Would Attacking Iran Be Worth It?

[ambrose]

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.

 

[yinyinwang]

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.

What a "genius", calling nukes " little or no reason whatsoever"

 

[ambrose]

They don't have nukes currently.

Why aren't we attacking Pakistan?

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

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.

Ok, lets just run the risk of an Iranian made nuke blowing up in the United States. Good plan. You know what, I would rather create more terrorists to deal with later as long as they dont have nukes.

 

[ambrose]

"Ok, lets just run the risk of an Iranian made nuke blowing up in the United States. Good plan. You know what, I would rather create more terrorists to deal with later as long as they dont have nukes."

You're letting your fear cloud your judgement.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

"Ok, lets just run the risk of an Iranian made nuke blowing up in the United States. Good plan. You know what, I would rather create more terrorists to deal with later as long as they dont have nukes."

You're letting your fear cloud your judgement.

There is no way we will ever stop terrorists from trying to kill us, as long as the US is a country and we hold different religious beliefs as the radical terrorists. We can prevent a crazy leader from getting nukes that he personally says he is trying to make. Your damn right Im worried. Im letting my fear cloud my judgement? Too bad somebody couldnt have recognized Hitler was turning into a problem in the 30's instead of what Europe did; looking the other way.

 

[thinkingaboutit]

No. There's this concept known as Mutually Assured Destruction which applies to Iran as much as any other country.

They nuke someone they will get nuked back. All Iran getting a bomb means is that countries like the US have somewhat less ability to mess with them.

 

[ambrose]

There is no way we will ever stop terrorists from trying to kill us, as long as the US is a country and we hold different religious beliefs as the radical terrorists. We can prevent a crazy leader from getting nukes that he personally says he is trying to make. Your damn right Im worried. Im letting my fear cloud my judgement? Too bad somebody couldnt have recognized Hitler was turning into a problem in the 30's instead of what Europe did; looking the other way.

First, let me apologize for my previous post -- it was a bit condescending in nature and perhaps ill conceived. I understand where your fear is coming from.

Let me also state that I agree, we likely wouldn't be able to stop terrorists from attacking us.

But perhaps we can remove the reasons that they want to attack us?

Do we know what they are?

You mentioned differing religious beliefs. There are several countries that are much more liberal, have many more freedoms, and have different religious beliefs, but yet they have not been targetted by terrorists. Wouldn't we have seen some sort of attacks in Sweden, or Norway, or Denmark if that was really the case?

 

[ConspiRaider]

No sane person wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon or the ability to produce one. But most experts agree that inorder to effectively ruin Iran's nuclear capabilities we would have to strike multiple targets, some of which are deep under ground.

Sez who? That's a might big assumption on your part.

I'm a sane person and I say: LET THEM HAVE NUKES!

The USA has nukes. Up the kazoo, more'n all other folks. Geez I hope they all work perfectly. I hope no live ones have accidentally fallen off of bombers (oops that actually happened). Would never use nukes, never has (oops).

Russia has nukes. That's a great country. Ever notice how nicely they treat journalists who criticize the government? They're great. Best ballet in the world. Great at nuclear power plant management too, and at informing other countries when something goes wrong.

China has nukes. People up the kazoo. Really good on human rights. Environmentally-minded, too. The haze at the 2008 Olympics? Dusty camera lenses, that's all. I think most citizens in China can now access just exactly the portions of the Internet the government authorizes. Freedom. It rings in China.

France has nukes. Staunch allies of us Americans. We love them so much that we renamed their potato finger food just to preserve the French grandeur. Helluva language, it helps to maintain a robust population here in the States. Any of us hayseeds can mumble a few French words to a bonny lass on a date and we're in like Flynn. Gets 'em every time.

Israel has nukes. But they say uh-uh. Or, maybe. Who knew? If Israel was a house on a residential street, that would be the house that would host block parties. The neighbors all love Israel, and Israel loves all the neighbors.

United Kingdom has nukes. Very self-contained country, with a stellar history of never trying to influence, or subjugate any other nation. Ever. Invented the Hound of the Baskervilles and Beef Wellington. And English Leather. All my men wear English Leather - or they wear nothing at all.

India has nukes. Showing promise. I think that more and more Indians are now frowning on the practice of bride-burning. That's progress, especially in these modern 21st century times. Great at customer service for USA-based companies.

Pakistan has nukes. They remind me of that old American cowboy tradition of providing shelter and comfort to the weary traveler or stranger. Notice? There's this one gentleman (initials of OBL) who was rudely booted out of his own country and so the pardners in Pakistan gave him a place to shuck his spurs and rest up a bit. The spirit of the Old West.

North Korea has nukes. Very influential, especially effective at getting terms into the American lexicon. Like "38th parallel". So much freedom, the citizenry are lovingly instructed by the government not to flaunt it. Could make everyone else jealous. Freedom is the best kept secret in North Korea.

And that's just who we know about. So of course Iran should have nukes. Their attributes and worthiness easily meet the withering standards of the above 9 countries.

 

[Tricky]

Sez who? That's a might big assumption on your part.

I'm a sane person and I say: LET THEM HAVE NUKES!
<snip>

Well, sort of sane, but when the whole world is insane, you look sane by comparison. As they say, you can't get the genie back in the bottle, but what is really insane is that anybody has nukes. We have seen what they can do. But the US has the unmitigated gall to say, "We can have nukes, but you can't" is beyond hypocrisy. You can't argue, "It's okay for us to have nukes because we would never start a war." In fact, there is only one member of that nuclear club you just listed who has used them against people. Right. The same one who says other countries can't be trusted with them.

And what have some of our brave USians here suggested we do if one of our enemies gets nukes? One said "Level them from corner to corner".

Somehow I remember something about one of the reasons for going to war with Iraq was because there was a brutal tyrant there who was ruthless in wiping out his enemies. Was that just because we don't want the competition?

 

[yinyinwang]

They don't have nukes currently.

Why aren't we attacking Pakistan?

What a point, we should attack someone who is cooperating now?

 

[ConspiRaider]

Well, sort of sane, but when the whole world is insane, you look sane by comparison. As they say, you can't get the genie back in the bottle, but what is really insane is that anybody has nukes. We have seen what they can do. But the US has the unmitigated gall to say, "We can have nukes, but you can't" is beyond hypocrisy. You can't argue, "It's okay for us to have nukes because we would never start a war." In fact, there is only one member of that nuclear club you just listed who has used them against people. Right. The same one who says other countries can't be trusted with them.

And what have some of our brave USians here suggested we do if one of our enemies gets nukes? One said "Level them from corner to corner".

Somehow I remember something about one of the reasons for going to war with Iraq was because there was a brutal tyrant there who was ruthless in wiping out his enemies. Was that just because we don't want the competition?

You must be part cowboy. You said in a few sentences what it took a pesky loquacious Easterner like me a whole page to say.

"How 'bout some more beans, Mr. Taggert?"

 

[strimmer]

Allowing an Islamic Theocracy to have Nuclear capability is suicide......It would be the beginning of the end. We know all Iran wants to do is to wipe out Isreal(who also has nukes) and what is to think they will not use them without provocation......

 

[Tricky]

You must be part cowboy. You said in a few sentences what it took a pesky loquacious Easterner like me a whole page to say.

Yeah, well you had to call roll. Thats why you seemed so voluble.

"How 'bout some more beans, Mr. Taggert?"

Don't sell yourself short, Indy. You use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore.

 

[knot]

If you think the nutcase is their current President, he's not at the helm. The Mullahs are at the helm, Ahmadinejad is simply a mouthpiece and a figurehead.

That's right. Might as well take out the helm as well - if their threats of wiping Israel off the face of the planet are serious.

 

[Tricky]

Allowing an Islamic Theocracy to have Nuclear capability is suicide......It would be the beginning of the end. We know all Iran wants to do is to wipe out Isreal(who also has nukes) and what is to think they will not use them without provocation......

Allowing ____________ to have Nuclear capability is suicide......It would be the beginning of the end. We know all they hate _____________ and what is to think they will not use them without provocation?

Fill in the blanks based on what country you support.

 

[strimmer]

Allowing ____________ to have Nuclear capability is suicide......It would be the beginning of the end. We know all they hate _____________ and what is to think they will not use them without provocation?

Fill in the blanks based on what country you support.

I will agree with that....But Iran has far more screws loose than the other nations we know that have Nuclear capabilities(except North Korea)

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.

 

[latent aaaack]

Shouldn't this question have been asked as soon as the nuclear age began when became obvious that at some point a country would probably acquire nukes that we didn't want to? Now it's crash position time, not troubleshooting time.

Did it just seem completely out of the realm of possibility to the western world, during the decades after the nuclear age started, that one or more of the half a dozen or so despotic countries would make a dash for nuclear weapons? To those old enough to remember the cold war years well, was what now seems completely obvious and predictable back then simply not seen as ever being likely to happen, not having occurred to people for the most part?

Given the disagreement and seemingly shocked improvisational approach of different countries over how to react to this crisis I find it difficult to understand why the international community lacks plans and wasn't fully aware the whole time that it was a matter of time before they'd have to either attack a country or accept an extremist possibly genocidal country having nuclear weapons.

 

[Tricky]

I will agree with that....But Iran has far more screws loose than the other nations we know that have Nuclear capabilities(except North Korea)

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.

I can't remember any of the other states openly stating they want another nation wiped off the face of the earth, granted their 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.

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

 

[Drysdale]

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.