Possible war with Iran

[moderateamericain]

I had the opportunity to speak with my Brother for about 15 minutes the other day. And he told me that they are drilling and preparing for possible scenarios involving Iran. For those of you who dont know he is currently deployed to Rawaa Iraq at this time.

I fear this more than anything in the world at this moment because Iran is NOT Iraq, I have no doubt of are ability to sweep away Irans military capability, are air superiority is just to great, those new F22 are incredible, but to take and hold Iran i believe would be catastrophic to the economy of the United States. I also believe the loss of American life in such a move would be just too much. I consider myself fiscally conservative, and socially liberal, Unless the Republican party comes up with a much more centrist candidate for president im considering voting democrat in the next election. I know my reasons are selfish, but id rather my brother come home on the train then in a box with a flag drapped over it.

Some parameters for the tread, Please keep your post to your opinions as the title states its an opinion thread, Im not trying to persuade anyone of anything, i just enjoy hearing others opinions on this matter.

Thanks a bunch

[gc1765]

Here are my thoughts on the issue, which I have taken from This thread

Iranians overwhelmingly want democracy, they proved that in 1997 and 2001. After being labelled part of the "axis of evil" and the U.S. invasion of another "axis of evil" partner, you can imagine Iranians are probably not going to want a pro-U.S. government. Instead, they chose a hardliner. This is why talking about war with Iran is such a bad idea, as it just encourages the Iranians to become defensive. When Iranians stop feeling threatened, perhaps they will re-enter the path to reform, and maybe even someday we will see a democratic, pro-western Iran.

[Figleaf]

I still just can't get my head around all this shit about attacking Iran.

For what possible reason? And on what possible grounds? For what imagined objective?

For an administration as badly discredited as this Bush presidency to contemplate in its last few months in office taking the country into an unprovoked, unnecessary war against a major regional power would be a disgraceful act that would live in infamy in future history.

[moderateamericain]

I still just can't get my head around all this shit about attacking Iran.

For what possible reason? And on what possible grounds? For what imagined objective?

For an administration as badly discredited as this Bush presidency to contemplate in its last few months in office taking the country into an unprovoked, unnecessary war against a major regional power would be a disgraceful act that would live in infamy in future history.

Im not so much worried as to the reason for going to war, as it actually happening. Whatever reason is presented to the American people be it valid or false, it still means young men will be dieing. I can honestly say im counting the days till the next election.

[AndrewL]

I think it is tremendously important for Iran to get the bomb in order to deter any interference in their affairs. Only then will the west and Iran be able to have honest negotiations and dealings.

Andrew

[White Doors]

I think it is tremendously important for Iran to get the bomb in order to deter any interference in their affairs. Only then will the west and Iran be able to have honest negotiations and dealings.

Andrew

Way to think LOOONNGG and hard about that one Andrew...

You don't think that they would be giving a mini-one to Hezbollah to sneak into Israel to blow one up at the first opportunity?

Give your head a shake.

[moderateamericain]

I think it is tremendously important for Iran to get the bomb in order to deter any interference in their affairs. Only then will the west and Iran be able to have honest negotiations and dealings.

Andrew

Way to think LOOONNGG and hard about that one Andrew...

You don't think that they would be giving a mini-one to Hezbollah to sneak into Israel to blow one up at the first opportunity?

Give your head a shake.

i also disagree with giving or allowing Iran to develop nuclear technology, imagine that going off in the US or god forbid Canada?!

[Black Dog]

Way to think LOOONNGG and hard about that one Andrew...

You don't think that they would be giving a mini-one to Hezbollah to sneak into Israel to blow one up at the first opportunity?

Give your head a shake.

Uh...why would they? They've just spent billions of dollars, garnered international disapprobation in their efforts to get there and they are just gonna hand it over? Also: if Tel AViv vanished in a mushroom cloud tomorrow, who do you think would go next?

[AndrewL]

I think it is tremendously important for Iran to get the bomb in order to deter any interference in their affairs. Only then will the west and Iran be able to have honest negotiations and dealings.

Andrew

Way to think LOOONNGG and hard about that one Andrew...

You don't think that they would be giving a mini-one to Hezbollah to sneak into Israel to blow one up at the first opportunity?

Give your head a shake.

No, I dont think they would.

First off, if they wanted to give WMD to Hez or Hamas they would have given them some of their chem and bio stockpiles long ago. Iran is not a suicide bomber in the form of a nation state... dont be ridiculous. They have long term goals like anybody else, and those goals include survival.

Second,

Atomic materials leave a signature. any bomb exploded by anybody can be traced to its source using nuclear forensics. Whether Iran or one of their proxies uses a bomb makes no difference, it would be traced to its source anyway. Deterrence still applies as it would anywhere else.

As long as the the current nuclear powers are still maintaining and improving the deadliness of their nuclear arsenals i cannot oppose any other nation from doing the same. Region wide MAD can actually lead to peace...believe it or not.

I support either full and unequivocal nuclear disarmament, or i support proliferation. I do not support the dangerous game of owning nukes and telling others they cant have them. That is a recipe for constant war.

I think the US should actually hep Iran develop a nuclear bomb, then we can get to the business, much quicker, of dealing with more important issues.

Andrew

[guyser]

I still just can't get my head around all this shit about attacking Iran.

For what possible reason? And on what possible grounds? For what imagined objective?

And I will second that !

My good friend is Iranian, and she is adamant that Iranians want no part of war. The citizens are openly hostile to the religious rulers in her home country. They are openly despised. (I know, one person does not cut it but...)

I see no war with Iran unless and until some govt can hoodwink their citizens in believing it to be necessary, and frankly those days are long gone.

Fool me once, shame on you.....Fool me twice and shame on me.

I cannot see this happening .........................again.

[Leafless]

I think it is tremendously important for Iran to get the bomb in order to deter any interference in their affairs. Only then will the west and Iran be able to have honest negotiations and dealings.

And Israel knows this.

Israel knows if Iran goes ahead with the bomb, it creates an existential danger to Israel.

Chances are Israel could unilaterally attack Iran.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/834084.html

[Wilber]

I think the US should actually hep Iran develop a nuclear bomb, then we can get to the business, much quicker, of dealing with more important issues.

Yup, the whole world should have nukes. It would be a much safer place.

[AndrewL]

I think it is tremendously important for Iran to get the bomb in order to deter any interference in their affairs. Only then will the west and Iran be able to have honest negotiations and dealings.

And Israel knows this.

Israel knows if Iran goes ahead with the bomb, it creates an existential danger to Israel.

Chances are Israel could unilaterally attack Iran.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/834084.html

Then so is pakistan. What exactly are we doing about that?

But i disagree, there is no logical reason for iran to nuke israel.

What the US and Israel are afraid of is losing influence to iran in the worlds strategic center, not any 'existential' danger.

Andrew

[AndrewL]

I think the US should actually hep Iran develop a nuclear bomb, then we can get to the business, much quicker, of dealing with more important issues.

Yup, the whole world should have nukes. It would be a much safer place.

Look towards pakistan and india for an example of nations being forced into negotiations, because the alternative is so much worse.

I think that nukes do in some twisted way make things safer, because MAD does apply. Don't get me wrong, i think the world would be safer if nobody had nukes, but the fact is nukes do exist, and the real danger is when one nation, or a few nations, have a monopoly on them.

Andrew

[newbie]

I think the US should actually hep Iran develop a nuclear bomb, then we can get to the business, much quicker, of dealing with more important issues.

Yup, the whole world should have nukes. It would be a much safer place.

Why should the States have ANY say in Iranian affairs? The U.S. is coming off like the bully on the block. It's okay if they have nukes, just not anyone they disagree with. And don't forget the Americans are the only ones who have used them. They have no right in dictating who should develop a nuclear bomb.

[Leafless]

Then so is pakistan. What exactly are we doing about that?

But i disagree, there is no logical reason for iran to nuke israel.

This is all about the clash if civilizations and we should get them before they get us, period.

Iran and Arab countries have it in for Israel and the U.S.

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/irannuclea...4899022807.html

http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?171133

[Canadian Blue]

This is all about the clash if civilizations and we should get them before they get us, period.

Or we could us diplomacy, non-violence, and containment, instead of slipping into world war 3, and decimating million's of people.

Iran and Arab countries have it in for Israel and the U.S.

How would attacking them make it any better for us, I don't think any of Israel's wars with arab countries made it a safer place to live in. I highly doubt a product of a massive war will be safety and security, if anything it'll achieve the exact opposite, and manage to turn the Arab world more radically against us.

[Leafless]

How would attacking them make it any better for us, I don't think any of Israel's wars with arab countries made it a safer place to live in. I highly doubt a product of a massive war will be safety and security, if anything it'll achieve the exact opposite, and manage to turn the Arab world more radically against us.

Terrorism will only continue and Iraq and Afghanistan is a good indication what will be resolved and that is 'very little' relating to the root cause of terrorism and obliterating it.

A major conflict appears inevitable, as Iraq and Arab countries are all playing the same ball and want to dictate their terms against the current political establishment.

It's a no win situation in trying to implement a peaceful solution because, it is obvious they are not looking for one.

[Wilber]

I think the US should actually hep Iran develop a nuclear bomb, then we can get to the business, much quicker, of dealing with more important issues.

Yup, the whole world should have nukes. It would be a much safer place.

Look towards pakistan and india for an example of nations being forced into negotiations, because the alternative is so much worse.

I think that nukes do in some twisted way make things safer, because MAD does apply. Don't get me wrong, i think the world would be safer if nobody had nukes, but the fact is nukes do exist, and the real danger is when one nation, or a few nations, have a monopoly on them.

Andrew

Using that logic the country would be a safer place if we were all walking around armed. MAD on a personal level.

[GostHacked]

It's a no win situation in trying to implement a peaceful solution because, it is obvious they are not looking for one.

I have a problem with this. Iran and Syria are ready for talks in Iraq about the current Middle East situation. Is the US ready to implement a peaceful solution? Remember ALL options (including Military) are on the table. Unless both sides are willing to give a little, then we have progress. Compromise will get you to where you want to be.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/28/...ence/index.html ..posted March 1, 2007

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. officials won't hold direct talks with Iran or Syria at a Baghdad conference next month despite the Bush administration's complaints that those countries are allowing weapons into Iraq, White House spokesman Tony Snow said Wednesday.

So eventhough it seems the US had put forth this proposal, the US does not want to take part in it. Unless Iran suspends uranium enrichment. NORTH KOREA was still enriching uranium while the 'talks' have been going on for the last few years. And now they seem to have found a dialogue and a peaceful solutiuon is in the works. Why do people think this will not work for Iran??

I fucking hate the MSM ...

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/03/talk_to_iran_an.html ...posted March 08, 2007

It's about time. The Bush administration has belatedly agreed to participate in talks beginning this weekend with Iran and Syria on the war in Iraq. Last week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, "Iraq's neighbors... have a clear role to play" in supporting the Iraqi government. Yet earlier this year, she said talking to Iran was "not diplomacy, that's extortion."

http://news.google.ca/news?q=syria+iran+ta...i=news&ct=title

So half the articles show talks will get under way, and some show that the talks wil go without the US, and them some show that there will be no talks at all. WTF is going on here. How can there be soooo much disinformation out there. I understand the two articles I have posted are 6 days apart, but this shows the Bush admin has bigger flip flops than Kerry did.

Anyways, talks would help. But after what the US has done in the Middle East, Iraq's neighbours are seeing through this veil the US has put on. Why would Iran or Syria trust anything the US has to say. Yes this can go both ways, and most of you don't see that as the case.

This is all about the clash if civilizations and we should get them before they get us, period.

Not sure about this. We are all in the same year. We are all in the same civilization. We are all in the same era. We are all contributing to this civilization.

[moderateamericain]

YEAH ABOUT Those nuclear signatures that someone was talking about. What if Putin sells the nukes to Hamas or Hezbollah? Or say Iran develops the technology to enrich them and buys the plutonium from another nation what then?

[Figleaf]

How would attacking them make it any better for us, I don't think any of Israel's wars with arab countries made it a safer place to live in. I highly doubt a product of a massive war will be safety and security, if anything it'll achieve the exact opposite, and manage to turn the Arab world more radically against us.

Terrorism will only continue and Iraq and Afghanistan is a good indication what will be resolved and that is 'very little' relating to the root cause of terrorism and obliterating it.

A major conflict appears inevitable, as Iraq and Arab countries are all playing the same ball and want to dictate their terms against the current political establishment.

It's a no win situation in trying to implement a peaceful solution because, it is obvious they are not looking for one.

? ?

Sorry, but who is not looking for a peaceful solution to what?

The internationally recognized government of Iraq is not at war with any Western states. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Yemen, Tunisia, Morocco, Jordan, Algeria, Egypt, and Lebannon are all peacefully disposed with 'the West'. There is no grand Arab coalition arrayed against the knights of Christ, as your fevered imagination seems to envision.

[Black Dog]

Using that logic the country would be a safer place if we were all walking around armed. MAD on a personal level.

Isn't that the NRA's argument?

[Leafless]

Sorry, but who is not looking for a peaceful solution to what?

The internationally recognized government of Iraq is not at war with any Western states. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Yemen, Tunisia, Morocco, Jordan, Algeria, Egypt, and Lebannon are all peacefully disposed with 'the West'. There is no grand Arab coalition arrayed against the knights of Christ, as your fevered imagination seems to envision.

What exactly do Islamicfacist want?

http://www.americanintelligence.us/index.p...=print&sid=3710

"Who is not looking for a peaceful solution to what?"

[AndrewL]

I think the US should actually hep Iran develop a nuclear bomb, then we can get to the business, much quicker, of dealing with more important issues.

Yup, the whole world should have nukes. It would be a much safer place.

Look towards pakistan and india for an example of nations being forced into negotiations, because the alternative is so much worse.

I think that nukes do in some twisted way make things safer, because MAD does apply. Don't get me wrong, i think the world would be safer if nobody had nukes, but the fact is nukes do exist, and the real danger is when one nation, or a few nations, have a monopoly on them.

Andrew

Using that logic the country would be a safer place if we were all walking around armed. MAD on a personal level.

No, you are wrong. Such analogies comparing the anarchy of of the international system and the law and order of a domestic system are false.

Andrew