• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

UAE's Ambassador Endorses an American Strike on Iran

The_Penguin

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
808
Reaction score
205
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
-snip-

And he answered: "Absolutely, absolutely. I think we are at risk of an Iranian nuclear program far more than you are at risk. At 7,000 miles away, and with two oceans bordering you, an Iranian nuclear threat does not threaten the continental United States. It may threaten your assets in the region, it will threaten the peace process, it will threaten balance of power, it will threaten everything else, but it will not threaten you."

-snip-
UAE's Ambassador Endorses an American Strike on Iran (Cont'd) - International - The Atlantic

Now, why does this guy has more spine than some of the leadership that we presently have in the Western world?
 

joergan

Banned
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
241
Reaction score
82
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Orion

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I see the neo-cons are trying to beat the war drum again.

Have you looked at the bank statements lately? Funds are low. Too bad you wasted your money on Iraq.
 

Resist the gov.

Active member
Joined
Jul 3, 2010
Messages
266
Reaction score
71
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I see the neo-cons are trying to beat the war drum again.

Have you looked at the bank statements lately? Funds are low. Too bad you wasted your money on Iraq.
I cant help but rofl at that statement lol....but on a serous note i agree with what your saying.
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The adults and anyone other than the iran shills know that there will be an attack by israel on iran's illegal nuclear weapons program soon.
I tend to doubt that actually. I have serious doubts Israel would act without US approval, which they are not going to get. Ultimately, Israel will look at the cost/benefit scenarios. What is worse for Israel? A nuclear Iran, or losing American patronage? I would argue it would be far worse for Israel to lose American patronage.
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I see the neo-cons are trying to beat the war drum again.

Have you looked at the bank statements lately? Funds are low. Too bad you wasted your money on Iraq.
Funds are non-existent, however even if we did not spend a dime in Iraq, the argument for attacking Iran would be the exact same. Cost is not going to be the final decider.
 

Orion

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Funds are non-existent, however even if we did not spend a dime in Iraq, the argument for attacking Iran would be the exact same. Cost is not going to be the final decider.
They'll have to prove that Iran has nukes to get consent of the public, and after the blatant lie in setting up the Iraq invasion they are going to have to provide very unshakable evidence.
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
They'll have to prove that Iran has nukes to get consent of the public, and after the blatant lie in setting up the Iraq invasion they are going to have to provide very unshakable evidence.
I think they would only need to prove such a thing to get support for an all out invasion. For something like a missile strike etc, I do not think the evidence you ask for here would be actually be needed.
 

joergan

Banned
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
241
Reaction score
82
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I tend to doubt that actually. I have serious doubts Israel would act without US approval, which they are not going to get. Ultimately, Israel will look at the cost/benefit scenarios. What is worse for Israel? A nuclear Iran, or losing American patronage? I would argue it would be far worse for Israel to lose American patronage.
You do not seem to understand the mindset of israelis; they see iran justifably, i might add, as an existential threat.

Who cares about american aid $$ when you have a psychotic leadership of a fanatically religious government with a finger pressed on a nuclear weapons button? A nation with multiple terrorist proxies operating worldwide, that issues on an almost daily basis threats of destruction and violence?

The israeli will say: "what's the point of worrying about a check from the US tomorrow if i am killed today?"

The ability of the US to restrain israel, a sovereign nation, is weakening daily.
 

joergan

Banned
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
241
Reaction score
82
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
They'll have to prove that Iran has nukes to get consent of the public, and after the blatant lie in setting up the Iraq invasion they are going to have to provide very unshakable evidence.
This is laughable nonsense. The EU/UN has been trying for almost 10 years to diplomatically resolve the issue, and failed. At this point, the lying and obfuscation of iran, its refusal to allow full and transparent inspections, and the endless stream of UNSC resolutions condemning it, are well within the minds of most Americans and europeans.

The far left psychotics on internet forums, and internet teens with zero brains and less experience suffering under failed high school social studies teachers, may make for loud theatre, but in the end, the adults with the ability to see things as they are - iran is an intolerable cancer preventing a peaceful solution to the middle east problems - and will act accordingly, and militarily.
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You do not seem to understand the mindset of israelis; they see iran justifably, i might add, as an existential threat.
That is irrevelant to the issue of whether or not they will conduct a strike.

Who cares about american aid $$ when you have a psychotic leadership of a fanatically religious government with a finger pressed on a nuclear weapons button? A nation with multiple terrorist proxies operating worldwide, that issues on an almost daily basis threats of destruction and violence?
Iran has operated these terror networks for decades, that is not a new concern. They also currently do not have a nuclear weapon, so that point is irrelevant as well. Additionally, Israel will care about American aid becauase the Israeli military expertise, as well as missile defense technology, and numerous other systems are heavily reliant on the Americans.

The israeli will say: "what's the point of worrying about a check from the US tomorrow if i am killed today?"
Some will say that, but the leadership has shown it is not to that point. They asked President Bush for permission to strike, he said no, and they did not strike. Obviously they continue to be swayed by US opinion.

The ability of the US to restrain israel, a sovereign nation, is weakening daily.
I don't think it is actually. With threats growning daily in the region all around, now more than ever Israel needs strong backing. Striking something that has no assurance of even elminating a threat, and losing your biggest benefactor's support would be a poor calculation in my view. It seems that to date, the Israeli leadersjip has agreed.
 

joergan

Banned
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
241
Reaction score
82
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That is irrevelant to the issue of whether or not they will conduct a strike.
Uh yeah sure.... :rolleyes:

Iran has operated these terror networks for decades, that is not a new concern.
And only recently has iran provided them with scud missile and other far more powerful capabilities.

They also currently do not have a nuclear weapon, so that point is irrelevant as well.
I had no idea you were clairvoyant, and had information no one else on earth did. YOU might be certain of that - but most other people aren't, and israel cannot take the chance.

Additionally, Israel will care about American aid becauase the Israeli military expertise, as well as missile defense technology, and numerous other systems are heavily reliant on the Americans.
I think you have it backwards, israel has been FORCED by the US aid funding to buy american, and the US has demanded that israel scuttle many of its native attempts to develop a stand-alone military infrastructure programs like the Lavi.

Some will say that, but the leadership has shown it is not to that point. They asked President Bush for permission to strike, he said no, and they did not strike. Obviously they continue to be swayed by US opinion.
Again, this is your opinion, and israel now has the bunker-busting bombs Bush refused to grant 20 years ago in its possession.
 
Last edited:

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Uh yeah sure.... :rolleyes:
We in America view many things as a threat.. that does not automatically mean we will attack them.

And only recently has iran provided them with scud missile and other far more powerful capabilities.
Evidence of this?

I had no idea you were clairvoyant, and had information no one else on earth did. YOU might be certain of that - but most other people aren't, and israel cannot take the chance.
I am not clairvoyant, I am simply repeating the public position of the American government based on our National Intelligence Estimates. Let us assume for a moment that Iran did already possess a warhead, that would seem to fly in the face of the argument often thrown around that "once Iran obtains one it will attack Israel."

Israel is going to have to make the best decision possible with the intelligence available. If they have intelligence about a weapon, it would make sense for them to share it and get the US government lined up behind a strike.

I think you have it backwards, israel has been FORCED by the US aid funding to buy american, and the US has demanded that israel scuttle many of its native attempts to develop a stand-alone military infrastructure programs like the Lavi.
If anything, that only adds fuel to my point of the value that the Israelis place on American backing.

Again, this is your opinion, and israel now has the bunker-busting bombs Bush refused to grant 20 years ago in its possession.
It is not my opinion that they asked Bush for permission to strike and he said no, that is fact. It is also a fact that after this, they did not conduct a strike. Yes they have bunker busters, but that is not going to assure they successfully end an Iranian nuclear program, or even set it back. It is an important calculation that must be made.
 

joergan

Banned
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
241
Reaction score
82
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We in America view many things as a threat.. that does not automatically mean we will attack them.
Iran has killed more americans and american soldiers than anyone since viet nam. Iran will not go much longer without a military response.

Evidence of this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/world/middleeast/15israel.html?ref=hezbollah

I am not clairvoyant, I am simply repeating the public position of the American government based on our National Intelligence Estimates.
The US government has long rejected the 2007 estimates, you need to catch up with the times.

Let us assume for a moment that Iran did already possess a warhead, that would seem to fly in the face of the argument often thrown around that "once Iran obtains one it will attack Israel."
Why do people - obviously amateurs - not understand that a nuclear device can be delivered using other means than a warhead?

Israel is going to have to make the best decision possible with the intelligence available. If they have intelligence about a weapon, it would make sense for them to share it and get the US government lined up behind a strike.
As you no doubt will above, you will claim that israel's claims about the SCUDS are false, so given the Obama administration's disdain for israel it would be expected they will also not accept israel's claims or evidence. A sovereign state does not - nor should it - need to be reliant upon the whims of another country to decide when/how it can defend itself.

If anything, that only adds fuel to my point of the value that the Israelis place on American backing.
It means that as israel strengthens its relationships with other nations, it will not abide by america's fancies.

It is not my opinion that they asked Bush for permission to strike and he said no, that is fact. It is also a fact that after this, they did not conduct a strike.
You are trying to make yourself look smart in an argument that does not exist. I openly stated Bush refused the delivery, but israel now has them, and therefore can decide on its own whether to use them or not.

Yes they have bunker busters, but that is not going to assure they successfully end an Iranian nuclear program, or even set it back. It is an important calculation that must be made.
The US has THREE battle carrier groups along iran's coast, along with French, israeli, and other nations' war vessels, and it has solidified its base positions in Kyrgzystan and other nations surrounding iran. This is likely the largest military buildup since WW2 when counting the naval fleets, and it is unlikely israel will attack on its own.
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iran has killed more americans and american soldiers than anyone since viet nam. Iran will not go much longer without a military response.
What exactly is going to change to bring this about?

Well, if true, this is a big problem.


The US government has long rejected the 2007 estimates, you need to catch up with the times.
Some in the government claim that the 2007 report was highly political, which I agree with. That said, the public statements made to date about the 2010 NIE to follow up on that report have not indicated a real fundamental change in Iranian capability as of yet.

Why do people - obviously amateurs - not understand that a nuclear device can be delivered using other means than a warhead?
Yes, there are other methods, but it does not take away from the fact that the best method for Iranian delivery is going to be a missile.

As you no doubt will above, you will claim that israel's claims about the SCUDS are false, so given the Obama administration's disdain for israel it would be expected they will also not accept israel's claims or evidence. A sovereign state does not - nor should it - need to be reliant upon the whims of another country to decide when/how it can defend itself.
Israel can attack any time it chooses, it will just have to accept the result.

It means that as israel strengthens its relationships with other nations, it will not abide by america's fancies.
Who else is going to give Israel the same support that we do?

You are trying to make yourself look smart in an argument that does not exist. I openly stated Bush refused the delivery, but israel now has them, and therefore can decide on its own whether to use them or not.
You apparently do not understand my point here. My point has nothing to do with Israeli possession of bunker busters. Israeli leadership came to President Bush and asked if they could stike Iran. Bush said no to the strike. Israel complied. If they are not concerned about US reaction, why bother to ask?

Since I am only "trying to make myself look smart", please list your experience and or training in the international relations/defense realm.

The US has THREE battle carrier groups along iran's coast, along with French, israeli, and other nations' war vessels, and it has solidified its base positions in Kyrgzystan and other nations surrounding iran. This is likely the largest military buildup since WW2 when counting the naval fleets, and it is unlikely israel will attack on its own.
It is unlikely anyone is going to attack. The US has no incentive to lead or allow an attack currently. Having a large military presence in the region does not mean an attack is imminent or even likely.
 

joergan

Banned
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
241
Reaction score
82
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What exactly is going to change to bring this about?
Just as only nixon could go to china, only peacenik/nobel prize winner obama can initiate a 3rd war/major military assault against iran.

Well, if true, this is a big problem.
Glad we agree.

Some in the government claim that the 2007 report was highly political, which I agree with. That said, the public statements made to date about the 2010 NIE to follow up on that report have not indicated a real fundamental change in Iranian capability as of yet.
The US has captured/lured a number of iranian turncoat assets from the nuclear program in the last 2-3 years. The higher-ups have a strong sense of what iran's capabilities are right now, and if they do not act soon their current intelligence will be out of date.

Yes, there are other methods, but it does not take away from the fact that the best method for Iranian delivery is going to be a missile.
You obviously have zero military experience. A missile is actually the WORST, as its trajectory is easily traceable back to a source. However, a truck driving a device containing uncatalogued uranium - which is the case with most of what iran has produced since they have blocked inspections - would be FAR harder to trace back to its source.

Israel can attack any time it chooses, it will just have to accept the result.
The consequences of a nuclear-armed iran is the worst possible scenario.

As I showed above, iran is now transplanting its most powerful weaponry to its terrorist proxies, and a nuclear device could also easily be transferred as well.

Who else is going to give Israel the same support that we do?
I'd rather israel stand on its own 2 feet and not have to rely upon aid from the US, which if it were unshackled from the US military oversight/blackmail, it easily could. There is not a nation on earth who is not looking to buy Israel-made weapons designs...

You apparently do not understand my point here. My point has nothing to do with Israeli possession of bunker busters. Israeli leadership came to President Bush and asked if they could stike Iran. Bush said no to the strike. Israel complied. If they are not concerned about US reaction, why bother to ask?
You are missing the bigger picture, where Bush, be refusing to transfer the BB tied israel's hands. Obama has implicity given israel a green light by sending them over, as now israel can just ignore an american request not to attack as they have undoubtedly already adapted the BB for use with their aircraft by now.

Since I am only "trying to make myself look smart", please list your experience and or training in the international relations/defense realm.
Oh, just about 17 years in the US army strategic centers, nothing too major ;)

It is unlikely anyone is going to attack. The US has no incentive to lead or allow an attack currently. Having a large military presence in the region does not mean an attack is imminent or even likely.
Now your lack of understanding of the military, and lack of experience is showing. There is a HUGE cost in stationing 3 fleets of 10,000 US Marines each in foreign waters, and the psychological requirements of keeping 30,000 marines and soldiers on those ships battle-ready at a moment's notice is even greater. After a few weeks, the men have to be rotated as the tension is too great to sustain without entering combat.

Those 3 fleets are there to strike iran, i have little doubt - and it is long overdue.
 
Last edited:

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,493
Reaction score
50,042
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Just as only nixon could go to china, only peacenik/nobel prize winner obama can initiate a 3rd war/major military assault against iran.
He is not going to do it.



The US has captured/lured a number of iranian turncoat assets from the nuclear program in the last 2-3 years. The higher-ups have a strong sense of what iran's capabilities are right now, and if they do not act soon their current intelligence will be out of date.

You obviously have zero military experience. A missile is actually the WORST, as its trajectory is easily traceable back to a source. However, a truck driving a device containing uncatalogued uranium - which is the case with most of what iran has produced since they have blocked inspections - would be FAR harder to trace back to its source.
This assumes that Iran does not want it traced back to the source to begin with. Even if a nuclear device went off in the back of truck in say Tel Aviv, we can almost be certain that Iran is going to get blamed.

In my view there would be a much higher probability of success by just using a missile, rather than a long elaborate process of setting it up in a truck, basically smuggling it into Israel. There is still a huge chance that will fail and they would get caught anyway doing that.

The consequences of a nuclear-armed iran is the worst possible scenario.
I agree that is the terrible scenario, but not because I think Iran is going to run off and use a weapon on Israel. It is a terrible scenario in my opinion for the proliferation issues that it will cause. Egypt has already basically said if Iran gets a weapon they are going to go after one as well. That would probably make Saudi Arabia go after one as well, and then Turkey might feel compelled to follow suit.

As I showed above, iran is now transplanting its most powerful weaponry to its terrorist proxies, and a nuclear device could also easily be transferred as well.
You showed that Syria gave (potentially) SCUDS to Hizbollah. There is the possibility that Iran did not want this to occur. It also has to be pointed out that Iran refuses to hand over chemical weapons to groups like Hizbollah. Additionally, losing operational control of a nuclear weapon would be a major step for Iran, and I think it is highly debatable that they would hand such a thing over to Hizbollah, or another proxy.

I'd rather israel stand on its own 2 feet and not have to rely upon aid from the US, which if it were unshackled from the US military oversight/blackmail, it easily could. There is not a nation on earth who is not looking to buy Israel-made weapons designs...
Does Israel even want this however?

You are missing the bigger picture, where Bush, be refusing to transfer the BB tied israel's hands. Obama has implicity given israel a green light by sending them over, as now israel can just ignore an american request not to attack as they have undoubtedly already adapted the BB for use with their aircraft by now.
It would seem that it has to be considered that the US would partially share blame anyway (in the eyes of some) if Israel attacked. Iran's retaliation could come against Americans in Iraq, perhaps a missile attack on those carrier groups you discussed, or even a missile attack against Saudi Arabia. Either way, the US is not going to come out unscathed, and the public backlash for Americans dying due to an Israeli action is going to be hard to overcome politically in my opinion.

Oh, just about 17 years in the US army strategic centers, nothing too major ;)
Well, we appreciate your service.

Now your lack of understanding of the military, and lack of experience is showing. There is a HUGE cost in stationing 3 fleets of 10,000 US Marines each in foreign waters, and the psychological requirements of keeping 30,000 marines and soldiers on those ships battle-ready at a moment's notice is even greater. After a few weeks, the men have to be rotated as the tension is too great to sustain without entering combat.

Those 3 fleets are there to strike iran, i have little doubt - and it is long overdue.
I have some experience with the military, but I have worked mostly on the political side of things. And from a political standpoint, troop deployments do not automatically equate to the use of those troops.

For example, we have roughly the same number of soldiers stationed on the border with North Korea, but their presence does not make war with North Korea a certainty.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom