U.S.Repub1
New member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2006
- Messages
- 13
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
U.S.Repub1 said:Would you support an invasion (war) with Iran if they do not give up their nuclear program? Due to the fact that they are irresponsible.
aquapub said:Irresponsible isn't the word I would use. Dedicated to our destruction; directly linked with nearly every major terrorist attack against U.S. troops that has ever occurred...something like that, perhaps.
I have wanted us to "wipe them off the map" for years now. I would say as soon as our troops are done in Iraq, we move into Iran.
aquapub said:I have wanted us to "wipe them off the map" for years now. I would say as soon as our troops are done in Iraq, we move into Iran.
so thats in five or so years thenI would say as soon as our troops are done in Iraq, we move into Iran.
Willoughby said:so thats in five or so years then
Of course invasion of Iran should not happen. putting aside the moral issues you have to consider that if you can't control Iraq then how can you think of invading Iran
Kandahar said:I don't think we have the time to wait. Iran may produce a nuclear weapon in as little as twelve months. We need to invade, and we need to do so very soon. The last thing we need is another Cold War because we waited too long.
Navy Pride said:I think we should give the Israelis the green light to take out Iran's reactors........
But let's not confuse it with the issue of whether or not we should allow the present regime to develop nuclear weapons.
Willoughby said:so why shouldn't the Iranian government not be allowed nuclear power or dare i say it nuclear weapons?
Kandahar said:I don't think that America is restraining them from doing so, as it is. They'll take out the reactors if they think they are able to do so and it's in their best interests, but I'm not holding my breath. For one thing, I simply don't think Israel has the military capability to accomplish what needs to be accomplished (aside from using nukes themselves). It would be difficult even for America to do so.
America needs to prepare for war with Iran, one way or another. Having support from allies is good, but overreliance on them can lead to things not getting done.
Navy Pride said:I don't know how old you are but Israel took their nuclear reactors out once already and if we gave them the go ahead they would do it again........
Kandahar said:No, Israel took out Iraq's nuclear reactor, not Iran's. There are a lot of differences in the two situations; Iran has learned from Iraq's mistake. Whereas there was only one nuclear facility in Iraq, there are upwards of a hundred in Iran. Iraq's was in plain sight and an easy target for Israel; many of Iran's facilities are underground specifically to avoid bombs.
I don't see why Israel's actions toward Iran would be affected at all if America "gave them the go ahead." I doubt that George Bush has the ability or desire to stay their hand as it is. While Israel might be able to help, I think it's just wishful thinking that they'll be able to do this on their own.
Navy Pride said:Are you saying that Iraq had nuclear reactors at one time?
Navy Pride said:I think you underestimate the Israelis........
Synch said:Invasion of Iran at this moment is time is IMPOSSIBLE. We don't have the troops, all we can do is a few air strikes, but they've diversed their factory locations so..
Where'd you hear this 'n?Kandahar said:Iran may produce a nuclear weapon in as little as twelve months.
Simon W. Moon said:Where'd you hear this 'n?
Simon W. Moon said:Iran is stronger than Iraq was.
Simon W. Moon said:Further, it also has much stronger suppport from its citizenry than Hussein had.
Simon W. Moon said:The US is bent over the barrel of Iraq. Iran fostered and still fosters the two largest political parties in Iraq. If we move on Iran, Iraq will really go up in flames.
Simon W. Moon said:Iran has not used its influence thus far to encourage widespread, violent engagement with the US military. The US is counting on the Iraqi armed forces to stand up se we can stand down. The Iraqi armed forces are comprised largely of Shia militias who have loyalties to their particular militia (and political party) as well as nominal loyalty to the still forming Iraqi govt. The Iraqi govt doesn't have the legitimacy or the wherewithal to override these loyalties to individual militia groups.
If Iran wished it, the Iraqi armed forces would fall into chaos and the situation in Iraq would grow even more violent and deadly. Currently, the state of affairs in Iraq suits the Iranians to a tee. Iran's sphere of influence has been expanded to include Iraq thanks to the efforts of the US military.
Simon W. Moon said:If 'success' in Iraq is important, then there will be no invasion of Iran.
Simon W. Moon said:Sure, we could decimate Iran's army and their population, but the consequences are not desirable, nor managable.
Interesting. Could you please provide a link to your source?Kandahar said:That's the lower estimate of the US State Department.
As you can see here, as of 12-2002, Iraq hadKandahar said:A little bit, perhaps.
And then the war ended, or no? Aren't we still involved in the 'Iraq War'?Kandahar said:They're still no match for the American military. We overthrew Saddam's regime in a matter of weeks.
Perhaps some do, but the comment that yo're responding to is that Hussein was hated more by the Iraqis than the current Iranian govt is hated by Iranians. So, even though you denied the veracity of the claim, you cited something that was only near the point as refutation.Kandahar said:That's not true, the Iranians hate their government.
Because these poltical groups (SCIRI, Dawa, etc) that have spent the last few decades being cultivated in Iran will suddenly forget the past twenty years?Kandahar said:... it stands to reason that if the Iranian mullahs are busy fighting off American troops on their own soil, their influence with any relevant Iraqi groups will decline rapidly.
Riight. And the whole multi-billion dollar rebuild Iraq thing we're sacrificing American lives for is just diversion to trick the Iranians, or something? Are you sure there's no other reason?Kandahar said:There's no reason for us to be in Iraq except to use it as a launching pad to invade Iran.
Because they won't be able to make phone calls or send messages to their agents who're already in Iraq? What are you thinking here? What about an US invasion will stop Iran from sending messages to its agents?Kandahar said:... nor can the Iranians exert much influence if they're hiding from the US military in their own country.
Wow. AFAICT, pretty much the entire world is of the opinion that US success in Iraq is a vital US national interest and that failure there will bringt untold misery upon the world. But you say that we can scrap that as long as we screw Iran real good in the process?Kandahar said:Success in Iran is more important than success in Iraq.
Mostly, it's just the Iranians desire Iran to have The Bomb. Managable? Most likely more managable than the world-wide world of **** that would result from a US invasion of Iran.Kandahar said:And it is desirable/manageable to have them get a nuclear weapon?
Simon W. Moon said:Interesting. Could you please provide a link to your source?
Simon W. Moon said:As you can see here, as of 12-2002, Iraq had
Military manpower - fit for military service:And Iran currently has
males age 15-49: 3,430,819 (2002 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 274,035 (2002 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$1.3 billion (FY00)
Manpower fit for military service:I suppose you could call a difference of millions of folks and billions of dollars a "little bit" if one's not overly concerned about nitpicking accuracy or if one is willing to use an irregular meaning of the phrase.
Definition Field Listing
males age 18-49: 15,665,725 (2005 est.)
Manpower reaching military service age annually:
Definition Field Listing
males: 862,056 (2005 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
Definition Field Listing
$4.3 billion (2003 est.)
Simon W. Moon said:And then the war ended, or no? Aren't we still involved in the 'Iraq War'?
Simon W. Moon said:Perhaps some do, but the comment that yo're responding to is that Hussein was hated more by the Iraqis than the current Iranian govt is hated by Iranians. So, even though you denied the veracity of the claim, you cited something that was only near the point as refutation.
Simon W. Moon said:Further, Iranians are in favor of Iran having The Bomb.
Simon W. Moon said:Because these poltical groups (SCIRI, Dawa, etc) that have spent the last few decades being cultivated in Iran will suddenly forget the past twenty years? It doesn't really stand to reason at all actually. Even though the resources available to Iran will be constricted by engaging the Us, that doesn't mean that there won't be (or aren't already) enough resources available to inflame the situation in Iraq even further than what it is.
Simon W. Moon said:Riight. And the whole multi-billion dollar rebuild Iraq thing we're sacrificing American lives for is just diversion to trick the Iranians, or something? Are you sure there's no other reason?
Simon W. Moon said:Because they won't be able to make phone calls or send messages to their agents who're already in Iraq? What are you thinking here? What about an US invasion will stop Iran from sending messages to its agents?
Simon W. Moon said:Wow. AFAICT, pretty much the entire world is of the opinion that US success in Iraq is a vital US national interest and that failure there will bringt untold misery upon the world.
Simon W. Moon said:But you say that we can scrap that as long as we screw Iran real good in the process?
Simon W. Moon said:Mostly, it's just the Iranians desire Iran to have The Bomb. Managable? Most likely more managable than the world-wide world of **** that would result from a US invasion of Iran.
Simon W. Moon said:Iranian govt has no history of invading other countries.
Simon W. Moon said:The consequences of using the bomb would be catastrophic for Iran. Iran knows it.
Simon W. Moon said:Iranian nukes are primarily only useful as a strategic defensive measure.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?