- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,320
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Thoughts on this matter?
Perhaps a little bit. But really, is there any hope of any other outcome actually happening? An Iranian revolution before they get nukes is unlikely, though not impossible. Sanctions or isolation will most likely have exactly the opposite effect that we want.GarzaUK said:This is a very black and white poll.
Sanctions would merely provide a means for France, Germany, and Kofi Annan to make a few extra bucks, so why bother?Kandahar said:Perhaps a little bit. But really, is there any hope of any other outcome actually happening? An Iranian revolution before they get nukes is unlikely, though not impossible. Sanctions or isolation will most likely have exactly the opposite effect that we want.
There's nothing more scary or threatening then a UN resolution or threat...:spin:Scarecrow Akhbar said:Sanctions would merely provide a means for France, Germany, and Kofi Annan to make a few extra bucks, so why bother?
Terrorism is generally much more effective against democracies than against dictatorships. Blowing up civilians doesn't affect government policy at all, if the government in question has no reason to care about the civilians anyway.Hoot said:I've already given one idea about how to possibly solve the problem with Iran...Iran has a shakey government, with many disidents more then ready to create chaos...witness the bombings of just last week in Iran. We can give Iran a bit of a taste of their own medicine...terrorism. Fund these dissidents that are disatisfied with the government of Iran and allow them to strike at the heart of the country. More bombings will lead to internal strife and increase the people's dislike of the government in power.
And how would those consequences be avoided if we supported insurrection against the Iranian regime? Do you think they're too dumb to figure out where the insurgents came from?Hoot said:We can do this for a fraction of the cost of another war...a war that will cause Iran to block the Straits of Hormuz (sp?) and send the price of oil over $100/barrel...creating a crisis in the global economy. Plus, Iran has a far stronger military and will retaliate against our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and send those new-born democracies into the gutter. And you can bet that Iran will use their vast network of terrorists to attack our own shores.
OK, but that observation doesn't help to solve the problem.Hoot said:War is absolutely the last choice for Iran. Can you blame them for wanting nuclear weapons? They have neighbors on both the East and West that have been attacked and invaded by the Bush administration. This problem with Iran is a direct result of Bush and his bungling ways in the Middle East.
Umm yes, of course I do. A better question: Do you really believe that they WON'T? Deterrence only works against sane, rational governments.Hoot said:If Iran gets a nuclear weapon...so what? Do you really believe they will attack Israel knowing they will face a return nuclear strike that will turn their nation into a sheet of glass?
1. A rebellion is not guaranteed to succeed at all, let alone before Iran gets nukes.Hoot said:We can disrupt their government from within and get far better results, with less casualties, less money, ( which we don't have) and stop instilling the hatred of the U.S. throughout the Middle East.
I second this.Umm yes, of course I do. A better question: Do you really believe that they WON'T? Deterrence only works against sane, rational governments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoot
If Iran gets a nuclear weapon...so what? Do you really believe they will attack Israel knowing they will face a return nuclear strike that will turn their nation into a sheet of glass?
Hoot said:I voted that war would be the worse situation for the U.S.
I've already given one idea about how to possibly solve the problem with Iran...Iran has a shakey government, with many disidents more then ready to create chaos...witness the bombings of just last week in Iran. We can give Iran a bit of a taste of their own medicine...terrorism. Fund these dissidents that are disatisfied with the government of Iran and allow them to strike at the heart of the country. More bombings will lead to internal strife and increase the people's dislike of the government in power.
We can do this for a fraction of the cost of another war...a war that will cause Iran to block the Straits of Hormuz (sp?) and send the price of oil over $100/barrel...creating a crisis in the global economy. Plus, Iran has a far stronger military and will retaliate against our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and send those new-born democracies into the gutter. And you can bet that Iran will use their vast network of terrorists to attack our own shores.
War is absolutely the last choice for Iran. Can you blame them for wanting nuclear weapons? They have neighbors on both the East and West that have been attacked and invaded by the Bush administration. This problem with Iran is a direct result of Bush and his bungling ways in the Middle East.
If Iran gets a nuclear weapon...so what? Do you really believe they will attack Israel knowing they will face a return nuclear strike that will turn their nation into a sheet of glass?
We can disrupt their government from within and get far better results, with less casualties, less money, ( which we don't have) and stop instilling the hatred of the U.S. throughout the Middle East.
Hoot...Another Veteran against the war with Iraq
Actually UN sanctions on Iran would hurt the EU especially Germany and Italy since they do quite alot of trade with Iran. So that is completely false.Scarecrow Akhbar said:Sanctions would merely provide a means for France, Germany, and Kofi Annan to make a few extra bucks, so why bother?
Nuking them will not stop them building nukes, so the option is null and void. Plus does the US want to responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people? Bye Bye what is left of your reputation. Iran needs to be dealt with, but nuking them? Come on.Scarecrow Akhbar said:No. We're not animals. We'll do our killing out in the open, thank you.
Just nuke'm and be done with it. Let 'em learn first hand what nuclear weapons are all about and why we don't want animals having them.
At last some words of sanity within this forum. I agree completely. A war within is our best option at the moment.cherokee said:A war from the inside is the only way to go. Support and train Iranian defectors who want a free Iran. Beam in “Free Iran” radio and TV signals.24/7.
From what I understand the youth want freedom. Use that.
Will this be easy? No,
Will it be bloody? Hell yes.
I just don't believe their numbers are that great, we are talking about college age folks here, and how many can that actually be? How many are really going to go against these clerics, the men that have been their only advisor's for so many years? There is something to be said about brainwashing, and I would dare say the majority buy in to this hard line, just look to the Pal's for that percentage, 77% there voted for violence. That said, we should be sending them a message, and the president did just that, but they need to hear another message, get the hell out of there! Israel is not going to stand by and be "wiped off the map" so time is of the essence here, and this will come to blows very soon.cherokee said:A war from the inside is the only way to go. Support and train Iranian defectors who want a free Iran. Beam in “Free Iran” radio and TV signals.24/7.
From what I understand the youth want freedom. Use that.
Will this be easy? No,
Will it be bloody? Hell yes.
Hoot said:War is absolutely the last choice for Iran. Can you blame them for wanting nuclear weapons? They have neighbors on both the East and West that have been attacked and invaded by the Bush administration. This problem with Iran is a direct result of Bush and his bungling ways in the Middle East.
The lesson of Adolf Hitler was supposed to be that when politicians make threats they sometimes mean exactly what they say. The Iranian President has made clear his intentions for Israel. These were not some off the cuff remarks these were planned televised speeches intended to spell out Iran's foriegn policy and intentions to the rest of the world. Your problem is that you don't understand the mindset at work here, Iran is led by religious fanatics who believe that it is gods will to push the Israelis into the sea. Rationality and pragmatism do not play a part in the mindsets of zealots.If Iran gets a nuclear weapon...so what? Do you really believe they will attack Israel knowing they will face a return nuclear strike that will turn their nation into a sheet of glass?
My problem? Your problem is that you don't care or understand about the consequences of another war in the Middle East.Trajan said:Your problem is that you don't understand the mindset at work here,
Consequences? Like the consequences of nuclear winter if Iran is allowed to continue on its present course.Hoot said:My problem? Your problem is that you don't care or understand about the consequences of another war in the Middle East.
Well..Pakistan started its nuclear weapons program in 1972, and set off a nuclear explosion sometime around 1987. They've threatened nuclear strikes if India's superior military attacks their borders. It's been proven they helped N. Korea with its nuclear program in exchange for missile technology..feel it getting cold in here yet? Where's the nuclear winter? ( Of course, those countries don't have much oil, so the U.S. doesn't care if non-oil producing nations get nuclear weapons.)Trajan Octavian Titus said:Consequences? Like the consequences of nuclear winter if Iran is allowed to continue on its present course.
Oh. If sanctions on Iran would hurt France and Germany, then I'm all for them.GarzaUK said:Actually UN sanctions on Iran would hurt the EU especially Germany and Italy since they do quite alot of trade with Iran. So that is completely false.