War with Iran is Inevitable

[Democracy Simulator]

This is a hard issue and I don't think anyone has a handle on it because of too many unknowns.

In these cases it seems that people either drift towards the 'paranoid' mentality of intervention or towards the 'naive' mentality of leave-alone. The problem is that the paranoia or the naivety can only be ascertained after the fact. Until events manifest, it seems that one's answer to this question is mostly guesswork and subjective preference.

I would guess that the probability of Iran developing a bomb, a payload system and using it as a 'first strike' against Israel or the US are slim. I see that others have a different view, I'm not sure how those views can be reconciled in the absence of evidence. I would guess that any military intervention against Iran will almost certainly have negative consequences such as civilian deaths and may lead us on the road to a wider war, economic troubles, regional instability and perhaps as a worst case, a nuclear exchange. I would also guess that non-intervention stands a good chance of having no negative effects, although the worst case scenario is obviously bleak.

So, my preference would be for non-intervention. I don't think the US has a lot to lose adopting this stance. At the end of the day Israel will do what it thinks is necessary to protect Israel, regardless of US foreign policy.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Where is Kermit Roosevelt when you need him?

 

[Toontown]

Says the guy whose country is the sole one that actually used nukes. Funny enough, for the sole reason of terrorizing Japan into surrender.

Thereby ending history's bloodiest war. I'm sure you would have preferred a conventional invasion of Japan, resulting in another 500,000 American and 3,000,000 Japanese deaths. Or perhaps you would have preferred to let the Japanese go on slaughtering Chinese indefinitely, until they produced their own nuke. You wouldn't be here if history had gone that way - but who can say with certainty that your preferred alternate history wouldn't have been better. Hard to imagine how, but you're obviously a highly intelligent fellow.

Not to mention all those thug states that are about to get a single one. Oh, what a drama that is.

I've already shown that one bomb in the hands of people who mean to use it is orders of magnitude more dangerous than the entire U.S. arsenal, using basic probability theory, taking into account your oft-repeated refrain about the two nukes the U.S. used 67 years ago, to end history's bloodiest war.

Maybe I should mention that if Iran would've intended to get a nuke, they would have as many as Israel by now.

Sure, why not. You've already mentioned every off-the-wall, irrelevant non-sequitur you could think of.

Sorry to spoil the party...,.

You unduly flatter yourself.

...but according to history, the US turns out to be the dangerous nation here when it comes to starting wars and throwing nukes, not the other way around, Skeptics.

Dangerous to whom? Fascists, Communists, and various other cretins and tyrants, for sure. If you're not in one of those categories, then history and your current existence suggests that you needn't unduly alarm yourself.

Half the countries in Europe have started more wars than the U.S. And their wars were decidedly not wars of liberation.

None of you foreigners have a leg to stand on, but that doesn't stop you from mouthing off. You're pretty good at mouthing off. Not so good at liberation, containment, putting down tyrannies, or enforcing U.N. resolutions.

Anyway, all the whining is about keeping Israel ahead of those Muslim suckers who do not obey. Nothing else.

Not your whining.

Sure, I prefer to keep allies ahead of enemies. Nothing wrong with that, unless you're an enemy, in which case you'll obviously whine about it a lot.

 

[Oliver]

The United States did not start WWII, and all things considered, dropping the a-bombs was the more humane way of ending the war.

Well, then let Iran build at least one nuke. Remember, they might need it for humane purposes as well in a war they did not start.

 

[Oliver]

Dangerous to whom?

To those that chose to not follow US orders. And no, that does not necessarily mean "you're with the Terrorists", you remember?

Anyway: The ones whining for a whole decade now is the US and Israel regarding Iran's imaginary nuclear single bomb they are about to build in a view months since 2003. Yep, I'm the crybaby for sure.

But again. It's all about strategic advantage - not a real threat. And you know that very well. Not to mention that Obama will not do or allow anything being done against Iran. At least till his reelection. Although it would be funny if Israel goes ahead and spoils the party anyway.

And: The policies you prefer and support are pushing Iran towards the bomb. Real friends of Israel would not do that ... namely: making sure that they get it.

 

[IDB87]

Well, then let Iran build at least one nuke. Remember, they might need it for humane purposes as well in a war they did not start.

You'll just make up any silly comment if it's in favor of Iran having nuclear weapons, won't you?

 

[Toontown]

You'll just make up any silly comment if it's in favor of Iran having nuclear weapons, won't you?

He wants Iran to have nukes very very much. You'll find some of them in every political forum.

But they talk to the wrong people. They should be trying to convince the U.N. security council that it's OK for Iran to have nukes. And they should be trying to convince ayahtollahs that they are free to go ahead and nuke up, no one will do anything at all.

But they don't do that. They badger people who disagree with them in political forums, which will accomplish precisely less than nothing. Except kinda torque my jaws and make me kinda wanna see some nuclear facilities bombed.

 

[Toontown]

To those that chose to not follow US orders. And no, that does not necessarily mean "you're with the Terrorists", you remember?

Anyway: The ones whining for a whole decade now is the US and Israel regarding Iran's imaginary nuclear single bomb they are about to build in a view months since 2003. Yep, I'm the crybaby for sure.

But again. It's all about strategic advantage - not a real threat. And you know that very well. Not to mention that Obama will not do or allow anything being done against Iran. At least till his reelection. Although it would be funny if Israel goes ahead and spoils the party anyway.

And: The policies you prefer and support are pushing Iran towards the bomb. Real friends of Israel would not do that ... namely: making sure that they get it.

Talking to you is much like talking to a talking doll. Nothing gets through, but it's kinda like pulling your string. It triggers another pseudo-lingual emmission from you.

 

[Oliver]

You'll just make up any silly comment if it's in favor of Iran having nuclear weapons, won't you?

Yep, like people who claim that throwing a Nuke on a big city is good to save at least as many as it kills. Or - I don't know - that the Holocaust was great because it enabled the state of Israel. Or that we should praise slavery because without it the US wouldn't have a black President today.

 

[Toontown]

<irrational blather snipped>

And: The policies you prefer and support are pushing Iran towards the bomb. Real friends of Israel would not do that ... namely: making sure that they get it.

Izzatafact.

Prove it. Preferably after you dope out what policies I prefer.

 

[Toontown]

Yep, like people who claim that throwing a Nuke on a big city is good to save at least as many as it kills. Or - I don't know - that the Holocaust was great because it enabled the state of Israel. Or that we should praise slavery because without it the US wouldn't have a black President today.

And now, quite predictably, you've started taking issue with the imaginary positions of imaginary people.

And also, very predictably, your posts have become very tiresome, annoying, and not at all interesting in any sense.

 

[Toontown]

Well, then let Iran build at least one nuke. Remember, they might need it for humane purposes as well in a war they did not start.

Clue: History's bloodiest war was killing people in unprecedented numbers. Ending the war required killing even more, because they wouldn't stop fighting. Thus, killing the number of people necessary to make the rest stop fighting, thereby ending history's bloodiest war, did in fact save lives, as opposed to letting the war drag on indefinitely in a bloody stalemate, as WWI had become until the infusion of U.S. troops ended the long trench nightmare.

And, now that I've mentioned it - that makes (2) of history's bloodiest wars us Merkins have ended. And didn't start either of them. None of which prevents people like you from talking out of the wrong end of your torsos.

So, in summation, I take back what I said about you being an intelligent fellow. I didn't really mean it, but you appear to have taken it seriously, and are now attempting to live up to your billing. And it isn't working.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Clue: History's bloodiest war was killing people in unprecedented numbers. Ending the war required killing even more, because they wouldn't stop fighting. Thus, killing the number of people necessary to make the rest stop fighting, thereby ending history's bloodiest war, did in fact save lives, as opposed to letting the war drag on indefinitely in a bloody stalemate, as WWI had become until the infusion of U.S. troops ended the long trench nightmare.

And, now that I've mentioned it - that makes (2) of history's bloodiest wars us Merkins have ended. And didn't start either of them. None of which prevents people like you from talking out of the wrong end of your torsos.

So, in summation, I take back what I said about you being an intelligent fellow. I didn't really mean it, but you appear to have taken it seriously, and are now attempting to live up to your billing. And it isn't working.

Oliver is German, his country started both of those wars.

Just in case you weren't sure.

 

[Toontown]

Oliver is German, his country started both of those wars.

Just in case you weren't sure.

Ah, the old German guilt syndrome.

I do wish that wouldn't keep manifesting every time people try to have a discussion in a forum. It does get tiresome.

 

[Oliver]

I have no idea what you guys are babbling about.

The point still is:

The systematic exaggeration of the Iranian threat
ABC Online - 1 day ago

 

[Minoosh]

Problem is that it won't work all that well after Bush the Lesser spent so much time grabbing his package and talking smack about Iran and the "Axis of Evil."

Bush's 2002 declaration about the axis of evil came when Iran had its most moderate president ever, was relaxing restrictions at home and had quietly pledged to aid the U.S. in its fight against Afghanistan. This conciliatory behavior was immediately rewarded with trash talking in the State of the Union address. Bush redeemed himself somewhat by taking out Saddam but meanwhile he tapped into old anger about the hostage crisis.

After the U.S. shot down an Iranian passenger jet, killing 290 people, I called it even. A deadly accident vs. an orchestrated attempt to humiliate the U.S. - in which no one died.

Obviously I can't portray Iran as solely a victim but it's potentially a great country, with the basic apparatus of democracy well in place.

This cover of this week's Economist: "Iran: Why an attack will not eradicate the nuclear threat." Off to read it ...

 

[Minoosh]

OK, the Economist states that aerial strikes would probably be ineffective, given the possibility of multiple and possibly bombproof sites, and could backfire, establishing solidarity around the regime, endangering U.S., Israeli and Jewish targets and, not least, contaminating wide areas with nuclear debris. Short of occupation, military involvement in Iran could simply strengthen resolve to possess nuclear weapons. Best hope, economic sanctions hasten the end of a teetering regime.

One of the magazine's main reservations about nuclear Iran goes beyond the belief that Iran itself would pose an immediate danger; it's that other countries might then feel the need to acquire nukes in the name of self-defense. It sees the current tension as possibly motivated by a desire to make Barack Obama look weak, should an Israeli strike draw America in.

I don't think it's wrong to leave military action prominently on the table but doesn't the threat have more force if it's not casually bandied about? After this moment Iran will possibly have jeering rights - as in, you threatened us but didn't have the guts to do it. Really if I could pick one place on Earth to bomb it would be Qom, spiritual home to the Iranian regime and site of a nuclear technology bunker in progress. But I don't know how to keep the threat potent if it becomes clear that the whole world is against a pre-emptive Israeli strike.

Though I'm fairly liberal I'm not against letting the mullahs believe that yes, we are crazy enough to actually invade the place and start stringing up anyone in a turban. But I don't want us to actually be that crazy.

 

[Toontown]

I have no idea what you guys are babbling about.

The point still is:

The systematic exaggeration of the Iranian threat
ABC Online - 1 day ago

If that is your point, then I fail to see why you felt compelled to wander so far afield from it in your efforts to point fingers of blame at the evil Merkins.

At any rate, opinions are like foreign badgerers - everybody's got one.