• 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!

UK military steps up plans for Iran attack amid fresh nuclear fears

T

toomuchtime_

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
798
Reaction score
169
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

UK military steps up plans for Iran attack amid fresh nuclear fears | World news | The Guardian

With Obama, the decision whether or not to strike Iran's nuclear facilities will be a political calculation. If he does, he will alienate much of his base, but if he doesn't and credible evidence that Iran is or is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power comes out before the election he might not even be able to get a job as an analyst at Fox in 2012. He will, of course, choose what is best for Obama, not what is best for America.
 


He hasn't done anything and you're already attacking him? WTF.

And shouldn't you be worried about the possibility that there could be another drawn out war costing billions and putting the whole region into chaos? Can America not get involved if Israel decides to go forward with this plan? What are the benefits and fallouts for America? Can Americans bear the costs again? What do you think is best for America?

Discuss the issue, a very important one, instead of making everything into partisan crap before it even happens.
 
It is the height of arrogance to suggest that WE are capable hands to hold nuclear weapons, but that others are not. Either allow them, or get rid of ALL of them, including our own.



Flame on.
 
Military planners...making plans. Ahhh, well, that's kind of what they do. It doesn't mean anything is any more likely to happen now.

I agree with the OP that whatever Obama does will be decided with his best political interests in mind.

@KevinKohler:

A couple of points...

Would you rather trust a nuclear weapon in the hands of a crazy man...or a sane man.

The genie is out of the bottle...you can't force it back in. Just as you can't "get rid of ALL of them".
 
KevinKohler said:
It is the height of arrogance to suggest that WE are capable hands to hold nuclear weapons, but that others are not. Either allow them, or get rid of ALL of them, including our own.

Flame on.
Click to expand...

We ARE getting rid of our own - it was big news the other day with the dismantlement of the largest one we had.
 

Right.

If a Democrat does something, it's always for political glory.

If a Republican does the same thing, it's always for the greater good of our nation.

Please be more partisan. I would like to see if it's possible.
 
KevinKohler said:
It is the height of arrogance to suggest that WE are capable hands to hold nuclear weapons, but that others are not. Either allow them, or get rid of ALL of them, including our own.
Click to expand...

The thing is the U.S. is capable of being responsible with our nuclear weapons. The fact that World War III hasn't happened is proof of that.
 
KevinKohler said:
It is the height of arrogance to suggest that WE are capable hands to hold nuclear weapons, but that others are not. Either allow them, or get rid of ALL of them, including our own.



Flame on.
Click to expand...

It's also the height of common sense.
 
Its just plans, it saves time and money to plan this stuff ahead of time in case anything goes down! British army had an occupation plan for Iraq years before the conflict started, its just the smart thing to do!
 
samsmart said:
Right.

If a Democrat does something, it's always for political glory.

If a Republican does the same thing, it's always for the greater good of our nation.

Please be more partisan. I would like to see if it's possible.
Click to expand...

I don't think the OP mentioned Democrats or Republicans...only Obama.

Who's partisan?
 
Mycroft said:
Military planners...making plans. Ahhh, well, that's kind of what they do. It doesn't mean anything is any more likely to happen now.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I read the article earlier and thought, here we go, this is the diversion from Greece is it? They do say that it is only because we always follow whoever wants war first or in this instance are getting ready to back up the US if it decides to attack Iran.

Much reading later
UK military steps up plans for Iran attack amid fresh nuclear fears | World news | The Guardian

If the economic situation gets too bad maybe. I am getting so tired of perpetual war ...but after reading the full article I realised it was not breaking news, just war games.
 
samsmart said:
You are.

1
Click to expand...

Ummm...

Partisan against Obama...you bet.

Partisan against Democrats...some.

Partisan against Republicans...some.


But I don't go around trying to raise partisanship where it's not warranted. Neither toomuchtime_ nor the linked article referenced Republicans or Democrats...only Obama.
 

It's warranted now. I didn't vote for Obama. He wasn't qualified to be president... and still isn't. But you don't see me foaming at the mouth about something that he hasn't even done... and telepathically stating as gospel what motivations his decision will be based upon. This is partisian manure at its finest.
 

Can Iran hit the US with it's "nukes" (50 States proper)?
 

LOL!!

You are displaying quite a hyperbolic reaction.

I'm not foaming at the mouth. I simply and calmly agreed with the OP's opinion on the motivations for Obama's decisions. No telepathy involved...just projections based on his past decisions.

Besides...the partisanship expressed by samsmart was directed toward Republican and Democrat...not Obama.

DiAnna, try to remain focused, eh?
 
Ikari said:
Can Iran hit the US with it's "nukes" (50 States proper)?
Click to expand...

Don't think so...but they could really mess up the oil supply to us and our allies.
 
Mycroft said:
Don't think so...but they could really mess up the oil supply to us and our allies.
Click to expand...

Meh, worse things than having to become oil independent I suppose. If they can't hit us, ain't none of my concern.
 

Actually it won't be a political calculation. If Iran is attacked, it could have very negative economic effects (7 Potential Economic Effects Of A War With Iran) as well as negative political effects (Striking Iran Is Unwarranted, and It Would Mean Disaster - Marc Lynch - International - The Atlantic). An attack on Iran is not a good idea at this time, especially due to the fact that the US military is already overstretched.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
An attack on Iran is not a good idea at this time, especially due to the fact that the US military is already overstretched.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm.....how the hell did that happen....oh wait.
 

But that analysis isn't one that demonizes Obama, and so is totally invalid.
 

You were referring to the OP in the post I quoted. I was referring to the OP as well.

And I am always focused. You just didn't happen to like what I was focused on.
 
Iran is the only missing link at this point in the construction of the middle eastern oil pipeline, courtesy of NATO (but mainly the U.S.)

It will be attacked soon but likely at grave cost.
 
Everyone who is surprised to learn that Iran will soon be attacked by Israel and then by the UK/UK or by the UK/US please raise your hands. It's inevitable and has been for a while now as the smack talk is ratcheted upward.

"We must attack Iran to make the world safe." Yada, yada, yada <making chicken choking hand movement>.
 
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…