Should we bomb Iran? (1 Viewer)

[Awesome!]

Should we just accept Iran as a new nuclear power, or do we need to do something if diplomacy fails?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I think we, along with every other government, should do absolutely everything in our power to prevent nuclear proliferation. If that means using conventional weapons to bomb a would-be "nuclear power" back into the Stone Age, so be it.

Of course, we should also be willing to help them develop peaceful nuclear power, if they're sincere in their desire to do so. Fair's fair.

 

[rathi]

If you are going to bomb Iran, do it before they get nuclear weapons. And you don't have to bomb them back to the stone age. You can just bomb their weapons labs and reactors then assassinate their scientists.

Frankly I think Israel should just take care of it themselves. They are the people who are in the most danger, not us. They have already bombed those who try and build nuclear weapons, and its not like they could really have worse relations with Iran anyways. Plus Mossad is quite good at assassinating people.

 

[brassmonkey621]

Something must be done with Iran. We cannot allow their current government to have nuclear weapons at their helm. This is one thing citizens will look back upon and say, "why didnt we act" if we don't do so. Should we bomb them-- well that option is there... but I wouldnt reccomend it straight up. That doesnt solve the problem of their radical govt. Now im not saying that we need to support a miltia coupe to topple Iran... because that would end up just forming another radical govt. Extensive economic measures should certainly be taken however. This certainly seems like something the UN should act on, but when has the UN done much anything productive anyway. As for right now, I'd say the best thing to do with Iran is impose world wide economic sanctions, and if that doesnt work, support a faction to overthrow their govt. But im open to better ideas, as of now though--- i havnt heard any.

 

[Flea]

If

Originally posted by rathi
you are going to bomb Iran, do it before they get nuclear weapons

Are you sure that we should do it before? This makes no sense! If you wait until after, then you have a much better chance of success. Man, some people just don't think it through! :roll:

 

[Topsez]

America doesn't have the will to finish the Iraq War so why should we get in another one?

I the Iran-Iraq War Iran utilized 13 - 15 year old boys without weapons to charge Iraqi Army positions with instructions that you will take weapons from the dead Iraqi soldiers to kill the remaining ... do you really think the American public has the stomach to fight a war where we would have to kill unarmed teens to insure victory?

The Iran-Iraq War ended when a seaport blockage stopped oil sales and they couldn't afford to continue along with devasting deaths on both sides... perhaps we could take the half trillion dollars it would cost and develop alternative energy to make them poor when oil would no longer give them power to project hate.

 

[Billo_Really]

According to the experts, Iran is a long way from developing nuclear weapons.

 

[Kandahar]

America doesn't have the will to finish the Iraq War so why should we get in another one?

A war with Iran doesn't have to look anything like the war with Iraq. First of all, we need to clearly define the goals of military action against Iran: The end of their nuclear weapons program, and if possible, regime change.

We don't need to stay there for years babysitting an insurgency. We should start out with a long, massive bombing campaign to destroy as many nuclear sites as we can (and we can take out some government infrastructure while we're at it). Then we can send in ground troops to defeat the army (and keep it intact) and inspect the weapons sites. After that's all done, we can turn the keys over to Iranian liberals, wish them the best, and be on our way.

I doubt Iran is particularly prone to insurgency (that's more of an Arab thing), but if that's what happened, there would be no need for us to fight insurgents, having accomplished our primary objective.

 

[Kandahar]

According to the experts, Iran is a long way from developing nuclear weapons.

Umm no. They aren't. Estimates range from 1-10 years, with most estimates leaning toward the lower end of that range.

 

[Awesome!]

If you are going to bomb Iran, do it before they get nuclear weapons. And you don't have to bomb them back to the stone age. You can just bomb their weapons labs and reactors then assassinate their scientists.

Frankly I think Israel should just take care of it themselves. They are the people who are in the most danger, not us. They have already bombed those who try and build nuclear weapons, and its not like they could really have worse relations with Iran anyways. Plus Mossad is quite good at assassinating people.

I think their labs are hidden beyond the reach of conventional weapons, hopefully not, and I agree that Israel doesn't play around, they may bomb Iran before we do.

 

[Awesome!]

America doesn't have the will to finish the Iraq War so why should we get in another one?

I the Iran-Iraq War Iran utilized 13 - 15 year old boys without weapons to charge Iraqi Army positions with instructions that you will take weapons from the dead Iraqi soldiers to kill the remaining ... do you really think the American public has the stomach to fight a war where we would have to kill unarmed teens to insure victory?

The Iran-Iraq War ended when a seaport blockage stopped oil sales and they couldn't afford to continue along with devasting deaths on both sides... perhaps we could take the half trillion dollars it would cost and develop alternative energy to make them poor when oil would no longer give them power to project hate.

True, that would be great if we could have an alternative energy source that would reduce their power, however it's not going to happen anytime soon. Maybe not an invasion of Iran, but a lot of air strikes on their facilities?

 

[Awesome!]

According to the experts, Iran is a long way from developing nuclear weapons.

Maybe so, but their intent is to develop which is a concern.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Kandahar:
Umm no. They aren't. Estimates range from 1-10 years, with most estimates leaning toward the lower end of that range.

Whose estimate's are on the lower end? Certainly not the IAEA.

IAEA protests "erroneous" U.S. report on Iran

VIENNA (Reuters) - U.N. inspectors have protested to the U.S. government and a Congressional committee about a report on Iran's nuclear work, calling parts of it "outrageous and dishonest", according to a letter obtained by Reuters.

According to the IAEA, they might not even be making a bomb.

Fact or Fiction? Iran's Quest for the Atomic Bomb
By Louis Charbonneau Reuters Sunday 25 July 2004

Wary of sparking another Iraq-like invasion of a Middle Eastern country, inspectors from the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are cautious and say there is still no clear evidence that Tehran wants the bomb.

What has your research found?

 

[Hatuey]

Maybe so, but their intent is to develop which is a concern.

All they want is nuclear energy. Our intent is to make it seem like their intent is to develop a bomb.

 

[Awesome!]

All they want is nuclear energy. Our intent is to make it seem like their intent is to develop a bomb.

Maybe so, I just am concerned that if they do have nuclear energy they will develop weapons.

 

[Kandahar]

According to the IAEA, they might not even be making a bomb.

All they want is nuclear energy. Our intent is to make it seem like their intent is to develop a bomb.

Some of you guys are truly incredible in your naivete.

 

[doughgirl]

A few questions for liberals and those against the war in Iraq.

1. What right do we have to stop Iran or anyone else for that matter from obtaining or developing nuclear weapons?

2. What have they ever done to us that would warrent our intrusion? And if we stepped in to stop them surely innocent woman and children would be killed. That is a big concern of theirs in the Iraq war. They blame Bush, the military.....for killing them. So how could they justify bombing anyone over anything?


3. We have nuclear capabilities......why can't they?

I would think every liberal would answer no to bombing Iran.......the majority of them have been anti-war in Iraq all along.......so why bomb Iran? The case for war wasn't good enough for Iraq......so i would think it pretty hypocitical to say bombing Iran would be a good thing?

So is every liberal answer no?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Awesome!
Maybe so, I just am concerned that if they do have nuclear energy they will develop weapons.

I'm a little sick of us running around the world telling other country's what to do within their own sovereign borders.

Any country knows that if they make a bomb and use it, their gonna get zapped!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Kandahar:
Some of you guys are truly incredible in your naivete.

By your perception.

I guess you're not going to answer the question.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by doughgirl
A few questions for liberals and those against the war in Iraq.

1. What right do we have to stop Iran or anyone else for that matter from obtaining or developing nuclear weapons?

2. What have they ever done to us that would warrent our intrusion? And if we stepped in to stop them surely innocent woman and children would be killed. That is a big concern of theirs in the Iraq war. They blame Bush, the military.....for killing them. So how could they justify bombing anyone over anything?


3. We have nuclear capabilities......why can't they?

I would think every liberal would answer no to bombing Iran.......the majority of them have been anti-war in Iraq all along.......so why bomb Iran? The case for war wasn't good enough for Iraq......so i would think it pretty hypocitical to say bombing Iran would be a good thing?

So is every liberal answer no?

If the UNSC decides we bomb, then we bomb.

 

[Hatuey]

A few questions for liberals and those against the war in Iraq.

1. What right do we have to stop Iran or anyone else for that matter from obtaining or developing nuclear weapons?

2. What have they ever done to us that would warrent our intrusion? And if we stepped in to stop them surely innocent woman and children would be killed. That is a big concern of theirs in the Iraq war. They blame Bush, the military.....for killing them. So how could they justify bombing anyone over anything?


3. We have nuclear capabilities......why can't they?

I would think every liberal would answer no to bombing Iran.......the majority of them have been anti-war in Iraq all along.......so why bomb Iran? The case for war wasn't good enough for Iraq......so i would think it pretty hypocitical to say bombing Iran would be a good thing?

So is every liberal answer no?

Liberals are pro-abortion. technically thats a yes.

 

[Volker]

If the UNSC decides we bomb, then we bomb.

The UNSC can not turn a wrong thing into right thing, too.

Attacking Iran would be the wrong thing.

 

[Kelzie]

I'm a little sick of us running around the world telling other country's what to do within their own sovereign borders.

Any country knows that if they make a bomb and use it, their gonna get zapped!

Now see, I would prefer they get "zapped" before they take out...say...San Francisco.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

If the UNSC decides we bomb, then we bomb.

You want to put the soveriegnty of the U.S. military into the hands of a body which includes China and Russia?


Are you insane? You think we need to ask permission from the corrupt U.N. to defend ourselves? For Christ's sakes Venezuela was one vote away from becoming a temporary member of the UNSC. This is precisely why the left can not be trusted with national security issues.

 

[doughgirl]

Billo said,”If the UNSC decides we bomb, then we bomb.”

You failed to answer any of my questions.

Kelzie said, “Now see, I would prefer they get "zapped" before they take out...say...San Francisco.”

Now see you are liberal and you are talking about zapping people who really haven’t done anything to us……….why zap them and not Iraq?

I knew no liberal would attempt the questions I asked………….and that says a lot.

What it says to me is that they aren’t that against this war……it simply is who the Commander in Chief is. If Clinton were President today, they wouldn’t be making a peep over this war.