IF we have enough credibility left that we could get enough other countries to back us up and help, then maybe we could float that boat. There in no way in hell we should "go it alone".
IF we have enough credibility left that we could get enough other countries to back us up and help, then maybe we could float that boat. There in no way in hell we should "go it alone".
fact Iran or another nut job muslim nation is going to get nukes sooner or later. It won't help relations to bomb them now.
My guess is those people know there is nothing we can do to stop it so therefore it's not worth worrying about.
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,379
- 126
I realize you have a particular stand on this issue, but I believe it is somewhat disingenuous to offer such limited options in this poll. It grossly oversimplifies the issue at large, and allows you to make blanket statements about anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint.
I think you can fairly have any number of perspectives on the issue. I do believe that a decent amount of that 35% statistic would expand on their opinion that although the world would be better off withOUT a nuclear-armed Iran, it's far from something that is worth escalating into a global standoff. Particularly when you consider that Pakistan, India, Israel, China, and Russia are already nuclear players in the region, there is a wide swath of M.A.D. in place, and nothing we do one way or the other will help, and US intervention would most likely aggravate rather than alleviate the tensions involved.
I realize that this is just my perspective, shared by many or few, and I do not begrudge you your own opinion. I submit that inferring the people not particularly concerned over the Iranian nuclear program are not all sticking their head in the sand, as the saying goes. They may hold alternative policy suggestions and concerns that preclude additional US or western involvement at large.
My personal opinion has already been clearly stated, I think that all current and future US involvement in the mideast is disastrous and a risk to our national security due to such potentially fatal economic ties. The real military threats only add to my wishes for total energy and economic distancing from that insane part of the globe. It has already been well said that developing alternative energy is far from impossible by our great nation, it just takes the right committment and overcoming of obstacles.
I further submit that if it were the US that developed a truly revolutionary new energy and energy distribution network, that it would be just the ticket to a sound and prosperous 21st century. No more cutthroat confrontations on oil reserves, and petty tyrants like Chavaz and the Opec gang would no longer have even the tiniest influence on the US political and social playing field. As it is, we are serfs to them, and the big oil/energy corporations who thrive on conflict and destruction much more than any rational and moral citizen should accept.
There is no military solution, but I believe that a total economic revolution could forever free the west from the chains that tie it to that bloody sandbox.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
Short of an all-out war, there is no way of preventing Iran from obtaining the weapons, if they trully wish to do so. And by starting an all-out war with Iran, we only become that which we fear in the first place, and, we start only that which we initially desired to prevent.
I will call you right, but that doesn't mean we can prevent them. Our best bet is to try and make them less dangourus.
Where is the "Yes, we can bomb them, but no ground troops, and we also have to withdraw from Iraq first" option?
I don't see how conservatives are saying Dems withdrawing would destabilize Iraq when attacking Iran would do practically the same thing.
It's better to withdraw while we can to shield our troops from Iranian retaliation.
Resulting to force while we're still in Iraq is really a stupid thing IMO
Anyway, I picked the middle option. I don't think anything will happen
If the worlds more "questionable" regimes learned anything in the last 10 years it is that complying with diplomatic agreements and disarming will get you destroyed (and worse), whereas sticking to your guns will only result in many empty threats.
With regards to Israel...
Israel's PM Ehud Olmert doesn't have the balls to do it.
If only Sharon or Netanyahu were in power...
I don't see how conservatives are saying Dems withdrawing would destabilize Iraq when attacking Iran would do practically the same thing.
It's better to withdraw while we can to shield our troops from Iranian retaliation.
Resulting to force while we're still in Iraq is really a stupid thing IMO
Anyway, I picked the middle option. I don't think anything will happen
If the worlds more "questionable" regimes learned anything in the last 10 years it is that complying with diplomatic agreements and disarming will get you destroyed (and worse), whereas sticking to your guns will only result in many empty threats.
With regards to Israel...
Israel's PM Ehud Olmert doesn't have the balls to do it.
If only Sharon or Netanyahu were in power...
I dont know much about Israel politics, but I always assumed the new PM had some serious balls.
He did invade Lebanon and decided to invade Gaza.
ZzZGuy
Golden Member
- Nov 15, 2006
- 1,855
- 0
- 0
Short answer- Yes, and it's a bad thing
Long answer:
Iran seems to be putting a plan into place to boost their economy by consuming less oil and thus selling more(very basic view) as well as having something to fall back on when the oil runs out.
Problem is that if they can make (Russia is building their reactors right now) and supplying nuclear power plants then they can make nukes. I would believe they don't intend to make nukes IF they completely opened up their nuclear program to inspectors and went out of their way to show their serious, as well as assurances (perhaps trade deals) that they will not peruse nukes later. They have NOT done this, and have gone out of their way to snub inspections.
This is not another ?Iraq has WMD?s, no we can?t tell you where this info comes from?. They told the world they have a nuclear program, from that program they can make the material needed to fuel a nuclear bomb, it?s not much more of a step to assemble a bomb.
Normally the M.A.D. policy promotes peace, but you need a stable and reasonable government for this to work. India and Pakistan have already come fairly close to a nuclear war, I don?t imagine Iran being much more stable then Pakistan (these guys have recently made deals with the talaban who are operating in their country and have known high level officials living in their capital). I recall the Iranian government in season (I don?t know the proper term) chanting ?Death To America? with a announcement related to their nuclear program, the whole ?wipe Israel off the face of the map? and other such comments and the fact that religion plays a big role in their government which would like nothing more then to see every Israel killed down to the last man, woman and child. So I belive that directly or indirectly they will attempt to attack Israel or the USA - whichever is easier ? with nuclear weapons.
Only if all trading partners with Iran put huge pressure to the point 95% of their exports are cut off (including oil) will they be forced to stop. I however do not believe this will happen between Russia (currently building their nuclear power plants, and supplying ?Defensive? weapons such as some VERY effect SAM?s) and China (which is ?shopping? the world for oil and raw materials).
The other alternative is to launch strikes on their nuclear facilities. If Iran doesn?t stop it?s a given that Israel (read some Israel news) will launch a pre-emptive strike, but they can only target the facilities they ?know about. If the USA joins in (which I think they will), then they will target these facilites harder as well as take out other targets such as military and government.
Since there is no way there will be a ground invasion, it?ll be done mostly with air power and here is 2 problems. 1- Iran has the ?ability? to defend key locations against air attack and if they have been smart about deploying, linking and training people to run these systems then there will be some nasty losses. 2- they have bunkers very similar to what the USSR built in case of nuclear war, they don?t know if bunker busters will touch these targets and last I checked (1 month ago) the USA has still kept the option open to use ?tactical nukes? to take out these targets, kind of ironic.
Finally, Iran could retaliate against any attacks by disrupting oil supplies (such as sending specially trained military units into neighboring countries to sabotage their oil flow, attacking oil tankers) and really start supporting terrorists in Iraq, which could damage the world economy.
My answer: Have a large collation of countries that can crush Iran like a bug and say to the government officials ?you have until xx.xx.xx to stop your nuclear program or you will die?.
Fell free to correct anything I have wrong, and I hope this isn?t too long.
Long answer:
Iran seems to be putting a plan into place to boost their economy by consuming less oil and thus selling more(very basic view) as well as having something to fall back on when the oil runs out.
Problem is that if they can make (Russia is building their reactors right now) and supplying nuclear power plants then they can make nukes. I would believe they don't intend to make nukes IF they completely opened up their nuclear program to inspectors and went out of their way to show their serious, as well as assurances (perhaps trade deals) that they will not peruse nukes later. They have NOT done this, and have gone out of their way to snub inspections.
This is not another ?Iraq has WMD?s, no we can?t tell you where this info comes from?. They told the world they have a nuclear program, from that program they can make the material needed to fuel a nuclear bomb, it?s not much more of a step to assemble a bomb.
Normally the M.A.D. policy promotes peace, but you need a stable and reasonable government for this to work. India and Pakistan have already come fairly close to a nuclear war, I don?t imagine Iran being much more stable then Pakistan (these guys have recently made deals with the talaban who are operating in their country and have known high level officials living in their capital). I recall the Iranian government in season (I don?t know the proper term) chanting ?Death To America? with a announcement related to their nuclear program, the whole ?wipe Israel off the face of the map? and other such comments and the fact that religion plays a big role in their government which would like nothing more then to see every Israel killed down to the last man, woman and child. So I belive that directly or indirectly they will attempt to attack Israel or the USA - whichever is easier ? with nuclear weapons.
Only if all trading partners with Iran put huge pressure to the point 95% of their exports are cut off (including oil) will they be forced to stop. I however do not believe this will happen between Russia (currently building their nuclear power plants, and supplying ?Defensive? weapons such as some VERY effect SAM?s) and China (which is ?shopping? the world for oil and raw materials).
The other alternative is to launch strikes on their nuclear facilities. If Iran doesn?t stop it?s a given that Israel (read some Israel news) will launch a pre-emptive strike, but they can only target the facilities they ?know about. If the USA joins in (which I think they will), then they will target these facilites harder as well as take out other targets such as military and government.
Since there is no way there will be a ground invasion, it?ll be done mostly with air power and here is 2 problems. 1- Iran has the ?ability? to defend key locations against air attack and if they have been smart about deploying, linking and training people to run these systems then there will be some nasty losses. 2- they have bunkers very similar to what the USSR built in case of nuclear war, they don?t know if bunker busters will touch these targets and last I checked (1 month ago) the USA has still kept the option open to use ?tactical nukes? to take out these targets, kind of ironic.
Finally, Iran could retaliate against any attacks by disrupting oil supplies (such as sending specially trained military units into neighboring countries to sabotage their oil flow, attacking oil tankers) and really start supporting terrorists in Iraq, which could damage the world economy.
My answer: Have a large collation of countries that can crush Iran like a bug and say to the government officials ?you have until xx.xx.xx to stop your nuclear program or you will die?.
Fell free to correct anything I have wrong, and I hope this isn?t too long.
I believe he has "less" balls than both Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu.
Especially when you have a Labor minister with absolutely no military experience running the Israeli Defense Ministry.
ericlp
Diamond Member
- Dec 24, 2000
- 6,139
- 236
- 106
Don't really care if Iran has a nuke. NK has one... Anyone care?
Uh, don't care about isreal if Iran did nuke them off the face of the map, I could care less. We are spending enough money and time in Iraq, why should we spend more? It's not our problem.
If Iran was stupid enough to fire off nukes at it's neighbor, then I think the "WORLD" UN should care ... Why should it always be the USA to do something, no one else cares so why should we?
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 36,503
- 10,775
- 136
All infidels should care about their desire to exterminate every human being that does not subscribe to their fanatics. Religious zealots with nuclear weapons are everybody?s problem.
As for Israel, you presume they would stop with and be content with a second holocaust. That would be to presume their chants of ?death to America? are as false a promise as their constant badgering about death to Israel.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3328416,00.html
Just one example. So if they indeed take out Israel, as they have sworn to do, what fantasy are you living that determines their oath to kill us would not be fulfilled next? Islamic Jihad is a global problem because they will not be content until they?ve converted or killed the globe. Unless you manage to find a different planet, this war will reach your home no matter where you hide. Nuclear fallout from a nuclear war would also easily find you, if we allow this to progress so far.
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,379
- 126
This is sheer lunacy. From Mossad and other sources, Israel's nuclear arsenal is aligned as such to leave that entire section of the planet a smoldering field of ash. There would be no Iran (or any other Islamic nation) left to concern with.
Militant islam accounts for a startlingly small portion of the muslim population. The vast majority care only about their work and their family, and do not support Islamic imperialism any more than they do Western imperialism. Remember how Saladin treated the captured Christians of Jerusalem. You have been endlessly worked up into a frothy fear by the right-wing for so long, you've forgotten that militant Islam has accounted for only the tiniest fraction of violent deaths worldwide over the past century.
The solution is an economic one, and it DOES concern with national security. We need to sever all ties with such an inarguably unstable portion of the globe.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter