POL - Is attacking Iran in our best interests?

[WVUFAN]

I'm sorry to hear that 6 Americans died. Out of the 118 people that died, the 6 Americans are all that we should be concerned about.

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Tell me, what would 'things going badly' look like to you? I mean, just yesterday fifty people died in attacks, including six American soldiers. The day before, 42 bodies were found on various roads and 26 people were killed in various other attacks. That's 118 people over the last two days.

Because really, every objective fact says that things suck over there. Journalists and politicians can't leave their hotels or they'll be kidnapped or beheaded or both. Most of our 'coalition of the willing' have deserted us. Electricity production is at a three year low. They can't even get enough clean water in Baghdad.

Is this all made up? We've spent thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars and you are telling me that this isn't that bad? So what would a 'bad' Iraq look like? Or are you saying it looks good compared to a post-apocolyptic, nuclear winter Iraq? Or is it your position that these events are made up by media? What exactly do you mean?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I'm sorry to hear that 6 Americans died. Out of the 118 people that died, the 6 Americans are all that we should be concerned about.

Are you fucking serious ?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

If we decide that Iraq is a lost cause, as many (I believe including you) are proposing we do, suddenly there are ~150,000 battle-hardened US troops 100 miles away from the Iranian border. Not to mention troops and bases on the other border just in case you want to make it a 2-front campaign. Since pulling out of Iraq would be an acknowledgment that nation-building failed, we wouldn't bother trying to occupy Iran and rebuild it, we'd just go in, kill/remove the main people in charge and more or less leave.Hmmmmm.... I don't seem to recall advocating a solution that included hundreds of thousands of deaths and trillions of dollars of investment. In fact, I believe I was pointing out how allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons only makes it more likely that a scenario with a million+ deaths would eventually result. But maybe you can show me projections that show how under 3,000 dead US soldiers in 3 years and approximately 12,000 dead Iraqis a year turns into hundreds of thousands dead and trillions in investment when we're not rebuilding Iran post-invasion.

I would consider that plan a 'war crime.'

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Are you fucking serious ?

Absolutely. I've said time and time again the lives I am concerned about is American ones. American soldiers who die are tragedies -- others are acceptable losses.

I'm sick and tired of bleeding hearts that deplore all the "innocent" lives that are lost and pay no attention to our soldiers who are over there.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I would consider that plan a 'war crime.'

I think calling it a 'plan' is giving it too much credit.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Absolutely. I've said time and time again the lives I am concerned about is American ones. American soldiers who die are tragedies -- others are acceptable losses.

I'm sick and tired of bleeding hearts that deplore all the "innocent" lives that are lost and pay no attention to our soldiers who are over there.

I wish more people who believed this would plainly say it as you have. It would make voting the current leadership out of power so much easier.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I wish more people who believed this would plainly say it as you have. It would make voting the current leadership out of power so much easier.

If others had "plainly said" this, I firmly believe we would have won the last elections by a wider margin.

[law90026]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

If we decide that Iraq is a lost cause, as many (I believe including you) are proposing we do, suddenly there are ~150,000 battle-hardened US troops 100 miles away from the Iranian border. Not to mention troops and bases on the other border just in case you want to make it a 2-front campaign. Since pulling out of Iraq would be an acknowledgment that nation-building failed, we wouldn't bother trying to occupy Iran and rebuild it, we'd just go in, kill/remove the main people in charge and more or less leave.

Wow, any country that actually attempts to do such a thing would have a lot to answer for. You can't just enter a country, kill the main people and then let the nation fend for itself, that's just irresponsible. You're essentially advocating the destruction of a government and leaving the country in a mess and praying that a decent government actually arises out of this mess. It's not going to happen in all likelihood and you're just going to have another despotic bunch rising to power. But above all that, the people would really suffer

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

One thousand Iraqi's are dying per month. Per capita, that is like 100,000 people dying per month in the USA.

I think you're off by a power of 10. ~25 million Iraqis, ~300 million Americans. That doesn't work out to a hundred to one ratio.

As a larger issue, comparisons like this are horribly disingenous. If one person in Grenada is murdered, is that really like a 10,000 Americans being killed? Of course not. It'd be a much more accurate comparison if you say that 1,000 Iraqis dying out of 25 million is like 1,000 people in Los Angeles or New Jersey dying a month.

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think Iran is going to be the next President's problem, and one that he/she will have better options at their disposal. From what I can tell, Iran is not very close to having nuclear weapons (maybe 10 years out, something like that), and there is still the possibility that some sort of engagement (similiar to our policy with Pakistan) might produce more stable results.

Why is stability the goal? I can see why in the specific case of Pakistan we have little choice, but thats specifically because if Musharraf goes, it'll be fundamentalist Muslims with nuclear weapons, which is what we are trying to avoid. Since the fundamentalist Muslims are already in control in Iran, and any successive government could not be worse from our perspective, that completely changes the parameters our policy is based on. Overall, supporting despotic governments that destroyed the ME economies is a large part of what got us into the current mess of a situation, and I fail to see how it does anything but kick the can down the road and likely make it a bigger problem whenever we are forced to deal with it.

I would consider that plan a 'war crime.'

Originally Posted by law90026

Wow, any country that actually attempts to do such a thing would have a lot to answer for. You can't just enter a country, kill the main people and then let the nation fend for itself, that's just irresponsible. You're essentially advocating the destruction of a government and leaving the country in a mess and praying that a decent government actually arises out of this mess. It's not going to happen in all likelihood and you're just going to have another despotic bunch rising to power. But above all that, the people would really suffer

I don't like it either, but it was just to show that if push comes to shove, we do have the manpower to win a decisive military victory. Not to occupy the country, but to invade yes.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

If others had "plainly said" this, I firmly believe we would have won the last elections by a wider margin.

Hilarious.

Are you in favor of the Iraq war? I can only assume you are not, since Iraq was not a threat to us and not fighting the war would have meant that at least 3,000 Americans would still have their lives.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Absolutely. I've said time and time again the lives I am concerned about is American ones. American soldiers who die are tragedies -- others are acceptable losses.

I'm sick and tired of bleeding hearts that deplore all the "innocent" lives that are lost and pay no attention to our soldiers who are over there.

Gotcha. You really are a nutjob. Innocent dead Iraqi's are "acceptable casualities" ?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Why is stability the goal?

Well, as I commented above, I don't really understand what 'best case' scenario in the Middle East really is. Some people are in favor of forcible regime change throughout the region. I'm not completely opposed to the idea, but what then? Are we hoping for something like the EU, a confederacy of more of less free states whose primary motivator is improved economic conditions for their own nations? I like that vision, but I don't see how we get there from where we are, regardless of strategy.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

.
Why is stability the goal? I can see why in the specific case of Pakistan we have little choice, but thats specifically because if Musharraf goes, it'll be fundamentalist Muslims with nuclear weapons, which is what we are trying to avoid. Since the fundamentalist Muslims are already in control in Iran, and any successive government could not be worse from our perspective, that completely changes the parameters our policy is based on. Overall, supporting despotic governments that destroyed the ME economies is a large part of what got us into the current mess of a situation, and I fail to see how it does anything but kick the can down the road and likely make it a bigger problem whenever we are forced to deal with it.I don't like it either, but it was just to show that if push comes to shove, we do have the manpower to win a decisive military victory. Not to occupy the country, but to invade yes.

Strictly speaking, I think an invasion, the likes of which you speak of, would detract from the larger goal of a more "secure" (and thus less threatening) Middle East - which is why a pure hit and run attack would accomplish nothing, except fuel further anti-American resentment and push others (like say - the Saudi's) into attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. Look, its a standard foreign policy doctrine that nukes today are seen by many as an "American" deterrent - an invasion of Iran would push more countries to develop, achieving the perverse goal of further proliferation.

[GrantDawg]

Did I say that? Or are you reading into my statements?

I'm guessing Mr. B has become religious since he is observing the passover on my question.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Absolutely. I've said time and time again the lives I am concerned about is American ones. American soldiers who die are tragedies -- others are acceptable losses.

I'm sick and tired of bleeding hearts that deplore all the "innocent" lives that are lost and pay no attention to our soldiers who are over there.

Most "bleeding hearts" deplore the loss of lives of both innocent Iraqi civilians (don't see the need for "quotes") and our solider who are over there. In fact, I don't know any "bleeding hearts" who don't. Not a one. I know quite a few "bleeding hearts" (I assume this means liberals). There is no reason you can't deplore both. In fact, I think it's sort of a pre-requisite for, I don't know, being a sane human.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I'm guessing Mr. B has become religious since he is observing the passover on my question.

lol

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I think you're off by a power of 10. ~25 million Iraqis, ~300 million Americans. That doesn't work out to a hundred to one ratio.

Good catch, I meant per year. Original post edited.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I don't like it either, but it was just to show that if push comes to shove, we do have the manpower to win a decisive military victory. Not to occupy the country, but to invade yes.

I fail to see how that 'plan' accomplishes any of your supposed goals. The odds of a democracy spontaneously sprouting is next to zero. They can just start right up their nuclear plan again. They may emerge stronger, united with an Iraq that we left in civil war. The end result is thousands of lives lost (probably hundreds of thousands, including Iranian civilians, especially if Iran uses real WMD's) plus hundreds of billions at least in military funds, especially if the leadership holes up in the mountains and creates a protracted guerilla war.

I have a better plan than yours: A bloodless, costless destruction of a country of 60 million people which leaves them in a good political situation, plus everyone gets a pony! As long as you are wishing for things, you may as well include a pony for everyone, that's my stance.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Most "bleeding hearts" deplore the loss of lives of both innocent Iraqi civilians (don't see the need for "quotes") and our solider who are over there. In fact, I don't know any "bleeding hearts" who don't. Not a one. I know quite a few "bleeding hearts" (I assume this means liberals). There is no reason you can't deplore both. In fact, I think it's sort of a pre-requisite for, I don't know, being a sane human.

I don't think the majority of conservatives are unconcerned with the lost of innocent Iraqi civilians. It takes a special kind of monster to truly think that way.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I'm guessing Mr. B has become religious since he is observing the passover on my question.

What are you kidding me? You think I want to get into a discussion parsing what you said, where you tell me you didn't mean what you said literally or didn't mean to have a connection between two sentences right next to each other? No thanks, more interesting things to talk about. As soon as I am done watching this paint dry, I'll come back to your line of discussion.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

What are you kidding me? You think I want to get into a discussion parsing what you said, where you tell me you didn't mean what you said literally or didn't mean to have a connection between two sentences right next to each other? No thanks, more interesting things to talk about. As soon as I am done watching this paint dry, I'll come back to your line of discussion.

Show me one place in any post in this thread were I said war was the only option here. Just one. You READ into my statement. Or do you think the only avenue of diplomacy is war? You have a real black and white view of the world, don't you?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I don't think the majority of conservatives are unconcerned with the lost of innocent Iraqi civilians. It takes a special kind of monster to truly think that way.

Agreed.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Show me one place in any post in this thread were I said war was the only option here. Just one. You READ into my statement. Or do you think the only avenue of diplomacy is war? You have a real black and white view of the world, don't you?

I think the majority of 'hawks' don't see war with Iran as being desirable or inevitable at this point. Shoot, there are very few on this board more 'hawkish' than I am, and I think military action against Iran is totally out of the question.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Absolutely. I've said time and time again the lives I am concerned about is American ones. American soldiers who die are tragedies -- others are acceptable losses.

I'm sick and tired of bleeding hearts that deplore all the "innocent" lives that are lost and pay no attention to our soldiers who are over there.

Where one happens to land when one falls from one's mother's vagina is a method to distinguish worthwhile human life from worthless human life.

There are, however, other ways to measure the value of human life. I invite you to explore the teachings of the world's major religions and schools of philosophy/political thought. Most of them provide insights that you may find enlightening on the value of human life viz a viz other interests.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Where one happens to land when one falls from one's mother's vagina is a method to distinguish worthwhile human life from worthless human life.

There are, however, other ways to measure the value of human life. I invite you to explore the teachings of the world's major religions and schools of philosophy/political thought. Most of them provide insights that you may find enlightening on the value of human life viz a viz other interests.

Where do we make nominations for best post of the year?

[albionmoonlight]

FWIW, fighting to defend the ideals of individual liberty against oppressive religious totalitarianism is one of the few issues important enough to go to war. IMHO, of course.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

FWIW, fighting to defend the ideals of individual liberty against oppressive religious totalitarianism is one of the few issues important enough to go to war. IMHO, of course.

That is sticky. What if the people want to be governed by religious totalitarianism?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Who's violent now?

Not the US

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Show me one place in any post in this thread were I said war was the only option here. Just one. You READ into my statement. Or do you think the only avenue of diplomacy is war? You have a real black and white view of the world, don't you?

The thread topic is 'Is attacking Iran in our best interests'. You declared your desire to have France and Germany show leadership by 'taking action' on this. Saying you want someone to take action on attacking someone is pretty close to exactly the same thing as saying they should invade. Since both countries been involved in diplomatic resolutions with Iran, what you now say you meant, for roughly decades, I figured you knew that and was alluding to something more. I'm sorry if I gave you too much credit. So what was it exactly that you wanted them to 'take action' on?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

That is sticky. What if the people want to be governed by religious totalitarianism?

I realize that it is sticky. I guess that somewhat inherent in my notion of "totalitarianism" is the idea that it is being imposed on others via force. That, given the freedom to act naturally, people will gravitate toward systems that allow more--not less--personal freedoms. And systems that allow for more, not less, equal treatment for everyone. Of course, maybe that is just how I want to see the world and not how the world actually is.

None of this, of course, answers whether or not we should invade Iran. I frankly have no clue. It's a very complex question to me--that involves a ton of factors.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I don't think the majority of conservatives are unconcerned with the lost of innocent Iraqi civilians. It takes a special kind of monster to truly think that way.

I didn't intend or mean to imply that at all. I have no doubt that what you say is true. I was just refering to the notion that "bleeding hearts" (aka liberals) are concerned only about Iraqi civilians and couldn't give a damn about U.S. troops. It's horribly insulting. I would never think the opposite were true of "conservatives."

We are in total agreement on this.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The thread topic is 'Is attacking Iran in our best interests'. You declared your desire to have France and Germany show leadership by 'taking action' on this.

I see. So, your putting my comments in the light of rex's begining of the thread. Note, "attacking" came from his words, not mine.

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Saying you want someone to take action on attacking someone is pretty close to exactly the same thing as saying they should invade. Since both countries been involved in diplomatic resolutions with Iran, what you now say you meant, for roughly decades, I figured you knew that and was alluding to something more. I'm sorry if I gave you too much credit. So what was it exactly that you wanted them to 'take action' on

I do know they have been in discussions with Iran, as well as they were in Iraq. The problem is they are more interested in doing business than actually solving problems. I believe completely that actions from both (especially France) could have prevented the Iraq war, and still could stop Iran from nuclear proliferation. The problem is neither have shown a will to give up what is required to make that happen (most of which is on the financial side of the equation).

I would not rule out the possibility that they might have to use force (or at least give a realistic threat of force) which is something they have been willing to do in other areas when it was in their financial best interest. That, though, is not necessarily the only course of "action" here.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I do know they have been in discussions with Iran, as well as they were in Iraq. The problem is they are more interested in doing business than actually solving problems. I believe completely that actions from both (especially France) could have prevented the Iraq war, and still could stop Iran from nuclear proliferation. The problem is neither have shown a will to give up what is required to make that happen (most of which is on the financial side of the equation).

I would not rule out the possibility that they might have to use force (or at least give a realistic threat of force) which is something they have been willing to do in other areas when it was in their financial best interest. That, though, is not necessarily the only course of "action" here.

I'm still not getting what you want out of France or Germany. What more do you want from them? They were onboard with the Iraq inspections and threat of force, until it became clear that the US and UK wanted to go to war no matter what. How exactly could they have prevented it? The US had decided a year before the war that they were going in no matter what, and even had scenarios planned to create the war themselves if possible, USS Maine/Gulf of Tonkin style. What exactly did you want France to do?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Well, as I commented above, I don't really understand what 'best case' scenario in the Middle East really is. Some people are in favor of forcible regime change throughout the region. I'm not completely opposed to the idea, but what then? Are we hoping for something like the EU, a confederacy of more of less free states whose primary motivator is improved economic conditions for their own nations? I like that vision, but I don't see how we get there from where we are, regardless of strategy.

I think we are steadily getting there - the indirect pressure of Iraq seems to have had some effect on helping liberazlize some ME countries. As long as dictatorships are self-contained, like Egypt, I think we can deal with slow change (although I'm not a huge fan of the $3bn US foregin aid) but when the government supports terror groups, I don't know. Of course, the only bigger financier of terrorism than Iran is Saudi Arabia (through the funding of madrassas - check out Pakistan/Indonesia/Thailand/Bangladesh/Nigeria/etc), so there's no easy, obvious solutions here. But I really think it's something that needs to be figured out sooner rather than later.

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Strictly speaking, I think an invasion, the likes of which you speak of, would detract from the larger goal of a more "secure" (and thus less threatening) Middle East

In the short-term, undoubtedly yes. But I think its necessary at some point because I fail to see how ignoring the problem doesn't lead to a bigger problem down the road.

which is why a pure hit and run attack would accomplish nothing, except fuel further anti-American resentment

If you mean among the vox populi, there's always talk of the "Arab Street" rising up, but it never seems to materialize. Outside of Iran itself, I really doubt that invading a 3rd country is going to mobilize legions of opponents. Yeah, they'll hate us for it, but they already do, so I don't think we have much to lose in terms of popular support.

and push others (like say - the Saudi's) into attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. Look, its a standard foreign policy doctrine that nukes today are seen by many as an "American" deterrent - an invasion of Iran would push more countries to develop, achieving the perverse goal of further proliferation.

I completely agree with the perceived "American" deterrent. But I disgree about the effects of an invasion. Rather than spur more countries to pursue nuclear weapons, I think that seeing the US actually back up their rhetoric on the non-proliferation issue would serve as enough of a deterrent to at least offset this. If Iran is allowed to get them, just as North Korea was before them, and Pakistan before them, there is no disincentive to other countries.

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The odds of a democracy spontaneously sprouting is next to zero.

It wouldn't spontaneously sprout. There already were reformers/moderates garnering large public support and going through the parliamentary/elections process. The Guardian Council just blocked any relevant reforms and eventually banned most of them from running. (EDIT TO ADD - Now of course, foreign intervention could possibly swing the popular opinion dramatically, but) Unlike Iraq, these institutions wouldn't have to be built from scratch. I feel compelled to point out that doesn't mean I think things would be perfect or easy, but I haven't seen a better plan presented.

They can just start right up their nuclear plan again.

They probably would, but pretty much any different government is less of a threat.

They may emerge stronger, united with an Iraq that we left in civil war.

I'll just say I think that's overblown. The reason Iran has strong ties to leading Shia groups is because of the huge amounts of money being poured into Iraq. As for the average citizen of these countries, remember they fought a war 10 years ago where Nationalism mattered more in the end than religion. And also that the Persians have never exactly regarded the Arabs as brothers.

The end result is thousands of lives lost (probably hundreds of thousands, including Iranian civilians, especially if Iran uses real WMD's) plus hundreds of billions at least in military funds, especially if the leadership holes up in the mountains and creates a protracted guerilla war.

I'm not gonna deny the possibility, because no one knows for certain what would happen, but maybe you could present a different plan that didn't consist of doing nothing, letting the Mullahs get Nuclear Weapons and then hoping they didn't use them.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I realize that it is sticky. I guess that somewhat inherent in my notion of "totalitarianism" is the idea that it is being imposed on others via force. That, given the freedom to act naturally, people will gravitate toward systems that allow more--not less--personal freedoms. And systems that allow for more, not less, equal treatment for everyone. Of course, maybe that is just how I want to see the world and not how the world actually is.

I believe the people of Iran want more personal freedoms, but I do not believe the will of the people is to completely remove religious elements of their government. Over time more freedom might lead to the desire for that, but I do not think removal by outside force would cause that.

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

None of this, of course, answers whether or not we should invade Iran. I frankly have no clue. It's a very complex question to me--that involves a ton of factors.

No doubt. I can't see how invasion is the right answer, nor even military action by the US at all is going to do anything but fan the flames of trouble throughout the region. Any military action would have to be as last resort.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I'm still not getting what you want out of France or Germany. What more do you want from them? They were onboard with the Iraq inspections and threat of force, until it became clear that the US and UK wanted to go to war no matter what. What exactly did you want France to do?

Perhaps not skirt the sanctions for 12 years and take bribes from Saddam?

And they would never have been on board with using force. They could be coerced into threatening to use force, but they were never serious about enforcing any of those 2 dozen resolutions authorizing force. To pretend otherwise is at best ignorant revisionism.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I'm still not getting what you want out of France or Germany. What more do you want from them? They were onboard with the Iraq inspections and threat of force, until it became clear that the US and UK wanted to go to war no matter what. How exactly could they have prevented it? The US had decided a year before the war that they were going in no matter what, and even had scenarios planned to create the war themselves if possible, USS Maine/Gulf of Tonkin style. What exactly did you want France to do?

There has been ample evidence of the fact France was playing both sides against the middle in the months leading up to the war. They were giving assurances to Sadam that an invasion was not going to take place while at the same time talking tough in the public venue. If they had made clear to Sadam the futility of the situation he was in, I believe there would have been a different outcome.

[GrantDawg]

And for clarity, I'm not suggesting the war is totally France and Germany's fault. It was bad policy from the Bush administration that was followed by even more bad policy. I'm just saying they are not innocent either.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

It wouldn't spontaneously sprout. There already were reformers/moderates garnering large public support and going through the parliamentary/elections process.

Your plan calls for the decapitation of government and then a withdrawal. That is chaos. I could be wrong, but I don't know of a single democracy that resulted from chaos. They usually come as a revolution over a despotic regime or installed after an aggressive despot is forcibly removed by power, with mixed results (see: Iraq). Just assuming that the democracy will come to power as opposed to a military dictatorship is a huge leap of faith, especially for someone opposed to hope as a solution. Assuming that the new government will be MORE friendly to us, after we invade without reason, is an even bigger assumption.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

...maybe you could present a different plan that didn't consist of doing nothing, letting the Mullahs get Nuclear Weapons and then hope they didn't use them.

That's a better plan than yours, I believe. But why not work with them, creating financial ties with them? Grow their economy and tie it into the global economy. If their economy depends on outside ties, they are exponentially less likely to be aggressors (even now I would argue that that is the case). We need some carrot with the stick. It works for Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

In "happyland" Iran hasn't attacked any foreign countries, since they were called Persia. What are things like in reality?

You rather wait to be attacked first, or would you try to eliminate a potential threat that is trying to get nuclear weapons? I'm not saying go out and go to war (that should be the last resort), but I don't think you can ignore a situation that could be a serious problem down the line.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

You rather wait to be attacked first, or would you try to eliminate a potential threat that is trying to get nuclear weapons? I'm not saying go out and go to war (that should be the last resort), but I don't think you can ignore a situation that could be a serious problem down the line.

Two things:

1) Iran can't attack us

2) Iran has no reason to attack us

Other than that, your logic is flawless.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Two things:

1) Iran can't attack us

2) Iran has no reason to attack us

Other than that, your logic is flawless.

1.) Iran can attack us, and, just as importantly, they can attack our allies. Or are you saying it's OK with you if they build nukes and then melt Israel off the map? Because that's exactly what they're building them for.

2.) Are you kidding me?

People in muslim states all over the middle east celebrated when 9/11 happened. They'd love nothing more than to see us all burn.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

1.) Iran can attack us, and, just as importantly, they can attack our allies. Or are you saying it's OK with you if they build nukes and then melt Israel off the map? Because that's exactly what they're building them for.

Maybe I missed it, but is there a quote somewhere from the Iranian leaders that says that?

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Maybe I missed it, but is there a quote somewhere from the Iranian leaders that says that?

You're right. All they've officially said is that they're enriching uranium for peaceful purposes. We should take them at their word and not worry about it at all.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

You're right. All they've officially said is that they're enriching uranium for peaceful purposes. We should take them at their word and not worry about it at all.

Not what I said, but there could be more motives behind wanting nuclear weapons than to destroy Israel, couldn't there? Like say for instance to discourage some certain Superpower from invading you?

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Maybe I missed it, but is there a quote somewhere from the Iranian leaders that says that?

Actually... there is:
http://www.honestreporting.com/artic...d_the_Bomb.asp

● Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenai explained in Jan. 2001 that 'the foundation of the Islamic regime is opposition to Israel, and the perpetual subject of Iran is the elimination of Israel from the region.'

● Khamenai said in a recent sermon that 'the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region.'

● In Dec. 2001, former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani called the establishment of the Jewish state 'the worst event in history,' and declared his intention to decimate Israel, clarifying that 'one [nuclear] bomb is enough to destroy all Israel,' and that 'in due time, the Islamic world will have a military nuclear device.'

Unfortunately, it's not just talk. Iran actively supports anti-Israel terror through Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah. And recall that in January 2002, Iran attempted to smuggle 50 tons of ammunition to Palestinians aboard the ship Karin A. Iran's nuclear program is clearly an extension of that aggression.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Actually... there is:
http://www.honestreporting.com/artic...d_the_Bomb.asp

● Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenai explained in Jan. 2001 that 'the foundation of the Islamic regime is opposition to Israel, and the perpetual subject of Iran is the elimination of Israel from the region.'

● Khamenai said in a recent sermon that 'the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region.'

● In Dec. 2001, former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani called the establishment of the Jewish state 'the worst event in history,' and declared his intention to decimate Israel, clarifying that 'one [nuclear] bomb is enough to destroy all Israel,' and that 'in due time, the Islamic world will have a military nuclear device.'

Unfortunately, it's not just talk. Iran actively supports anti-Israel terror through Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah. And recall that in January 2002, Iran attempted to smuggle 50 tons of ammunition to Palestinians aboard the ship Karin A. Iran's nuclear program is clearly an extension of that aggression.

You see, that is why I asked. I'm still not convinced that they would use a weapon such as this on Israel (especially if there were immediate threat of retaliation from the US), but you cannot ignore that there is an aggressive reason that Iranian political leaders want this weapon.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

You see, that is why I asked. I'm still not convinced that they would use a weapon such as this on Israel (especially if there were immediate threat of retaliation from the US), but you cannot ignore that there is an aggressive reason that Iranian political leaders want this weapon.

Actually, there'd be a more immediate reaction from Israel - they have nukes.

The point is, we don't want nuclear winter over the mideast. In fact, if the UN/US doesn't do something to prevent Iran from continuing to develop these weapons, Israel may indeed take pre-emptive action. And that will probably throw the whole region into even greater turmoil.

So, really, it's better for everyone if Iran isn't a nuclear power.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

1.) Iran can attack us, and, just as importantly, they can attack our allies. Or are you saying it's OK with you if they build nukes and then melt Israel off the map? Because that's exactly what they're building them for.

Launching a pre-emptive war is sketchy by itself. Launching a pre-emptive war because they might attack some other country that is perfectly capable of defending itself is ludicrous. Isreal has and always will do what is best for it's own security, and we should do the same.

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

2.) Are you kidding me?

People in muslim states all over the middle east celebrated when 9/11 happened. They'd love nothing more than to see us all burn.

You still haven't answered the question. What reason do they have to attack us? Even if there was a reason, anything they do to us, we could do to them 100 times over. It's just not a rational move at all. Consider the Soviet Union. With all the proxy wars and such, they had legitimate reason to attack us, and they had about 10000 times more firepower than Iran does, and the economy wasn't as globally linked as it is now, and they didn't attack us.

And I am still waiting for what you meant by it not being that bad over in Iraq.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I don't think the majority of conservatives are unconcerned with the lost of innocent Iraqi civilians. It takes a special kind of monster to truly think that way.

You mean think like this?

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I'm sorry to hear that 6 Americans died. Out of the 118 people that died, the 6 Americans are all that we should be concerned about.

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I've said time and time again the lives I am concerned about is American ones. American soldiers who die are tragedies -- others are acceptable losses.

[ISiddiqui]

That would be the subtle hint in his post... I don't think explaining it further really adds anything .