all. This was mostly the UK and the US removing the Prime Minister and cementing the Shaw back into full power.
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. There may have been some Ayatollahs who opposed the coup like that other poster says, but the Ayatollahs who supported the coup were the main part of the coup.
 
Napoleon said:
Yes. And it wasn’t out of the blue.
Click to expand...
It was indeed.

Napoleon said:
Because of the reasons I already stated earlier in the thread.
Click to expand...
Which doesn't really explain much nor reconcile why this apparent imminent threat has never materialized despite Netanyahu claiming it would.
 
Chomsky said:
I'm seeing Trumpers calling for regime change in this very thread, Fletch. Trump even Tweeted as much.
Click to expand...
Id like to see regime change too. But I dont want us to be a part of it. Id like to see the people of Iran rise up and overthrow what is nothing short of an evil dictatorship.
 
 
Toggle Almendro said:
That is incorrect. There may have been some Ayatollahs who opposed the coup like that other poster says, but the Ayatollahs who supported the coup were the main part of the coup.
Click to expand...
Nine times. Nine times in a single day you have peddled this gross untruth.

So, please. Explain how Zahedi was an ayatollah. Please, in the name of decency and sense, start there.

Something, anything.
 
Then we have to go back in and finish the job at some later date. And you, of course, would be in full support considering the possibilty you just laid out.
 
Chomsky said:
I'm seeing Trumpers calling for regime change in this very thread, Fletch. Trump even Tweeted as much.
Click to expand...
calling for regime change is fine. actively promoting such by (say) killing the Supreme Leader is not
Or if we went to war to topple the mullahs is not fine.. The difference is in our activity to topple a government vs. simple jawboning

it seems not to make much difference, but it does.
 

It was a peace bombing like Russia bombing Ukraine. It helps the peace process to drop a few bombs.
 
Fletch said:
Then we have to go back in and finish the job at some later date.
Click to expand...
Why not have planned this properly so that wouldn't be a requirement since going back in later means Iran has the opportunity to better hide and defend its uranium better? More and more this sounds like some folks didn't really think this through.

Fletch said:
And you, of course, would be in full support considering the possibilty you just laid out.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't actually, because I'm in favor of a negotiated agreement since assurance of the full destruction of Iran's nuclear capabilities would mean boots on the ground, and that would be daft.
 
ElChupacabra said:
Sweet Jesus. In a time of self imposed conflict we have a low grade 4Chan troll as CIC.
Click to expand...

LMAO!

It's hysterical, isn't? Except it's life & death.

I think Trump is a Karmic response to all the wrongs we've collectively done over the years. Proof that God exists, if you will?
 
Chomsky said:
LMAO!

It's hysterical, isn't? Except it's life & death.

I think Trump is a Karmic response to all the wrongs we've collectively done over the years. Proof that God exists, if you will?
Click to expand...
On a side note, I just stepped outside for a quick walk and heard the sound of small airplanes so I looked up and saw 4 advertisement planes with "the end is near!"-type messages. What a crazy time.
 
Desert Storm said:
Do you have a link for this??
Click to expand...
There was no link when I posted the breaking news being reported on the networks. I'll keep looking.

The news was reported on MSNBC, but I can't find any wire service that is running the story. The closest I found is from yesterday. Although, I don't expect Iran would threaten such a move without carrying through.

What to Know About the Nuclear Treaty That Iran’s Threatening to Quit​

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...eration-treaty-what-would-country-s-exit-mean
Iran could be poised to withdraw from an international accord that seeks to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. This follows tensions with the United Nations’ atomic watchdog, compounded by the attacks on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program by Israel and the US.

Should Iran pull out of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, it would reduce the chances of a diplomatic solution to Tehran’s atomic ambitions and be a serious blow to global arms-control efforts.

June 23, 2025 at 10:50 AM EDT

What is the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?​

Known as the NPT, the treaty is the bedrock deal in atomic diplomacy. It entered into force in 1970 and has 191 signatories, including Iran. It’s considered the most successful arms-control agreement in history, having limited the spread of nuclear weapons while also promoting access to peaceful atomic technologies.

The deal bestows legitimacy over the nuclear weapons of China, France, Russia, the UK and US — the five permanent members of the UN Security Council — and simultaneously requires them to gradually draw down their arsenals. Other signatories are banned from developing a bomb but in return they get access to benign atomic technology, such as medical isotopes for cancer treatment and power plants for electricity.

These other signatories must also accept international monitoring to ensure they aren’t diverting nuclear fuel for weapons. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, are tasked with keeping track of every gram of fissile material.

The US has been critical in ensuring the NPT holds. By extending its security protection to allies, most of those countries haven’t pursued their own nuclear arsenals. And for nations that have threatened to break their commitments, America has imposed trade sanctions.

Why would Iran exit the agreement?​

The IAEA and just about every country except Israel and the US have determined that NPT signatories have a right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes. Iran has always maintained that it’s pursuing nuclear energy, not nuclear weapons, and argued that it would be discrimination if it weren’t allowed full access to the atomic fuel cycle, as other non-nuclear weapons countries — Argentina, Brazil, Japan, the Netherlands and Germany — are permitted to enrich uranium.

The IAEA voted on June 12 to censure

the Islamic Republic over a failure to meet its NPT obligations. It declared that Iran had breached its responsibilities to cooperate with IAEA inspectors, saying monitors were unable to determine whether the country’s nuclear program is “exclusively peaceful.” Iran responded by announcing it would inaugurate a new uranium-enrichment facility developed at an unspecified location, a move that would potentially put Tehran further in breach of its IAEA obligations.
 
Last edited:
eohrnberger said:
No issue here. In this very thread post #2,923

The only wish would be that it'd be even longer, if at all.
Click to expand...
eohrnberger said:
Not al all. If the Iranian people raise up against their regime, that's fine, I'd imagine that the US and EU nations would support them.
That's quite different from engaging in nation building, which you are claiming that I'm supporting.
Click to expand...

I wasn't sure what you were supporting. Thanks!

However even if just wishing for a regime change, we have no idea what may emerge? It could be ISIS, for all we know?

But in that case, yeah - I too would like to see a change to a better governance. Though I'm surely not going to suggest we go in and try to do it, nor am I going to say it's likely. I suspect these unilateral unprovoked attacks have solidified & unified the Iranian people and their government.

The good news is it appears America's involvement in this saga may be over. Unless you-know-who changes his mind, which would be horrendous.
 
Chomsky said:
If I had to hazard a guess? We've just radicalized the Iranian populace.
Click to expand...


Not necessarily. We kept it to the nuke building sites and the theocratic regiem is very unpopular with the majority of the Iranian populace. Especially their youth. It depends on what we do next.
 
Fletch said:
Id like to see regime change too. But I dont want us to be a part of it. Id like to see the people of Iran rise up and overthrow what is nothing short of an evil dictatorship.
Click to expand...

Do you know when Iran become a theocracy again (after the Shah) and turned its back on democracy...became an fundamentalist Muslim society? During the Iran/Iraq war. They used the war to concentrate power, impose stricter laws on people, take away personal liberties, close the universities, etc etc etc. This has all been clearly documented, it's not a new strategy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.