- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,320
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
JOHNYJ said:No way in Hell ! Bush and his team still haven't pacified Iraq. Who would be dumb enought to let them lead us into another war , of choice.
JOHNYJ said:Iran isnt Iraq she has military capabilities.
Binary_Digit said:"............if that country continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons"
Last resort!
Kandahar said:http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...7jan27,0,5687029.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Perhaps another war wouldn't be as big of a political liability for the people calling the shots as some critics have been saying. It looks like it would give them a chance to redeem themselves for their blunders in Iraq, by going after a country that truly IS a threat.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:The thing is those on the left who agreed with the war in Iraq at first are now talking about going into Iran and it will be the same thing all over again, once the going gets rough all the libs start talking about impeachment and Bush lied kids died etc etc.
Sounds like this needs to be nipped in the bud. Unless the Iranians let in weapons inspectors I don't see any alternative to a measured tactical military approach in the 1st instance. But howwould we know where to attack since the weapons developement labs must surely be in secret hidden locations. An attack would also then strengthen their resolve to be armed against the west with nuclear weapons. It will also massively increase anti western sentiments & draw many more into the ranks of terrorism. Seems like a no win situationTashah said:
57% Americans support military action in Iran
Unlike the murky weapons of mass destruction pretension that impelled the Bush administration to invade Iraq, the Iranian goal of acquiring nuclear weapons is clear and unequivocal. The United States, the European Union, Russia, Israel, and the IAEA of the United Nations have assembled empirical evidence that Iran has been in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) since 2003.
The Iranian government, which is a signatory to the NPT, publicly admits its NPT non-compliance and insists that it will proceed with its goal of acquiring a nuclear weapons capability... regardless of its NPT responsibilities and the sentiment of the global international community to end nuclear weapons proliferation. The IAEA is scheduled to present Iran's NPT violations and intransigence to all diplomatic efforts in this regard to the United Nations Security Council in February.
This poll suggests to me that although support for military action is steadily increasing among American citizens... the Bush administration must still do a much better job of educating the American public about the dangers of a nuclear Iran. Clearly, along with the threat of a global health pandemic, the nuclear arming of Iran is the most pressing problem on the international stage today. With its harsh rhetoric of actually using nuclear weapons and its long history of supporting terrorism, the Iranian ruling clerics cannot be allowed to possess any weapons of mass destruction. Additionally, a nuclear armed Shi'a Iran would almost certainly compel Sunni Arab Middle East nations such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt to begin nuclear weapons programs of their own. Thus, the dangers of nuclear proliferation and nuclear warfare would increase exponentially over time.
It should also be posited that destroying the Iranian nuclear program would not necessarily entail a land invasion. This preemption could be accomplished with heavy and sustained air and cruise-missile strikes. I do not believe economic sanctions will be effective in this regard, as Iran will no doubt respond with a cessation of its oil exports... thus destabilizing the global economy.
The options here are not pretty. To imagine that Israel will act unilaterally against Iran ignores the hard truth that the IAF lacks the requisite tactical military assets to carry out an intense program of heavy and sustained attacks over a great geographical distance. Even if an Israeli preemption was feasible, it would almost certainly initiate warfare across the entire Middle East region... thus impelling a world-power intervention with significant land forces.
Like it or not, any military actions against Iran must be undertaken by an international coalition of the willing. France, Russia, and China will almost certainly oppose this, as they each have significant economic and military investments with Iran. This problem will not simply melt away however, and no doubt will get much worse before it gets better... but time is of the essence here and time is running out. Once Iran produces a fissile weapon, the nuclear genie has escaped the magic lamp and cannot ever be returned.
Good point. I can't make up my mind between Rudy Guliani, Bill Frist, Condi Rice or Jeb Bush. :2wave:Hoot said:January 20th, 2009 can't come soon enough.
KCConservative said:Good point. I can't make up my mind between Rudy Guliani, Bill Frist, Condi Rice or Jeb Bush. :2wave:
KCConservative said:Good point. I can't make up my mind between Rudy Guliani, Bill Frist, Condi Rice or Jeb Bush. :2wave:
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?