Would Attacking Iran Be Worth It?

[Thunder]

The only evidence we have that Iran is not working to build a bomb is the word of their president..and I dont trust him any farther then I can throw him. I could very easily see them announcing they have developed a nuke and claim "we told the world we didnt want a nuclear weapon inorder to convince them not to attack us, but we had to build one to protect ourselves anyway".

I think we should give then Iranians and offer they cant refuse: Tell them because of their ambiguity, we can only assume that they are working to build a weapon. offer them incredible amounts of aid, resources, etc in exchange for ending enrichment....or face military attack on their nuclear facilities. we will give them a deadline of december 1st, 2007 to fully suspend enrichment or face immediate attack.

 

[Drysdale]

The only evidence we have that Iran is not working to build a bomb is the word of their president..and I dont trust him any farther then I can throw him. I could very easily see them announcing they have developed a nuke and claim "we told the world we didnt want a nuclear weapon inorder to convince them not to attack us, but we had to build one to protect ourselves anyway".

I think we should give then Iranians and offer they cant refuse: Tell them because of their ambiguity, we can only assume that they are working to build a weapon. offer them incredible amounts of aid, resources, etc in exchange for ending enrichment....or face military attack on their nuclear facilities. we will give them a deadline of december 1st, 2007 to fully suspend enrichment or face immediate attack.

Quite to the contrary, their president is openly bragging about their nuclear progress.

And does that really work?
Did'nt Clinton do that with the N.Koreans? How'd that turn out?

You cant appease these dictators. Appeasing them is basically giving in to blackmail, it never ends.
Besides, the elite keep whatever resources we send and dont distribute it to the populace, instead they blame us for not sending it in order to feed their citizens hatred of us. That just doesnt work.

 

[strimmer]

What is happening in Iran is kind of schizophrenic. True the Mad Mullahs are the real power, but a great many people want to be western. The President is engaged in a power struggle with the Mullahs to try to liberalize the country. In many ways it is far more western than, say, Saudi Arabia. Certainly they are less crazy than the Palestinians. They could be our allies, though there would be a lot of stuff to work through, like what to do about Israel.

The citizens of Iran i would highly agree are more open to more democratic ideals than those in Saudi Arabia, but the people of Iran are not in power, and they will not be the ones deciding what to do with the missile... I have nothing against the everyday citizen of Iran, my beef is with there leaders.....

"We will bury you."
--- Nikita Kruschev

the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics no longer exists as a state. (despite Putin's best efforts)

 

[Tricky]

The only evidence we have that Iran is not working to build a bomb is the word of their president..and I dont trust him any farther then I can throw him. I could very easily see them announcing they have developed a nuke and claim "we told the world we didnt want a nuclear weapon inorder to convince them not to attack us, but we had to build one to protect ourselves anyway".

LOL. You sound like the Christians who say, "Prove there's not a God." The only evidence you have for Iran building a bomb is that they're enriching uranium. Yes, that could be for a bomb, but it could also be for a power plant (which they have also built). Do we have any evidence that they have acquired a bomb recipe? Do we have any evidence of them developing a delivery system? Seriously, I'm asking, because I don't know. I certainly haven't seen anything other than the "enriching uranium" bit.

You can't just assume that we merely haven't found out about the other parts. After all, I have no evidence that Iceland isn't building a bomb. They might be doing it in secret and we just haven't found out about it, right?

I think we should give then Iranians and offer they cant refuse: Tell them because of their ambiguity, we can only assume that they are working to build a weapon. offer them incredible amounts of aid, resources, etc in exchange for ending enrichment....or face military attack on their nuclear facilities. we will give them a deadline of december 1st, 2007 to fully suspend enrichment or face immediate attack.

How would you feel if someone made the same "offer" to the US, to let another country tell us what we could and couldn't build or face attack? Would you advise we take it?

 

[Tricky]

The citizens of Iran i would highly agree are more open to more democratic ideals than those in Saudi Arabia, but the people of Iran are not in power, and they will not be the ones deciding what to do with the missile... I have nothing against the everyday citizen of Iran, my beef is with there leaders...

Do you think we could surgically strip out the leaders and have the people thank and love us? That worked just great in Iraq, didn't it? Those people, who may be open to democratic ideals, still don't want foreigners to decide who leads them. What you are talking about is making the same exact mistakes in Iran that we made in Iraq.

the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics no longer exists as a state. (despite Putin's best efforts)

Exactly. When Kruschev said it, it was a hollow threat, which was my precise point. Really, it is quite unlikely that Israel will cease to exist. If it were nuked (which is possible, but still unlikely I think) it would regenerate, especially since Jews live all over the world. In the desolate wasteland, they would be the first to make the radioactive desert bloom. I'm guessing it would be the country that nuked them that would no longer exist. And I think they know this.

 

[strimmer]

Do you think we could surgically strip out the leaders and have the people thank and love us? That worked just great in Iraq, didn't it? Those people, who may be open to democratic ideals, still don't want foreigners to decide who leads them. What you are talking about is making the same exact mistakes in Iran that we made in Iraq.

don't get me wrong, i never said to remove the leaders, because that would be another Iraq just as you said, i just said i don't trust the leaders, and the ordinary citizens are probably OK...Thats all

Exactly. When Kruschev said it, it was a hollow threat, which was my precise point.

OK...i see....but where neither the USSR, and the US wanted to cease to exist, Iran as an official theocracy, might not care as much...

 

[Tricky]

don't get me wrong, i never said to remove the leaders, because that would be another Iraq just as you said, i just said i don't trust the leaders, and the ordinary citizens are probably OK...Thats all

LOL. I can accept that. I mean, what politicians or dictators can you trust? Hell, I don't trust our leaders, even the ones I like. That's why I watch them like a hawk.

OK...i see....but where neither the USSR, and the US wanted to cease to exist, Iran as an official theocracy, might not care as much...

I'm guessing they're not suicidal. You never see one of them with a dynamite belt. Like all leaders, they send their surrogates in if there is any danger.

 

[strimmer]

LOL. I can accept that. I mean, what politicians or dictators can you trust? Hell, I don't trust our leaders, even the ones I like. That's why I watch them like a hawk.

True that Tricky

 

[cloudshipsrule]

Originally Posted by cloudshipsrule
The US has already staged enough firepower off their coast to turn Iran into a giant parabolic mirror, so it is possible to destroy every bit of their program.

Nope, you do not understand the size of Iran and the limitations of conventional weapons.

All I'll say is I'm intimately familiar with our nuclear 'underwater' navy, and I don't believe I'm wrong. However, I was being a little sarcastic and I'm not advocating wiping out Iran at this point in time!

 

[President Bush]

That's why I watch them like a hawk.

If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
-Friedrich Nietzsche

 

[Corsair 115]

Um... what countries did we level from corner to corner during WWII?

Well, there wasn't much left standing in Germany after the Strategic Bomber Offensive was finished with it, not to mention the effects of the ground campaigns. Japan was heavily hit from the air as well.

That said, "levelled from corner to corner" may be a bit of an overstatement, but is nontheless not that far off the mark.

 

[Tricky]

Well, there wasn't much left standing in Germany after the Strategic Bomber Offensive was finished with it, not to mention the effects of the ground campaigns. Japan was heavily hit from the air as well.

That said, "levelled from corner to corner" may be a bit of an overstatement, but is nontheless not that far off the mark.

It is a major overstatement. Both of those countries had some areas with major destruction, but neither was bombed back to stone age or leveled from corner to corner. That would have made the allies much worse than the Germans, as genocide goes. In reality, the Germans had fewer than 2 million civilian casualties, and Japan, fewer than a million at the hands of the allies.

Put my point is that completely destroying a country or region is not and has never been a strategy the US has employed. And I think that is a good thing.

 

[Beerina]

Even if it was possible to destroy every single bit of their nuclear program (which most doubt), Iran would surely retaliate by attacking Israel, attacking American forces in Iraq, and maybe even launching terror attacks in the USA. They can't make nukes yet..but they surely can make lots of dirty bombs.

So, is destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities worth war? I guess some would say its better to face dirty bombs and conventional attacks, then an actual nuclear weapon in New York City.

Tough decisions are upon us in the next year or two.

I have here a piece of paper. Iran has agreed to not produce nuclear weapons, nor give uranium for bombs or dirty bombs to terrorists. There is peace in our time!

 

[kalen]

So, is destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities worth war? I guess some would say its better to face dirty bombs and conventional attacks, then an actual nuclear weapon in New York City.

The use of the phrase "mushroom cloud" is more effective for fear-mongering.

 

[SezMe]

I think the comparison's to Iraq are very wrong.
Iran is having problems with young rebels protesting against the islamic rule.

If there is an arabic country that has the potential to be a true ally of democratic countries Iran is it. There we have a country that is about fed up with the islamic rule I think.

The Iran govt. does everything it can to keep the stories of the protesters out of the news but the news slips thru if you listen.

If this is handled right I think there's a potential for a stabilizing force in that area of the world crazy as it sounds. What is handling it right?

I dont know, I'm no diplomat but I think they are ready to fight for their freedom unlike Iraq which I'm just not sure they are ready to pay the price yet.

I think Drysdale has the right approach here. Iran is demographically young and the younger generation does not hold the mullah power structure in regard.

So the way to soften Iran's threat to the west is to flood Iran's younger generation with western ideals and culture they like. Institute a huge university student exchange program. Offer concerts and art displays. Movies. Etc. Sure, the existing religious leaders will balk but hell if the CIA can stage in coup (in the 50s) surely they can infiltrate Iran with thouands of music videos, etc.

Taking this approach, Iran will undergo a velvet revolution long before it has nukes and the capability to deliver them.

And, finally, such an approach costs far, far less in terms of money and blood.

 

[Corsair 115]

It is a major overstatement. Both of those countries had some areas with major destruction, but neither was bombed back to stone age or leveled from corner to corner.

Of course, it's all about how one defines such terms, isn't it? "Major destruction" would be counted by some as effectively being "levelled from corner to corner" in the practical sense, rather than in the strictest sense.

 

[Davo]

Engaging in war with Iran would not be a bad idea, it would be a monumentally bad idea.

We don't want to make the same mistake as we did with Iraq.

Much like Iraq, there have been allegations that have been unsubstantiated. Unfortunately these reports are coming from the same administration that has a track record of fabricating reports.

Unlike with the Iraq war, the rest of the middle east is not going to sit idly by if we preemptively attack a second country for little or no reason whatsoever.

If it is a question of a muslim country being in control of a nuclear device, then why is it that Pakistan is not in the news more frequently? Unlike Iran, they actually have nuclear weapons, and they are the second most populous country with a muslim majority in the world. Why aren't we afraid of them? Think about it.

If we are truly concerned about being attacked by another country, ask yourself "Why would they want to attack us?"

You remove the incentive, they will not attack us. It is that simple.

The difficult part for some is being reasonable and courageous enough to realize what that motive would be, and perhaps being able to realize that we may be responsible for at least some of the illwill felt toward our nation. We just need to set forth to fixing it.

Also, let me just reitirate that attacking and occupying nations creates terrorism -- it does not reduce it.

If you don't believe that, just think about what would happen if another nation happened to invade and occupy the United States. Would you greet them as liberators? What if someone in your family was killed by a bomb or a soldier? I think you may be willing to fight back at that point.

Under this adminstration, that act of self defense gets you labelled as a terrorsist.

Well pointed out, especially given Musharrafs political uncertainty at present.

 

[Davo]

I can't remember any of the other states openly stating they want another nation wiped off the face of the earth, granted there crazy ass president says a lot of loony things, and we all now he is just the head of state, a figure head, and has no real power, but i never hear the heads of government coming out and saying they disagree with him.[/QUOTE]

There is a difference between "wanting another state wiped off the face of the Earth" to "we will wipe another state off the face of the Earth"

 

[Tricky]

Of course, it's all about how one defines such terms, isn't it? "Major destruction" would be counted by some as effectively being "levelled from corner to corner" in the practical sense, rather than in the strictest sense.

Possibly, but it would have to happen country-wide, not just in some areas, as I indicated. Sure, Dresden was leveled "corner to corner", but Berlin surely wasn't.

Destruction of buildings and infrastructure was nearly total in parts of the inner city business and residential sectors. The outlying sections suffered relatively little damage. This averages to one fifth of all buildings (50% in the inner city) for overall Berlin.

One fifth of the buildings is hardly corner-to-corner destruction, though there were (relatively) small areas of near total destruction.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

The more I read threads like this the more convinced I am that there are a lot of people who don't know diddly about:
1. Iran
2. The Middle East
3. International Relations
4. Realpolitik
5. The limitations of American military power

What is most disconcerting is that some of these people are or might wind up making decisions in Washington rather than call talk radio shows or post to the Internet.

If there is an arabic country that has the potential to be a true ally of democratic countries Iran is it. There we have a country that is about fed up with the islamic rule I think.

Agreed with your post but just wanted to point out a correction. Iranians are Persians and are quite different from Arabs. There's a certain Arab mindset that seems to think history began in 733 CE, that isn't present in most Iranians. They embrace their pre-Islamic heritage and it creates a little different a psyche.