So, this Iran shit, are we gonna get it on or what?

hailhailkc

Thoughts? I'm kinda bored with the train lately...so I thought I would start a war thread. Always good debate. A lot of talk about our Special Forces already being in Iran, I wouldn't doubt it.

Anyone here agree with attacking Iran?

bharQ

wtf

bovy_j

You're a sick fuck.

hailhailkc

bovy_j wrote:

You're a sick fuck.

I never said I agreed with attacking Iran, I asked if anyone else here did. I simply asked if we were gonna get it on or not...just wondering what you thought.

RockinInCanada

No.

Ahnimus

hailhailkc wrote:

Thoughts? I'm kinda bored with the train lately...so I thought I would start a war thread. Always good debate. A lot of talk about our Special Forces already being in Iran, I wouldn't doubt it.

Anyone here agree with attacking Iran?

I think the world needs to establish a greater communication with Iran. That includes the United States. We need to know exactly what their ambissions are. Is there a particular reason why Iran cannot have Nuclear Power? Iranians can be very rational people when given the opportunity. The issue needs to be diffused, it needs diplomatic efforts that have never really been exercised.

That's just my opinion.

Abookamongstthemany

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

No.

2nd

El_Kabong

hailhailkc wrote:

Anyone here agree with attacking Iran?

Barack Obama does!



"The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Obama asked.

Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-0409250111sep25,1,6128171.story?coll=chi-elections-utl&ctrack=1&cset=true

searchlightsoul

El_Kabong wrote:

Barack Obama does!



"The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Obama asked.

Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-0409250111sep25,1,6128171.story?coll=chi-elections-utl&ctrack=1&cset=true

Yeah good idea America, kick yourself in the balls a second time. Make more friends in the Arab world with air strikes- they have achieved so much in Iraq. WTF is wrong with your mindset that you love war so much?

OutOfBreath

Attacking Iran would probably be even worse than the Iraq-hole you're already in. I would certainly hope an attack won't happen, both for the Iranians themselves and the region in general. But will it happen? It's certainly possible, given the time and efforts to demonize the country. Such efforts are usually prelude to war, in order to build some public support. And you wont get that unless the enemy is pure evil incarnate. Which it really never is.

Peace
Dan

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Under the ideology of current government it is obviously inevitable. However I'm living close enough to the US catch some fallout from the nukes that will also inevitably fly onto US soil. So I think it's probably less than a good idea to start pissing off all the crazies and religious nutters in the middle east.

jlew24asu

Ahnimus wrote:

I think the world needs to establish a greater communication with Iran. That includes the United States.

I agree, this is always better then war

Ahnimus wrote:

We need to know exactly what their ambissions are.

hard to know for sure because they lie

Ahnimus wrote:

Is there a particular reason why Iran cannot have Nuclear Power?

because they openly hate and call for the destruction of Israel and also openly hate america. daily chanting "Death to America" during every prayer session. how's that?

Ahnimus wrote:

Iranians can be very rational people when given the opportunity.

Iranians sure. but not the government or the ones who have their finger on the trigger of a nuke.

Ahnimus wrote:

The issue needs to be diffused, it needs diplomatic efforts that have never really been exercised.

worth a shot

down_ski

Ahnimus wrote:

I think the world needs to establish a greater communication with Iran. That includes the United States. We need to know exactly what their ambissions are. Is there a particular reason why Iran cannot have Nuclear Power? Iranians can be very rational people when given the opportunity. The issue needs to be diffused, it needs diplomatic efforts that have never really been exercised.

That's just my opinion.

Hey, make sure and get back to us after Iran wipes Israel off the map, let us know how you feel then. Thanks

PJ_Saluki

hailhailkc wrote:

I never said I agreed with attacking Iran, I asked if anyone else here did. I simply asked if we were gonna get it on or not...just wondering what you thought.

So what do you think? You started this thread.

I'm against it because we don't have the number of troops or national resolve to pick another fight in this fucked up region of the world. It would be another essentially unilateral strike only we'd have less of a "coalition of the willing" than we did before. I just wan to get through the next couple of years with W. without having to worry about starting another war.

deadmosquito

down_ski wrote:

Hey, make sure and get back to us after Iran wipes Israel off the map, let us know how you feel then. Thanks

why should israel have nukes and not iran? what makes israel so special?

Bu2

If you look up every politician today and see what they have to say about Iran, they pretty much say the same thing. I wouldn't put that all on Obama.

And no, no one wants a war with Iran. We want to talk with them. Big difference.

Abookamongstthemany

Bu2 wrote:

If you look up every politician today and see what they have to say about Iran, they pretty much say the same thing. I wouldn't put that all on Obama.

And no, no one wants a war with Iran. We want to talk with them. Big difference.

Missle strikes aren't talking. And not all of the candidates are talking about missle strikes as a possible option.

present address

deadmosquito wrote:

why should israel have nukes and not iran? what makes israel so special?

israel is not special they are sitting with their back to the sea and would be pushed off into if most arab muslims had there way.... the whole region is a giant balancing act... them having a bomb gives them the ace they need...

Abookamongstthemany

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0227-28.htm

Bu2

http://www.dscc.org/news/latest/20060119_hillary/

Edit, adding an article about Romney (see last paragraphs):

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/02/363645.html

Abookamongstthemany

Ron Paul doesn't mention missle strikes as a possible answer either:

There are some who may not agree strongly with any of my arguments, and instead believe the propaganda: Iran and her President, Mahmoud Almadinjad, are thoroughly irresponsible and have threatened to destroy Israel. So all measures must be taken to prevent Iran from getting nukes-- thus the campaign to intimidate and confront Iran.

First, Iran doesn’t have a nuke and is nowhere close to getting one, according to the CIA. If they did have one, using it would guarantee almost instantaneous annihilation by Israel and the United States. Hysterical fear of Iran is way out of proportion to reality. With a policy of containment, we stood down and won the Cold War against the Soviets and their 30,000 nuclear weapons and missiles. If you’re looking for a real kook with a bomb to worry about, North Korea would be high on the list. Yet we negotiate with Kim Jong Il. Pakistan has nukes and was a close ally of the Taliban up until 9/11. Pakistan was never inspected by the IAEA as to their military capability. Yet we not only talk to her, we provide economic assistance-- though someday Musharraf may well be overthrown and a pro-al Qaeda government put in place. We have been nearly obsessed with talking about regime change in Iran, while ignoring Pakistan and North Korea. It makes no sense and it’s a very costly and dangerous policy.

The conclusion we should derive from this is simple: It’s in our best interest to pursue a foreign policy of non-intervention. A strict interpretation of the Constitution mandates it. The moral imperative of not imposing our will on others, no matter how well intentioned, is a powerful argument for minding our own business. The principle of self-determination should be respected. Strict non-intervention removes the incentives for foreign powers and corporate interests to influence our policies overseas. We can’t afford the cost that intervention requires, whether through higher taxes or inflation. If the moral arguments against intervention don’t suffice for some, the practical arguments should.

Intervention just doesn’t work. It backfires and ultimately hurts American citizens both at home and abroad. Spreading ourselves too thin around the world actually diminishes our national security through a weakened military. As the superpower of the world, a constant interventionist policy is perceived as arrogant, and greatly undermines our ability to use diplomacy in a positive manner.