Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Don't be fooled into War with Iran

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2012 12:27:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Next time someone talks about the necessity and urgency of joining Israel in war against Iran, call them on their abject, life-destroying, grade-A bullsh!t.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2012 1:23:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is why I hate Obama.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2012 2:30:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/4/2012 1:23:58 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
This is why I hate Obama.

I hate Obama for the same reasons I hate Bush. They are both pawns for people to use in order to profit like political entrepreneurs and gain power unjustly.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
slo1
Posts: 4,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2012 4:36:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/4/2012 2:30:12 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/4/2012 1:23:58 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
This is why I hate Obama.

I hate Obama for the same reasons I hate Bush. They are both pawns for people to use in order to profit like political entrepreneurs and gain power unjustly.

I was sadly disappointed when Obama vetoed the UN resolution to condemn Israel for the continuance of West Bank settlement. We were the only country to veto it on the security council.

There is a lot of posturing going on. It is prudent to distrust all information offered as evidence of going to war. I say we give Iran a nuke and let them know we can identify this radioactivity and will make your country a melted sand parking lot should it ever be used. Hell, if North Korea can have nukes and not use them maybe Iran can too.

I say that in jest, but the reality is that the world does not have the capability to stop nuclear proliferation as seen by Pakistan and North Korea. We need new policy to deal with other countries getting the bomb.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2012 4:59:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Apparently Netanyahu is pushing for war against Iran. I don't know what he's so paranoid about considering Iran hasn't been an aggressor in any war for hundreds of years. If Romney gets elected I really feel he'll join in with Israel on this, which could result in a WW III.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2012 5:43:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/4/2012 4:59:45 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Apparently Netanyahu is pushing for war against Iran. I don't know what he's so paranoid about considering Iran hasn't been an aggressor in any war for hundreds of years. If Romney gets elected I really feel he'll join in with Israel on this, which could result in a WW III.

Well, Irans "president" did say he wanted to "wipe Israel from the planet" or something like that.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2012 5:49:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/4/2012 5:43:55 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/4/2012 4:59:45 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Apparently Netanyahu is pushing for war against Iran. I don't know what he's so paranoid about considering Iran hasn't been an aggressor in any war for hundreds of years. If Romney gets elected I really feel he'll join in with Israel on this, which could result in a WW III.

Well, Irans "president" did say he wanted to "wipe Israel from the planet" or something like that.

Apparently the quote was mistranslated. Besides, one mistranslated and out of context quote doesn't make it permissible to invade. I think Iran knows that the consequences of war with Israel would be huge.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2012 5:55:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/4/2012 5:49:10 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/4/2012 5:43:55 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/4/2012 4:59:45 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Apparently Netanyahu is pushing for war against Iran. I don't know what he's so paranoid about considering Iran hasn't been an aggressor in any war for hundreds of years. If Romney gets elected I really feel he'll join in with Israel on this, which could result in a WW III.

Well, Irans "president" did say he wanted to "wipe Israel from the planet" or something like that.

Apparently the quote was mistranslated. Besides, one mistranslated and out of context quote doesn't make it permissible to invade. I think Iran knows that the consequences of war with Israel would be huge.

It was mistranslated to vanish from history.....which sounds worse IMO.

But regardless, I'm not worried so much with a war with Israel/Iran. Iran would get their butts kicked in a few days.

I'm worried that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, terrorists will as well.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2012 5:59:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/4/2012 5:55:14 PM, OberHerr wrote:

I'm worried that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, terrorists will as well.

Nah they won't. Saudi Arabia actually funds most of the world's terrorists with the exception of a few groups like Hezbollah. Besides, Iran mostly just wants nuclear power.

Also, if there was a war it's not really a matter of Iran being defeated in a few days. It would escalate. Other countries would get involved, especially if the US jumps in with Israel.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2012 6:01:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/4/2012 5:55:14 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/4/2012 5:49:10 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/4/2012 5:43:55 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/4/2012 4:59:45 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Apparently Netanyahu is pushing for war against Iran. I don't know what he's so paranoid about considering Iran hasn't been an aggressor in any war for hundreds of years. If Romney gets elected I really feel he'll join in with Israel on this, which could result in a WW III.

Well, Irans "president" did say he wanted to "wipe Israel from the planet" or something like that.

Apparently the quote was mistranslated. Besides, one mistranslated and out of context quote doesn't make it permissible to invade. I think Iran knows that the consequences of war with Israel would be huge.

It was mistranslated to vanish from history.....which sounds worse IMO.

But regardless, I'm not worried so much with a war with Israel/Iran. Iran would get their butts kicked in a few days.

I'm worried that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, terrorists will as well.

By that logic we should have invaded Pakistan and North Korea long ago, as they have nukes and less stable governments than Iran.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2012 6:02:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/4/2012 6:01:21 PM, lewis20 wrote:

By that logic we should have invaded Pakistan and North Korea long ago, as they have nukes and less stable governments than Iran.

This.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2012 6:13:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/4/2012 5:55:14 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/4/2012 5:49:10 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/4/2012 5:43:55 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/4/2012 4:59:45 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Apparently Netanyahu is pushing for war against Iran. I don't know what he's so paranoid about considering Iran hasn't been an aggressor in any war for hundreds of years. If Romney gets elected I really feel he'll join in with Israel on this, which could result in a WW III.

Well, Irans "president" did say he wanted to "wipe Israel from the planet" or something like that.

Apparently the quote was mistranslated. Besides, one mistranslated and out of context quote doesn't make it permissible to invade. I think Iran knows that the consequences of war with Israel would be huge.

It was mistranslated to vanish from history.....which sounds worse IMO.

But regardless, I'm not worried so much with a war with Israel/Iran. Iran would get their butts kicked in a few days.

I'm worried that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, terrorists will as well.

It comes from some more knowledge of arabic linguistics and culture of the language. I mean, a brit would say "I'll kill you" if you set them up with a poor date (and I have from experience) or shitty beer, but if you said that in arabic... the hyperbole doesn't translate well. In fact, if you responded "hello" to "hello" in Arabic to a business tycoon in a meeting, that'd be gravely insulting to many: you should say "two hellos" instead.

Similarly, saying "wiped off the map of history" essentially means an end to the current government/administration. So if you want the Obama administration to end, or the Con/Lib coalition to end, then you'd want the equivalent: it's just a very vocal and loud way of saying it (like shouting instead of talking). That's not to say that Iran would invade Israel if it got the chance and knowing there'd be no repercussions and no fight back from Israel: they would. It's just the situation of a war beginning is not coming any time soon. Like you said, Israel would be able to beat Iran. Ignoring Turkey, I could see Israel being able to conquer most of the Middle East in all honesty. Israel has great military minds as well as military force, unlike the rest of the world.

Speaking of quotations, though, Al-Khamenei did very explicitly say and repeatedly say "it is un-Islamic to use atomic weapons". Which'd be like saying it's unconstitutional for an American, or nazist for a German: a large condemnation.

Also, why would terrorists get their hands on nukes? Again, not only has this never happened in history and there is no precedence for it, nuclear weapons are astoundingly complex things to maintain and create, impossibly difficult to transport, and launching them would be damn near impossible. Making nuclear bombs to plant in a country is similarly insane: it essentially involves getting highly dangerous radioactive materials and smuggling them into the country. The risk involved and chance of failure is so astronomically high that it would never be pulled off: if say Hezbollah got their hands on them, they'd use it locally first. And that still requires an army of techies and equipment on a massive scale that they quite frankly don't have. And finally it involves giving your most powerful self-defence system away to terrorists who are just as likely to use it against you or an ally - or fck it up altogether - than use it on your enemies.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2012 8:26:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://articles.nydailynews.com...

"In an extraordinary interview Sunday, the former head of Israel's renowned Mossad secret service trashed his country's plans to attack Iran's nukes.

Meir Dagan told CBS' "60 Minutes" that a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities could wait as many as three years.

Dagan, who led the Mossad until late 2010, went public in Israel last May, calling the Netanyahu government's plans to attack Iran "the stupidest thing I have ever heard."

The spymaster's appearance on "60 Minutes" was apparently an attempt to reach American policymakers."

You people are such jokers.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2012 11:48:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/4/2012 5:55:14 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/4/2012 5:49:10 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/4/2012 5:43:55 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/4/2012 4:59:45 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Apparently Netanyahu is pushing for war against Iran. I don't know what he's so paranoid about considering Iran hasn't been an aggressor in any war for hundreds of years. If Romney gets elected I really feel he'll join in with Israel on this, which could result in a WW III.

Well, Irans "president" did say he wanted to "wipe Israel from the planet" or something like that.

Apparently the quote was mistranslated. Besides, one mistranslated and out of context quote doesn't make it permissible to invade. I think Iran knows that the consequences of war with Israel would be huge.

It was mistranslated to vanish from history.....which sounds worse IMO.

This is an accurate translation of what he said - Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement." This is the way Americans and Soviets routinely spoke during the Cold War. He is referring to an occupying government, not the country. Nowhere did he even imply military force. Iran's military is primarily equipped to deal with defensive measures, not invasions. And even if he did say that Iran should use military force against Israel, the Ayatollah has ultimate control in foreign affairs, and Ahmadinejad answers to him. They're not about to bomb Israel, that would utterly destroy their country and it's not like Iran's leaders are too stupid to recognize this.

But regardless, I'm not worried so much with a war with Israel/Iran. Iran would get their butts kicked in a few days.

I'm worried that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, terrorists will as well.

There is no factual basis to this worry. Countries that obtain nuclear weapons, even dangerous or unstable countries, always proceed very carefully with how they deal with them. Iran's leadership is not suicidal. It would not risk their country's destruction by letting a nuclear weapon fall into the hands of unreliable militant terrorists. Nuclear weapons have only been used against a civilian population twice in history, by USA. But nobody wants nuclear war. Everything about Iran's military, statements the leadership has made, uranium enrichment levels, the way they've been behaving since Israel started threatening and the US started imposing sanctions, indicates that they do not yet possess a nuclear weapon. The fear is that they want the "breakout capacity" to develop them. U.S. and Israeli leadership act as if Iran has their nukes up and running and ready to bomb Israel.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2012 11:52:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also Ahmadinejad is done being president after this term. We are gonna have to find a new face of evil for Iran.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 12:13:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/4/2012 4:59:45 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Apparently Netanyahu is pushing for war against Iran. I don't know what he's so paranoid about considering Iran hasn't been an aggressor in any war for hundreds of years. If Romney gets elected I really feel he'll join in with Israel on this, which could result in a WW III.

It won't matter who's president. Obama won't even back down if Israel goes to war with Iran.

Second off, let's stop throwing around "WWIII", it's a load of crap. It's not going to happen as a result of a war with Iran. I guarantee it. Nobody is going to back up Iran, nobody CAN back up Iran.

Certainly not in time before Iran is effectively annihilated by Israel.

You think China or Russia have the capability to fight a war in the Middle East? You think that they think they have anything to gain by sending armies to fight Americans and Israelis.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 12:33:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 12:13:57 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 9/4/2012 4:59:45 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Apparently Netanyahu is pushing for war against Iran. I don't know what he's so paranoid about considering Iran hasn't been an aggressor in any war for hundreds of years. If Romney gets elected I really feel he'll join in with Israel on this, which could result in a WW III.

It won't matter who's president. Obama won't even back down if Israel goes to war with Iran.

That's true, Romney or Obama will bow to Israel.

Second off, let's stop throwing around "WWIII", it's a load of crap. It's not going to happen as a result of a war with Iran. I guarantee it. Nobody is going to back up Iran, nobody CAN back up Iran.

Certainly not in time before Iran is effectively annihilated by Israel.

You think China or Russia have the capability to fight a war in the Middle East?

Moreso than the U.S. does, we're spread pretty thin and pretty broke.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 1:24:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 12:05:19 AM, TheAsylum wrote:
Can Iran win a war with Israel?

doubt it, with the toys the US has given Israel any aerial battle will quickly be won by Israel since Iran's airforce is probably from the 1970's, after that it turns into a ground war and since theres this nice little country called Iraq in the way there wouldnt be much head to head fighting unless Israeli forces moved through Iraq (which I dont see any reason as to why they would do that)

Any way between Israel and Iran would be primarily in the Air, short lived, and very little ground combat (In my opinion)
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 1:27:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 12:13:57 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 9/4/2012 4:59:45 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Apparently Netanyahu is pushing for war against Iran. I don't know what he's so paranoid about considering Iran hasn't been an aggressor in any war for hundreds of years. If Romney gets elected I really feel he'll join in with Israel on this, which could result in a WW III.

It won't matter who's president. Obama won't even back down if Israel goes to war with Iran.

Second off, let's stop throwing around "WWIII", it's a load of crap. It's not going to happen as a result of a war with Iran. I guarantee it. Nobody is going to back up Iran, nobody CAN back up Iran.

Certainly not in time before Iran is effectively annihilated by Israel.

You think China or Russia have the capability to fight a war in the Middle East? You think that they think they have anything to gain by sending armies to fight Americans and Israelis.

I agree with this a lot, the only other groups that would back Iran are terrorist groups that are already at war with the US and Israel, and even then that doesnt come CLOSE to being considered WWIII, it just becomes another quagmire of Guerilla warfare being fought by the US and a few allies against middle eastern forces.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 3:37:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 12:33:10 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 9/5/2012 12:13:57 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 9/4/2012 4:59:45 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Apparently Netanyahu is pushing for war against Iran. I don't know what he's so paranoid about considering Iran hasn't been an aggressor in any war for hundreds of years. If Romney gets elected I really feel he'll join in with Israel on this, which could result in a WW III.

It won't matter who's president. Obama won't even back down if Israel goes to war with Iran.

That's true, Romney or Obama will bow to Israel.

Second off, let's stop throwing around "WWIII", it's a load of crap. It's not going to happen as a result of a war with Iran. I guarantee it. Nobody is going to back up Iran, nobody CAN back up Iran.

Certainly not in time before Iran is effectively annihilated by Israel.

You think China or Russia have the capability to fight a war in the Middle East?

Moreso than the U.S. does, we're spread pretty thin and pretty broke.

Why does that make a difference? Get a rich weak guy in a fight with a strong poor guy and the poor strong guy will win. China may have some amount of "money", but a poor military tradition and outdated weaponry. By contrast, the U.S. Army has never been better and is pulling out of countries. In the case of anything remotely near like a massive war, pulling out of nations which the only role of troops is peacekeeping would as well be pretty easy.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 8:25:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hey, how about responding to my post? Does that interest anyone? Netanyahu is pushing for war to get people to pressure Iran further. He knows there will be no war.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 10:56:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Assuming rationality amongst the theocrats in Iran (which is usually the starting point of the anti-Iran war platform -> no past wars from Iran as aggressor, nuclear deterrence, etc), then why would direct action (various strikes) compel Iran to take military action? If Iranian leaders are rational (rational in the IR sense -> regime survival) it would be completely irrational for Iran to escalate against US/Israel because it would threaten regime survival. Now, since escalation is probably unlikely then the implications of a nuclear iran become more manifold - arms races (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel [maybe Turkey]), the potential for small traces of nuclear materials falling into the hands of terrorists (IED dirty bomb). *Response to Pak-Korea argument: the US essentially pays for the safeguard of Pak nukes and Pak is deathly afraid of potential Indian retaliation. N. Korea is irrelevant since it has little to no ties to jihadist groups.

Also it must be taken into account that a potentially empowered Green Movement could partly destabilize areas of the country making terrorist infiltration more likely, like in Syria atm. This isnt even going into the fact that Iran has allowed movement and encampment of Al Qaeda which completely transcends the usual Sunni-Shia split.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 10:58:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/4/2012 12:27:16 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Next time someone talks about the necessity and urgency of joining Israel in war against Iran, call them on their abject, life-destroying, grade-A bullsh!t.


.
LOL my my how you miss the point.
1. The US has not been at war since 1945
2. There are those in the US who desire, (used intentionally) war to defend Israel.
3. Bovine scatology is the substance of the USA.
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 12:23:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 10:58:46 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 9/4/2012 12:27:16 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Next time someone talks about the necessity and urgency of joining Israel in war against Iran, call them on their abject, life-destroying, grade-A bullsh!t.


.
LOL my my how you miss the point.
1. The US has not been at war since 1945

What?

2. There are those in the US who desire, (used intentionally) war to defend Israel.
3. Bovine scatology is the substance of the USA.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 12:24:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 10:56:05 AM, CiRrK wrote:
Assuming rationality amongst the theocrats in Iran (which is usually the starting point of the anti-Iran war platform -> no past wars from Iran as aggressor, nuclear deterrence, etc), then why would direct action (various strikes) compel Iran to take military action? If Iranian leaders are rational (rational in the IR sense -> regime survival) it would be completely irrational for Iran to escalate against US/Israel because it would threaten regime survival. Now, since escalation is probably unlikely then the implications of a nuclear iran become more manifold - arms races (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel [maybe Turkey]), the potential for small traces of nuclear materials falling into the hands of terrorists (IED dirty bomb). *Response to Pak-Korea argument: the US essentially pays for the safeguard of Pak nukes and Pak is deathly afraid of potential Indian retaliation. N. Korea is irrelevant since it has little to no ties to jihadist groups.

Also it must be taken into account that a potentially empowered Green Movement could partly destabilize areas of the country making terrorist infiltration more likely, like in Syria atm. This isnt even going into the fact that Iran has allowed movement and encampment of Al Qaeda which completely transcends the usual Sunni-Shia split.

Iran and Al Queda are NOT allies. In fact, the Persian-Arab split leaves Iran almost completely without allies in the middle east, even among terrorist groups.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 1:05:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 12:23:02 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/5/2012 10:58:46 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 9/4/2012 12:27:16 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Next time someone talks about the necessity and urgency of joining Israel in war against Iran, call them on their abject, life-destroying, grade-A bullsh!t.


.
LOL my my how you miss the point.
1. The US has not been at war since 1945

What?

2. There are those in the US who desire, (used intentionally) war to defend Israel.
3. Bovine scatology is the substance of the USA.

Under the Law in the US only Congress ha the Authority to declare War....According to federal Statutes governing benefits from VA last war was wwii....none since then. All US lawyers know this....most politicians are lawyers......now why would they mis use terms so I wonder
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 1:25:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 10:56:05 AM, CiRrK wrote:
Assuming rationality amongst the theocrats in Iran (which is usually the starting point of the anti-Iran war platform -> no past wars from Iran as aggressor, nuclear deterrence, etc), then why would direct action (various strikes) compel Iran to take military action? If Iranian leaders are rational (rational in the IR sense -> regime survival) it would be completely irrational for Iran to escalate against US/Israel because it would threaten regime survival. Now, since escalation is probably unlikely then the implications of a nuclear iran become more manifold - arms races (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel [maybe Turkey]), the potential for small traces of nuclear materials falling into the hands of terrorists (IED dirty bomb). *Response to Pak-Korea argument: the US essentially pays for the safeguard of Pak nukes and Pak is deathly afraid of potential Indian retaliation. N. Korea is irrelevant since it has little to no ties to jihadist groups.

Also it must be taken into account that a potentially empowered Green Movement could partly destabilize areas of the country making terrorist infiltration more likely, like in Syria atm. This isnt even going into the fact that Iran has allowed movement and encampment of Al Qaeda which completely transcends the usual Sunni-Shia split.

Taking all things into account:

1) Iran has survived in its regime on an argument that it is the only thing that can stop the Americans and the Western world killing everyone
2) Iran has used massive of propaganda to promote this argument
3) The propaganda is falling apart and the government's forced transparency has made it obviously corrupt for the people to see.

Then an invasion would lead to the following:

1) Iran's regime's propaganda would come true
2) Iran's citizens would rally around it in Persia-esque patriotic nationalism to create a stability in the regime necessary to free up Iranian resources into the war
3) The propaganda coming true would make all other issues put to one side, keep the government in power, and make more civilians and soldiers likely to fight for the regime.

As a result, invading Iran would make it more of a threat, not less of one, even if one just levelled the country, as political backlash would be immense. Further, invading Iran would make the regime harder to uproot than subtle political espionage and aggressive diplomatic efforts.

Further, regarding the threat of "Indian" backlash to pakistan, It is pretty much cherry picking to say it's just India. The fact that firing a nuclear weapon has been effectively banned in the known world and firing one would essentially get you put down faster than Zanzibar, as the rest of the world would blow you to sh!t. Likewise, Iran would get their arse handed to them in regards to any attack, which is why they would not pull one off.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...