• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

No need to start another war to stop nuclear Iran

Policy On Iran


  • Total voters
    13

roya

New member
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Today Iran broke all the remaining UN seals at its nuclear plant at Natanz making it fully operational.

Iran's chief negotiator, Cyrus Nasseri, defended the move by saying "all we want to do is to produce nuclear fuel and we are prepared to provide credible assurances that we will not divert this to other purposes".

However, The EU and US suspect Iran's scheme is a cover for a nuclear weapons program. The EU wants Iran to resume its suspension of conversion work in return for economic and political concessions. Western leaders have enough reason to suspect the sincerity of the Islamic Republic based on the grounds that Iran hid its uranium enrichment program for 18 years, without telling the IAEA until the main opposition group, the National council of Resistance of Iran – NCRI ( http://ncr-iran.org) revealed that in a press conference in Washington in 2002.

Negotiations with this regime will not help the security and stability in the region. While we are waiting for the next IAEA meeting or EU council of ministers to decide what proposal to pass to limit Iran Ahmadinejad is laughing having his men working round the clock to build the bomb to demand more. Iran is a nuclear time bomb ticking to the moment of detonation.

The only option to rid the region and the world of the dangers this regime poses is change in Iran. The regime change in Iran should not mean Iraq II replayed. Nobody wants another foreign war in the middle-east. The Iranian people have not elected this government. 1028 candidates were eliminated to let only a few approved by the supreme leader run for the presidency.

The real solution is only possible through the Iranian people and their resistance. The policy of appeasing the mullahs has been the biggest obstacles to change in Iran making the isolated Iranian people believe the world leaders are as corrupt as their own.
 

chucknorris

New member
Joined
Jan 10, 2006
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I am not so sure that a large enough number of Iranian nationalists are reading this post for it to make a difference. So please, tell me what the point of this post was...
 

roya

New member
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This post is not for Iranian nationalists alone.
It is a suggestion for those who think we have to either go to war with in Iran of keep accommodating them so the behave better. Believe me there are a lot of people at the top thinking that way.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
If we can encourage the Iranian democrats to overthrow the theocracy, that would be ideal. But that's basically been the policy of the United States for the past twenty-five years, and it doesn't seem to be working. We need to at least prepare for war. Perhaps the thought of war with the United States would at least inspire a coup, if not a revolution. And if not, we're ready to go to war.

Time is running out, and the United States is running out of options.
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
How could we stop Iran? The word is that our forces are being stretched pretty thin by Iraq already. They could start a draft but I don't know how well that would work out.
 

SixStringHero

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
134
Location
Southwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Maybe a Multilateral action involving the UN would be one way.

Yeah right, I'm not holding my breath.
 

Paul

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
Location
Watertown NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
We cannot keep a policy of appeasement, like the world did before WW2. The world was afraid of another WW1, we cannot be afraid of another Iraq.

Maybe the world will wake up and see that sanctions alone will not solve every problem.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
scottyz said:
How could we stop Iran? The word is that our forces are being stretched pretty thin by Iraq already.

A couple of thoughts on this: We could go it alone and stretch our troops out even thinner. That may be the best of limited options, and is better than allowing Iran to go nuclear. However, I think we'll have more support for Iran than we did for Iraq, because Iran really *is* a threat to the world rather than a boogeyman George Bush cooked up. Also, we may not have to invade at all. Air strikes would (hopefully) set their nuclear program back a couple years, to buy more time for a permanent solution.

scottyz said:
They could start a draft but I don't know how well that would work out.

Nah, a draft isn't a good idea, even from a military perspective. Better to have a large, professional army than an enormous, unprofessional army.
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Their is nothing wrong with taking political actions and avoiding a war. But ending a war politically before the battle is over is foolish. Back when America was keeping Iraq from invadeing Kuwait, General Colin Powel (The person the democrats praised during the current Iraq war, for seperating himself from Bush) decided that America should have a peace tready, though in the end he really should have finished the job then. If you ever wondering why Colin Powel ducked his head during the invasion of Iraq the second time, I think that information would answer that clear that up. Colin Powel should be shunned NOT PRAISED? :confused:

To keep passing the buck, after WWII. The UN sactioned or grouped the conflicting groups in the same area, instead of spliting them apart in Iraq and in other countries? :confused:
 

tecoyah

Illusionary
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
10,438
Reaction score
3,840
Location
Louisville, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Likely...we will need to do....nothing. I find it quite likely Isreal will remove the capabilities Iran is working on. The results of this will be.....very bad indeed.

Chances are this will take place within this year.
 

epr64

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Kandahar said:
If we can encourage the Iranian democrats to overthrow the theocracy, that would be ideal. But that's basically been the policy of the United States for the past twenty-five years, and it doesn't seem to be working.

I could agree with you IF the US didn't systematically support ONLY the "democrats" that will give them a competitive and financial advantage. Not that I don't understand the realpolitik that underlines this. But a lot of people, basically for that reason, will never trust anything that is supported by the US.
If the US supported REAL democrats (and BTW, why the fu** only the US?), the mullah regime would be toppled quite fast. People would then vote for those who propose to help them, not the economy first.
Starngely, I didn't see a lot of countries doing that in the last 25 years, at the exception of some in South America.



We need to at least prepare for war. Perhaps the thought of war with the United States would at least inspire a coup, if not a revolution. And if not, we're ready to go to war.

Time is running out, and the United States is running out of options.

The US can't go to war. At the max, the US can lauch bombs and missiles on the suspected plants. Which will only lead to more resentment against the US.. and more terrorist attacks.

Now, letting Iran getting the nuclear bomb would also be a bad idea, certainly after the last vicious attacks of the president (never could type his name) against Israel.

So, I guess that a mix of option 2 and 3 of the poll would be the only solution that has a chance, without risking to kill iranian civilians who have nothing to do with this.

Just my 0.02€
Y
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
roya said:
Iran's chief negotiator, Cyrus Nasseri, defended the move by saying "all we want to do is to produce nuclear fuel and we are prepared to provide credible assurances that we will not divert this to other purposes".

Only a fool believes this. The dividends of this program are going to be spent on a nuclear detonation in/over Tel Aviv.

Hopefully, the international commuinity will show some real backbone -- else it will fall on Israel and the US to act.
 
Last edited:

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kandahar said:
If we can encourage the Iranian democrats to overthrow the theocracy, that would be ideal. But that's basically been the policy of the United States for the past twenty-five years, and it doesn't seem to be working. We need to at least prepare for war. Perhaps the thought of war with the United States would at least inspire a coup, if not a revolution. And if not, we're ready to go to war.

Time is running out, and the United States is running out of options.

We don't agree on a lot, but we do agree on this. :2wave:
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
roya said:
Today Iran broke all the remaining UN seals at its nuclear plant at Natanz making it fully operational.

Iran's chief negotiator, Cyrus Nasseri, defended the move by saying "all we want to do is to produce nuclear fuel and we are prepared to provide credible assurances that we will not divert this to other purposes".

However, The EU and US suspect Iran's scheme is a cover for a nuclear weapons program. The EU wants Iran to resume its suspension of conversion work in return for economic and political concessions. Western leaders have enough reason to suspect the sincerity of the Islamic Republic based on the grounds that Iran hid its uranium enrichment program for 18 years, without telling the IAEA until the main opposition group, the National council of Resistance of Iran – NCRI ( http://ncr-iran.org) revealed that in a press conference in Washington in 2002.

Negotiations with this regime will not help the security and stability in the region. While we are waiting for the next IAEA meeting or EU council of ministers to decide what proposal to pass to limit Iran Ahmadinejad is laughing having his men working round the clock to build the bomb to demand more. Iran is a nuclear time bomb ticking to the moment of detonation.

The only option to rid the region and the world of the dangers this regime poses is change in Iran. The regime change in Iran should not mean Iraq II replayed. Nobody wants another foreign war in the middle-east. The Iranian people have not elected this government. 1028 candidates were eliminated to let only a few approved by the supreme leader run for the presidency.

The real solution is only possible through the Iranian people and their resistance. The policy of appeasing the mullahs has been the biggest obstacles to change in Iran making the isolated Iranian people believe the world leaders are as corrupt as their own.


Oh that's just fuc/king great this guys going to start a nuclear war with Israel, nuclear winter, armaggedon et al. Lucky I still remember the Cold War drill, get under your desk, put your head between your legs, and kiss your ass good bye.
 

DeeJayH

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,728
Reaction score
1,688
Location
Scooping Zeus' Poop
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
from many accounts i have read from numerous sources, it seems MOST likely that Iran will fall from within
the majority of the country is under 30, well educated and dirt poor
perfect combination for civil unrest

N Korea is the real problem on the horizon
 

roya

New member
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Announcement

Council for Democratic Change in Iran

WHEN
On Thursday January 19, 2006 at 10 a.m.

WHERE
In Washington D.C. Lafayette Park, across from the White House (16th and H St.).

WHO
Iranians, Americans and those who share the same passion for democracy and freedom will come together.

WHY
To support the call for democratic change in Iran and urge the White House to adopt a policy in favor of Iranian people and not war.

See you there and let everyone know to join
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
epr64 said:
I could agree with you IF the US didn't systematically support ONLY the "democrats" that will give them a competitive and financial advantage.

We don't have the resources to aid in the overthrow of every authoritarian government in the world, so we may as well focus our resources on countries where a revolution would help both the people of that country AND the United States.

epr64 said:
Not that I don't understand the realpolitik that underlines this. But a lot of people, basically for that reason, will never trust anything that is supported by the US.

That may be the case, but it seems that the only alternatives are supporting all democratic revolutions equally (thus making all of them ineffective), or not supporting any at all.

epr64 said:
If the US supported REAL democrats (and BTW, why the fu** only the US?), the mullah regime would be toppled quite fast.

But we do, at least in the case of Iran. The United States funds underground opposition movements inside and outside of Iran. Their policies are such that they would most likely become pro-American liberal democrats if they succeeded.

epr64 said:
People would then vote for those who propose to help them, not the economy first.
Starngely, I didn't see a lot of countries doing that in the last 25 years, at the exception of some in South America.

I don't wanna sidetrack the discussion, but I think it's worth noting that, in general, the South American people are poorer today than they were 25 years ago.

epr64 said:
The US can't go to war. At the max, the US can lauch bombs and missiles on the suspected plants.

You may be right. A full-scale invasion of Iran certainly would not be pretty. I have my doubts as to whether air strikes can be effective. I would hope they could at least set the nuclear program back a couple years. But Iran's nuclear facilities are well-hidden. If air strikes aren't effective, or if Iran retaliates against Iraq, Afghanistan, or Israel, an invasion might be necessary.

epr64 said:
Which will only lead to more resentment against the US..

Agreed. Sadly, this may be a necessary cost of stopping Iran's nuclear program. I think it's sad that Iranians are very pro-American, but would support their government if we attacked. I hate the thought of playing into Ahmadinejad's hands, but we may not have much of a choice.

epr64 said:
and more terrorist attacks.

Nah, Iran doesn't have very many home-grown terrorists because it's a very educated country. They mainly just funnel money to other countries for terrorist activity. I don't think we'd have to worry about more terrorist attacks against the United States if we attacked Iran. However, if we actually invaded the jihadists in Iraq would almost certainly spread to Iran.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The use of force by the US against Iran is impossible. The American people won't support a draft and the US does not have a large enough professional army to go into Iran. Air strikes will probably only make the situation worse. The Israeli air strikes on Iraq actually did not set back Iraq's nuclear program but helped to spur it on as some angry Iraqi scientists came to the aid of Saddam's regime to assist in accelerating the development of the bomb. I can't remember the circumstances as to how Iraq did get rid of it's WMD program, but it did exist at one time in the past. One could come away with the assumption that air strikes could have the same effect on Iran. Given these circumstances and factors, their is nothing really that the US or Israel can do to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons, especially since we are in Iraq. Not only that, part of the reason why Iran is developing these weapons is because they see the nuclear armed US in Iraq and Afghanistan. They likely feel that for the long term security of their regime and nation, they have little choice but to develop the bomb. Israel might attempt some airstrikes with some US weapons sold to them, but I seriously doubt these airstrikes will be able to stop an Iranian nuclear weapons program. If you can't put boots on the ground and take out the regime, then you have no military cards. And frankly, if I was a general, I would want a million man invasion force before going into Iran. The US and Europe could punish Iran with sanctions, but I seriously doubt the sanctions will do much good either.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
TimmyBoy said:
The use of force by the US against Iran is impossible. The American people won't support a draft and the US does not have a large enough professional army to go into Iran. Air strikes will probably only make the situation worse. The Israeli air strikes on Iraq actually did not set back Iraq's nuclear program but helped to spur it on as some angry Iraqi scientists came to the aid of Saddam's regime to assist in accelerating the development of the bomb. I can't remember the circumstances as to how Iraq did get rid of it's WMD program, but it did exist at one time in the past. One could come away with the assumption that air strikes could have the same effect on Iran. Given these circumstances and factors, their is nothing really that the US or Israel can do to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons, especially since we are in Iraq. Not only that, part of the reason why Iran is developing these weapons is because they see the nuclear armed US in Iraq and Afghanistan. They likely feel that for the long term security of their regime and nation, they have little choice but to develop the bomb. Israel might attempt some airstrikes with some US weapons sold to them, but I seriously doubt these airstrikes will be able to stop an Iranian nuclear weapons program. If you can't put boots on the ground and take out the regime, then you have no military cards. And frankly, if I was a general, I would want a million man invasion force before going into Iran. The US and Europe could punish Iran with sanctions, but I seriously doubt the sanctions will do much good either.

So what is your solution? Sit back and do nothing while Iran destroys the Middle East?
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kandahar said:
So what is your solution? Sit back and do nothing while Iran destroys the Middle East?

The best thing that both Israel and the US can do right now, is to come up with a nuclear policy specifically directed at Iran that the US nor Israel will not attack or strike Iran first. However, in the event that Iran uses nuclear weapons, both the US and Israel will retailiate in kind towards Iran and Iranian allies who come to their aid. Developing anti-missle defense systems for Israel and the US would also be wise, unless, Iran genuinely recognizes Israel's right to exist (I doubt that day will ever arrive and thus an anti-missle defense system would be in order). I think promoting pro democracy forces in Iran would also be wise, even though it may seem that it isn't working for the US. Continueing dialouge and negotiations with Iran would also be my approach while maintaining a tough nuclear stance in the event of an Iranian first strike.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
TimmyBoy said:
The best thing that both Israel and the US can do right now, is to come up with a nuclear policy specifically directed at Iran that the US nor Israel will not attack or strike Iran first.

Why? What will that accomplish, other than limiting our options?

TimmyBoy said:
However, in the event that Iran uses nuclear weapons, both the US and Israel will retailiate in kind towards Iran and Iranian allies who come to their aid.

The basis for our Cold War nuclear policy was mutually assured destruction. This, however, presumes that all of the nuclear powers are rational. Iran is led by irrational extremists that would willingly sacrifice their own lives and the existence of their country if it meant they could kill some Jews.

Of course we would retaliate if Iran (or anyone else) used nuclear weapons. That's nothing new, that's the same as doing nothing. What can we do to make sure that Iran doesn't get nuclear weapons in the first place? You don't really believe that Iran is capable of being deterred do you?

TImmyBoy said:
Developing anti-missle defense systems for Israel and the US would also be wise, unless, Iran genuinely recognizes Israel's right to exist (I doubt that day will ever arrive and thus an anti-missle defense system would be in order).

Anti-missile defense systems are prohibitively expensive and not effective.

TimmyBoy said:
I think promoting pro democracy forces in Iran would also be wise, even though it may seem that it isn't working for the US. Continueing dialouge and negotiations with Iran would also be my approach while maintaining a tough nuclear stance in the event of an Iranian first strike.

Dialogue and negotiations aren't doing a damn thing. Iran has made it clear that they have no intention of giving up their nuclear weapons program.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kandahar said:
Why? What will that accomplish, other than limiting our options?



The basis for our Cold War nuclear policy was mutually assured destruction. This, however, presumes that all of the nuclear powers are rational. Iran is led by irrational extremists that would willingly sacrifice their own lives and the existence of their country if it meant they could kill some Jews.

Of course we would retaliate if Iran (or anyone else) used nuclear weapons. That's nothing new, that's the same as doing nothing. What can we do to make sure that Iran doesn't get nuclear weapons in the first place? You don't really believe that Iran is capable of being deterred do you?



Anti-missile defense systems are prohibitively expensive and not effective.



Dialogue and negotiations aren't doing a damn thing. Iran has made it clear that they have no intention of giving up their nuclear weapons program.

It would be a big mistake to attack Iran first. This would make us and not Iran the aggressor. We would lose any moral high ground as well. Not only that, we simply don't have the conventional forces necessary to forcefully stop the Iranian regime unless you are willing to institute a draft and last time I checked you and the rest of the American people don't have the stomach for a draft and a real war, not that I blame you or the rest of the American people for not being eager to get drafted into combat, because I am not a war monger either; but the only realistic option is to develop anti-missle defenses and write a nuclear policy that addresses what the US/Israeli nuclear response would be in the event of an Iranian first strike. Negotiations will be necessary to ease tension in the region and to make war or nuclear war less likely. I do believe that Iran can be deturred and that negotiations backed by the means to defend ourselves against any Iranian attack will keep war less likely. But the minute we attack first and become the agressor, we will only be creating a more unstable region.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
TimmyBoy said:
It would be a big mistake to attack Iran first. This would make us and not Iran the aggressor. We would lose any moral high ground as well.

Maybe so, but we'd be preventing a nuclear attack.

TimmyBoy said:
Not only that, we simply don't have the conventional forces necessary to forcefully stop the Iranian regime unless you are willing to institute a draft and last time I checked you and the rest of the American people don't have the stomach for a draft and a real war, not that I blame you or the rest of the American people for not being eager to get drafted into combat, because I am not a war monger either;

We HAVE the forces to overthrow the Iranian regime. The US military is excellent at defeating conventional armies like Iran's. We'd have a problem with the Iraq insurgency spreading to Iran, but at least we'd no longer have to worry about the nuclear threat.

TimmyBoy said:
but the only realistic option is to develop anti-missle defenses

That's not "realistic." Anti-missile defense systems are ridiculously expensive for the supposed benefit.

TimmyBoy said:
and write a nuclear policy that addresses what the US/Israeli nuclear response would be in the event of an Iranian first strike.

Israel wouldn't have to worry about writing a nuclear response, because it wouldn't exist after an Iranian first strike.

TimmyBoy said:
Negotiations will be necessary to ease tension in the region and to make war or nuclear war less likely.

Negotiations will do no such thing, because we don't even agree on what we're negotiating about. The EU is negotiating to get Iran to dismantle its nuclear program; Iran is negotiating to be allowed to keep its nuclear program.

TimmyBoy said:
I do believe that Iran can be deturred and that negotiations backed by the means to defend ourselves against any Iranian attack will keep war less likely.

Iran has stated its desire to start a new Holocaust, has denied the existence of the WWII Holocaust, and has said Israel should be wiped off the map. They've also stated that they'd be willing to destroy Israel even if it means Iran would be destroyed, because a large percentage of the world's Jews would be dead and only a small percentage of the world's Muslims would be dead.

It certainly doesn't sound to me like a rational regime capable of being deterred.

TimmyBoy said:
But the minute we attack first and become the agressor, we will only be creating a more unstable region.

You know what else will make the region more unstable? Nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamic extremists.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kandahar said:
Maybe so, but we'd be preventing a nuclear attack.



We HAVE the forces to overthrow the Iranian regime. The US military is excellent at defeating conventional armies like Iran's. We'd have a problem with the Iraq insurgency spreading to Iran, but at least we'd no longer have to worry about the nuclear threat.



That's not "realistic." Anti-missile defense systems are ridiculously expensive for the supposed benefit.



Israel wouldn't have to worry about writing a nuclear response, because it wouldn't exist after an Iranian first strike.



Negotiations will do no such thing, because we don't even agree on what we're negotiating about. The EU is negotiating to get Iran to dismantle its nuclear program; Iran is negotiating to be allowed to keep its nuclear program.



Iran has stated its desire to start a new Holocaust, has denied the existence of the WWII Holocaust, and has said Israel should be wiped off the map. They've also stated that they'd be willing to destroy Israel even if it means Iran would be destroyed, because a large percentage of the world's Jews would be dead and only a small percentage of the world's Muslims would be dead.

It certainly doesn't sound to me like a rational regime capable of being deterred.



You know what else will make the region more unstable? Nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamic extremists.

If you think, that attacking Iran first with the current level of forces that we have, then be my guest and I'll sit back and watch US forces get kicked out of Iran and defeated, because that is exactly what will happen. The US would be defeated. Heck, we have enough problems as it is just dealing with the Iraqi insurgency, much less Iran. Not to mention, attacking Iran first will create an environment where nuclear war is more distinct possibility rather than reducing that possibility. Other nations will also seek to arm themselves with WMD after watching the US launch a first strike on Iraq and then turn and do the same to Iran. Other nations are already seeking WMD after watching the US launch an unprovoked first strike on Iraq. Without a military draft, the US has no military cards and therefore must take a more defensive posture and rely on a nuclear deturrence. The only reason why Iran wants nuclear weapons is because they have just as much right to possess nuclear weapons as Israel and the US and we have no right nor business telling them they do not have that right, especially since we have these weapons ourselves. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
TimmyBoy said:
If you think, that attacking Iran first with the current level of forces that we have, then be my guest and I'll sit back and watch US forces get kicked out of Iran and defeated, because that is exactly what will happen. The US would be defeated.

That's ridiculous. We overthrew the Taliban regime in a few days time, and we toppled Saddam's regime in about five weeks. Even if Iran's military strength is a LITTLE bit more than those, it's not THAT much more.

TimmyBoy said:
Heck, we have enough problems as it is just dealing with the Iraqi insurgency, much less Iran.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Insurgencies are harder to deal with by their very nature, because you can be attacked at any time. Fighting against the military of another government is much easier, and is what American troops are generally trained to do.

That's not to say that the Iraq insurgency wouldn't spread to Iran, because it almost certainly would. But claiming that an irrational third-world government with no international backing can defeat the American military is absolutely crazy.

TimmyBoy said:
Not to mention, attacking Iran first will create an environment where nuclear war is more distinct possibility rather than reducing that possibility. Other nations will also seek to arm themselves with WMD after watching the US launch a first strike on Iraq and then turn and do the same to Iran.

Why would they be more likely to pursue WMDs if they saw what happened when Iran pursued WMDs?

TimmyBoy said:
Other nations are already seeking WMD after watching the US launch an unprovoked first strike on Iraq.

That proves my point. North Korea had WMDs and it was not attacked. Iraq did not have WMDs and it was attacked. Iran therefore concluded that they wouldn't be attacked if they obtained WMDs. We need to show them, and other would-be rogue states, that pursuing WMDs will have consequences.

TimmyBoy said:
Without a military draft, the US has no military cards and therefore must take a more defensive posture and rely on a nuclear deturrence.

What is with your obsession with the draft? NO ONE wants a draft, not the American people, not the politicians, not the soldiers, not the military leaders. It's not even DESIRABLE from a military perspective.

TimmyBoy said:
The only reason why Iran wants nuclear weapons is because they have just as much right to possess nuclear weapons as Israel and the US and we have no right nor business telling them they do not have that right, especially since we have these weapons ourselves. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

More nonsense. Israel and the US are liberal democracies that are routinely held accountable for their actions, not fundamentalist theocracies led by people who believe it is their duty to bring about the apocalypse. Who says we don't have any right to tell them they can't have nukes, just because we do? Do you really think that Iran would abandon its nuclear program if the US and Israel abandoned theirs? You're an ideologue.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom