Ahmedinejad Threatens U.S. With War 'Without Boundaries"

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

well, Iran is pretty much what Iraq should have been. Realistically, there is no need for "war" to fix this issue. Israel would bomb the facilities and take care of pretty much all of that. All of the hypotheticals pretty much stem from retaliation from Iran.

 

To be fair, the poll question only asks if Iran getting a nuke justifies an attack. You originally seemed puzzled as to why anyone would vote no, and here we are. I was under the assumption that we were still talking about the poll question.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

To be fair, the poll question only asks if Iran getting a nuke justifies an attack. You originally seemed puzzled as to why anyone would vote no, and here we are. I was under the assumption that we were still talking about the poll question.

 

yeah, if Iran had a nuke an attack is justified. We've kinda moved to foreign policy stuff now.

[My 6th Rebuild 6]

Even though I believe in diplomacy, Iran with nukes would need to be taken out. The Iranian President is crazy.

 

For those of us that are religous, to be against Israel is to be against God. Thank God the US has got Israels's back.

 

I believe Israel will strike first because lets face it, Iran wants Israel gone and how can you get rid of a country quickly? Nukes. Israel will strike Iran, Syria and Iran will attempt to strike Israel, and all heck will break lose.

 

When the dust settles, god willing, Israel, US, and its allies will be victorious and then we will cut up Iran like Germany after WW2.

[~O~ 565]

Interesting. The United States can not afford or initiate any of these conflicts as we struggle with our own situations today. Since Iran has no capability of hitting us and causing mayhem on our soil, we shouldn't attack until the antagonists commence their terror. I really hope no lives get lost. World peace..is..impossible..you can only get ....so..close.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

Interesting. The United States can not afford or initiate any of these conflicts as we struggle with our own situations today. Since Iran has no capability of hitting us and causing mayhem on our soil, we shouldn't attack until the antagonists commence their terror. I really hope no lives get lost. World peace..is..impossible..you can only get ....so..close.

 

We can't afford to initiate anything, but if International Inspectors go over there and say that Iran is building nuclear weapons, Iran doesn't respond to the sanctions that many countries would have to agree to institute due to the NPT, and Iran is beginning to show aggression towards Israel then action must be taken (and that action should be supported by the international community at large due to the steps taken prior to the "last resort". The difference between Iran and Iraq is 1. Partisan violence in Iraq. and 2. We ignored the International inspectors when declaring war on Iraq.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

yeah, if Iran had a nuke an attack is justified. We've kinda moved to foreign policy stuff now.

 

Ah, we've moved to foreign policy now. That makes sense. Sorry for the miscommunication.

 

Reading the thoughts of people who really know what they're talking about on these subjects is utterly fascinating. Please continue.

[Emory889 353]

For those of us that are religous, to be against Israel is to be against God. Thank God the US has got Israels's back.

 

Just another reason why modern religion terrifies me. Isn't God supposed to love us all?

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Even though I believe in diplomacy, Iran with nukes would need to be taken out. The Iranian President is crazy.

For those of us that are religous, to be against Israel is to be against God. Thank God the US has got Israels's back.

 

I believe Israel will strike first because lets face it, Iran wants Israel gone and how can you get rid of a country quickly? Nukes. Israel will strike Iran, Syria and Iran will attempt to strike Israel, and all heck will break lose.

 

When the dust settles, god willing, Israel, US, and its allies will be victorious and then we will cut up Iran like Germany after WW2.

 

 

What I find remarkable about statements like this is how badly the people who make them miss the point.

 

Is Ahmedinejad crazy? Sure. He takes a black/white, us v. them attitude towards everyone who disagrees with him, and believes conflict is both inevitable and righteous.

 

Which is, you know, exactly the sentiment you're projecting in this post. Frankly, the only difference between you and Ahmedinejad is access to power.

 

In other words: of course he's crazy; he's you.

[Emory889 353]

What I find remarkable about statements like this is how badly the people who make them miss the point.

 

Is Ahmedinejad crazy? Sure. He takes a black/white, us v. them attitude towards everyone who disagrees with him, and believes conflict is both inevitable and righteous.

 

Which is, you know, exactly the sentiment you're projecting in this post. Frankly, the only difference between you and Ahmedinejad is access to power.

 

In other words: of course he's crazy; he's you.

 

Beautifully put. It reminds me of a quote I heard from a historian, "What scares me is almost every religion has a doomsday scenario and everyone can't wait for it to happen."

 

I'll stop now before this gets turned into another religious thread. Comments like the one from Magicattic just irritate me.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

Beautifully put. It reminds me of a quote I heard from a historian, "What scares me is almost every religion has a doomsday scenario and everyone can't wait for it to happen."

 

I'll stop now before this gets turned into another religious thread. Comments like the one from Magicattic just irritate me.

 

This is one of the reasons I'm against the evangelical-political movement that's happening in the geographic center of our country. It's taking a large group of "ordinary" (ordinary being non-politically educated [in the intellectual sense] people of the working class [who essentially have their family, their job, and their religion]) people and somewhat exploiting their devotion to their religion by using it to ingrain hard-line, black/white, political stances without developing context (or fabricating a self-serving context) behind why they should believe in policy X.

 

**Note**: The majority of people in every country don't have time to understand the nuances of politics (especially when it's broken down into foreign policy, domestic issues, etc). Too many people count on others to develop their political opinions for them (especially politicians. hard line party stances, often unqualified members of committee's, etc develop their opinions). The problem issue of religion-politics is you have a "captive audience" per se, that believes in everything that the religious figure says. To be skeptical of the political message of the person is often irrational to the audience because he/she's in a position of trust to be a voice of the divine.

 

So don't think I'm stating that religious people are dangerous because of their political opinions. The large majority of people with a "typical" background (religion removed from the equation) are politically ignorant. Religion just makes it dangerous due to its ability to organize and the rate it can effect information dissemination.

 

 

Now that I got that out of the way, I can continue my off topic rant.

 

Too many people lack perspective into how complex every single political decision is, and whether or not that decision was the right one, the wrong one, or how successful the decision actually was. Was going into Iraq the "right" decision? Well you have a different answer based on different perspective. Was it right from a humanitarian standpoint? Probably. Sadam was a ruthless dictator who tortured people, committed many different crimes against humanity, etc. Was it right from a foreign policy standpoint? A domestic-effect standpoint? Absolutely not. We didn't have enough support from the international community and we didn't develop the correct "excuse", if you will, to justify an invasion. You really have to "pick your spots" when ****ing with sovereignty of a nation. We can "police" the world very effectively through "back-room" tactics rather than straight up aggression. We can effect the policies of other nations if we develop hard lined sanctions (where we not only negatively influence countries that deal with the country we're sanctioning, but we positively reward countries that abandon dealing with the sanctioned country. ). The problem is the Intel on Iraq in the first place. Based on the intelligence justifying the invasion (whether this was fabricated by our government or just a poor job by the CIA) the Iraq war was 100% justified. If everything in there was true, we were invading to prevent another Rwanda type of atrocity from happening. The problem is international inspectors came up empty when they investigated. If our intelligence is questionable than our reasoning behind the invasion is questionable. In that case we have to become reactive to the atrocity rather then proactive. Invade after the genocide has happened. Is this correct from a humanitarian standpoint? NO. But strong nations need to always try to do what's best for themselves (note: sometimes what's best for ourselves long term might not appear to be in our best interest short term. For an example see Reconstruction in Germany and Japan post WWII).

 

Iran, on the other hand, might be a situation where intervention is a viable choice if the necessary steps are taken. Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty so they are legally obligated to abide by certain rules. First, we let the IAEA (international atomic energy agency) send inspectors to the various Nuclear sites to determine if Iran is, in fact, developing Nuclear weapons. If they come back with no proof then we sit back and observe for a while and allow the IAEA to make periodic checks to determine if Iran's program is in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which Iran signed). If the inspectors come back and say "yeah, they're pursuing weapons" then we allow the UN to question Iran in the assembly while we organize a meeting between us, Iran, Israel, probably Russia or China (or both), and some random country with specific ties to Iran (probably India or Japan as they are both trade partners of Iran. Japan would be the best choice as they head the IAEA right now too). While this is going on, we are strategizing with Israel and other NATO allies on what to do in a worst case scenario. If these talks fail we sanction the **** out of Iran and step up efforts to develop a working "aggressive Nuclear Iran" strategy. We probably move some Aegis Destroyers into the persian gulf to support Israel's missile defense network and work with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey to monitor border security. We set up another meeting to see if Iran wants to end things peacefully and explain that military action will result in Iran pursuing Nuclear Weapons. We also explain that we consider any "rogue" group that happens to make a "dirty bomb" attack on anybody a extension of Iran and that an Iran nuclear attack (via proxy by terrorists) would give the international community the legal right to retaliate with our own Nuclear Weapons (not that we would necessarily go that route, but its nice to have that card on the table).

 

If after all of this (which should never EVER get this far if a rational person is in charge of the country) Iran still decides to pursue Nuclear Weapons, we're absolutely justified morally, legally, and politically to attack Iran. Not only that, but it's likely that it would be the entire world vs Iran.

 

EDIT: my point is: If we treat Iran like Iraq and run in there "guns a blazin'" without getting proper international support and actually making sure that they are doing something wrong then we are complete idiots who shouldn't make any international decisions anymore. If we use the proper channels and establish validity that Iran is a threat to any country of the world, then we absolutely have the right to intervene.

[Ned Ryerson 94]

Speaking as someone who is only partially educated and who is admittedly ignorant of pretty much everything a person should know to properly comment on this, my problem is this: Given our current experiences in the region, why would we want to start another war over something that we think might happen? Didn't we just have a really bad experience doing that sort of thing?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

[crisby pancakes 126]

With regards to the question, If Iran gets a nuke is an attack justified? I say no. To me there is no proof that Iran would use it to make an attack. I see no issue with them having nuclear missiles if they are to be used as a deterrent for another country making a possible attack. The country has a right to defend itself, just like any other country does. It's also interesting that we're debating on a country having one or two nukes when there are other countries out there (mine included) that have hundreds, some even have thousands. Having nuclear weaponry is like being a member of an 'exclusive' club but it can't be exclusive if everyone has one. It just seems to me that a nation with nuclear weaponry doesn't want to lose it's supposed advantage in the global world. In a perfect world NO nation would have nuclear weaponry, unfortunately, that world doesn't exist.

 

As for the treaties that allow a nation to have nuclear weapons, a number have been signed over the years, but have always been bilateral and never included all the countries that had nuclear weapons.