If the U.S. Preemptively struck Iran

[ravens24]

How would you react if the U.S. preemptively bombed Iran (No invasion of soldiers because that should be out of question) tomorrow. How would you feel. Any thoughts.

 

[Kelzie]

Since this is in polls, I'm going to assume you wanted one. And since you didn't put one in, I shall take the liberty of making up my own questions.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

If it were done intelligently-- with an effective plan to cripple either their nuclear program or the infrastructure supporting it-- I would acknowledge it as sound strategy, though I'd be concerned about destabilizing another country in the region.

Don't fool yourself, though. No matter how effective the air strikes would be, any attack on Iran is going to force us to put boots on the ground eventually-- either to support the air strikes or to clean up after them.

 

[The Mark]

Since this is in polls, I'm going to assume you wanted one. And since you didn't put one in, I shall take the liberty of making up my own questions.

I must say, those are....*cough*...interesting poll options.

And since I cannot fully agree with any of them, I shall not choose one.

My personal point of view basically agrees with Korimyr's, so I shall quote him.

If it were done intelligently-- with an effective plan to cripple either their nuclear program or the infrastructure supporting it-- I would acknowledge it as sound strategy, though I'd be concerned about destabilizing another country in the region.

Don't fool yourself, though. No matter how effective the air strikes would be, any attack on Iran is going to force us to put boots on the ground eventually-- either to support the air strikes or to clean up after them.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

If it were done intelligently-- with an effective plan to cripple either their nuclear program or the infrastructure supporting it-- I would acknowledge it as sound strategy, though I'd be concerned about destabilizing another country in the region.

Don't fool yourself, though. No matter how effective the air strikes would be, any attack on Iran is going to force us to put boots on the ground eventually-- either to support the air strikes or to clean up after them.

Very bad idea. It would start a chain reaction, exactly what would happen is unclear.

Start

1 The US attacks Iran by air, blowing up differnt things.

next thing is one or several of these.

2 Iran switch the pricing of oil to Euro and stop selling oil to the US.
2 Iran attacks Israel
2 Iran attacks Iraq
2 Iran attacks US interests in the middle east.
2 Iran attack US aircraft carriers in the Persian gulf
2 Iran make a small or medium impact on US soil

next thing after would be one or several of these.

3 Venezuela follows Iran in switching pricing of oil to Euro and possibly stop selling oil to the US
3 Israel attacks Iran
3 Iraq becomes mass chaos and civil war.
3 Iran try to invade Iraq
3 US retaliates against Iran and move limited number of forces into Iran
3 US attacks Iran by air

next thing after would be one or several of these.

4 Several oil producing nations either side or go against the US.
4 North Korea attacks South Korea.
4 Iran invades a completely destructed Iraq
4 Middle east in turmoil, "warriors of Islam" from all over the middle east join the fighting
4 Mass jihad in Israel by muslim extremists.
4 The US is forced to launch a full attack on Iran

next thing after would be one or several of these.

5 Record oil prices causes a severe blow to the world economy
5 The US would be forced to get involved in Korea
5 Middle east is in complete chaos and war
5 Muslim countries choose sides in the conflict
5 The middle east, especially US interests there and Israel becomes a playground for terrorists
5 Massive protests against US handelling of the middle east crisis.

next thing after would be one or several of these

6 Several countries around the world, especially the middle east side against the US.
6 Isreal is attacked by several countries simultaniously


I dont wanna go further, is diplomatic efforts not really worth trying anymore these days? All Iran said was that they will continue talks and are open to anything as long as they dont have to stop enriching WHILE they have the talks.

All the lame US excuses and lies... Not worth a huge middle eastern crisis or possible larger world conflict.

 

[Volker]

If the US would attack tomorrow, I would question if it was actually preemptively. I don't see Iranian troops massing in the Caribbean Sea or other kinds of preparations for a war against the US.

 

[dragonslayer]

If the US would attack tomorrow, I would question if it was actually preemptively. I don't see Iranian troops massing in the Caribbean Sea or other kinds of preparations for a war against the US.

Lets see,, Bush has already got us into one preemtive war against Iraq. We all know that all the info leading to the War in Iraq was pure crap. We know that Bush knew this and still we went to war. Can we really believe what the Bush administration tells us about Iran, based on the way things went with Iraq? We are sitting on one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world and we fear Iran?? Sounds fishey to me. Bush seems to have a thing about loving to start wars. I think he may be a bit off center.

If Iran seriously threatens us, the we need to wipe Tehran off the face of the earth, and there is no need to hurry, but if there is no threat other than in Bush's little mind, then we need to get rid of Bush. Quick.

Is Bush developing an early form of senile dementia?

Seriously, can we truly believe what Bush is saying about Iran, after his track record in Iraq. Has Bush truly lost a screw?

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Lets see,, Bush has already got us into one preemtive war against Iraq. We all know that all the info leading to the War in Iraq was pure crap. We know that Bush knew this and still we went to war. Can we really believe what the Bush administration tells us about Iran, based on the way things went with Iraq? We are sitting on one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world and we fear Iran?? Sounds fishey to me. Bush seems to have a thing about loving to start wars. I think he may be a bit off center.

If Iran seriously threatens us, the we need to wipe Tehran off the face of the earth, and there is no need to hurry, but if there is no threat other than in Bush's little mind, then we need to get rid of Bush. Quick.

Is Bush developing an early form of senile dementia?

Seriously, can we truly believe what Bush is saying about Iran, after his track record in Iraq. Has Bush truly lost a screw?

The propaganda machinery is in motion again..

Now most of the people on this forum from the US and probably the US population believe Iran is involved in Iraq, LIKE they believed Saddam Hussein had something to do with the WTC attacks(70% of the US pop believed that at one point).
The US propaganda machinery started with saying Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons when they infact dont know if they are just trying to develop nuclear power. The only thing that IS sure is that the nuclear grade of Iranian enrichment is not clean enough to create any nuclear weapons by far. It is however clean enough to create energy, nuclear power.

Iran obviously did wrong in hiding their nuclear program, but I am not worried until I hear from Iran or some credible source other than the US propaganda machinery that Iran has developed weapon grade Plutonium or Uranium. There is no such thing at this moment. But the US want you to believe that, and the US is trying as hard as they can to avoid negotioations for a nuclear inspection program in Iran by blocking diplomatic efforts and negotiations on the ground that Iran will not half the little and harmless enrichment they are doing now while the talks go on. So, the US is blocking negotioations for inspections AND saying for no reasons that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, when its a fact they are not. Now they are also trying to make the American population believe Iran is responsible for the US missery in Iraq.

Is that no a Nazi-German style modified propaganda?

The second thing Iran did wrong is what they said about Israel, and in my opinion the only country that has any legal rights whatsoever to attack Iran is Israel, BUT ONLY without any US support. And we all know Israel will not attack with US support, so we are equally far.

Its nothing less than US propaganda and the start of the third world war going on, its a shame that that the US who stopped two previous world wars will be responsible for the creation of a third.

 

[Volker]

Lets see,, Bush has already got us into one preemtive war against Iraq. We all know that all the info leading to the War in Iraq was pure crap. We know that Bush knew this and still we went to war. Can we really believe what the Bush administration tells us about Iran, based on the way things went with Iraq? We are sitting on one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world and we fear Iran?? Sounds fishey to me. Bush seems to have a thing about loving to start wars. I think he may be a bit off center.

This would be the third war started by the Bush administration, if I count correctly, and it doesn't look to me like he is able to end one or win one until he is expected to leave office in anuary 2009.

Seriously, can we truly believe what Bush is saying about Iran, after his track record in Iraq. Has Bush truly lost a screw?

They used fake information to start the Iraq war and they probably use it as a tactic in the Iraq war, I see no reason to believe, they change this behaviour when it comes to other countries.

 

[The Mark]

The propaganda machinery is in motion again..

Now most of the people on this forum from the US and probably the US population believe Iran is involved in Iraq, LIKE they believed Saddam Hussein had something to do with the WTC attacks(70% of the US pop believed that at one point).
The US propaganda machinery started with saying Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons when they infact dont know if they are just trying to develop nuclear power. The only thing that IS sure is that the nuclear grade of Iranian enrichment is not clean enough to create any nuclear weapons by far. It is however clean enough to create energy, nuclear power.

Iran obviously did wrong in hiding their nuclear program, but I am not worried until I hear from Iran or some credible source other than the US propaganda machinery that Iran has developed weapon grade Plutonium or Uranium. There is no such thing at this moment. But the US want you to believe that, and the US is trying as hard as they can to avoid negotioations for a nuclear inspection program in Iran by blocking diplomatic efforts and negotiations on the ground that Iran will not half the little and harmless enrichment they are doing now while the talks go on. So, the US is blocking negotioations for inspections AND saying for no reasons that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, when its a fact they are not. Now they are also trying to make the American population believe Iran is responsible for the US missery in Iraq.

Is that no a Nazi-German style modified propaganda?

The second thing Iran did wrong is what they said about Israel, and in my opinion the only country that has any legal rights whatsoever to attack Iran is Israel, BUT ONLY without any US support. And we all know Israel will not attack with US support, so we are equally far.

Its nothing less than US propaganda and the start of the third world war going on, its a shame that that the US who stopped two previous world wars will be responsible for the creation of a third.

It is very interesting to see the difference of perspective that you have, being a citizen of another country.

 

[The Mark]

This would be the third war started by the Bush administration, if I count correctly, and it doesn't look to me like he is able to end one or win one until he is expected to leave office in anuary 2009.

They used fake information to start the Iraq war and they probably use it as a tactic in the Iraq war, I see no reason to believe, they change this behaviour when it comes to other countries.

But do you see any reason to believe that they won't?

 

[Volker]

But do you see any reason to believe that they won't?

One reason could be, that their interests did not change.

 

[Kelzie]

Let me just say I am extremely disappointed in all you liberals who believe women should be treated as property and homosexuals should be stoned. Disappointed, but not surprised. Any move for increased human rights is a move I support.

 

[dragonslayer]

Let me just say I am extremely disappointed in all you liberals who believe women should be treated as property and homosexuals should be stoned. Disappointed, but not surprised. Any move for increased human rights is a move I support.

Sorry, but your message is strange. what are you talking about?

I am Liberal and I certainly don't believe homosexuals should be stoned, and I don't believe women are property. what are you talking about?

How doe this effect an attack on Iran? Very confused.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Let me just say I am extremely disappointed in all you liberals who believe women should be treated as property and homosexuals should be stoned.

You cannot make other people free. You can show them how to be free, and you can give them the tools they need... but until they free themselves the best you can hope to accomplish is to transfer ownership.

Besides, the history of our interventions in Iran does not suggest that we are very good-- or very interested-- in improving human rights for Iranians.

 

[RightinNYC]

The propaganda machinery is in motion again..

Now most of the people on this forum from the US and probably the US population believe Iran is involved in Iraq.

Uh, the reason most of the people from the US probably believe that is because its true.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Let me just say I am extremely disappointed in all you liberals who believe women should be treated as property and homosexuals should be stoned. Disappointed, but not surprised. Any move for increased human rights is a move I support.

:shock: Who said that? No liberals on this forum said that. Lies lies lies. This is far off topic anyways. Deceptive conservative tactics to avoid the real issue and interrupt the fluency of the debate. :spin:

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Uh, the reason most of the people from the US probably believe that is because its true.

Yeah, and Saddam was involved in the WTC attacks, in fact he was on all the planes and just managed to jump out with a parachute before the big crashes.. (70% of americans believed at one point Saddam was responsible for 11.09)..


You see, the propaganda is working and I can smell an unjustified US attack on Iran is coming.

Why dont the US try diplomacy? Why Do the US try to avoid diplomacy?

 

[Gardener]

:shock: Who said that? No liberals on this forum said that. Lies lies lies. This is far off topic anyways. Deceptive conservative tactics to avoid the real issue and interrupt the fluency of the debate. :spin:

No LIBERALS on this site have expressed solidarity with the Mullahs, true.

THere are countless individuals who describe themselves as liberal who do, however, and until these people show that they have an understanding of actual liberal VALUES rather than just indulging in mindless reactionary politics, they shouldn't call themselves liberal.

That you would accuse Kelzie of induging in "conservative tactics" only idicates the reactionary, dogmatic and simplistic degree of your own politcal viewpoints.

 

[WI Crippler]

Why dont the US try diplomacy? Why Do the US try to avoid diplomacy?

North Korea anyone?? I guess you conviently forgot about them.

 

[Volker]

No LIBERALS on this site have expressed solidarity with the Mullahs, true.

THere are countless individuals who describe themselves as liberal who do, however, and until these people show that they have an understanding of actual liberal VALUES rather than just indulging in mindless reactionary politics, they shouldn't call themselves liberal.

The term liberal is not used the same way in Europe and the US.

That you would accuse Kelzie of induging in "conservative tactics" only idicates the reactionary, dogmatic and simplistic degree of your own politcal viewpoints.

No, it only shows that he thought she used conservative tactics.

 

[Red_Dave]

How would you react if the U.S. preemptively bombed Iran (No invasion of soldiers because that should be out of question) tomorrow. How would you feel. Any thoughts.

I would think it demonstrated a dangerous double standard in international law, given the fact wageing an agressive war is illegal.

 

[Doremus Jessup]

I would think it demonstrated a dangerous double standard in international law, given the fact wageing an agressive war is illegal.

Yep, pretty much. Damn that UN Charter. :doh
But everybody else damn well better toe the line. :lol:

 

[Red_Dave]

Let me just say I am extremely disappointed in all you liberals who believe women should be treated as property and homosexuals should be stoned. Disappointed, but not surprised. Any move for increased human rights is a move I support.

Surely upholding international law would be a better way to protect human rights then illegally flattening other countrys?

 

[Kelzie]

Sorry, but your message is strange. what are you talking about?

I am Liberal and I certainly don't believe homosexuals should be stoned, and I don't believe women are property. what are you talking about?

How doe this effect an attack on Iran? Very confused.

Perhaps you are unaware of the way Iran is run? Women are as good as slaves. The punishment for homosexuality is public stoning. Is this a regime that you think should exist on earth? Do you think any country has the right to subject half its population to slavery? I don't.