• 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

HumblePi said:
Do you think Iran would cry tears of sorrow if they disrupted the oil chain supply? I know one thing, Iran is going to retaliate and whether they retaliate solely against Israel, or if they retaliate on our American troops stationed in the Middle East, or if they retaliate on our naval ships, it’s anyone’s guess. It’s also anyone’s guess as to whom, besides Lebanon, will be allied with Iran.
Click to expand...
I posted that the ayatollahs would know the armed might of the US and allied nations would pulverize the Iran Navy if it tried to blockade the Strait. I posted why which I'm not going to restate here for you only. It's anyway possible Tehran would mine the Gulf than blockade Hormuz where its Naval ships would be sitting ducks even while underway.

You don't know whether Iran will retaliate and that if they did, you don't know what a retaliation might be. I proved in my post a blockade of Hormuz -- which I reiterate would be highly unlikely -- would be destroyed almost immediately, while your post simply said blockade and moved on without considering any consequences to Iran or to East Asian nations dependent on ME oil and its price explosion; and without recognizing the Iran Naval blockade would be sunk forthwith.

There's just a lot of librul hysteria going on at this thread and topic.
 
jaypatriot said:
I guess you weren't around to witness an actual invasion of Iraq with boots on the ground.
There are no U.S. boots on Iran's ground.
Click to expand...

I was around and remember what the Iraq War was sold on and what actually happened. What is to prevent mission creep this time? If Israel and the US succeed in regime change in Iran, and we see another power vacuum filled by something like ISIS? Trump ran on ''no more wars'', not ''no more wars except maybe a war with Iran''.

The US needs another Middle East war as much as it needs a hole in the head.
 
Napoleon said:
Iran has been threatening this since the early 80s
Click to expand...

And they've never gone through with it because they know how provocative it would be, and that it would be a de facto declaration of war with the West, which they've actually, contrary to popular opinion, tried to avoid. At least in the direct sense. But their homeland is now under direct, sustained assault by a regional power that, for now, is being aided and abetted by a global superpower. That might change the equation a bit.

Napoleon said:
and, aside from the fact they would be the most harmed by it,
Click to expand...

Their homeland is being bombed on top of sanctions already in place. You think they're thinking about economics right now?

Napoleon said:
they don’t have the capability to enforce it.
Click to expand...

They do until someone stops them. That means the US Navy ain't goin anywhere. They're going to be tied down in the Middle East now.
 
Anthony60 said:
They won't have nukes to drop on NYC, Washington, etc...
Click to expand...

"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

George W. Bush.
 
gbg3 said:
This is both a really interesting and a really good comment. I took the liberty of bolding some parts which particularly stood out to me.

I just recently had an exchange with a Canadian poster about Carney's words/support (or lack thereof) in this most recent situation. Carney had very quiet about the whole thing in recent days. The Canadian poster felt that was "bright" and "experienced" of Carney. I had a different view.

Now that the U.S. has taken the risk and completed a truly remarkable mission, Carney has now decided to opine -

"Iran’s nuclear programme is a grave threat to international security, and Canada has been consistently clear that Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. While U.S. military action taken last night was designed to alleviate that threat, the situation in the Middle East remains highly volatile. Stability in the region is a priority. Canada calls on parties to return immediately to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis. As G7 leaders agreed in Kananaskis, the resolution of the Iranian crisis should lead to a broader de-escalation of hostilities in the Middle East, including a ceasefire in Gaza."
Click to expand...
As I mentioned in my response to you Carney had often commented on the right of Israel to protect herself and had not condemned the Israeli attacks.

As far as comments about any US action, I asked you when you first asked me that question to cite another allied world leader who commented on the US attacking Iran BEFORE it happened. Of course as usual you ignored the question. I feel strongly that commenting on what Trump should do before Trump had made up his mind would have been totally inappropriate. I will ask you again, please provide a quote from an Ally of the States commenting on what they though Trump should do.

Carneys' statement after the attack was both pointed and appropriate.
 
BirdinHand said:
Not being a jerk when I ask this - but if there was nuclear material that we hit, wouldn’t something be detecting radiation of some sort?

Is that being detected at any level?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. These facilities are subterranean and deal in front-end nuclear processes. The radioactivity of Uranium is minuscule until it undergoes fission in a reactor. The most dangerous thing that could happen in a strike on these facilities is if a stash of uranium hexafluoride is vaporized and plumes of it start drifting through the air and interact with water vapor to create hydrogen fluoride gas. But that didn’t happen.
 
Last edited:
multivita-man said:
And they've never gone through with it because they know how provocative it would be, and that it would be a de facto declaration of war with the West, which they've actually, contrary to popular opinion, tried to avoid. At least in the direct sense. But their homeland is now under direct, sustained assault by a regional power that, for now, is being aided and abetted by a global superpower. That might change the equation a bit.



Their homeland is being bombed on top of sanctions already in place. You think they're thinking about economics right now?



They do until someone stops them. That means the US Navy ain't goin anywhere. They're going to be tied down in the Middle East now.
Click to expand...
I would say that if there were ever an incentive to create nuclear arms, Iran just got it.
 
multivita-man said:
And they've never gone through with it because they know how provocative it would be, and that it would be a de facto declaration of war with the West, which they've actually, contrary to popular opinion, tried to avoid. At least in the direct sense. But their homeland is now under direct, sustained assault by a regional power that, for now, is being aided and abetted by a global superpower. That might change the equation a bit.



Their homeland is being bombed on top of sanctions already in place. You think they're thinking about economics right now?



They do until someone stops them. That means the US Navy ain't goin anywhere. They're going to be tied down in the Middle East now.
Click to expand...
None of this is new. The Navy has been permanently deployed in the Gulf since 1949.
 
primaryKey said:
I disagree. I don't think it is a fair portrayal at all. It completely ignores that...

Under the guise of an impending diplomatic meeting with the US, Israel sneak-attacked Iran with stealth aircraft, drones, and support from the US military.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the pre-emptive defensive attack by Israel in 1967.
That occurred while UNEF ‘was preparing’ to evacuate.
primaryKey said:
Under the guise of considering diplomatic resolution to the situation, the US sneak-attacked with stealth aircraft and tomahawk missiles, bombing a sovereign nation, unprovoked.
Click to expand...
We’ll see what BRICS and North Korea will do.
primaryKey said:
What, pray tell, will we do when they actually provoke us?
Click to expand...
Cutthroat dictators in this tangled web can’t afford for Iran to hurt the world economy.
Even though that was okay with GOPutins with Ukraine.
So Vlad, Xi, MBS, erDOGan and the rest are silent for now.
 
CLAX1911 said:
ou have evidence this is a lie? It do you just need it to be for your narrative?
Click to expand...
Do you have evidence it was true or do you just need it to be for your narrative?
 
jaypatriot said:
Knowing what Iran does with money they receive, it was a stupid move for Obama to give Iran almost two billion dollars.
If a crazy kid likes to play with matches, would you hand him a gallon of gasoline?
Let me know if you don't grasp that analogy.
Click to expand...
Such a lame gross oversimplification. We didn't give them $2 billion of our money. Also, in exchange for unfreezing their assets they gave us access to monitor their "playing with matches" and the "amount of gasoline" they could hold on sight.

And guess what, Trump got rid of the deal & now we "need" a war.

Ya'll are out of your depth
 
CaughtInThe said:
Yes. He did.

Many of the young Iranians wanted to be more Western. Now they will even hate us.
Click to expand...

You have it backwards. Those who are devout 12er Shia already hate us. Those who want to establish a Western style democracy will be hoping for all they're worth that this will lead to the downfall of the imams (whether it will is a moot point in terms of desires).
 
devildavid said:
This never happens. The area’s history is more a hash of competing outside interests and competing inside groups than hashing things out for themselves. Stability is very hard to come by in the region.
Click to expand...
It never happens because we unfailingly hang around and try to "fix" things.

If the mullahs fall, we should back up and let them settle their own shit. So far civilian casualties are very light, and none caused by us. Leave them be.
 
Tangmo said:
I posted that the ayatollahs would know the armed might of the US and allied nations would pulverize the Iran Navy if it tried to blockade the Strait. I posted why which I'm not going to restate here for you only. It's anyway possible Tehran would mine the Gulf than blockade Hormuz where its Naval ships would be sitting ducks even while underway.

You don't know whether Iran will retaliate and that if they did, you don't know what a retaliation might be. I proved in my post a blockade of Hormuz -- which I reiterate would be highly unlikely -- would be destroyed almost immediately, while your post simply said blockade and moved on without considering any consequences to Iran or to East Asian nations dependent on ME oil and its price explosion; and without recognizing the Iran Naval blockade would be sunk forthwith.

There's just a lot of librul hysteria going on at this thread and topic.
Click to expand...
You all have truly learned absolutely nothing from the 2003 Iraq War have you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom