Do we act against Iran? (1 Viewer)

[M14 Shooter]

If the US determies that the Iranian nuke threat necessitates military action against it, and Russia/China vote against any such action in the UNSC -- do we act or not?

 

[Calm2Chaos]

I am not going to leave our security decisions to the likes of China and Russia.

 

[The Mark]

If the US determies that the Iranian nuke threat necessitates military action against it, and Russia/China vote against any such action in the UNSC -- do we act or not?

Of course. Now, I'd like it if we had more info before we went into another country this time, but probably if we were told everything they would have a chance to cover their tracks.

 

[Hoot]

Anyone that advocates that we start bombing Iran needs to check themself into the nearest mental health center.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Anyone that advocates that we start bombing Iran needs to check themself into the nearest mental health center.

True.. Because the best course of action would be to wait for them to sell the weapons grade material to someone that will attack us. That way you can complain the country did nothing to protect you. Then when we do attack you can complain were attacking sweet innocent people.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Anyone that advocates that we start bombing Iran needs to check themself into the nearest mental health center.

You're not really answering the question.

 

[Kandahar]

Anyone that advocates that we start bombing Iran needs to check themself into the nearest mental health center.

I don't think we need to start bombing them just yet, but we certainly need that option on the table and we need to start for preparing for it since it looks like we'll need to go that route eventually. None of the possible outcomes from this are good, but a nuclear Iran is the least acceptable outcome.

 

[Hoot]

Iraq is basically the size of California.

Iran is four times the size of Iraq/California, with rugged mountainous terrain.

We can never hope to take out all of their nuclear sites, which some rumor to number as high as the 70's, with alot of them underground.

Even with precision bombing, civilian casualties are unavoidable, which will inflame the populace, and only delay Iran's nuclear ambitions a few years at best.

We should allow Russia to let Iran pursue nuclear technology on Russian soil, with Russian supervision.

With the European Union, Russia and China, and the U.N., we can apply pressure on Iran without the threat of U.S. armed aggression.

Bombing Iran should absolutely be a last resort...and not the kind of last resort Bush spoke of in regard to Iraq.

 

[Kandahar]

Iraq is basically the size of California.

Iran is four times the size of Iraq/California, with rugged mountainous terrain.

We can never hope to take out all of their nuclear sites, which some rumor to number as high as the 70's, with alot of them underground.

Even with precision bombing, civilian casualties are unavoidable, which will inflame the populace, and only delay Iran's nuclear ambitions a few years at best.

I'm not saying the military option is a GOOD answer; there are no good answers. But it might be the least bad answer. Delaying Iran's nuclear ambitions a few years is fine; it buys more time to destabilize the regime, and if that doesn't work we can do the same thing again in a few years.

We should allow Russia to let Iran pursue nuclear technology on Russian soil, with Russian supervision.

The United States has been encouraging exactly that. It is Iran - not Russia or the United States - who has already rejected this offer.

With the European Union, Russia and China, and the U.N., we can apply pressure on Iran without the threat of U.S. armed aggression.

What kind of "pressure" can we apply that would be effective, and that Russia and China would agree to?

Bombing Iran should absolutely be a last resort...and not the kind of last resort Bush spoke of in regard to Iraq.

The difference, once again, is that Iran actually IS a threat unlike Iraq.

 

[Red_Dave]

If the US determies that the Iranian nuke threat necessitates military action against it, and Russia/China vote against any such action in the UNSC -- do we act or not?

So your saying the Iranian government was weapons of mass destruction? Just like iraq did? :lol: Im amazed people actually go along with this con . The american governent tells us we need to invade afghanistan to get bin larden and stop terroism . We invade aganistain, we dont get bin larden, we dont stop terroism. However what we do achive is paving the way for a much needed oil pipeline. Next we where told we had to invade iraq to get rid of saddam husein and his weapons of mass destruction, purge iraq of terroists [thus reduceing the threat of terroism] . and turn iraq into a peaceful democracy. We invaded. Got of saddam husein but no weapons of mass destruction where found, iraq has turned into a war zone. London was bombed in a as revenge for the uks role in the iraq war and bin larden promises more attacks unless us forces leave iraq. However what we did achive was secureing iraqi oil. Bush's record shows that the reasons and scare tactics he uses to get suporrt for his wars are largely false. But as soon as people hear bush say iran [another place with lots of oil] is developing nukes [which it isnt its trying to develop energy] everyone thinks "ooh we must invade before they kill us all" before you can say "gullable"

 

[M14 Shooter]

So your saying the Iranian government was weapons of mass destruction?

You mean HAS a WMD.
Read the question. It's pretty simple.

But as soon as people hear bush say iran is developing nukes [which it isnt its trying to develop energy]

You can't be serious.

 

[Kandahar]

So your saying the Iranian government was weapons of mass destruction? Just like iraq did? :lol: Im amazed people actually go along with this con . The american governent tells us we need to invade afghanistan to get bin larden and stop terroism . We invade aganistain, we dont get bin larden, we dont stop terroism. However what we do achive is paving the way for a much needed oil pipeline. Next we where told we had to invade iraq to get rid of saddam husein and his weapons of mass destruction, purge iraq of terroists [thus reduceing the threat of terroism] . and turn iraq into a peaceful democracy. We invaded. Got of saddam husein but no weapons of mass destruction where found, iraq has turned into a war zone. London was bombed in a as revenge for the uks role in the iraq war and bin larden promises more attacks unless us forces leave iraq. However what we did achive was secureing iraqi oil. Bush's record shows that the reasons and scare tactics he uses to get suporrt for his wars are largely false. But as soon as people hear bush say iran [another place with lots of oil] is developing nukes [which it isnt its trying to develop energy] everyone thinks "ooh we must invade before they kill us all" before you can say "gullable"

So are you denying that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons?

 

[Red_Dave]

So are you denying that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons?

Well neither the bush adminstration or the Iranian government seam particually trustworthy so its a tricky one but i would wager that there arent any just like last time.

 

[Kandahar]

Well neither the bush adminstration or the Iranian government seam particually trustworthy

But every government in the world that has commented on this, believes that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. And would you care to explain why an oil-rich country needs nuclear energy for peaceful purposes? Would you care to explain how Ahmadinejad plans to wipe Israel off the map, if not with nuclear weapons? Why are they creating an international crisis by being so belligerent toward UN inspectors if there's no wrongdoing to hide? Why did the IAEA find missile designs on a stolen Iranian laptop, mixed in with the files of their "peaceful" nuclear program?

so its a tricky one but i would wager that there arent any just like last time.

I'll take that bet (that there's no nuclear weapons program). Your opinion seems to be based entirely on knee-jerk anti-American emotion, rather than rationally considering the facts of the case. There is every indication that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and nothing to suggest that they are not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well neither the bush adminstration or the Iranian government seam particually trustworthy so its a tricky one but i would wager that there arent any just like last time.

There arent any NOW - that's why the issue is their PURSUIT of nukes, not their current posession.

Why would you believe the Iranian government when it says they are developing their nuke tech for power generation and not weapons?


And... why arent you answering the poll question?

 

[Hornburger]

I say not yet. We are already in a war with Iraq, and the rest of the terrorists around the world. We can't take up another war, we wouldn't be able to handle it nearly as well as if we get things elsewhere settled first. I think it would be much better not to act against Iran ourselves just yet.

 

[Kandahar]

I say not yet. We are already in a war with Iraq, and the rest of the terrorists around the world. We can't take up another war, we wouldn't be able to handle it nearly as well as if we get things elsewhere settled first. I think it would be much better not to act against Iran ourselves just yet.

We need to prioritize. I say we get the hell out of Iraq as soon as possible so we're in a stronger position to take military action against Iran. Either that or we use Iraq as a launching point for Iran, and stop fighting Iraqi insurgents.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I say not yet. We are already in a war with Iraq, and the rest of the terrorists around the world. We can't take up another war, we wouldn't be able to handle it nearly as well as if we get things elsewhere settled first. I think it would be much better not to act against Iran ourselves just yet.

The question isnt if we do it now (or next week or next month) but if we do it over a veto at the UNSC.

 

[Hornburger]

The question isnt if we do it now (or next week or next month) but if we do it over a veto at the UNSC.

I think that we first need absolute proof on if Iran has WMD's.

We need to prioritize. I say we get the hell out of Iraq as soon as possible so we're in a stronger position to take military action against Iran. Either that or we use Iraq as a launching point for Iran, and stop fighting Iraqi insurgents.

Well then it would basically be like us losing the war in Iraq first of all, because we didn't meet our original objective of providing Iraq with a stable government to handle such threats.

And we don't even know if Iran even HAS nuclear weapons...we can't just go and pull another Iraq...we need to be absolutely sure they have WMD's first.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think that we first need absolute proof on if Iran has WMD's.

The question assumes this.
Do we or do we not act over a UNSC veto?

Well then it would basically be like us losing the war in Iraq first of all, because we didn't meet our original objective of providing Iraq with a stable government to handle such threats.

We've lost the war in Iraq because we haven't yet achieved all our objectives?

 

[Hornburger]

The question assumes this.
Do we or do we not act over a UNSC veto?

Oh, I see, I apologize. But still...when is still a factor. We can't handle too much as it is...but when we are able to handle more than sure (if the UNSC vetos), war is a viable course of action.

We've lost the war in Iraq because we haven't yet achieved all our objectives?

No, but we will if we abandon the war in Iraq. We haven't abandoned the Iraq war yet, so we are still there trying to meet our goals. If we weren't, we wouldn't be there.

 

[Kandahar]

Well then it would basically be like us losing the war in Iraq first of all, because we didn't meet our original objective of providing Iraq with a stable government to handle such threats.

I'm under no illusions that we can win the war in Iraq. The government they've just elected will be in place for two years, so we're out of milestones. There are simply too many other places that require us to commit troops to be bogged down in Iraq any longer. It is making our country weaker. We have already lost in Iraq; it's simply a matter of whether we acknowledge it now (and use the troops more effectively), or later (and bury our heads in the sand).

However, Iraq might make a convenient launching pad for a much more urgent war with Iran. But let's not kid ourselves that if we just leave our troops in Iraq long enough, the insurgency is going to magically go away.

And we don't even know if Iran even HAS nuclear weapons...we can't just go and pull another Iraq...we need to be absolutely sure they have WMD's first.

There is no doubt at all that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Unlike Iraq, there is almost no disagreement on this point from any credible sources anywhere in the world.

 

[Hoot]

Right now...I believe the best policy toward Iran is to apply a united world pressure. The Iranian people will be much more opposed to a U.S. attack and become more united behind their leaders. We never faced the sort of opposition in Iraq that we will face in Iran, and the Iranian military is far stronger.

No assault against Iran will wipe out all of their weapons, and they will surely retaliate against U.S. forces in Iraq. If Bush, Cheney, Rove and Rumsfield are so sure of this course of action, I suggest they stay with our soldiers in Iraq, a good 30 days after we launch an attack against Iran, and see how things are going?

Iran is comprised mainly of Shiite muslims...those opposed to Osama, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban, but what do you want to bet we start hearing comparisons between 9/11 and Osama and Iran from Bush? This line of dialogue worked once before with the gullible, and I'm sure Bush believes he can make it work again.

If we cannot apply a united world pressure against Iran, then I believe a hands-off, self-determination policy is far better, and safer, then any act of war would be.

January 20th, 2009 can't come soon enough for our nation, when we will, at last, have a new president and some common sense back in the White House.

 

[doughgirl]

Kandahar said, ”I don't think we need to start bombing them just yet, but we certainly need that option on the table and we need to start for preparing for it since it looks like we'll need to go that route eventually. None of the possible outcomes from this are good, but a nuclear Iran is the least acceptable outcome.”

You who are the anti-war LEFT and who think we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq or Afganistan, that it was none of our business, could you address these questions:

While aggressively pursuing nuclear power Iran has been accused of a secret ambition to use their new nuclear reactors to produce the needed fuel for nuclear weapons.
Isreal has Nukes... US has Nukes... India has Nukes... Pakistan has nukes... All the G8 countries have nukes...

So, why can`t Iran get their own? We have bombs why can’t they?

Why don’t they have that right?

Why would we bomb them? Don’t they have a right to defend themselves to protect themselves against their enemies, against us?

What right do we have to walk in and tell them what to do?

What have they done to us?

Who are we to impose are morality and views on them?

They are not backing down because of our warnings. What right do we really have to warn them at all? Why should they have to follow are rules?

Why shouldn't they have WMD?

I would think the community on the LEFT in America………would fight for Irans right to do whatever they want. Where is Michael Moore?…Babwa Streisand? Teddy “Hick-up” Kennedy? The Democratic Party? Shouldn’t they all be defending Iran?

I would think that those people who are so pro-choice everything, those who are on the LEFT would think America wrong to stop them. They bashed Bush for marching into Iraq, they say he lied about WMD that basically we have no rights to be there……How could anyone on the Left therefore support any sanctions against Iran for simply making nuclear bombs?

Now I am not military minded at all and I would be for getting rid of all nuclear bombs everywhere ………but I see a double standard here especially by those on the Left.

 

[americanwoman]

I say not yet. We are already in a war with Iraq, and the rest of the terrorists around the world. We can't take up another war, we wouldn't be able to handle it nearly as well as if we get things elsewhere settled first. I think it would be much better not to act against Iran ourselves just yet.

I was going to write something very similar to this. While we have to monitor this situation we really don't have the money or manpower to start antoher war.