• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What should we do about Iran?

What should we do about Iran?

  • Impose economic and military sanctions on Iran.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Lock down the Iran borders so nothing can get in or out without our knowledge.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Invade Iran, topple their government, and rebuild the country in the view of American diplomacy.

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • Keep our focus on Iraq and try to secure the country even with Iran's involvement.

    Votes: 3 30.0%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 6 60.0%

  • Total voters
    10

Gibberish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
1,269
Location
San Diego, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
With all the talk of evidence against Iran on supporting the Insurgency a decision is going to have to be made on how to proceed. What do you think we should do with Iran and why?

I personally believe we should focus on Iraq and fix the problem at hand. If Iraq wasn't in the state of anarchy we put it in Iran wouldn't have the ability to support an insurgency.
 
Last edited:
border control is the best place we can start, but given our current situation on the homefront, does not hold much hope for me
sanctions are fine
supporting the overeducated underemployed proamerican youth is better

and eventually i would ahve no problem pre-emptively striking at Irans nuclear and intelligence facilities
 
The involvement of Iraq’s neighbors [Iran is one of them] is not likely to be a major driver of violence or stability.


Prospects for Iraq’s Stability: A Challenging Road Ahead
January 2007

Iraq’s neighbors influence, and are influenced by, events within Iraq, but the involvement of these outside actors is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq’s internal sectarian dynamics. Nonetheless, Iranian lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants clearly intensifies the conflict in Iraq. Syria continues to provide safehaven for expatriate Iraqi Bathists and to take less than adequate measures to stop the flow of foreign jihadists into Iraq.​
 
I chose the "Other (Please explain)" option.

My answer: "Basically, I have no idea."
 
It would be completely irresponsible and create major conflict and major world trouble to invade Iran. I think a DIMPLOMATIC effort is what is needed.

Why havent the US tried any diplomacy? Why do they need to force Iran to do something in order to get a diplomatic effort underways?

Why can they not just make diplomacy and negotiations happen?
 
The Americans should focus on getting their troops out of Iraq.
 
Don't forget that we are already in one preemptive war. We also know there was no reason for the war in Iraq. Look at the lies we have suffered over and over from the Bush Government.

IS THE BUSH'S GOVERNMENT TELLING US THE TRUTH ABOUT IRAN???????
LOOK AT IRAQ AND THINK. THINK OF ALL THE LIES AND CRAP WE HAVE BEEN FED. SHOULD WE BELIEVE BUSH NOW???????????????? HELL NO. WE NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL.
We have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and we fear Iran??
We have the best Navy, Army and Airforce in the world, and we fear and need to attack Iran??? We need to get out of Iraq and stop threatening other countries.
We don't have a need to rush into a war, or attack Iran.
 
The Americans should focus on getting their troops out of Iraq.

But how does this effect Iran, except giving them more room to work on their nuclear program?
 
But how does this effect Iran, except giving them more room to work on their nuclear program?

There is no nuclear program, no nuclear weapons, just nuclear power.. The enrichment Iran is doing is not even enough to create a dirty bomb, yet alone a nuclear weapon.

Iran is in the nuclear stone age, and are just discovering the wheel. The level of enrcihment they are devloping is so small and so unconcentraded its still far far away from even being close to a weaponized program. Its enough for nuclear power though...
 
But how does this effect Iran, except giving them more room to work on their nuclear program?
If the problem should be that Iraqis attack American soldiers in Iraq with Iranian weapons, then having no American soldiers in Iraq would be a good solution.
 
Iran is in the nuclear stone age, and are just discovering the wheel. The level of enrcihment they are devloping is so small and so unconcentraded its still far far away from even being close to a weaponized program. Its enough for nuclear power though...
The Iranian nuclear industry is actually very modern. They have managed to get nuclear power grade enrichment working in a short time, this was early last year. They are about getting ready a 3000 centrifuges plant at this time and I think, it's ready to go into production this quarter or the next one. A 3000 centrifuges plant is strong enough to have enough weapons grade material for a nuclear weapon within one year.
 
The Iranian nuclear industry is actually very modern. They have managed to get nuclear power grade enrichment working in a short time, this was early last year. They are about getting ready a 3000 centrifuges plant at this time and I think, it's ready to go into production this quarter or the next one. A 3000 centrifuges plant is strong enough to have enough weapons grade material for a nuclear weapon within one year.

The question then is.....will they go for the nuclear weapons?

Or just settle for the nuclear power plants?
 
The question then is.....will they go for the nuclear weapons?

Or just settle for the nuclear power plants?
This is a political decision.

The politicians said they want a full cycle in Iran and this seems to be important for many people now. If they get the full cycle and don't build weapons, they have reached what they said.

The question is, if they think, that nuclear weapons help them to be safer. If they come to the conclusion, nuclear weapons make an attack against Iran much less probable, then it could make sense for them. It's about risks and chances.
 
This is a political decision.
Hmm, I think that I agree with you there.

The politicians said they want a full cycle in Iran and this seems to be important for many people now. If they get the full cycle and don't build weapons, they have reached what they said.
I personally do not have much trust in the leaders of Iran.

The question is, if they think, that nuclear weapons help them to be safer. If they come to the conclusion, nuclear weapons make an attack against Iran much less probable, then it could make sense for them. It's about risks and chances.
Indeed it is.

As in, is the US willing to take a chance and risk a nuclear weapon armed Iran?

Many US citizens would not be willing to risk this, and if the politicians do not listen to them, too bad for the politicians.

For that matter, I cannot understand why anyone around the world would be willing to risk a nuclear armed Iran.

I would be very interested in a explanation of why, from my perspective, it seems that some are.
 
We take the risk of like nine nuclear countries, if I count correctly, with Iran it would be ten or may twelve or so, because other countries in the region like Egypt or Saudi Arabia would want this weapon, too, if Iran has one.
 
The involvement of Iraq’s neighbors [Iran is one of them] is not likely to be a major driver of violence or stability.


Prospects for Iraq’s Stability: A Challenging Road Ahead
January 2007

Iraq’s neighbors influence, and are influenced by, events within Iraq, but the involvement of these outside actors is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq’s internal sectarian dynamics. Nonetheless, Iranian lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants clearly intensifies the conflict in Iraq. Syria continues to provide safehaven for expatriate Iraqi Bathists and to take less than adequate measures to stop the flow of foreign jihadists into Iraq.​


And when Iran supplies weapons with the ability to punch thru armor, what then? (Oh damn like the chit we are seeing now.) What about the weapons that tip the scale? Is that still a "not likely to be a major driver of violence or stability"? What of the Hezbollah in Iraq? Are they a non driver of violence?
 
There is no nuclear program, no nuclear weapons, just nuclear power.. The enrichment Iran is doing is not even enough to create a dirty bomb, yet alone a nuclear weapon.

You mean the yellow cake they like to parade around in the streets during one of their retarded parades?
Not enough for a dirty bomb? Bullchit! What the hell do you think "yellow cake" is? Do you even know its processed into plutonium?....:roll:





Iran is in the nuclear stone age, and are just discovering the wheel. The level of enrcihment they are devloping is so small and so unconcentraded its still far far away from even being close to a weaponized program. Its enough for nuclear power though...

And you know this how? You have a direct line to Iran? Because he said so?
 
We take the risk of like nine nuclear countries, if I count correctly, with Iran it would be ten or may twelve or so, because other countries in the region like Egypt or Saudi Arabia would want this weapon, too, if Iran has one.

Mark this down slick. You and I agree. If Iran goes nuclear the rest of the region will as well.
 
And when Iran supplies weapons with the ability to punch thru armor, what then? (Oh damn like the chit we are seeing now.) What about the weapons that tip the scale? Is that still a "not likely to be a major driver of violence or stability"? What of the Hezbollah in Iraq? Are they a non driver of violence?
Are you assuming that our US Intel Community is ignorant of this information you acquired easily on the internets?

IMHO, there is a very, very, very real possibility that the US Intel Community had access to this information when they formulated this February 2007 assessment. YMMV.



What the NIE says is that the violence of in Iraq is self-sustaining. Outside agitation or no, the violence will continue because of domestic conditions. It doesn't say that outside agitation can't make things worse. It says that outside agitation is small potatoes compared to the problems from domestic agitation.
 
Are you assuming that our US Intel Community is ignorant of this information you acquired easily on the internets?

IMHO, there is a very, very, very real possibility that the US Intel Community had access to this information when they formulated this February 2007 assessment. YMMV.



What the NIE says is that the violence of in Iraq is self-sustaining. Outside agitation or no, the violence will continue because of domestic conditions. It doesn't say that outside agitation can't make things worse. It says that outside agitation is small potatoes compared to the problems from domestic agitation.

I assume nothing.
Worse? You fail to see how weapons become multipliers.

But What of the Hezbollah in Iraq? Are they a non driver of violence as well?

domestic agitation? Are you talking about the little Holy War between the sects?
 
I assume nothing.
If the USIC is cognizant of the facts you report, then it would seem that their conclusion stands.

cherokee said:
Worse? You fail to see how weapons become multipliers.
Actually, I don't. I'm just reporting what the US Intel Community has said. If you think you know better than they do, that's your call. But I think they prob'ly have a pretty good idea of what's what.

cherokee said:
But What of the Hezbollah in Iraq? Are they a non driver of violence as well?
Where'd this "non driver" hokum come from?
The NIE says "not likely to be a major driver." I hope you can appreciatet he difference between "a driver," "a major driver," and a non-driver."

cherokee said:
domestic agitation? Are you talking about the little Holy War between the sects?
If you'd read the link you'd see what was under discussion. There're several factors listed.

Iraqi society’s growing polarization, the persistent weakness of the security forces and the state in general, and all sides’ ready recourse to violence are collectively driving an increase in communal and insurgent violence and political extremism.

The challenges confronting Iraqis are daunting, and multiple factors are driving the current trajectory of the country’s security and political evolution.

• Decades of subordination to Sunni political, social, and economic domination have made the Shia deeply insecure about their hold on power. This insecurity leads the Shia to mistrust US efforts to reconcile Iraqi sects and reinforces their unwillingness to engage with the Sunnis on a variety of issues, including adjusting the structure of Iraq’s federal system, reining in Shia militias, and easing de-Bathification.

• Many Sunni Arabs remain unwilling to accept their minority status, believe the central government is illegitimate and incompetent, and are convinced that Shia dominance will increase Iranian influence over Iraq, in ways that erode the state’s Arab character and increase Sunni repression.

• The absence of unifying leaders among the Arab Sunni or Shia with the capacity to speak for or exert control over their confessional groups limits prospects for reconciliation. The Kurds remain willing to participate in Iraqi state building but reluctant to surrender any of the gains in autonomy they have achieved.

• The Kurds are moving systematically to increase their control of Kirkuk to guarantee annexation of all or most of the city and province into the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) after the constitutionally mandated referendum scheduled to occur no later than 31 December 2007. Arab groups in Kirkuk continue to resist violently what they see as Kurdish encroachment.

• Despite real improvements, the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF)—particularly the Iraqi police—will be hard pressed in the next 12-18 months to execute significantly increased security responsibilities, and particularly to operate independently against Shia militias with success. Sectarian divisions erode the dependability of many units, many are hampered by personnel and equipment shortfalls, and a number of Iraqi units have refused to serve outside of the areas where they were recruited.

• Extremists—most notably the Sunni jihadist group al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI) and Shia oppositionist Jaysh al-Mahdi (JAM)—continue to act as very effective accelerators for what has become a self-sustaining inter-sectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis.

• Significant population displacement, both within Iraq and the movement of Iraqis into neighboring countries, indicates the hardening of ethno-sectarian divisions, diminishes Iraq’s professional and entrepreneurial classes, and strains the capacities of the countries to which they have relocated. The UN estimates over a million Iraqis are now in Syria and Jordan.

The Intelligence Community judges that the term “civil war” does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qa’ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence.
 
Personally, I think we would serve the whole Middle East by turning all that sand over there into glass and therefore giving them another product to export.

A half dozen or so nukes might do the trick.:rofl
 
Personally, I think we would serve the whole Middle East by turning all that sand over there into glass and therefore giving them another product to export.

A half dozen or so nukes might do the trick.:rofl

But what about all the Muslims who live in countries around the world? Do you think that there are no extremists among them?
 
But what about all the Muslims who live in countries around the world? Do you think that there are no extremists among them?

September 11, 2050

A man and his young son are in New York standing at the plaque memorializing all the victims of the WTC attack almost fifty years ago.

The young son asks, "Daddy, what was the World Trade Center?"

The dad replies, "It was the tallest building in New York at one time. Until some crazed Muslims attacked it and killed over 3000 people."

Then the son asks, "Dad, what was a Muslim?"
 
Back
Top Bottom