• 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.

When Will Usa Invade Iran ?

Simon W. Moon said:
Another terror attack on the US and all bets are off.

Exactly right.

Iran is harboring terrorists and is supporting and providing aid and comfort to terrorists.

The world is aware of this. This is the main reason why Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear technology.

When Iran is no longer governed by an extremist islamic theocracy, when all of the terrorists hiding in Iran are killed or jailed, and Iran stops interfearing in the government of Iran, maybe they will be able to prove to the world that they can be trusted with nuclear technology.

Until then, they can disarm or be disarmed.

-TH
 
Vader said:
When Iran ... stops interfearing in the government of Iran, maybe they will be able to prove to the world that they can be trusted with nuclear technology.
WTF?

Vader said:
Until then, they can disarm or be disarmed.
Last I checked, they still have not been armed w/ nuclear weapons.
 
Re: When Will USa Invade Iran?

Answer: Tomorrow.
 
Arch Enemy said:
Re: When Will USa Invade Iran?

Answer: Tomorrow.

Its alreaady been done. I cant say much about this for it is secret info. But its been going on for a while now.
 
As i recall, Iran has said they will stop the development of uranium! (to my recollection, dont judge i know on this topic fully). Though it is a matter to be seen if it actually does happen or not! just a little tidbit from me!
 
Simon W. Moon said:
WTF?


Last I checked, they still have not been armed w/ nuclear weapons.

They purched the delivery system for missles from the Russians in the 80s. This is an issue. The Iranians needs to be forced to destroy these.

I believe the article below explains it all:

CNN) -- Iran's nuclear program failed to report some of its sophisticated facilities to international monitors as required by an international treaty, a report published Thursday by the United Nations nuclear monitoring agency concludes.

Washington welcomed the International Atomic Energy Agency report and called on Tehran to prove its nuclear plans are peaceful and not for the building of nuclear weapons.

But the Iranian government pointed to other sections of the IAEA document as vindicating its nuclear program.

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei's report said Iran had not met its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty because it failed to tell the IAEA about some sophisticated facilities.

Shortly after the visit, Time magazine, citing unnamed diplomatic sources, reported U.N. weapons inspectors discovered that Iran's uranium-enrichment facility was "extremely advanced," to the point that it violates the nonproliferation treaty.

"The IAEA board expresses its concerns about Iran's failure to report nuclear activities," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told CNN in a telephone interview.

"The board calls on Iran to cooperate fully and specifically asks Iran to permit the IAEA to take environmental samples and to be more transparent and to allow inspections and to sign an additional protocol.

"This is strong. This is a welcome report, and it is important now for Iran to show and prove its peaceful intentions."

Iran is using Russian equipment to make nukes. This needs to be stopped.

Iran will disarm or be disarmed. Plain and simple.

-Vader
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[Moderator mode]

Vadar...as per forum rules...

8. Copyrighted Material - All material posted from copyrighted material MUST contain a link to the original work.
Please do not post entire articles. Proper format is to paraphrase the contents of an article and/or post relevant excerpts and then link to the rest. Best bet is to always reference the original source.Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

[/Moderator mode]
 
Vader said:
They purched the delivery system for missles from the Russians in the 80s. This is an issue. The Iranians needs to be forced to destroy these.

I believe the article below explains it all:
Your belief is mistaken- the article doesn't explain either item.
How is Iran supposed to stop "interfearing in the government of Iran?" What would that mean anyway?

Second, it still doesn't show trhat iran has nukes to be disarmed of. If they don't have them to start, how can they be taken away?
 
Last edited:
GarzaUK said:
God help the American troops if they invade Iran. It will be their tomb.
For some sure. If it was worth our while, we, the US could do it.
We could have done Iraq too if the strategy hadn't been to do it on the cheap and have our troops down to a 40k by the end of 2003.
What's at issue is whether or not it's in the US's best interests to invade.

This breaks down into multiple questions:
1) What are the potential range of achievable actions available to the US?

2)Are the probable results better than the alternative?

3)Are the probable results worth the expenditures of money, lives and manhours necessary to achieve them?

4)Are there other more efficient ways of achieving similar results (ie results that are acceptable yet achieved through smaller expenditures of US resources)?
 
Personally, I highly doubt that the United States will invade Iran under Bush. The only combatant scenario I can envision that barely falls within the realm of plausibility, are preemptive strikes against the Iranian nuclear program. The immediate and long-term political/military disadvantages of invading Iran are quite legion.


 
For the US to invade Iran at this point would be suicide. The US has neither the money nor the resources to do so. Iran isn't a pushover like the post Gulf War Iraq, an invasion would be drawn out and require substantial funds and man power. Fighting would likely spill over into Iraq and Afghanistan jeopardizing if not outright destroying US and allied efforts there. Involving Israel would only encourage other countries and groups to jump in, in support of Iran or against Israel in the ensuing chaos. Even if Iran were subdued there is no way the US could occupy it for long, it would become a terrorist haven.

The kind of diplomacy that the international community is pursuing is just as hopeless. The Iranian regime is not going to abandon it's nuclear program because of hollow threats from the UN or other international organizations. Why should they? The Iranian rulers have played a good game, forcing the US, EU, etc into a very delicate situation.

Rather than jumping on the war bandwagon, the US and other countries should appeal to pro-democracy groups within Iran and in exile (there are many) to start a revolution within the country. I'm not implying a violent uprising like the one that overthrew the Shah, but well co-ordinated protests and demonstrations to undermine the power of the ruling regime. Support for the theocracy is not as strong as it once was, and if properly exploited could bring the regime to it's knees without a large scale military campaign.
 
Chris said:
Rather than jumping on the war bandwagon, the US and other countries should appeal to pro-democracy groups within Iran and in exile (there are many) to start a revolution within the country. I'm not implying a violent uprising like the one that overthrew the Shah, but well co-ordinated protests and demonstrations to undermine the power of the ruling regime. Support for the theocracy is not as strong as it once was, and if properly exploited could bring the regime to it's knees without a large scale military campaign.
I have just finished reading an excellent book on this subject:

"Lipstick Jihad : A Memoir of Growing Up Iranian in America and American in Iran" by Azadeh Moaveni - PublicAffairs Books - 2005

This should be available at your local library and if not, they can obtain it for you. Read this book....you will treasure it.


 
I agree. We'd have to have several incredibly great reasons to go in there at this point.
 
The only sure-fire solution, for a country to prevent a possible future US incursion, is to actually develop Nuclear weapons.
 
I recall hearing someone from the defence department asess the situation, and he projected that odds of actual foot-on-ground invasion of Iran is microscopic, but surgical air strike was damn near cirtain. Good thing we've got that sweet new FA-22 Raptor for the job.
 
I doubt there'll even be an air strike. While the ayatollahs are openly despised by the Iranian people, there is an actual nationalistic desire among the Iranian people for peaceful nuclear power. Since the Iranian people are already among the most pro-American in the Muslim world, why would we want to anger them by destroying what they view as their nation's ticket to greatness when there's no guarantee we'd even take out all the nuclear sites anyway?

Since a democratic revolution is unlikely at this point (the ayatollahs have all but cemented their rule in the last couple years), a better solution would be to establish diplomatic relations and treat the nation with cautious hope rather than as an enemy. It is still possible that Iran would agree to allow weapons inspectors into its nuclear facilities, but this is not likely if the United States views them as an enemy to be beaten into submission.
 
Kandahar said:
While the ayatollahs are openly despised by the Iranian people, there is an actual nationalistic desire among the Iranian people for peaceful nuclear power.

"Peaceful nuclear power." That's adorable. God, I just love how when economically successful nations like the US and India build an arsenal to protect a worthwhile status quo, they're deliberatly trying to bring about the apocalypse, but when despots and autocracies try to get in the nuclear game it's all movitvated by peace and purity and the milk of human kindness running through their veins. And just as soon as those ICBMs are all primed to go it'll all be gumdrops and ice cream Tehran.

Well I'm quite aware of educated portion of Iranian youth and their well-minded interest in reform, but whatever nationalistic desire they may have, (like I care about nationalist motivation) those nukes will be in the possession of those ayatollahs they so hate. And you can site Iraq as much as you please, but without this nuclear agitation there's about as much motive for invading Iran as there is for invading Canada.
 
iamjack said:
"Peaceful nuclear power." That's adorable. God, I just love how when economically successful nations like the US and India build an arsenal to protect a worthwhile status quo, they're deliberatly trying to bring about the apocalypse, but when despots and autocracies try to get in the nuclear game it's all movitvated by peace and purity and the milk of human kindness running through their veins. And just as soon as those ICBMs are all primed to go it'll all be gumdrops and ice cream Tehran.

When did I say that the US and India are deliberately trying to bring about the apocalypse? I didn't. Nice try, ass.

Furthermore, I said that there is an actual desire AMONG THE IRANIAN PEOPLE for peaceful nuclear power. I didn't say that the ayatollahs wanted it for that reason. Stop twisting my words.

iamjack said:
Well I'm quite aware of educated portion of Iranian youth and their well-minded interest in reform, but whatever nationalistic desire they may have, (like I care about nationalist motivation) those nukes will be in the possession of those ayatollahs they so hate. And you can site Iraq as much as you please, but without this nuclear agitation there's about as much motive for invading Iran as there is for invading Canada.

Regardless, air strikes would needlessly enrage the Iranian people, who currently like us. There's no way that we could possibly get all of the nuclear facilities through an air strike anyway, since many of them are underground and/or hidden.
 
Kandahar said:
When did I say that the US and India are deliberately trying to bring about the apocalypse? I didn't. Nice try, ass.

I wasn't reffering to your monolouge, biatch. I was preempting the predictable lefto counterlogic of "If we have nukes, why can't they?"

Furthermore, I said that there is an actual desire AMONG THE IRANIAN PEOPLE for peaceful nuclear power. I didn't say that the ayatollahs wanted it for that reason. Stop twisting my words.

And I said that whatever desire they have is inane. Whatever national resource Iran has in the possesion of a zealous pseudofaschist theocracy.
 
iamjack said:
I wasn't reffering to your monolouge, biatch. I was preempting the predictable lefto counterlogic of "If we have nukes, why can't they?"

If it's not addressed to me, then why did you respond to MY post with the subject of MY post?

No one really cares what you think the "predicatble left counterlogic" is, as no one here has argued that. Why don't you address the points people have actually made, instead of the points you wish they would make?

iamjack said:
And I said that whatever desire they have is inane. Whatever national resource Iran has in the possesion of a zealous pseudofaschist theocracy.

That doesn't change the fact that the Iranian people do want nuclear power, and any attempt to destroy that nuclear power would be met with outrage and quickly turn the Iranians against us. As much as they hate their government, they almost certainly would "rally around the flag" if we attacked them.
 
That doesn't change the fact that the Iranian people do want nuclear power, and any attempt to destroy that nuclear power would be met with outrage and quickly turn the Iranians against us. As much as they hate their government, they almost certainly would "rally around the flag" if we attacked them.

And for the third time, they can "want" and "rally around the flag" all they want, that's not enough to leave any reasonable person content to allow the ayatollahs to run around with nukes in the name of national pride or divine providence or whatever.
 
iamjack said:
And for the third time, they can "want" and "rally around the flag" all they want, that's not enough to leave any reasonable person content to allow the ayatollahs to run around with nukes in the name of national pride or divine providence or whatever.

Iran is not North Korea; there is little we can do to negotiate with Iran, as they have determined they will have nuclear power. An air strike will probably not take out all of Iran's nuclear sites, although it will needlessly anger a pro-American population. An invasion is militarily inconceivable, as our troops are stretched far too thin as it is and we cannot afford another war.

Simply put: Barring a mass democratic uprising that seems unlikely now, or a sudden change in Iranian policy, Iran will develop nuclear weapons sometime in the next five years. We'd better get used to it; containment worked on the Soviets and it can work on the Iranians. The ayatollahs may be ideologues, but (most of them) aren't irrational.
 
Kandahar said:
Iran is not North Korea; there is little we can do to negotiate with Iran, as they have determined they will have nuclear power. An air strike will probably not take out all of Iran's nuclear sites, although it will needlessly anger a pro-American population. An invasion is militarily inconceivable, as our troops are stretched far too thin as it is and we cannot afford another war.
Agreed

Kandahar said:
The ayatollahs may be ideologues, but (most of them) aren't irrational.
Disagree to an extent. The Iranian clerics have already put forth the notion that Iran could survive a nuclear exchange with Israel due to its population size and huge geographical area. Hardly rational rhetoric.

I also note here that during the Iraq/Iran War these clerics sent human waves of unarmed children through minefields and against heavily fortified Iraqi positions. In the Martyr's Cemetery in Tehran, thousands upon thousands of grave-markers with snapshots of KIA Iranian children attest to the irrationality of this cold-hearted regime.


 
Back
Top Bottom