Do we act against Iran?

[Hoot]

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.

Why do you say the 'left?'

The 'right' will never want to let go of their nuclear weapons, therefore, it is the 'right-wing,' if anyone, who are being hypocrites about not allowing any other nation to have nuclear weapons.

There are many more people on the left that would be willing for all nuclear weapons to be banned world-wide, then you will ever find on the right.

 

[Kandahar]

Right now...I believe the best policy toward Iran is to apply a united world pressure.

This is intentionally vague, and falsely assumes that such pressure is even possible and would be intolerable to the Iranian regime. What kind of "pressure" do you believe would convince Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program AND be acceptable to Russia/China?

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.

My rebuttal to this can be summed up in two words: Nuclear Iran

No assault against Iran will wipe out all of their weapons, and they will surely retaliate against U.S. forces in Iraq.

Nuclear Iran

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?

Why? How can they possibly be more use standing in harm's way than they could be commanding the troops? Who says anything about being "so sure" of this course of action? There aren't any good options available.

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.

Iran is the world's number one state sponsor of terror. While they often compete with al-Qaeda for hegemony among Islamic radicals, Iran and al-Qaeda are not necessarily enemies the way Baathist Iraq and al-Qaeda were.

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.

So nuclear weapons in the hands of people who want to pick up where Hitler left off, and who truly believe that it is their duty to usher in the apocalypse...that's an acceptable outcome to you, and is "better and safer" than war?

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.

Maybe we'll get a president who won't ***** out in dealing with Iran the way the current president has. But by then it'll probably be too late.

 

[Kandahar]

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?

No country has the "right" to get nuclear weapons. Some already have them, and most don't. So let's work from that realistic premise rather than this idealistic nonsense.

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

Does a band of criminals have the right to "protect themselves" from arrest by using lethal force on the police?

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

Because the security of our country and our allies' is in danger.

What have they done to us?

You mean besides sponsoring terror, threatening to pick up where Hitler left off, and pursuing nuclear weapons that can be given to terrorists? Nothing. :roll:

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

What "morality"? Nuclear weapons are not a morality issue.

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?

They're free to ignore our warnings. And we're free to bomb them if they do.

Why shouldn't they have WMD?

Are you serious?

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?

Because Iran actually is pursuing nuclear weapons. Iraq was not. Next?

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.

If you can figure out a way to get rid of all nuclear bombs everywhere in a way that's acceptable to all of the nuclear powers and ensure that they'll never be built again, I'm sure you can win a Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[Radical Ron]

I think the Iranians have the right to nuclear energy. What sets us apart from the Iranians? Our nation is under 250 years old, and theirs is ancient and full of culture and history. Just because we achieved to harness that power first does not give us a complete control over it. Russians acheived it, the Chinese, the Israelis, the Indians, the Pakistanis, and the G8 nations all have the capability.
Why are these people, who are trying to improve the quality of their nation. Why are they forbidden to do so in a civil and legal manner?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think the Iranians have the right to nuclear energy. What sets us apart from the Iranians? Our nation is under 250 years old, and theirs is ancient and full of culture and history. Just because we achieved to harness that power first does not give us a complete control over it. Russians acheived it, the Chinese, the Israelis, the Indians, the Pakistanis, and the G8 nations all have the capability.
Why are these people, who are trying to improve the quality of their nation. Why are they forbidden to do so in a civil and legal manner?

The issue is nuclear WEAPONS, not power plants.

 

[Kandahar]

I think the Iranians have the right to nuclear energy. What sets us apart from the Iranians? Our nation is under 250 years old, and theirs is ancient and full of culture and history. Just because we achieved to harness that power first does not give us a complete control over it. Russians acheived it, the Chinese, the Israelis, the Indians, the Pakistanis, and the G8 nations all have the capability.
Why are these people, who are trying to improve the quality of their nation. Why are they forbidden to do so in a civil and legal manner?

If Iran had a stable government like the other countries you mentioned (minus Pakistan, which also should give them up), no one would have a problem with Iran having a peaceful nuclear program if there was a nationalistic desire for one. But Iran is controlled by lunatics who want to wipe Israel off the map and bring about the apocalypse.

 

[Hornburger]

U

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).

The biggest threat to America lies in the Middle East...if you are talking about Iran being more important, that's one thing, but I don't see many other places where putting the troops is such a necessity..

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.[/QUOTE]
It's up to the Iraqi's. If they want a unified country, they will unite. If they don't, they'll be civil war. All we can do is help out and support the government as much as we can...we can't FORCE them to unite..America needs to do all it can to support their government over there, we're the one that got them in too this mess...I just don't think we can just abandon them like we did to Afghanistan before...and we all know how well that ended up.

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.

But is their proof that Iran has made serious steps towards that plan? I mean, not just them having the plan, but them actually putting that plan into action. Like...more than just the presence of nuclear power plants and all..

 

[Kandahar]

Re: U

The biggest threat to America lies in the Middle East...if you are talking about Iran being more important, that's one thing, but I don't see many other places where putting the troops is such a necessity..

We certainly need troops in Iran more than in Iraq. However, it's nice to have the troops AVAILABLE to be deployed anywhere we need them to, so that other rogue states consider the consequences of their actions.

It's up to the Iraqi's. If they want a unified country, they will unite. If they don't, they'll be civil war. All we can do is help out and support the government as much as we can...we can't FORCE them to unite..America needs to do all it can to support their government over there, we're the one that got them in too this mess...I just don't think we can just abandon them like we did to Afghanistan before...and we all know how well that ended up.

The problem is that if we continue fighting their battles for them, we'll be unable to commit our troops elsewhere (like Iran) for the indefinite future. They've had nearly three years. Either they're ready or they aren't.

But is their proof that Iran has made serious steps towards that plan? I mean, not just them having the plan, but them actually putting that plan into action. Like...more than just the presence of nuclear power plants and all..

One wonders why they need nuclear power plants when they're sitting on top of one of the world's largest oil sources. But to answer your questions, yes. The contents of the laptop of a high-ranking Iranian scientist (which the CIA stole and the IAEA investigated) show definite designs to fit a nuclear weapon on a warhead amongst the files for their "peaceful" nuclear program.

However, the mere presence of the power plants is enough to raise alarm bells. The idea of Iran being a turn-of-a-screwdriver away from nuclear weapons is just as frightening as Iran actually having nuclear weapons.

 

[Hornburger]

Re: U

We certainly need troops in Iran more than in Iraq. However, it's nice to have the troops AVAILABLE to be deployed anywhere we need them to, so that other rogue states consider the consequences of their actions.



The problem is that if we continue fighting their battles for them, we'll be unable to commit our troops elsewhere (like Iran) for the indefinite future. They've had nearly three years. Either they're ready or they aren't.

Yes, I see your point, to tell you the truth I am not sure about WHEN to leave Iraq, I still have to decide about that, because you can't stay like FOREVER but you can't just give up either...so I'm not sure lol. I'm reluctant to give up though lol...maybe I'd give them 2 more years then gradually withdraw them out maybe...but for me to make a real decision I'd have to actually be there and for me to know how bad it is and everything...It's a complicated situation.

One wonders why they need nuclear power plants when they're sitting on top of one of the world's largest oil sources. But to answer your questions, yes. The contents of the laptop of a high-ranking Iranian scientist (which the CIA stole and the IAEA investigated) show definite designs to fit a nuclear weapon on a warhead amongst the files for their "peaceful" nuclear program.

However, the mere presence of the power plants is enough to raise alarm bells. The idea of Iran being a turn-of-a-screwdriver away from nuclear weapons is just as frightening as Iran actually having nuclear weapons.

Ahh yes yes, I agree that it does bring up alarm bells and everything and they should be put on a "watch list"...it's just innocent till proven guilty lol. The minute they start building, actually building something, I would say jump all over them...but until then...I don't think it is justified. Maybe I'm being too lenient and taking too big a risk, but I just don't think we can do that after what happened in Iraq.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

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.

What kind of pressure can the UN provide.. The same kind they provided to Iraq? The pressure that they easily dismissed for years... you mean that useless kind of pressure

 

[Calm2Chaos]

I think the Iranians have the right to nuclear energy. What sets us apart from the Iranians? Our nation is under 250 years old, and theirs is ancient and full of culture and history. Just because we achieved to harness that power first does not give us a complete control over it. Russians acheived it, the Chinese, the Israelis, the Indians, the Pakistanis, and the G8 nations all have the capability.
Why are these people, who are trying to improve the quality of their nation. Why are they forbidden to do so in a civil and legal manner?

Nuclear Energy isn't the problem and I really don't think anyone is worried about that. Weapons grade materials developed in there dual use refining process machinery is more the cause of concern

 

[cherokee]

I think its to soon to tell.
But I think they will back down like they have in the past.

 

[Kandahar]

I think its to soon to tell.
But I think they will back down like they have in the past.

Why? They seem pretty hellbent on getting nuclear weapons if you ask me.

 

[Deegan]

Why? They seem pretty hellbent on getting nuclear weapons if you ask me.

Agreed, it's just a matter of can we trust them with such a weapon, and I say say, HELL NO!

 

[Hornburger]

But intelligence was also soo sure of WMD's in Iraq...

 

[Kandahar]

But intelligence was also soo sure of WMD's in Iraq...

No. It wasn't.
It's nothing more than revisionist history to claim that there were no disputes about Iraq's WMD program prior to the war, and that everyone was shocked - shocked! - to find that they didn't have any.

Lots of informed observers were skeptical of the evidence about Iraq. No one seriously disputes Iran's nuclear program.

 

[Hornburger]

Oh...well I wasn't really into politics much back then...so I must be mistaken, I apologize...it was just my opinion about how the politicians and everything were that everyone was positive about wmd's in Iraq, like with the pictures and all...but yeah, sorry lol

 

[Hoot]

What kind of pressure can the UN provide.. The same kind they provided to Iraq? The pressure that they easily dismissed for years... you mean that useless kind of pressure

Since we've found no WMD in Iraq, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that "usless kind of pressure."

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Since we've found no WMD in Iraq, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that "usless kind of pressure."

USELESS.... It's the only real way to spell it. NOTHING that was done, was done from presure from the UN. Iraq laughed in the UN's face as it diregaurded resolution after resolution. The WMD's are in one of three catagories. 1) In syria 2) still hidden in iraqs huge expanse of desert 3) non exsistent. I pick 1 or 2 definetly.

 

[tecoyah]

Do we Act Against Iran?


Do we Institute the Draft?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

It's a very sticky situation and one in which there aren't really going to be any good outcomes, the best case scenario would include Russia and China joining with the other security council members of the U.N. to place sanctions on them and come along with us in the possibility of a U.N. military response we have to convince them that a nuclear armed Iran is just as much a threat to them as it is to the rest of the world, however, if Russia and China don't vote with us on this issue it's time to start forming a coalition which will act.

The military option has to be the last option but we can't take the military option off the table and it's becoming more and more likely that nothing short of military intervention will deter the Iranians from going nuclear.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

But intelligence was also soo sure of WMD's in Iraq...

They found WMD programs in Iraq it's only the stockpiles that are unaccounted for.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Do we Act Against Iran?


Do we Institute the Draft?

Guess it depends on when we do it. Within a year you or so you will be seeing a major reduction in forces in Iraq IMO. This will give us the ability to form another front in the ME. Not exactly sure what our troop numbers are in iraq at tis time. BUt total US troop strength is about 1.1 Million.. I think we can spare more for deployment if needed

 

[davieravie]

I dont know if this has been discussed in this thread and Im definately not going to read all the crap, but has anyone heard of the "petrol chemical dollar"

Basically it means that Iran want to sell oil in Euro's instead of dollars and GWB doesn't want this. Iraq wanted to do the same before the 2nd Gulf War and we saw what happened. A lot of these Arab countries want to do the same, Saudi Arabia included. Basically America's economy goes down the drain BIG TIME. Most of the money that Saudi Arabia makes from oil is kept in a bank account in a major American bank (the name I forget, doesn't matter)

 

[Calm2Chaos]

I dont know if this has been discussed in this thread and Im definately not going to read all the crap, but has anyone heard of the "petrol chemical dollar"

Basically it means that Iran want to sell oil in Euro's instead of dollars and GWB doesn't want this. Iraq wanted to do the same before the 2nd Gulf War and we saw what happened. A lot of these Arab countries want to do the same, Saudi Arabia included. Basically America's economy goes down the drain BIG TIME. Most of the money that Saudi Arabia makes from oil is kept in a bank account in a major American bank (the name I forget, doesn't matter)

If the American econon=my crashes and goes down the drain.. What do you think happens to the global economy....It crashes. Our economy drives the economic engine of the entire world. Without it the worl economies is going to flounder