Discussions
For Or Against An Attack On Iran?
Posted by xtremer • 7/21/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: attack, defence, iran, Israel, nuclear, raid, us, war
Israel may attack Iran with US backing, to completely destroy their nuclear facilities. Remember US attacking Iraq on the pretext of WMDs? And later nothing was found.
Do you support such an air raid? Or only negotiations and sanctions can work out, just as they did, as in case of North Korea?
User Comments
-
Didn’t this happen a year ago already?-
No, that was an attack on the nuclear facility in Syria. -
Thanks
-
-
We're negotiating with them right now; why would we attack them?-
It is called stalling, and it is done in order to buy just enough time until it will be too late since they will have a nuclear bomb.
-
-
the US isn't, Israel is preparing for an attack....in fact they carried out the necessary exercises as well..
oops, I forgot, if talks fail, they'll attack...and now Iran has flatly refused to stop uranium enrichment...-
Yes, the press claims Israeli pilots are already training for this mission.
-
-
I don’t know if I support the airstrike. My question would be how much of a threat does Iran pose on Israel and is that threat worth many years of continued hate and hostility.
-
Well, currently Iran is a great source of hate and hostility (it stands behind the extremists in Syria and Lebanon like Hizbullah).
-
I know. But an air strike won't help curb that hate any.
-
I don't have a problem knowing I'm hated there.
I do have a problem with 20 kilotons over here.
-
-
We should rather stop global warming-
That too.
-
So it's settled... turn Iran into a giant parking lot, before they set off nukes and create global warming. 8^)
Okay, Okay. In all seriousness, I think I would support ISRAEL doing the work regarding Iran, but not subjecting our own forces to it. It's been pretty well established I think everyone here will agree, that Iran is really no fan of Israel. Something about "driving them (Israel) into the sea.." was spouted a few times by Ahmadinejad? So Israel should have the legal right to defend themselves against obvious agression.
As for US support, I think we should remain, for now at least, as just that, "support." All the bullets, bombs, bandages, etc Israel needs to protect themselves.
In the area of "Hate," I don't think the US backing Israel would change anything, in America's standing amongst the world. A considerable portion of it already hates us as it is. Isn't it Iran that declared us the Great Satan? So is there really any loss here?
It might actually help our economy a bit as well. From what I remember reading a looooong while back, Iran is the biggest counterfeiter of US $100 bills. Maybe we could have Israel do one extra strike and hit those intaglio-presses cranking those bills out? Here's a more recent article mentioning the Iranian/Intaglio issue;
tinyurl.com/6n2nwk
In summation, I won't be broken hearted if Israel starts knocking on Iran's doors, just don't involve the US directly (militarily) unless it becomes absolutely necessary. And judging by Israel's abilities, I don't believe it would even become necessary.
-
-
We should eat, drink, laugh, dance, work, build, create and love one another. If we don't then Mother Ship Earth will kick us off. I believe she is getting fed up with all of the hate, greed, jealousy and war. Aren't you?-
But those people that live in Israel still have to live with the threat.
-
Mother Ship Earth can care less what we do. This big ball of dirt will keep spinning. Ignoring the problem and having a party won't make it go away. -
Yes, I agree, we should eat, drink, laugh, dance, work, build, create and love one another.
And stop Iran. -
I just loathe all of the affliction and non-sensical fighting. I am weary of the sadness.
-
-
I would hate to see another war but we cannot tie Isreal's hands.
I think we should not strike, let them build their nuclear power plant, send TONS of spies.
Trust but verify like Mr. Reagan used to say.-
Reagan? You mean the guy who sold arms to the Iranians while supposedly opposing them? Not sure if he's the best person to cite here.
-
-
yeah, I totally agree with latinocool
I wrote a post based on the consequences(I thought it was shameless blog promotion)
wats-ur-opinion.blogspot.com/2008/07/attack-on-iran-what-can-be-aftermath.h...-
Interesting analysis.
p.s. I wouldn't put oil price at the top of the list of concerns.
-
-
If Israel attacks we must stand by them, but I am not sure that is going to happen soon.-
I'm also not sure that is going to happen soon.
p.s. If I'm wrong - you can have my domain...
-
-
Question: For Or Against An Attack On Iran?
Answer: Against
IMO it's long past time for Americans to put down the weapons of war, go home and take care of their own business.-
Agreed, TT!
-
-
i'm always against war... so... Against!
As simple as this!-
It is not always for you to decide...
"Open war is upon you, whether you would risk it or not."
- LOTR
-
-
I agree if a country is hated you have to ask why?
As far as isreal and taiwan and the other places we
want to play hero to.Think about how America does in WAR
The WW2 glory days are over.
America needs to wake up to the fact that they can get their ass kicked.
Do you think 200 million Chinese troops can't come on this soil?
We need to get out of the war business quick.If Israel wants to make the LETHAL mistake then let them suffer the consequences and if we're stupid enough to get involved then more young men and women will die.If I was the President there would be zero dollars going to these countries.
America is like the hangman that slips the noose on his own neck.
I do support the troops 100% and can't wait till their Home
God Bless America-
I do agree with you. The US shouldn't back such a move and completely withdraw all warships from that region. Generally, feuds amongst middle east countries are supposed to be solved amongst themselves, and any intervention by a foreign nation, especially Western, is considered to be illicit.
So let Israel suffer if they opt for a military strike.
-
-
Against.
-
Israel will not let Iran build Nuclear Weapons as its survival is dependent on this...
Hopefully perhaps Obama can convince the Iranians to abandon their Nuclear Weapons Program and their financial support of terrorism...-
Yes; force should be a last resort.
-
-
Israel will not allow the Mullahs to finish what the Nazis could not. Never again will the Jews allow their fate to be in hands of a non-Jew. Cannot blame them much; the track record of the world to protect them is not a great one.
caseybrownmyers.blogspot.com/-
Isn't this the truth?
The current president of Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map, even denouncing the holocaust ever happened. Some say it is not a religious feud, but a land feud, though I believe it clearly is a religious feud. Pray for the peace of Israel.
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/12/ap/world/mainD8LVI2AO0.shtml
Ahmadinejad has used anti-Israeli rhetoric and cast doubt on the Holocaust to rally anti-Western supporters at home and abroad, particularly in Asia and the Middle East. Several times he has referred to the Holocaust as a "myth" used to impose the state of Israel on the Arab world.
A website with loads of info about what is happening in Israel: www.debka.org/article.php?aid=1355
-
-
i hate war. what ever concern with w-a-r. so let together refuse any action lead to war -
I think our problem is that since Korea our wars are quagmires because of who we choose to fight. We should be attacking countries that are easy to defeat like France or Belgium. Throw Luxembourg in there as well.-
Are you referring to the "I’d rather have a German division in front of me than a French division behind me" quote?
-
-
Against. We've already seen what attacking does. -
Against ...there have been too many wars and too much devastation in the region with Afghanistan and Iraq ... Give diplomacy (and peace) a chance! -
Against, I am anti-war. For any reason. More can be accomplished (and SAVED) by peace efforts.-
Again, it is not always for you to decide...
"Open war is upon you, whether you would risk it or not."
- LOTR
-
-
Perhaps a better location for this post would be here www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss
-
In AUGI Forums, moderators have the power to move threads. Don't we have it here?
About the question...
I'm against on any war. For me, war is for the uncivilized and ignorant.
-
-
Well, the two wars we've got going in that region right now sure are going well...why not a third? And if three, why not four? Or five?
-
completely against
veto
no.
it would be making a mockery of the word sovereignty
anyway, succesful negotiations with north korea show that there is no better medicine than communication
kirat92.blogspot.com -
Totally against attack on any nation. -
We bloggers have no real voice on attack or not to attack. I am not happy with the evidence of how Israel backed up by US or US backed up by Israel to attack other countries. -
There is a lot of posturing on the part of the United States government position on Iran. We attacked both of their enemies Afghanistan and Iraq effectively leaving them unchecked for many years. I would not be surprised if some of the United States intelligence on Iraq and Afghanistan came from Iran.
Russia is a close ally of Iran and has been arming them for sometime with medium range ballistic missiles.
Things are not so clear right now. The russian medium range ballistic missiles sold to Iran are capable of carrying nuclear missiles. This was years ago.
The majority of what is happening right now is about creating a cold war type situation in the middle east. A combination of permanent bases in Afghanistan and Iraq along with constant posturing against Iran and Syria. In order for this to happen, China and Russia would arm large portions of the middle east with weapons.
A cold war is not the best long term option because of the economics of oil.
I think Iran already has had the bomb for a while, they have had the delivery capability for many years. They are also far more sophisticated technically than Pakistan which already has the bomb.
Not only do I think they have the bomb, they have a medium range ballistic missile capable of delivering it as well.
This is a bit on the Iranian missile program.
www.iranwatch.org/wmd/wmd-iranmissileessay.htm -
Why set off a chain reaction? So far the U.S. is the only Nation who have used the stuff (Nuclear Weapons). When do we learn from our mistakes? -
I think it's the duty of the world to stop Iran from wiping Israel out. I take Ahmenawhat'shisname at his word when he talks of doing so. I hope this can be accomplished in other fashions (diplomacy), but I think it would be disgusting for the world to sit back and allow the Israelis to be massacred just because we "don't like war." It's that same style of thinking that permeated Chamberlain's dealings with Hitler prior to WW2,and we all know how that played out. "Oh, they don't want war - I'll just grab the Sudentenland then!"-
Iran are going to wipe Israel off the map with what? These imaginary nuclear weapons? Are these the same sort of weapons that that naughty Saddam had? There is only one state in the middle east with nuclear weapons and it isn't Iran.
If by some miracle Iran did get nuclear weapons, which I believe by CIA reckoning would be ten years away, do you think he is going to attack another state that is armed to the teeth with them?
The reason the west don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons is that it would shift the power balance and Israel wouldn't be able to play the school yard bully anymore. -
I don't want them to have them because I believe they would use them. It wouldn't be the first time the Arab nations have tried to wipe Israel out. Like I said, I take them at their word.
Sorry, but while I respect your opinion, I totally disagree. -
We will agree to differ my horsey friend.
-
Indeed - you know I loves you though anin.
-
-
@aningeniousname
"...do you think he is going to attack another state that is armed to the teeth with them?"
- I don't know.-
I don't think anyone would willingly destroy their own country, all his Israel rhetoric is just playing to the hardliners within his own country, in my opinion. But I know being closer to this than me you will have a different opinion Uri.
What I think needs to happen is instead of bombing Iran we need to finally sort out the Palestinian situation and then move on from there. All this sabre rattling is just disguising the real problem. -
Solving the Palestinian situation is in Israel's best interest, but don't think for a second that this will end the problems in the Middle East, especially when there are powerful Muslim organizations around that believe in things like "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."
-
But I do think if you can sort that out it gives less fuel for the bigots on both sides. I'm sure ordinary people on both sides are sick to death of the situation. It's a little like the situation we had in Northern Ireland once we managed to get both sides talking it was really the will of the ordinary people that pushed them towards peace.
-
The Northern Ireland example is a child's play in comparison to the mess we have here in the Middle East...
-
Yeah It's not going to be easy, but surely it's worth trying?
-
That's what we're doing for the last decades.
-
-
Israel has over 200 nuclear warheads according to some sources. One bomb won't tip the balance of power. No, they would not necessarily use them.
blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/exclusive_iran_.html They probably have it already, intelligence estimates sent out to the public seem to be always far behind.
It is an undeclared cold war with people spouting like talking heads.
Ahminedajid won't be in power forever. People don't realize the iranians elected him. This is what happens when you have elections in the region. He is not doing a good job economically, most strong men do a terrible job with economics.
A policy of containment, sanctions, and diplomacy is probably the best long term option.
Threatening Iran is not the same thing as carrying out an attack. Threats are threats.-
I do hold out hope that the moderates in Iran will reclaim power. There's a documentary I saw on the IFC (independant film channel - it's like 550 on Directv here in the US) that showed the youth in Iran demanding better relations with the West and the rest of the world. I think there's a chance, and we must always hold out hope. The options discussed here should only be a last measure, but they can't be removed from the table altogether.
An interesting player in this whole situation is Russia - who historically has favored putting buffers such as states like Iran in between them and what they see as foriegn influence. They've been hardline opposed to any interference with Iran's nuclear program and it's not unreasonable to think they've provided assistance in some capacity. -
I think it has been a combination of the French and the Russians helping to build Iran's power stations.
Both countries have multi million dollar investments in Iran I believe.
-
-
There's another option. If Iran went nuclear, Israel could simply admit that it is nuclear and we could have a new Cold War in the Middle East complete with the threat of mutually assured destruction. Whoopie!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVPduOOODzo-
God I love that film.
-
@Mark,
What's Israel's interest in admitting this? -
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the premise of M.A.D rested on a bizarre kind of openness. Of course, the logic of "coming out" could stray from the Cold War insanity and lead up a different path, say compete nuclear disarmament of the region.
Edited to add: I should probably point out that a major difference between the Cold War and any scenario with Iran is that the current president of Iran is a fanatic. The Soviets were at least rational. -
But what if Iran has a doomsday device? You didn't think it through Stoneman.
-
Then we'll dispatch James Earl Jones and Slim Pickens to ensure the commies stop contaminating our precious bodily fluids.
-
Well, nuclear disarmament is one way. This region is currently going the other way.
Everybody knows we have it so the threat is still there, but officially not admitting it can give you some benefits like no U.N. inspections... -
I thought Israel wasn't a signatory to the convention on nonproliferation anyway. Like India.
-
The convention on nonproliferation of what? Officially, it's still a textile factory
-
-
-
yeah!
-
Against. I know it's not my place to say so, but our government will blindly follow america into battle like an adoring lap dog
-
Andy Samberg sings of his true love for Mahmoud: www.alternet.org/blogs/video/64004/
(Got removed from YouTube, unfortunateley.)-
"I could be your Jim Caveizel" LMAO!
-
-
from the responses here, one can make out, most of them are supporting Israel. One can neglect that Israel has a huge arsenal of nukes. By attacking Iran, it'll attract a more enemies. Not only Iran, but also many other Islamic countries may attack Israel. And what about the Jews in the rest of the world? They may also face the wrath of the muslims....
-
That's a legitimate argument Xtremer. It's one that was pondered during our first tour of the gulf during Oper. Desert Storm/Shield. When Saddam was lobbing SCUD's into Israel from Iraq. It is possible that other nations may join in should Israel take the matter into their own hands, as the difference is, during Desert Storm/Shield, the majority of nations were for the most part against Iraq.
But I don't think things will change much for Jews around the world. They are already pretty much taking it in the butt from muslim groups as it is everytime "peace talks" are called for in that region. They agree to peace, then get rocket attacks. They respond. Peace talks. They agree. Receive rocket attacks. It's a never ending cycle really. -
Just wondering how we got from the open secret of Israel having the bomb to a "huge arsenal of nukes"?
-
-
Tisk, tisk.
Getting Israel to do our dirty work.
How is it possible for Israel to manage a successful, full fledged attack on such a powerful country thousands of miles away when they're having trouble in their own back yard?
It will probably end up being our troops under an Israeli banner.
And I'm sure we'll do most of the funding too.
I say, "Yah right."
With what money?
We have a horrible economy and we want to keep starting wars that we will inevitably have to fund from start to finish?
And, with what troops?
We're already managing two unsuccessful wars here.
We can't possibly run a third, even if it was Israel doing the fighting.-
Pesky details.
-
-
Exactly now there is a special program with what-if scenarios concerning Iran on Israeli TV.
-
'Cause there isn't enough else going on to make people feel a bit on edge?
-
-
We should have already leveled Iran. The very first time we found an IED in Iraq with "made in Iran" stamped on it. And then we should have hit them 55 times again every single time one of their piece of sh** IED's killed one of our incredibly brave U.S. Soldiers.
Israel should bomb the piss out of them as soon as they get a chance. If we get into it as well I can only hope that we don't let our own government tie the hands of our soldiers like they have done in Iraq and Afghanistan. If our heros would have been allowed to kick appropriate ass then we would have less dead and injured heros and the WMD's that were not found would not be safely stored in Syria as they currently are, according to an Iraqi general.
Yes, I totally support Israel attacking Iran to protect themselves.-
Disagreed
-
The whole "Made in Iran" IED thing would be a real reach given the way arms respect no borders. By that logic, the US would have a whole lot of enemies because of all the weapons our manufacturers have spread around the world. No, the "made in" label is not enough.
Even assuming the US could manage this in terms of its overreached military capabilities, the assumption about invasions in and of themselves solving problems is problematic. You have to consider Iranian politics, American politics, and international politics too—and the domestic politics of our international partners to the extent that they affect relations with us and the stability of regimes. All I've heard and read in that direction speaks against war, but for a robust diplomatic posture that does not preclude the use of force outright. (Gee, sounds like I might be supporting something like the new Bush administration policy. Strange, huh?)
-
-
Isreal can't have an Arab neighbour with the bomb. Simple as that. They and they alone have the right to protect themselves with nukes. Sound like a double standard? Of course it is. Its all a game, and we are the ones being played. Lies about IED, lies about nukes, lies about lies. How dare a nation thumb their nose at the obvious superiority of our culture/government system (sic) and chose to not bow to our foreign policy. We claim the moral high ground, they are nothing but animals and inferior in the eyes of (our) god. -
You'll notice that every time someone sits down to the table with Iran, there's some rumor that either the US or Israel is about to attack. I think it's a pretty transparent negotiating tactic -- a game of diplomatic good cop/bad cop.
So far, it hasn't been working.-
It's finally made the Bush administration comfortable with the idea of negotiations, so that's something.
-
-
I think that the reason the Bush administration talked to the Iranians again, yes again, is just to prove to people that said it would do some good, that it would certainly do no good and would produce no tangible results. The last meeting proved that Iran is not willing to make any progress toward ending their nuclear program. Basically the only thing that came out of the meeting was a hideous long rambling about Iran's great history. Nothing about ending their nuclear program.
If they can't even stay on topic long enough to have a conversation about the issue at hand then what's the point of talking to them? To them, the "talks" are just stall tactics to kill time while still ratcheting up their nuclear program.-
It might have something to do with the fact that
A) Iran doesn't exist in a bubble, nor would the conflict attacking Iran would cause. Simply leveling a country is a bad, bad idea that puts millions of people at risk.
B) The nuclear facilities in question and in negotiation were the brain, and financial child of Russia, who funded and supplied it - for energy purposes for Iran. The question at hand is that there is suspicion that Iran will use this facility for weapons as well.
C) Israel hasn't been all that agreeable during negotiations with Iran (or anyone, really) and so they need to participate in the give and take for any diplomacy to work.
D) I'll bring back to this, Iran does not exist in a bubble, devoid of allies - rather large allies - with finances at stake in this.
-
-
So they aren't in a bubble and they have friends. Israel isn't in a bubble either. When Iran finally gets their nuke bombs Israel will wish it had a bubble to get into.
They need to be stopped and stopped before the point of no return. The only thing that will deter an airstrike from Israel is for Iran to stop their Nuke program and be very transparent about it. Let everybody see every thing whenever they want to see it. No games like Saddam played with inspectors. IMO (I hope that means in my opinion!)
War sucks. So does being nuked because the war never happened.-
Yes, it should be addressed, but the ramifications of your previous assertion - that is to level Iran because of nuclear proliferation - has far reaching ramifications that I wouldn't even want to ponder.
Aside from war, possible involvement of rather large countries in a more global warfare fashion - death, destruction, and so on - you will have to contend with the legitimization of leveling a country - and everyone in it over nuclear weapons possessions which are possessed by a great deal of other countries as well.
Let's not set that precedent. -
Banjo3,
I agree with you. Iran has been stalling and playing the UN and the rest of the world like fiddle. They are enriching uranium to build a bomb. They have repeatedly stated they will wipe Israel off the face of the earth.
They either stop and provide 100% disclosure of their entire program or we support Israel in blasting their ass back to the stone age.
As bad as that will be, the alternative will be a hell of a lot worse. -
He hasn't actually stated they would wipe Israel off the face of the earth he has said he would like to see Zionism wiped from the map of history, which is a totally different thing.
I believe that is like saying you would like to see Communism wiped from the map of history, I'm sure you can sympathise with that Bob. -
This sounds strangely familiar.
Wasn't that our precedent for attacking Iraq?
"They have WMD!!!"
"They are a danger to the whole world."
"Lets go in and attack!"
"Lets find those WMD before they have a chance to use them."
And then...
Wow...
There were none.
Doo, doo, doo, doo...doo, doo, doo, doo.
Twilight Zone
And if they (Iran) did have WMD, wouldn't that be an excellent reason for them to use them?
Because we invade their country?
Our foreign policy is extremely and detrimentally flawed.
Are we going to go in to this one too without the support of the UN?
By all rights, the UN has all rights to invade us, because we are attacking every potential enemy we see.
By all rights, we should be the ones being invaded.
We are the ones that are a threat to the world.
We have thousands of nukes (along with our friends, who also have many nukes), and we’re worried about a country who hasn’t even perfected the art of making them?
Even if they did perfect the art and started to use them, the whole world would be on them quicker than you can imagine.
Why are we usurping our friends and allies and going to war, virtually solo?
Shouldn’t we have the backing of the whole world before we even make a move?
We keep this up and we’ll have people beating down our own door.
Then…where will all the troops be?
Dead or over seas.
Helpless. -
aningeniousname
If you lived in Israel, would you feel comfortable with IRAN having a nuclear capability?
"Ahmadinejad sparked widespread international condemnation in October when he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map." www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.israel/ -
Dukepor25,
I think this is a lot different than Iraq. Are you saying, you think Iran is not enriching uranium? -
Mistranslation Bob:
www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=72994
Maybe the question should be if you were an Iranian would you be comfortable having a nuclear Israel or a belligerent American administration. -
@Ammobob
"We have thousands of nukes (along with our friends, who also have many nukes), and we’re worried about a country who hasn’t even perfected the art of making them?
Even if they did perfect the art and started to use them, the whole world would be on them quicker than you can imagine."
@aningen
Great perception! -
aningeniousname,
Well since neither America or Israel has threatened to wipe Iran of the map (at least not that I know of), I think I would be comfortable. If I was Iranian, what would scare the hell out of me is President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad making threats to the America and a nuclear Israel. -
Dukepro25,
So you're saying wait until he has used them, and we can "be on them quicker than you can imagine."
By that time, it will not be an issue we'll need to worry about. -
@Ammobob
I'm saying exhaust all non-military efforts in deterring their development, and if incase they happen to use one or two (which they haven‘t even been able to - yet), then we have justification for going in there, and we will have the support of the whole world behind us.
Why would they attack us with a limited supply of nukes, just to enrage the whole world?
That would be suicide!
It’s not logical on their part.
Our rational on the other hand is just insane. -
Bob are we reading the same papers? All I read every day is how "All options are on the table" threat after threat and forgive me if I'm wrong but hasn't it been all over the press about how it will be necessary to use nuclear bunker busters to take out Iran's non existent nuclear weapons(which even the CIA has admitted don't exist) it seems to me all the threats and talk of nuclear attack are coming from one side.
The side who have already proven themselves to be liars, thieves and hypocrites. -
@Ammobob
If we preempt them, we are seen as the aggressors.
Not to mention, we have a heavy record of that already.
If we continue like this, others will have legitimate reason to attack us.
It is possible to resolve issues without force. -
Dukepro25,
6 million dead Israelis are the estimates if he sends one into Tel-Aviv.
"That would be suicide!"
Yes, and your point? We know there are thousands who would strap on a bomb and walk into a crowded bus station or mall. Do you think they fear death? -
aningeniousname,
I'm not say I'm ready to blast them yet. I think all options should still be on the table, as you say.
However, at some point the hugs & kisses end and it is put up or shut up. This is not like Iraq. We know they are enriching uranium. Given the devastating effects that program may provide, we can not afford to get this wrong, this time.
Unless they open up their program to unrestricted access, we will not be able to verify what they are doing until it is to late. -
@Ammobob
Why throw yourself in between two buses that are bound to collide, only to be seen as the aggressor?
Does the Arab world not have a reason to be aggressive towards Israel?
Their land was taken from them and given away.
Wouldn't you be mad too if your land was taken from you and given to some strangers?
If it really is Israel Vs Iran, let them duke it out.
There's no reason to get in the middle.
Say we do succeed.
That Iran was close to perfecting nukes and we disarmed them.
Cost:
Billions in war debt.
Death total?
Thousands of soldiers (Israeli & American) and thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of dead Iranians.
What would that accomplish?
Enemies on all sides.
That's what it would accomplish.
There is no winning in this scenario.
All the Eastern world sees is an encroaching American regime.
Would this scenario not infuriate the Eastern world?
Like I said before - There are other ways to solve world problems other than military action. -
Well Bob I'm glad to hear you admit Iraq was a mistake and there were no weapons of mass destruction hiding with Saddam in his little hole. All I am saying is let's not make this same mistake again. It's all very well arguing the in and outs of geo-political foreign policy, but let's not forget that there are peoples lives at stake here not just Iranian people's but also British and American.
Remember fools rush in where angels fear to tread. -
"Remember fools rush in where angels fear to tread."
True -
Dukepro25,
If there are other options, I hope we can find them. As for your list, there is plenty of blame to go around in the middle east. But, the facts are we are facing a possible nuclear Iran who supports Hezbollah and other terrorist groups.
Iran has made some very targeted threats to Israel and the west. They continue to defy the UN and have for years. At what point do we say enough? -
@Ammobob
Sound questions.
Let us hope we use all available resources before using military action.
Military action can only spell disaster, unless we have the backing of the rest of the world. -
aningeniousname,
There were mistakes in going to war with Iraq. But it is wrong to think he did not have WMDs. He had them, used them on his own people and Iran. We just finished moving the last load of uranium out.
But you're right, we need to make sure we get this right this time. My fear is, if we don't it won't matter much any more.
Good discussion folks, I'm out of here for the night. -
"Ahmadinejad said this, Ahmadinejad said that..."
I'm not sure why anyone gives a damn what Ahmadinejad says. He's the head of Iran in the same way that Mickey Mouse is the head of Disneyland.
-
-
wrong place...
-
The Iranians are a bit different than Saddam. They are supported by France and Russia. It is a very different diplomatic game than Iraq. Russia for whatever reason does not seem to have a problem with them. I think Iran supplies Russia and France with oil.
Also attacking Iran with warplanes aimed at destroying the nuclear facilities would require Israel to fly through Turkish controlled airspace. Touching this off could lead into a combined offensive into the Kurdish autonomous zone by Iran and Turkey. This is where a war would most likely start.
This could touch off a change in the balance of power. A land war with Iran and Turkey would be a mess at best. Kurdistan is the hot button point.-
It's a bit strange to me that the way you connect Kurdish problem with Iran war.
First of all, i'm a turkish guy and you should see that the key country in the region is Turkey.
I can say there's no such Kurdistan or Kurdistan autonomous zone and there absolutely won't be such zone and can't be forever. Because terrorist PKK has killed more than 10 thousand innocent people in 25 years in the region claiming that they are the rebelians of free Kurdistan? Free kurdistan is a lie. There are so many kurdish people who live in turkey happily and they can even have a chance to build their own civilization inside the borders of Iraq now.
But if Iraq or some part of Iraq will be named as Kurdish zone or Kurdish country, Turkey will regard it as a defeat against PKK. And it will be immediately destroyed by turkish army.
Secondly i believe that there's a connection between Iran problem and Kurdish problem and the other middle-eastern problems. Because the situation in middle east is a complicated chain of problems right now. The turkish people recently has turned anti-US and anti-EU bcs they think that PKK is supported by some of european nations or US. Besides If Iran has the nuclear weapons, that also disturbs turkish people but it's not the priority subject in turkey. The main priority is PKK problem. Solve that problem first. And then solve Iraq problem. and then the one other problem..
If you want to solve the problems in the middle east, you should solve the rings of that chain of problems day by day like that.
-
-
wehireu,
Not sure I follow your Turkish controlled air space. Why would they have to fly so far North?
Syria and Jordan would be the problem, but I would suspect they would fly through those tow low and fast with jammers, then refuel over Iraq and on towards the targets.-
They can't refuel in Iraq as they don't any bases over there. Also, the US has refused any military support...
-
Israel has surface to surface missile capability. If they are bothered by a no-fly zone then they could do an unmanned strike.
-
-
hell no!
hb~ -
Israel has special forces. They can do the job to take down the buildings without making a war. Otherwise, hell no.
Too many ways to make a war that escalates and it does not serve enough of a purpose. Make their oil radioactive and we can't use it, right?
This is for oil, I suppose. Maybe we can invade Russia, they have oil and almost no military. They have loads of nukes and are probably selling them off (attacking Iran is based on suppositions). Oh, the Russian people are not muzlim, why would we attack them?
How about we support Iranian people outside the country that want to overthrow the country? -
I am against all forms of unjustified warfare.
-
Against loose and irresponsible talk about starting wars of any kind.
[edited to add: Any Americans here aware that they are helping to shape the country's image in the world? And that loose talk undermines our cultural influence, our soft power, to the extent that we have any left?]-
I'm a representative of my country now?
The US is screwed. -
Quite the opposite, although the anti-religion stuff could be problematic.
(edit: but no worse than much Christian stuff I've seen.) -
I'm not anti-religion to the extent that some theists take my statements. I'm anti-organized religion, and I'm not a big fan of treating ideas based entirely on faith as though they are strong, logical arguments. I like to challenge people to prove me wrong, and equally to see their own wrongs. Other times, I just feel like being an asshole.
(edit: Alright then.)
-
-
I find this question offensive. nobody should be attacking anybody. That is common sense I learned in nursery school. What if the question were, "Should Iran attack Israel, or should Canada attack Africa?" The answer is all the same, No No and No. -
no for war. the simple answer. what is the use of bloodshed and teach others too that. -
No one should attack anyone ever.
Honestly. -
Duke is right. This beginning to sound like a bad episode of the twilight zone. Where things just repeat themselves.
"Lets find those WMD before they have a chance to use them.
And then...
Wow...
There were none.
Doo, doo, doo, doo...doo, doo, doo, doo.
Twilight Zone" -
perhaps, it's time, we search the US for WMDs(Everyone knows they have it)
The US was the first and the only country to use nukes, remember? -
I'm sick of the NeoCon warmongers in power for the last 8 years that have cost us billions (perhaps trillions) of dollars and thousands of American and Iraqi lives with an unjust war. We don't need another war.
Vote for Barack Obama so we can have a president who prefers diplomacy over war. -
-
I would be for an attack on Iraq but only if congress did the attacking. Give Nancy Pelosi and team M-16s and let them invade. This should be non-partisan and both republicans and democrats should go.-
We're already fighting a war in Iraq, and have been for 5 years.
-
meant Iran
-
Yeah, that's what I figured. Common mistake.
-
-
McCain was caught singing Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Let's Bomb Iran. Now to me that is just plain stupid. It isn't a ditty. It's serious. If we attack Iran does anyone think the Middle East won't explode. It's volatile now, but I see an explosion coming.
-
Against.
-
Definitely against. Both Israel and US with other countries should still try to find the current solution of Iranian nuclear program through talk and negotiation first as in case of North Korea. -
From a Brit point of view on this side of the pond hasn't the US got it's hands rather full at the moment war wise just now? Wehireu makes a valid point too - Iran is a lot different than Iraq, not to mention Afghanistan and they are already flushing both UK & US resources, cash plus lives down the same horrible cesspit.
If the Iraq scenario had been handled better then perhaps squaring up to Iran may have been an option - but now? -
Barack Obama on war and peace www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_War_+_Peace.htm
Obama was opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning stating that it was politically risk and cautioned that America should seek to repair its relations with the rest of the world after failing to complete the Afghanistan excursion. The Iraq war, he says, should be rapidly ended.
He has proposed to sit down with Iran and other nations that President Bush termed the “axis of evil”—North Korea and Iraq—to seek a peaceful and amicable solution to threats to world security. www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/news/Obama_on_the_brink_of_making_history_...
The McCain campaign's message of war
Experts agree the next US president should negotiate with Iran – but it's not a move John McCain would be willing to make
Iran's nuclear programme has returned to the forefront of the US presidential campaign as John McCain tries desperately to scare voters in Florida and Pennsylvania from choosing Barack Obama. The Democratic candidate would, he says, negotiate with Iran over its nuclear programme.
The Bush administration has saddled the next president with a bankrupt strategy and a crisis rapidly spinning out of control. Remarkably, there is widespread agreement among foreign policy experts of both parties that changing course and negotiating with Iran early in the next administration is essential to prevent a conflict that could engulf the entire Middle East.
The barrage of slime from McCain hides the fact that he has no strategy to resolve the standoff and prevent the coming military confrontation. A vote for John McCain is literally a vote for war with Iran.
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/03/uselections2008-usforeignpolic...
see also www.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/opinion/03mon4.html-
I agree with the premise that voting for McCain is voting for war! Now their talking about possibly having three fronts instead of one or two. Who was that who thought they could rape their economy while fighting several fronts? Oh yea!! Hitler! As our economy dwindles, so will we if we don't take heed of the pass transgressions of history. By the way...the U.S.S.R CLOSED DOWN due to an economy that fed a cold-war machine.
-
-
AGAINST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -
Against!! There is no justification to declare a war yet.
To be such a religious country we sure do love war! It seems like the two go hand in hand...religion and war. -
Wouldn't be so sure Nomad7 - the Russian economy is powering ahead now by the looks of things, and they're enjoying trying to assert their strength again it seems. Look what's just happened in Georgia. Methinks that a second Cold War is very much on the cards...
-
Nomad referred to the USSR, which was a distinctly different political entity from Russia.
-
-
USA and UN should be more careful to develop a peaceful life in this world. More destructions were created after they back Israel.
-
I don't want World War 3...so i'm against an attack; better try sanctions! -
why can't Man live in peace? Why why? -
only those person should be punish, those who are involved.
why to punish them who are not. kids, mothers, sisters and brothers. y y they are being punished in any way. -
diplomacy and understanding, all countries have a right to power their lights and heat there homes..... look more deeper than a propaganda agenda to make you hate through ignorance.
-
This is a translation of an excerpt from an interview in the book "Irak, la faute" (Iraq, a mistake)with retired General Pierre-Marie Gallois, father of the French nuclear programme and heralded geopolitician.
"As long as you don’t put a country in a state of spasm, the non utilization of nuclear weapons imposes itself. This rivalry between NATO and the Warsaw Pact lasted for forty years, and never – this is something that is little know – never has peace been so well assured. At the time of the Cuban crisis, many thought, including the governments, that we were on the brink of a nuclear conflict. This is perfectly absurd. When there is a tension between two nuclear powers, it is precisely the moment when its non utilization is the most evident, for on both sides all precautions are taken; the submarines are out at sea, missiles are in launch mode, all the radar personnel are in full alert, and this it is the moment when there is zero chance of destroying preventively the armament of the adversary. It is a paradox, but that’s the way it is. The use of nuclear power is conceivable only against a country in a state of anarchy where another country manages to destroy the nuclear arsenal by surprise and preventively, to be assured that it will not befall it. In practice, these circumstances never occur. Fifty years after the facts, people still haven’t understood this and governments use this to their advantage. For example, the Kennedy administration, at the time of the Cuban missile crisis, understood quite rapidly that a nuclear conflict was inconceivable, but it imagined taking advantage of the situation politically, by making public opinion believe that the conflict would be averted thanks to its talent! All Kennedy’s declarations, and especially those of his brother, confirm this humongous political fraud. To get back to the subject of Iraq, if it came to possess nuclear armament and was face to face with Iran or Israel, the situation would be no different than between Russia and America, between China and Russia between India and Pakistan, etc." -
i'm against all war. i live with the citat: "war born more war" and i stand for it.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
