Would anyone here actually support a war with Iran? (1 Viewer)

[The Philosopher]

I'm just curious to know, and I'm even more curious to read some truly plausible reasoning to back up an affirmation. Iran is several times more powerful, several times more dangerous, and we're already overstretched and weary from our unfinished and soon to be secretarian Iraq. Attacking Iran would not only inspire terrorism en masse, but it would also most likely make the US lose very ally it ever had.

Heres a superb article on the US's less than inspirational history in the Middle-East, precedent is most definetely not on our side folks.

http://www.slate.com/id/2139843/

 

[Captain America]

To answer your question sir, yes. I do believe that there are people in our society that would not only approve a war with Iran but actually encourage it. In fact, a war just about anywhere is just fine with them.

All they need is a subtle push from Bill or Rush and they're on it like white on rice.

 

[Davo The Mavo]

Unfortunately, I believe there are some people in this country who would jump off a cliff if GW told them it wasn't gonna hurt. For some it goes beyond Party Loyalty or even Partisan Politics-----it boils down literally to faith. Faith in George.

 

[The Philosopher]

I'd actually take their devotion to a war for peace seriously if they went to war. But of course, the only way they express their patriotism is by putting a bunch of American flag bumber stickers on their car, not by actually going to war, or hell even reading a little....

But the more interesting fellows are people like Christopher Hitchens. Now, normally I think the guy is brilliant, but his ideas on foreign policy are so convoluted and preposterous, its not that he's dumb, its just that he's infinitely intent on the crazy neoconservative perception that war equates to peace, might makes right, whatever.

Hell, thats not even real conservatism. I consider myself a conservative, and I'm abashed my George's inconcievable amount of government spending, which is diamatrically opposed to conservative doctrine.

 

[NYRepublican788]

All they need is a subtle push from Bill or Rush and they're on it like white on rice.

When you say Bill, do you mean O'Reilly? Because I'll have you know that conservatives don't really pay much attention to his oppinion. He isn't even really a conservative, and if he was he would admit it. He supports the decriminalization of marijuana and also civil unions. He's all over the spectrum so you can't relate him to us.

.......but yeah.....what Rush says goes.

 

[NYRepublican788]

Philo,

Our involvement in Iraq would not hinder a war effort in Iran in any way. If we were to attack Iran, (and to answer your question, yes, most of the country says that they would approve of using the military option) we would not be deploying ground forces. It would be a series of flyovers that would target the weapons that they've been bragging about.

Iran's leader is absolutely insane and whenever someone that deranged has their finger on the button they need to be disarmed.

By saying that they are several times more powerful, you have added strength to the point that we should attack them if diplomacy fails.

What makes you think that they would not use that power against us?

I'd actually take their devotion to a war for peace seriously if they went to war. But of course, the only way they express their patriotism is by putting a bunch of American flag bumber stickers on their car, not by actually going to war, or hell even reading a little....

Did you go to war? If not, according to you, you are not patriotic.

Hell, thats not even real conservatism. I consider myself a conservative, and I'm abashed my George's inconcievable amount of government spending, which is diamatrically opposed to conservative doctrine.

Optimism for the eventual democratization of the world is indeed real conservatism. Conservatives trust in the people, that is why we value democracy, because it allows the people to influence the direction of their government. To accomplish this goal, some force will be needed.

George Bush's spending does stray from true conservatism, but, just because he is president, and he's conservative, it doesn't mean that he believes that he is the standard of conservatism. And mentioning his spending is off topic anyway.

 

[The Philosopher]

Philo,

Our involvement in Iraq would not hinder a war effort in Iran in any way. If we were to attack Iran, (and to answer your question, yes, most of the country says that they would approve of using the military option) we would not be deploying ground forces. It would be a series of flyovers that would target the weapons that they've been bragging about.

Iran's leader is absolutely insane and whenever someone that deranged has their finger on the button they need to be disarmed.

By saying that they are several times more powerful, you have added strength to the point that we should attack them if diplomacy fails.

What makes you think that they would not use that power against us?


Did you go to war? If not, according to you, you are not patriotic.


Optimism for the eventual democratization of the world is indeed real conservatism. Conservatives trust in the people, that is why we value democracy, because it allows the people to influence the direction of their government. To accomplish this goal, some force will be needed.

George Bush's spending does stray from true conservatism, but, just because he is president, and he's conservative, it doesn't mean that he believes that he is the standard of conservatism. And mentioning his spending is off topic anyway.

Oh my...

So, sir, you really are of the opinion that an aerial assault will just end the issue and things will be all fine and well in the Mid East? You think you can just drop a couple bombs on Iran and it'll be over? You don't think they'll strike back? You don't think it will literally tear the already exceedingly unstable region to pieces?

Furthermore, most real analysts believe that even if Iran got atomic weapons, it would be used solely for deterrence, it was in a Slate article I'm too lazy to look up right now.

Regardless, Iran's uranium enrichment state is extremely low at this point, it would take years and years and YEARS for them to get close to a weapon, and I highly doubt they're going to go much further. Moreover, pre-emptive war is sometimes feasible, but preventive war is what you're calling for, and thats just insane.

And for the record....

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/03...f=pd_bbs_1/103-9420254-8881437?_encoding=UTF8

Bush is a DISGRACE to conservatives, plain and simple.

Sorry for the caps but its a widespread misconception that needs to be rendered a fallacy, Bush is no conservative, he's...I don't even know, just a imperialist? Neocon? Or my favorite...

Idiot?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Caught a little bit of Neil Cavuto on FOX News last night at work. Some guy wrote in saying that Rumsfeld was a hero whose decisive military action "saved the world from the prophecy of Armageddon".

Some people just can't help drinking the Kool-Aid.

That said, I would support a war against Iran. If they don't back down, I'm not sure we have a choice-- Mutually Assured Destruction is only effective against an opponent who isn't willing to die. I just hate the idea of supporting a third war when we still haven't finished the first two.

 

[Kandahar]

Yes, I would absolutely support a war with Iran. They must not be allowed to get nuclear weapons as long as their government is controlled by irrational, theocratic terrorists. Furthermore, the implication of some people on this thread that anyone who disagrees with them about this has been brainwashed by right-wing propaganda is, quite frankly, ridiculous and only denigrates their arguments.

Now as for the consequences of such a war, some of them are real and some of them are imagined. But even for the real consequences, we need to ask ourselves if they're worse than letting Iran get nukes.

Would the US suffer heavy military casualties in a war with Iran? This is unlikely if we limited it to a "shock-and-awe" air campaign. Iran's air force sucks, to put it bluntly. Remember that we were able to maintain no-fly zones over Iraq for years without losing a single plane; while Iran does have more surface-to-air missiles than Iraq did, it's still very unlikely that the American casualties would be very high.

Would Iran close the Strait of Hormuz, thus driving up world oil prices? The answer to this question is an emphatic "no." The US Navy could EASILY prevent this from happening.

Would an American attack on Iran lead to the collapse of Iraq? Unfortunately I think the answer to this one is yes. Although it isn't like it isn't on the way to collapse already. If we withdrew most or all of our forces from Iraq before launching an air campaign on Iran, this would make things much easier for the US military.

Would Iran step up its support of terrorist groups like Hezbollah in the wake of an American attack? Most likely. Would Iran step up its support of terrorist groups like Hezbollah if we allow them to get a nuke? Definitely.

Would an attack cause Iranians to rally around the flag, or would it humiliate the ayatollahs and foment regime change? The Persians could go either way, but there is no way that the Kurds and Azeris would ever rally around the flag. At worst, this is a wash for the Iranian regime. At best, this would cause their collapse.

 

[The Philosopher]

Caught a little bit of Neil Cavuto on FOX News last night at work. Some guy wrote in saying that Rumsfeld was a hero whose decisive military action "saved the world from the prophecy of Armageddon".

Some people just can't help drinking the Kool-Aid.

That said, I would support a war against Iran. If they don't back down, I'm not sure we have a choice-- Mutually Assured Destruction is only effective against an opponent who isn't willing to die. I just hate the idea of supporting a third war when we still haven't finished the first two.

Are you serious?

What do you mean we don't have a choice? We ALWAYS have a choice. There is no evidence that they're indeed making nukes, and if they do that they're going to use them offensively against us.

By attacking Iran now we would be commiting preventive war, we would be waging a war based on the assumption that some time in the distant future a faraway nation might use weapons against us. That has got to be one of the most ludicrous idea in the history of foreign policy. They're sticking to their point that they're not going to make nukes, they just had a ceremony to commemorate the point. And even if they were lying, analysts are saying that they would most likely only use it for deterrence, which is their right.

Can you possibly concieve the catastrophic repercussions that would unfold as a direct result of us invading Iran? Just THINK ABOUT IT for a moment, use reason, there is no sentient being on this earth that could see any beneficial byproduct for attacking Iran if you really consider it. I guarantee you it would lead into WWIII, or at least some sort of world wide catastrophe of tremendous proportions, terrorism would increase exponentially, etc etc, its all really very dreadful, and yet very obvious, I can't see how neocons don't, get this.....

 

[vibeeleven]

I vote yes regardless of who attacks first, although I don't think a pre-emptive strike is the ideal route to take in this, or most situations. There are people who will only listen to a fist, and the mullahs' and Ahmedinajahad are a few of them.

You can say what you want Mahmoud, butt here will always be consequences to face.

 

[NYRepublican788]

Oh my...

So, sir, you really are of the opinion that an aerial assault will just end the issue and things will be all fine and well in the Mid East? You think you can just drop a couple bombs on Iran and it'll be over? You don't think they'll strike back? You don't think it will literally tear the already exceedingly unstable region to pieces?

Furthermore, most real analysts believe that even if Iran got atomic weapons, it would be used solely for deterrence, it was in a Slate article I'm too lazy to look up right now.

Regardless, Iran's uranium enrichment state is extremely low at this point, it would take years and years and YEARS for them to get close to a weapon, and I highly doubt they're going to go much further. Moreover, pre-emptive war is sometimes feasible, but preventive war is what you're calling for, and thats just insane.

And for the record....

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/03...f=pd_bbs_1/103-9420254-8881437?_encoding=UTF8

Bush is a DISGRACE to conservatives, plain and simple.

Sorry for the caps but its a widespread misconception that needs to be rendered a fallacy, Bush is no conservative, he's...I don't even know, just a imperialist? Neocon? Or my favorite...

Idiot?

umm, no. Things won't be fine and well in the middle east, and I don't remember ever saying that, (??). But, they will get to the point where their capability is a significant threat to our nation, and before that, we need to disable them.

And no, not a couple of bombs. A strategic aerial offensive that would target their weapons centers and destroy them. Real analysts? Iran's leader is clearly not opposed to wiping entire countries off the map. Why would you trust them to use it soley for detterence? You already described them as dangerous and powerful. Couple that with the fact...fact....that they are fixated upon expanding their nuclear capability. Tell me that preventing this guy from doing damage is insane.

You are basing your argument on trust. Trust for a proven physco, a dictator, and potential Hitler.

And again, Bush and his conservativy...nesss..... is off topic.

 

[The Philosopher]

Yes, I would absolutely support a war with Iran. They must not be allowed to get nuclear weapons as long as their government is controlled by irrational, theocratic terrorists. Furthermore, the implication of some people on this thread that anyone who disagrees with them about this has been brainwashed by right-wing propaganda is, quite frankly, ridiculous and only denigrates their arguments.

Now as for the consequences of such a war, some of them are real and some of them are imagined. But even for the real consequences, we need to ask ourselves if they're worse than letting Iran get nukes.

Would the US suffer heavy military casualties in a war with Iran? This is unlikely if we limited it to a "shock-and-awe" air campaign. Iran's air force sucks, to put it bluntly. Remember that we were able to maintain no-fly zones over Iraq for years without losing a single plane; while Iran does have more surface-to-air missiles than Iraq did, it's still very unlikely that the American casualties would be very high.

Would Iran close the Strait of Hormuz, thus driving up world oil prices? The answer to this question is an emphatic "no." The US Navy could EASILY prevent this from happening.

Would an American attack on Iran lead to the collapse of Iraq? Unfortunately I think the answer to this one is yes. Although it isn't like it isn't on the way to collapse already. If we withdrew most or all of our forces from Iraq before launching an air campaign on Iran, this would make things much easier for the US military.

Would Iran step up its support of terrorist groups like Hezbollah in the wake of an American attack? Most likely. Would Iran step up its support of terrorist groups like Hezbollah if we allow them to get a nuke? Definitely.

Would an attack cause Iranians to rally around the flag, or would it humiliate the ayatollahs and foment regime change? The Persians could go either way, but there is no way that the Kurds and Azeris would ever rally around the flag. At worst, this is a wash for the Iranian regime. At best, this would cause their collapse.

lol.....it won't be that easy and you know it, you make it sound like a Command and Conquer campaign.

I can't understand how you fail to see.....whatever.....I posted it all above....

And no I'm not suggesting that you're being deceived by Fox News, I'm not going to insult your intelligence by saying that. However, you definitely need some more perspective on the region, where are you getting your ideas from if I may ask? Hitchens?

 

[The Philosopher]

umm, no. Things won't be fine and well in the middle east, and I don't remember ever saying that, (??). But, they will get to the point where their capability is a significant threat to our nation, and before that, we need to disable them.

And no, not a couple of bombs. A strategic aerial offensive that would target their weapons centers and destroy them. Real analysts? Iran's leader is clearly not opposed to wiping entire countries off the map. Why would you trust them to use it soley for detterence? You already described them as dangerous and powerful. Couple that with the fact...fact....that they are fixated upon expanding their nuclear capability. Tell me that preventing this guy from doing damage is insane.

You are basing your argument on trust. Trust for a proven physco, a dictator, and potential Hitler.

And again, Bush and his conservativy...nesss..... is off topic.

Look, I'm not trying to back Ahmadenijad, he's crazy. He's an idiot. But you can't go waging wars just because a religious zealot is insane and is saying things he shouldn't be saying, because MOST RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS ARE CRAZY. Falwell and Robertson both think tha 9/11 was caused by feminists and homosexuals, should there be a revolt now?

I don't think he's actually going to get nukes, and besides, even if he is he is soooooooooooooo ridiculously far off right now that it would be sheer madness to wage war.

Like I've said, you're not calling for preemptive war. You're calliing for preventive war. Which is crazy.

You're basing your argument off of extreme assumption, I'm basing mine off of historical precedent and reasoning. THe US's actions in the Mid East have hardly been successful, and if it was to invade Iran the negative repercussions would be astronmical.

 

[Kandahar]

lol.....it won't be that easy and you know it, you make it sound like a Command and Conquer campaign.

I can't understand how you fail to see.....whatever.....I posted it all above....

Which of my points did you disagree with, and why? For someone who calls himself "The Philosopher," you aren't very good at countering logical arguments...

And no I'm not suggesting that you're being deceived by Fox News, I'm not going to insult your intelligence by saying that. However, you definitely need some more perspective on the region, where are you getting your ideas from if I may ask? Hitchens?

No, I form my own opinions from studying international relations, as well as a healthy dose of reason that seems to be absent from your own statements (Do you REALLY believe Iran isn't building nukes? PLEASE). Columnists may occasionally influence my opinions if they make a convincing argument for or against something, but unlike most of the people on this thread you won't find me parroting the talking points of various columnists.

 

[The Philosopher]

Which of my points did you disagree with, and why? For someone who calls himself "The Philosopher," you aren't very good at countering logical arguments...



No, I form my own opinions from studying international relations, as well as a healthy dose of reason that seems to be absent from your own statements (Do you REALLY believe Iran isn't building nukes? PLEASE). Columnists may occasionally influence my opinions if they make a convincing argument for or against something, but unlike most of the people on this thread you won't find me parroting the talking points of various columnists.

lol, I disagreed with everything you said, my reasons for which have been posted throughout the entire thread and I don't feel the need to repeat. But since you seem to lazy to read the whole thread I'll try to paraphrase:

btw i'll link and comment your blog if you do likewise for me

No, I don't think Iran is making nukes. Even if they were, it is far, far to early to assume that or take any sort of military action. And if they do get nukes, I don't think they'll use them on us, as many analysts have pointed out it would be mailny be used for deterrence. I think the aftermath of the war would leave the planet a far more dangerous and unpleasant place.

Yeah thats the gist of it I suppose.

 

[Kandahar]

Look, I'm not trying to back Ahmadenijad, he's crazy. He's an idiot. But you can't go waging wars just because a religious zealot is insane and is saying things he shouldn't be saying, because MOST RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS ARE CRAZY. Falwell and Robertson both think tha 9/11 was caused by feminists and homosexuals, should there be a revolt now?

Falwell and Robertson aren't in charge of the country and aren't building nukes, last I checked.

I don't think he's actually going to get nukes,

Based on what?

and besides, even if he is he is soooooooooooooo ridiculously far off right now that it would be sheer madness to wage war.

Estimates range from 1-10 years, although the lower end is probably more likely than the higher end. We should act now in case the lower estimates are indeed correct.

Like I've said, you're not calling for preemptive war. You're calliing for preventive war. Which is crazy.

Why? If someone is building nukes and has threatened to wipe other nations off the map, why should we wait until a tragedy happens before we act?

You're basing your argument off of extreme assumption, I'm basing mine off of historical precedent and reasoning.

Actually, reasoning is almost entirely absent from everything you write. I refer you to your statement that compared Ahmadinejad to Pat Robertson.

THe US's actions in the Mid East have hardly been successful, and if it was to invade Iran the negative repercussions would be astronmical.

Our actions maintaining a no-fly zone against Iraq were very successful for years. As long as we didn't actually invade Iran, what makes you think it wouldn't be successful? Yes, there would be negative repercussions. But do you imagine that a nuclear Iran wouldn't have negative repercussions?

 

[Kandahar]

No, I don't think Iran is making nukes.

Based on what?

Even if they were, it is far, far to early to assume that or take any sort of military action.

They're enriching uranium and could have a nuke in as little as a year, though 3-5 years is more likely and 10 is the optimistic view.

And if they do get nukes, I don't think they'll use them on us, as many analysts have pointed out it would be mailny be used for deterrence.

"Deterrence" doesn't mean that Iran will become cute and cuddly. Assuming that this is true (that they wouldn't use them), they'd still feel more inclined to step up their support of terrorism, on the premise that no one would dare to try to stop a nuclear power.

I think the aftermath of the war would leave the planet a far more dangerous and unpleasant place.

But nuclear proliferation among Islamic extremists who support terrorism, an arms race in the Middle East, and a new Cold War...these would leave the world a far more safe and pleasant place?

 

[The Philosopher]

Falwell and Robertson aren't in charge of the country and aren't building nukes, last I checked.



Based on what?



Estimates range from 1-10 years, although the lower end is probably more likely than the higher end. We should act now in case the lower estimates are indeed correct.



Why? If someone is building nukes and has threatened to wipe other nations off the map, why should we wait until a tragedy happens before we act?



Actually, reasoning is almost entirely absent from everything you write. I refer you to your statement that compared Ahmadinejad to Pat Robertson.



Our actions maintaining a no-fly zone against Iraq were very successful for years. As long as we didn't actually invade Iran, what makes you think it wouldn't be successful? Yes, there would be negative repercussions. But do you imagine that a nuclear Iran wouldn't have negative repercussions?

You don't know that they're making nukes for certain, just as I don't know for certain that they're not. However, you can't just go and say my opinion has no reason behind it when yours doesn't have certainty on its side either. If Iran is indeed making nukes, then actions should be taken, however now is way too early. They're at around 2 percent enrichment, which is pretty meager, it requires 80 pecent. We'll see what actions they take and then we'l make actions. To wage war NOW, as you're suggesting, is insane. ANd you have no idea what repercussions would happen. First, you seem to be under the impression that we can just drop some bombs on weapon silos and then leave. No, they would DEFINITELY fight back, and it would outrage the entire Muslim world, terrorism would hike to unheard of levels, chaos would ensue worldwide, its all very terrible. Its not just "some negative repercussions", its a more like a gargantuan wave of terror.

Aight I'm done. You know when you get into these war debates no one concedes defeat, and it usually escaltes to petty name calling, so I'm going to stop, nice blog. just read mine too.

 

[vibeeleven]

You don't know that they're making nukes for certain, just as I don't know for certain that they're not.

Oh wow. You want to wait til they do? Someone clearly as irreresponsible as Ahmehdinajahd has no business as a leader, let alone allowed to develop nucleur power for any reason.

 

[Kandahar]

You don't know that they're making nukes for certain, just as I don't know for certain that they're not. However, you can't just go and say my opinion has no reason behind it when yours doesn't have certainty on its side either.

There's a big difference between certainty and reason. I don't know for sure that Iran is building nukes, but based on reason I would say that there is a >99% chance that they are.

To support my claim that they ARE building nukes:
-The IAEA (including Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohamed Elbaradei)
-Virtually every intelligence agency in the world
-Virtually every government in the world
-The United Nations
-Iran's admissions to enriching uranium for "peaceful" nuclear use, despite having one of the largest oil supplies in the world
-Iran's refusal to allow the enriching to happen on Russian soil

To support your claim that they are NOT building nukes:
-Denials by an Iranian president you agree is a madman
-Wishful thinking

If Iran is indeed making nukes, then actions should be taken, however now is way too early.

And at what point SHOULD action be taken?

They're at around 2 percent enrichment, which is pretty meager, it requires 80 pecent.

The point is that they now have the ability to enrich uranium, and it's now just a matter of time.

We'll see what actions they take and then we'l make actions. To wage war NOW, as you're suggesting, is insane. ANd you have no idea what repercussions would happen.

Actually I addressed that pretty well in my first post on this thread. You have not even attempted to show me where I'm wrong on any of those points.

First, you seem to be under the impression that we can just drop some bombs on weapon silos and then leave.

That would be the best plan, yes.

No, they would DEFINITELY fight back,

Well obviously. Which is why we should withdraw from Iraq first. They can fight back against our fighter planes and attack ships all they want, but I like our odds in those battles.

and it would outrage the entire Muslim world,

Imagine that, the Muslim world might be outraged. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention the last few years, but just about everything outrages the Muslim world.

terrorism would hike to unheard of levels, chaos would ensue worldwide, its all very terrible.

Iran's ability to create chaos is finite, whether or not we attack. A nuclear Iran would certainly step up its support of terrorism though.

Its not just "some negative repercussions", its a more like a gargantuan wave of terror.

A gargantuan wave of terror worldwide? You've been reading too many comic books. If this gargantuan wave of terror didn't come during Desert Storm, or during the years of patrolling the no-fly zone, or when we invaded Afghanistan, or when we invaded Iraq for the second time, or when we cut off support to Palestine, what makes you think that an air strike on Iran will be the event that sets the world into anarchy?

 

[The Philosopher]

Oh wow. You want to wait til they do? Someone clearly as irreresponsible as Ahmehdinajahd has no business as a leader, let alone allowed to develop nucleur power for any reason.

That I disagree with, if the uranium is for nuclear power plants then he has all the right to use it. Right now its way to early, he's not going to have it in a year, most analysts are saying up to 10 years. RIght now we have enough foreign polcy issues as it is with Iraq on the brink of secretarian conflict, Iran can wait, if they continue to process their uranium enrichment program then we'll need to consider action, now though a war with Iran qould be ludicrous.

 

[NYRepublican788]

Aight I'm done. You know when you get into these war debates no one concedes defeat

..........looks like you just did

and the point of the debate is, "would anyone actually support a war with Iran?"

if they continue to process their uranium enrichment program then we'll need to consider action

 

[The Philosopher]

There's a big difference between certainty and reason. I don't know for sure that Iran is building nukes, but based on reason I would say that there is a >99% chance that they are.

To support my claim that they ARE building nukes:
-The IAEA (including Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohamed Elbaradei)
-Virtually every intelligence agency in the world
-Virtually every government in the world
-The United Nations

Much like Saddam's oh so horrid WMD....


-Iran's admissions to enriching uranium for "peaceful" nuclear use, despite having one of the largest oil supplies in the world

Relevant how?

-Iran's refusal to allow the enriching to happen on Russian soil

They want to take matters int their own hands....

To support your claim that they are NOT building nukes:
-Denials by an Iranian president you agree is a madman
-REASON!



And at what point SHOULD action be taken?

When the enrichment has reached levels where its irrefutably clear they're amking nukes, so basically a little more than the current 3 pecent levels, which are abysmally low.

The point is that they now have the ability to enrich uranium, and it's now just a matter of time.

Most analysts say 10 years.

Actually I addressed that pretty well in my first post on this thread. You have not even attempted to show me where I'm wrong on any of those points.



That would be the best plan, yes.



Well obviously. Which is why we should withdraw from Iraq first. They can fight back against our fighter planes and attack ships all they want, but I like our odds in those battles.



Imagine that, the Muslim world might be outraged. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention the last few years, but just about everything outrages the Muslim world.

They've already shown what they're capable of....there was this whole 9/11 thing a few years back, not sure if you remember it....also these subway bombings.....and erm Iran is in teh center of the Middle East, and one of the largest and most important nations therre, nearly every analyst or researcher on the issue will tell you that the region would implode and terrorism would increase exponentially, al-Qaeda and Hamass and Hezbollah and all those are fanatic loonies would get recruits in record levels. I'm not making this up, this is from books and studies, I really don't have the time to post them (I have to go out soon) but seriously...you said earlier you don't listen to ournalists, maybe you should sto doing that and get some facts, stop using your own rhetoric to paint a fantasy picture. You were probably one of the fine folks who thought we would be greeted with roses by the Iraqi people, and that the Iraq war really ended in May 03.

 

[The Philosopher]

..........looks like you just did

and the point of the debate is, "would anyone actually support a war with Iran?"

lol no, thats more like I have to go eat lunch then get ready to go out in abou 10 minutes, not conceding defeat, lol you prowar people are so full of it, yet you shut up when somenoe asks when you're going to serve, I take comfort in that.