War with Iran?
Abookamongstthemany
Posts: 8,209
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Also, it's probably not a good idea to have nuclear powered ships, just in case they get destroyed.
1) They are going to put the pressure on Iran, but I don't think they'll actually attack
2) This is still the United States of America and if they make a decision to take out the Nuclear Targets, would they not have to get Congress' approval?
Even with a Republican Majority ( not a guarantee by any shot) , I doubt they'd get the approval, considering how poorly the Iraq War has gone
3) This is still the Unites States of America and any of you silly fools who think we're too overstretched or afraid to take on Iran because they are stronger than Iraq, are fucking fooling yourselves. We would obliterate those nuclear sites or any defense the Iranian military might try to muster up
4) Taking out the sites with strategic hits, while not going for " Regime Change" would avoid any messy-post-war cleanups that we obviously are incapable of handling
5) I'm not trying to make a pro-or-con case here for Military Action, so you libs please refrain from attacking - Just giving some thoughts - Please share yours
Untill their will grows tired
no, a misconception that many people share. congress needs to vote to declare war, but the president can send the military here and there and everywhere without the declaration of war.
from my window to yours
I agree with your point but don't you see that if this is what happens, the shit will REALLY hit the fan in the Islamic world. It would not be in the long term national interest of the United States to hit these sites because the backlash will be severe from not only Iran but every Muslim nation, dwarfing the terrorism and fundamentalism that we are seeing now.
Montreal 2000
Toronto 2003
Montreal 2003
Halifax 2005
Hartford 2006
What Iranians Least Expect
What if Bush publicly offered to open an embassy in Tehran?
By Fareed Zakaria
Newsweek
Oct. 2, 2006 issue - If you think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said some crazy things, none comes close to this: "If the worst came to worst and half of mankind died, the other half would remain while imperialism would be razed to the ground ... " That was Mao Zedong in 1957. If you find the idea of an Iranian nuclear program unsettling, put yourself in the shoes of policymakers in 1964, the year that China tested a nuclear bomb.
At the time, China was probably the most aggressive country in the world. As historian Francis J. Gavin recounts in the winter 2005 issue of International Security, Mao's regime had fought a bloody war against the United States in Korea and almost entered another one over Taiwan. It had attacked India in 1962 and threatened several other Asian countries, like Indonesia. It was supporting North Vietnam and the Viet Cong insurgency in the South. It actively aided violent revolutionary groups around the world, including Latin America and the Caribbean. Mao's gruesome callousness toward human life extended to his own people. "Half of China may well have to die," he declared as he launched the Great Leap Forward. (He didn't quite succeed, but for a while the "Guinness Book of World Records" listed him as history's greatest mass murderer, for having caused the deaths of 26.3 million people.) Compared with all this, Iran today looks positively normal.
Of course it is not normal, and Ahmadinejad is not a normal leader. Iran is ruled by a repressive clique that has armed Hizbullah, destabilized Lebanon and Iraq, and defied and deceived international nuclear inspectors. Ahmadinejad has made a series of grotesque comments. But if we convince ourselves that Iran is an existential threat, one that must be stopped immediately and at all costs, we will fail. If we turn this into a game of chicken, we will lose.
Right now, Iran is riding high. Oil revenues are rolling in, amounting to about $55 billion last year. Its neighbors are severely weakened. Iraq is in chaos; Afghanistan and Pakistan are preoccupied with a resurgent Taliban; the Lebanese government is under great strain; the gulf states are scared. Most important, the United States is tied down, its influence and political capital in the region at an all-time low.
Ahmadinejad is using this moment to press his advantage. He has outflanked Arab regimes on the issue of Israel and Palestine, speaking in more confrontational terms than they dare (for fear of Washington). He knows that the Sunni Arab governments don't like him, so he has gone directly to their people. It's working.
Ahmadinejad is also turning Iran's nuclear program into a matter of Third World pride. Taking advantage of the global atmosphere of anti-Americanism, he is claiming that the United States is determined to prevent a developing country from moving ahead technologically. Again, it's working. Fully 118 countries signed onto Iran's cause at the recent nonaligned summit.
Instead of getting scared and spooked, America should view Tehran with a healthy dose of calm and confidence. Iran's fortunes will wane. Oil prices might head downward; Iraq could become less of a burden one way or the other; Arab regimes will get more assertive in responding to the rise of Iranian power. Washington could take the initiative on Lebanon and Palestine, which would vastly improve the political atmosphere.
The administration must also develop a set of creative options short of military strikes—which would only delay, not end, Iran's nuclear program—in case Iran does not agree to stop reprocessing. Other countries will not go along with many of the toughest economic sanctions—and it's not clear they would work anyway. One measure that would sting would be a widespread travel ban on Iran's officials. (That would be the end of the diplomats' conference circuit, not to mention trips to Dubai for money laundering.) Iran is unlikely to agree to become dependent on imported nuclear fuel. The second best alternative might be a permanent inspections system in Iran, ensuring that its civilian program is not weaponized.
Watching Ahmadinejad at a private meeting last week, I was struck by how little he conformed to the picture of a madman. He was smug, even arrogant, sometimes offensive, but always calm and intelligent. If we're going to outsmart him, we need clever, compelling arguments of our own. Instead we have tended to threaten, bully and intimidate. No wonder he's winning the public diplomacy.
One way to change the game is to play to our strengths. Iran's hard-liners don't want good relations with the United States. Iranians have been taught for a generation now that Washington hates them, doesn't want relations with their country and tries to isolate them in the world. What if President Bush publicly offered to open an embassy in Tehran and begin student exchanges with young Iranians? In a country that is yearning for contact with the outside world, it might put the mullahs on the defensive.
In 1964, many people argued for a pre-emptive strike against China. Wiser heads prevailed. But even President John F. Kennedy had worried that from the moment China went nuclear "it would dominate South East Asia." In fact, far from dominating it, China's bomb scared Southeast Asia into a closer association with the United States. Today, Chinese influence in the region is great and growing—but that's because of its economic heft, not its nukes. Iran is ruled by a failed regime that cannot modernize the country and is instead seeking a cheap path to influence. It didn't work for the communists in Russia or China and, if we keep our cool, it won't work for the mullahs in Tehran.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14975333/site/newsweek/
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
www.myspace.com/jensvad
I really don't think that Iran wants to go to war with the US.... Ahmedinejad does a heck of a lot of baiting and posturing, but I don't think that he wants to fight. It's like that annoying kid in school who runs his mouth at the bigger kids to look cool infront of everyone else, but the whole time he is hoping that the big kid doesn't decide to actually hit him.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
The shit hit the fan in the Islamic world a while ago. I am sick of treating it with kid gloves. I want to hit Iran now - hard.
Except that this annoying kid is trying his best to develop nukes, and despite what he's saying, I'd bet anything that he doesn't want energy.
Can you please provide an example of the supposed catalyst for this alledged 'shit hitting the fan in the Islamic world'? Which event do you have in mind exactly?
A) you sound like a terrorist...
Here we go again. If you support war, you have to join the army. Give me a fucking break.
The supposed catalyst? The Quaran. The event? I guess I would say the first H-Bomb (human bomb/suicide bomb). Thanks for the question.
Here we go again. talk big, bad, and tough...do nothing....
Give me a fucking break...
The chickenhawk argument is really tired. Can you comprehend the fallacy of it? Think of it the opposite way - If I say to you that if you don't support what the government is doing, which represents the people of the United States (whether you like it or not), then leave the country, do you think I have a cogent argument? I don't support that view, and you shouldn't support that weak-ass chickenhawk argument. If you want to debate whether hitting Iran is warranted, go right ahead. But stooping that low is pathetic.
Except that I'm beyond draft age. Anyway, I'm not really for full-on war with Iran, at least at this point. Most of the populous isn't behind Ahmadinejad and the mullahs. I am for a strike on its nuclear development facilities.
ha ha ha....you taking the high-road...priceless...
hey, feel free to use the "leave the country" arguement...makes no difference to me...I would contend that I love my country, and my reason for speaking out against actions and policies that would hurt my country is a patriotic thing to do...
on the other hand, if someone advocates war, which will lead to death and destruction, which would not be good for the country, I happen to feel that same person should have the balls to stand up for that....
you said
I was mearly pointing out ways in which you could make your toughtalk a reality...
You don't think I take the high road because you disagree with my politics. If I were to say, for instance, "FUCK BUSH!! THAT FUCKING LIAR," you would say I was taking the high road.
The chickenhawk argument is a little tired, but it is still relevent in the fact that those in power that seem to push the hardest for war, avoided it at all costs when they had the chance, or even the obligation to go.
As far as you comparison about leaving the country, that is not a good argument in comparison. If you don't like how something is going, then just leave? why not try to change things?
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I'd say, "quit yelling, everybody already knows this"...
hey, how about the rest of my post...?
What about it? I didn't see anything of substance to respond to. Seriously.
But I'm not those in power. I am a citizen of the US and I have certain views on foreign policy.
I don't like that argument either. That's why I brought it up. I have never said those who oppose what the government is doing should leave the country. I would like the same respect when I argue in support of war. Saying that if I didn't join the army then I should shut up is not a good counter-argument. Explaining or demonstrating why a war isn't warranted is.
I disagree. Remember when Israel hit Saddam's reactor in the 80's?
ha ha ha...."didn't see" or "that post was so good I couldn't argue against it"...
I say the latter...
www.amnesty.org.uk
So are you saying that Iraq wasn't hit hard? I don't understand your point. The present Iraq situation has nothing to do with how hard the U.S hit them. The reason Iraq is in such a mess is because the Bush Administration knew nothing about Iraqi politics and religion. The trouble with a lot of Americans is that they think sheer brute force is the answer to everything. They should have learnt theirn lesson in Vietnam. Unfortunately the U.S media machine does a fantastic job of keeping the public misinformed and war hungry.
And I don't really think we hit Iraq hard. Maybe with bombs, but not with troops. There is no substitute for boots on the ground - and that's pretty much what I mean by full-on war.