Iran... the bomb... preemptive strikes...

[JonathanS]

Before anyone goes on a rant about failed American foreign policy in Iraq or Afghanistan, I'd like to know what the sane people here feel about a tactical preemptive strike by either Israel or the US on Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

Considering the fact that Iran funds much of the global terrorist network, wouldn't it be safe to assume that at some point, if they enrich uranium to weapon's grade levels, that a dirty nuke or something of that nature might "make its way" into the hands of a terrorist organization?

Remember, this most likely would not be an invasion but a series of air strikes.

For or against?

 

[fagin]

Why not get Tonga to do it. No one would suspect them, so they could sneak up undetected.

 

[Crossbow]

Before anyone goes on a rant about failed American foreign policy in Iraq or Afghanistan, I'd like to know what the sane people here feel about a tactical preemptive strike by either Israel or the US on Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

Considering the fact that Iran funds much of the global terrorist network, wouldn't it be safe to assume that at some point, if they enrich uranium to weapon's grade levels, that a dirty nuke or something of that nature might "make its way" into the hands of a terrorist organization?

Remember, this most likely would not be an invasion but a series of air strikes.

For or against?

Against!

 

[arthwollipot]

What??? Against! Are you freaking crazy???

 

[Mister Earl]

A darned lot of the Iranians don't like the ruling powers. Remember Neda? I think we just need to wait them out. The people over there will deal with them somehow, I think. Remember, of all the middle east countries, Iran is easily the most westernized. I wish I had a couple of pictures of that place from the seventies! (Wasn't there, just saw some. Couldn't tell it wasn't Iran and not say, California)

 

[C_Felix]

A darned lot of the Iranians don't like the ruling powers. Remember Neda? I think we just need to wait them out. The people over there will deal with them somehow, I think. Remember, of all the middle east countries, Iran is easily the most westernized. I wish I had a couple of pictures of that place from the seventies! (Wasn't there, just saw some. Couldn't tell it wasn't Iran and not say, California)

Its almost like Cuba.

I think the best to break Cuba (or to have broken Cuba, if any of the Presidents would've done this) and the same with Iran, is to whip a little Americanism on them.
Give 'em McDonalds.
Give 'em Nike.

Let tourists go there (esp to Cuba)

Let them debauch themselves.
That'll break 'em!

 

[Aitch]

Let tourists go there (esp to Cuba)

They do. Apart from Americans.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Before anyone goes on a rant about failed American foreign policy in Iraq or Afghanistan, I'd like to know what the sane people here feel about a tactical preemptive strike by either Israel or the US on Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

Considering the fact that Iran funds much of the global terrorist network, wouldn't it be safe to assume that at some point, if they enrich uranium to weapon's grade levels, that a dirty nuke or something of that nature might "make its way" into the hands of a terrorist organization?

Remember, this most likely would not be an invasion but a series of air strikes.

For or against?

Considering that the US has invaded Iran's neighbour to replace a government they didn't like which they accused of developing weapons they themselves have in abundance, do you feel Iran would be allowed a preemptive strike at US military bases in the US or Iraq?
If no, then why would the other way around suddenly be a rational thing to do?
The US and israel have (and probably still are) funding their share of terrorists/partisans, but as far as I can see the current iranian government has never actually invaded any of its neighbours nor even seriously made preparations to that end.
They talk big and agressive , but their history so far is actually less agressive than most other middle eastern countries.

I'd be against, but maybe you feel any nation that feels threatened by another should send in airstrikes.

 

[DC]

Before anyone goes on a rant about failed American foreign policy in Iraq or Afghanistan, I'd like to know what the sane people here feel about a tactical preemptive strike by either Israel or the US on Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

Considering the fact that Iran funds much of the global terrorist network, wouldn't it be safe to assume that at some point, if they enrich uranium to weapon's grade levels, that a dirty nuke or something of that nature might "make its way" into the hands of a terrorist organization?

Remember, this most likely would not be an invasion but a series of air strikes.

For or against?

against

 

[Virus]

For it.

Considering that the US has invaded Iran's neighbour to replace a government they didn't like which they accused of developing weapons they themselves have in abundance, do you feel Iran would be allowed a preemptive strike at US military bases in the US or Iraq? l any nation that feels threatened by another should send in airstrikes.

No.

If no, then why would the other way around suddenly be a rational thing to do?

Because Iran is a mad, clerical fascist state.

The US and israel have (and probably still are) funding their share of terrorists/partisans,

Bulldust.

but as far as I can see the current iranian government has never actually invaded any of its neighbours nor even seriously made preparations to that end.

That's crap too. They sliced off a chunk of Iraq containing oil fields. They are the world largest state-sponsor of terrorism. Their proxies tore Iraq to shreds in an effort to overthrow the government. They killed US and British troops.

They talk big and agressive , but their history so far is actually less agressive than most other middle eastern countries.

Only if you don't count paying people to kill British authors and financing terror throughout the region.

I'd be against, but maybe you feel any nation that feels threatened by another should send in airstrikes.

It's not like they haven't been given a million chances. But you can't reason with them because they're mad.

 

[Garrette]

Before anyone goes on a rant about failed American foreign policy in Iraq or Afghanistan, I'd like to know what the sane people here feel about a tactical preemptive strike by either Israel or the US on Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

Considering the fact that Iran funds much of the global terrorist network, wouldn't it be safe to assume that at some point, if they enrich uranium to weapon's grade levels, that a dirty nuke or something of that nature might "make its way" into the hands of a terrorist organization?

Remember, this most likely would not be an invasion but a series of air strikes.

For or against?

To be for, one must be reasonably certain of three things, and none are sufficient by themselves to justify your course of action:

1. There is some Iranian "empt" that we are "pre"-ing

2. Our actions will prevent that empt

3. Even if 1 and 2 are true, there does not exist another course of action more likely to achieve the desired result with fewer negative consequences


Regarding number 1, the jury is far from decided

Regarding number 2, the jury hasn't even been convened

Regarding number 3, at worst the jury is hung

Solidly against.


Edited to remove an extraneous word from 2, above.

 

[Bikewer]

By most of the apparently-authoritive accounts I've llistened to, it would be a bad idea.

First, it would at best result in a delay for the Iranians. Their program is sufficiently dispersed and dug in that actually crippling things with airstrikes would be unlikely.
The technology is already out of the bag.
Secondly, Iran is in a position to do a great deal of mischief in retaliation. It's proxy army, Hezbullah, could cause a lot of trouble for Israel, and the influence of Iran on Iraqi Shiites is considerable. We still have 50,000 troops there.... Hostilities could greatly increase.
Not to mention stuff like mining the Straits of Hormuz or launching anti-ship attacks....
One could go on and on.
We're in no position for an all out war with Iran....

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

To be for, one must be reasonably certain of three things...

Nah. To be for, one must merely be depraved enough to find these things entertaining.

Not that I know anyone like that, of course.

 

[Garrette]

Nah. To be for, one must merely be depraved enough to find these things entertaining.

Not that I know anyone like that, of course.

As is almost always the case with you:

Touche'

 

[McHrozni]

Before anyone goes on a rant about failed American foreign policy in Iraq or Afghanistan, I'd like to know what the sane people here feel about a tactical preemptive strike by either Israel or the US on Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

Considering the fact that Iran funds much of the global terrorist network, wouldn't it be safe to assume that at some point, if they enrich uranium to weapon's grade levels, that a dirty nuke or something of that nature might "make its way" into the hands of a terrorist organization?

Remember, this most likely would not be an invasion but a series of air strikes.

For or against?

While I agree with your assesment, I'm against this.
The reason is simple. Iranian mules have lost a lot of popular support, and it is continuosly eroding. A surgical strike would unite their people for a decade or so, prolonging the problem. More if there were other circumstances.
It would almost appear as if this was Ahmeds' goal in the first place.

McHrozni

 

[fuelair]

By most of the apparently-authoritive accounts I've llistened to, it would be a bad idea.

First, it would at best result in a delay for the Iranians. Their program is sufficiently dispersed and dug in that actually crippling things with airstrikes would be unlikely.
The technology is already out of the bag.
Secondly, Iran is in a position to do a great deal of mischief in retaliation. It's proxy army, Hezbullah, could cause a lot of trouble for Israel, and the influence of Iran on Iraqi Shiites is considerable. We still have 50,000 troops there.... Hostilities could greatly increase.
Not to mention stuff like mining the Straits of Hormuz or launching anti-ship attacks....
One could go on and on.
We're in no position for an all out war with Iran....

Not suggesting we do it, but unless we dumped a lot of stuff we could bio/chem/nuke or destroy their technology base for a nice long time - or a nice bit of each.

 

[casebro]

Didn't Israel already do that once?

I don't recall Israel being so retaliated against that it cost them anything on the world's political scene.

 

[geni]

That's crap too. They sliced off a chunk of Iraq containing oil fields.

Um no. The Iran–Iraq War was started by Iraq and resulted in no territorial changes.

It's not like they haven't been given a million chances. But you can't reason with them because they're mad.

Not mad. Idi Amin was mad. Iran is sane it just objectives that clash with rather a lot of ours.

 

[TraneWreck]

Because Iran is a mad, clerical fascist state.

There's one way to ensure that they stay that way for the next century: bomb them.

 

[nzric]

uh, against.

If the goal is "terror", then I suppose you could do it with multinational covert collaboration, corrupt scientists, a multi-million dollar network of labs, and a secretive & complex network of equipment being smuggled into the country through illegitimate and semi-legitimate means for years.

Or they could do it like they did last time with the equivalent of a group of nutters and some box-cutters. If you use the martyrdom of hundreds of "heroic troops bombed by the 'zionist forces' in an aggressive attack on a peaceful state" you can get hundreds of thousands of fanatical new recruits ready to do the dirty work for you.