the usa should invade and over throw iran

Author: n8nrgmi ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 12
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 801
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    i don't believe this, but playing devil's advocate. but i am beginning to believe we should overthrow iran.  i do believe tthis argument is why john bolton should be on trump's military team.... just to have the someone willing to push this option so all options are on the table. 

    i dont know what the odds are that iran would get a nuke and funnel it to terrorists and then not take responsibility. but it's possible if not likely.. it's a realistic situation given the way iran currently behaves. what are we suppose to do if they have nukes after theyve been arming terrorists? mutual assured destruction only works in theory, in practice it can prevent a bad actor like iran from being stopped in that sort of situation. this means we should use force if necessary, to prevent them from getting nukes. but how much force should we use? 

    would bombing them if they dont let inspectors in or make too much fuel that isn't easy to monitor fix the situation? (if they won't let inspectors in or are making more fuel than they need, their intentions cannot be good) if we don't over throw them, it would probably just delay the inevitable if iran really wanted nukes. the reason it's inevitable, is because we will have weak presidents eventually, and iran will just take advantage of the situation. then we are at the point that they just funnel bombs to terrorists. as was argued for a reason to not bomb them, bombing them might just increase the odds of an attack from iran. so if that's a possibility, and if we might have weak presidents, that's all the more reason to overthrow them while we still can. 

    here are some tactical considerations: our military is as big as the next ten countries combined, and we have thousands of nukes and iran has no nukes and is small in comparision. that's why no one wants to mess with us. their GDP is only half a trillion whereas ours is twenty five trillion. but, their GDP is rising exponentially, which would give them the means to fund terrorism. after all, iran was doing exactly that during the treaty that obama negotiated. they were also insisting on three or four weeks notice for inspections, which would mean they have bad intentions because there's no good reason to not allow inspectors. why would we do business with iran, at the same time we are fighting terrorists? the money they get is going directly to terrorism, so we are just shooting ourselves in the foot. better to just overthrow the current regime than to let that happen, if them getting nukes and being a bad actor is inevitable. 

    as i said, i think iran might have decent intentions at the moment, so i don't believe the above argument is best. but if we think them getting nukes is inevitable, we should do something about it now, while we have the chance. i just dont know the odds they are going to try to get nukes so this question is my main sticking point. 
  • mustardness
    mustardness avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,029
    2
    1
    3
    mustardness avatar
    mustardness
    --> @n8nrgmi
    but if we think them getting nukes is inevitable,
    Yes it is inevitable.  The Iran deal was only a stop-gap maneuver to slow their operations to get access to the nuclear weapons by aproximately 10  - 20 years.

    we should do something about it now,
    Yes, we should be working with them to ensure that whatever operations their doing remain safe and secure in all ways.  This is what we did with Soviet Union/Russia in 90's.

    while we have the chance.
    Humanity has a chance as long as an accident doesnt happen and leads to crazy actions by disturbed people in authority.

    ..."India, Israel, and Pakistan never signed the NPT and possess nuclear arsenals.".... and we did not bomb them into submission.

    Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan, India, France, USA, UK,  Russia, China etc getting nuclear weapons is not neccessarily the end of humanity.

    How smartly humanity responds to growing number of nuclear weapons in with more countries is the issue.  War is obsolete in a world full of nuclear weapons.

    ..."At the dawn of the nuclear age, the United States hoped to maintain a monopoly on its new weapon, but the secrets and the technology for making nuclear weapons soon spread.

    ...The United States conducted its first nuclear test explosion in July 1945 and dropped two atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. Just four years later, the Soviet Union conducted its first nuclear test explosion.

    ...The United Kingdom (1952), France (1960), and China (1964) followed.

    We live together as one humanity or we die together as one humanity in a world of nuclear weapons and increasing Erratic Climate Change via Global Warming and overpopulation.

    In 40's humanity thought world was going crazy.  In 60's humanity thought world is going crazy.  In 90's humnaity thought some crazy was being reduced and we were practicing getting smart.

    In 2020 will humnaityl think the world is going crazy again.  How much crazy can world sustain before someone{s} in authority make a irresponsible mistake that ignites the nuclear genie again?


  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,888
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @n8nrgmi
    i don't believe this
    But you believe they should bomb them "i'm not saying that america should invade iran. just bomb them."
    I want to know the difference.
    i do believe tthis argument is why john bolton should be on trump's military team.... just to have the someone willing to push this option so all options are on the table. 
    This guy?
    i dont know what the odds are that iran would get a nuke and funnel it to terrorists and then not take responsibility. but it's possible if not likely.. it's a realistic situation given the way iran currently behaves. what are we suppose to do if they have nukes after theyve been arming terrorists? mutual assured destruction only works in theory, in practice it can prevent a bad actor like iran from being stopped in that sort of situation. this means we should use force if necessary, to prevent them from getting nukes. but how much force should we use? 
    No evidence offered so I'll wait when you do. If all you got is that Iran possibly has nukes. Then I am going to say possibly Iran doesn't have nukes. We aren't going anywhere with that.
    if we don't over throw them, it would probably just delay the inevitable if iran really wanted nukes.
    If Iran nukes the US. In retaliation the US would also fire nukes. This won't happen because of a thing called the Cold War.
    Both the Soviet Union and the US were increasing in their military technology which created two countries trying to best each other. Neither of them really wanted to fight in direct wars instead were involved with proxy wars. The reason behind this was that if the US fires a nuke the Soviet Union will as well. Neither of them would risk such an altercation. If you don't think that is substantial then I'll say more.

    There has been 2,056 nuclear tests and only 2 have been used in war.
    There was 2 nuclear bombs dropped by the United States. One in Hiroshima and another in Nagasaki.

    No other country apart from the US has used nukes in war and you think Iran would do it.
    the reason it's inevitable, is because we will have weak presidents eventually, and iran will just take advantage of the situation. then we are at the point that they just funnel bombs to terrorists. as was argued for a reason to not bomb them, bombing them might just increase the odds of an attack from iran. so if that's a possibility, and if we might have weak presidents, that's all the more reason to overthrow them while we still can. 
    Many assumptions.
    but, their GDP is rising exponentially, which would give them the means to fund terrorism. after all, iran was doing exactly that during the treaty that obama negotiated.
    So what I am getting is since you can't prove that Iran broke the deal you now have a problem with another country doing successful. You have yet to provide evidence they are a threat. When was the last time Iran has attacked the US?
    they were also insisting on three or four weeks notice for inspections, which would mean they have bad intentions because there's no good reason to not allow inspectors.
    Asking for a notice means they have bad intentions. I am guessing you mean hiding the nukes. This is a false dichotomy. There are more scenarios than just that. What if they wanted to clean up in order to meet American health and safety standards or use that time to plan how they are going to show the facility? Since there is more than one way you can't conclude this and you require evidence. This is me agreeing with Iran asking for a 4-3 week notice even though you haven't given evidence.
    why would we do business with iran, at the same time we are fighting terrorists? the money they get is going directly to terrorism, so we are just shooting ourselves in the foot. better to just overthrow the current regime than to let that happen, if them getting nukes and being a bad actor is inevitable. 
    Evidence that the war on terror works and evidence that Iran spends money on terror?
    as i said, i think iran might have decent intentions at the moment, so i don't believe the above argument is best. but if we think them getting nukes is inevitable, we should do something about it now, while we have the chance. i just dont know the odds they are going to try to get nukes so this question is my main sticking point. 
    Whatever your point is. It requires evidence. 
  • mustardness
    mustardness avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,029
    2
    1
    3
    mustardness avatar
    mustardness
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    This guy?
    I think N8N has been drinking to much koolaide.

    .."1. A pre-emptive strike against North Korea is perfectly justified
    "It is perfectly legitimate for the United States to respond to the current "necessity" posed by North Korea's nuclear weapons by striking first."...

    Duhh, that was never the case between USA and Soviet Union


    .."2. Bombing Iran is probably OK, too

    Yeah, I'm off work on saturday, a got some free time.


    .."3. He's not the biggest fan of the UN

    United nations.  Whose big{ global } idea was that thing?


    .."4. The Iraq War wasn't a mistake"...

    USA doesnt make mistakes and any who follow rational logical common sense knows that, dont they?


    ..."5. Russia needs to be dealt with strongly"...

    OMG, does Botlon really want to bomb Putin and the Russian people on Sunday after bombin Iran on saturday?

    This strategey only leaves 5 days for bombin N. Korea.  This dude Bolton is a slave driver.  Ive got a doctors appointment due soon.


  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,282
    4
    6
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @mustardness
    1.North Korea isn't USSR
    2.not a point
    3.A Democrat
    4.Not a point and I agree n8rmgi
    5.Not a point

    More nonsense from mustard man!
  • mustardness
    mustardness avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,029
    2
    1
    3
    mustardness avatar
    mustardness
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    More nonsense from mustard man!
    Take-a-hike voluntarily and save moderators the trouble of firing you asyou have not anything of relevant significance to add to this thread or any other here at DArt.  Sad :--(  waste of mind/intellect.   Your kind of ignorance is why DDO went south.

    Bolton has drunk too much of his own kool-aid. As so many of the Trump appointees have that have come and gone, whether fired, or corrupt and saw the writing on tthe wall.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    .."1. A pre-emptive strike against North Korea is perfectly justified
    "It is perfectly legitimate for the United States to respond to the current "necessity" posed by North Korea's nuclear weapons by striking first."...

    Duhh, that was never the case between USA and Soviet Union


    .."2. Bombing Iran is probably OK, too

    Yeah, I'm off work on saturday, a got some free time.


    .."3. He's not the biggest fan of the UN

    United nations.  Whose big{ global } idea was that thing?


    .."4. The Iraq War wasn't a mistake"...

    USA doesnt make mistakes and any who follow rational logical common sense knows that, dont they?


    ..."5. Russia needs to be dealt with strongly"...

    OMG, does Botlon really want to bomb Putin and the Russian people on Sunday after bombin Iran on saturday?

    This strategey only leaves 5 days for bombin N. Korea.  This dude Bolton is a slave driver.  Ive got a doctors appointment due soon.



  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,282
    4
    6
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @mustardness
    me, I'm the reason DDO sucks, yeah nice joke
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,888
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @mustardness
    Yes.

  • mustardness
    mustardness avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,029
    2
    1
    3
    mustardness avatar
    mustardness
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    me, I'm the reason DDO sucks, yeah nice joke
    Your a joke, yes. Nice, no.

    Your kind of ignorance is why DDO went south.

    Bolton has drunk too much of his own kool-aid. As so many of the Trump appointees have that have come and gone, whether fired, or corrupt and saw the writing on tthe wall.


    ..."Consider his inner circle. There are the literal felons:
    1}...His former campaign manager (Paul Manafort),
    1a} ....his former deputy campaign manager (Rick Gates),
    1b}....his former national security adviser (Michael Flynn), All now convicted of felonies.
    1c} ...One of them, former lawyer Michael Cohen, said he committed two of those felonies because the president told him to."....

    2} former Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price,
    2a} former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, HUD Secretary Ben Carson.

    3} There is Wilbur Ross, the Commerce secretary, who continued to hold personal investments in violations of his agreements to divest them

    4} And then there are Trump's two first supporters in Congress: Reps. Chris Collins and,
    4a} ..Duncan Hunter, now both indicted on accusations of boneheadedly obvious financial crimes.

    ......"When you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the ___y."
    It's a misogynistic statement and an admission of sexual assault. It is also a claim of impunity: I can do this thing I want, and I will get away with it."....


  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,282
    4
    6
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @mustardness
    awwww, Im not nice, cry me a river mustard man!!

    Still loathing about  joke Trump said 14 years ago, TDS is extreme. 
  • mustardness
    mustardness avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,029
    2
    1
    3
    mustardness avatar
    mustardness
    --> @n8nrgmi
    .."1. A pre-emptive strike against North Korea is perfectly justified
    "It is perfectly legitimate for the United States to respond to the current "necessity" posed by North Korea's nuclear weapons by striking first."...

    Duhh, that was never the case between USA and Soviet Union so why is ok with N. korea?


    .."2. Bombing Iran is probably OK, too

    Yeah, I'm off work on saturday, a got some free time ets take out a few million innoccent people and see what other nasty consequences such a war could produce.


    .."3. He's not the biggest fan of the UN

    United Nations.  Whose big{ global } idea was that thing? Not a Trumpanzee.


    .."4. The Iraq War wasn't a mistake"...

    USA doesnt make mistakes and any who follow rational logical common sense knows that, dont they? All hail Bolton the Master Mind


    ..."5. Russia needs to be dealt with strongly"...

    OMG, does Botlon really want to bomb Putin and the Russian people on Sunday after bombin Iran on saturday?
    Lets see I'm working most of the week but I could find some free time get involved in bombing, Russia, Iran, N. korea, Syria and who else?  What about a few of those S. American countries.  We know how much GP dispises there existence.


    Looks like I will have to postpone that doctors appointment this week.

47 days later