Don't you mean "WHY NUKE IRAN?"

In a world featuring weapons of mass destruction, mullahs, and intercontinental delivery, i simply cannot agree. This world needs a nuke armed Iran like it needs a resurgent Nazi Germany. In other words, it don't.

I generally agree that war is horribly misused by this and other nations, but not this time. While highly undesirable, it is still preferable to some of the likely potential outcomes of a nuke armed Iran.

Hence my stated opinion, "Sometimes a good war is better than a bad peace."

Even Mickey Mouse knows the deal with Iran:

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3...per/mickey.jpg
HEY, IRAN!!!
(Most popular bumper sticker in America in 1979-80)

As long as there are other nations on the planet with nukes, Iran will have them. There's nothing you, or the crazy neocons, can do about it.

Attacking Iran will accellerate the acquisition, not slow it down.

We shall see.

Iran would be a piece of cake...and long overdue. Too bad we don't have the nads to do the right thing and topple that regime too.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fintstone
Iran would be a piece of cake...and long overdue. Too bad we don't have the nads to do the right thing and topple that regime too. [/QUOTE

I simply cannot take this comment seriously fint.

Why not?

Why would you think:

1 that we would be justified in going after Iran, and
2 that it would be easy at all given the quagmire that Iraq has become?

1. They are interfering in our war in Irag and they have threatened to use WMD against their neighbors.

2. We defeated the Iraq government/military in 2 weeks. Iran has no better forces. they would be evn easier because our Navy could practically do it alone. A simple blockade would put them out of business very quickly. They import almost everything. They cannot feed themselves without imports and do not have enough oil to supply their country, much less a war.

1 do we have definitive proof that they are working against us in Iraq?

2 this may be technically true however we continue to take losses in Iraq. Even if a blockade would defeat Iran, do we have the political high ground to make such a move? Our international cache is depleted, we would certainly stand alone . And such a provocative move could cause us to become involved in yet another ground based front in another muslim nation.

No my friend, I don't see the compelling need to go there.

1. Yes
2. We only take losses in Iraq because we stayed after the war. One can only hope it was a one-time mistake. We would not need to send troops into Iran. The people are generaly pro-American and would quickly overthrow the current regime with a little help. fixing Iran would help fix Iraq and probably Syria and Lebanon too.

Proof that some people don't learn from their mistakes.

All thats needed to take care of the Iran problem is to:

1. Blockaid all their imports and exports
2. Knock off a couple dozen of the most crazy leaders
3. Stand back and watch the place self destruct

While i'm nowhere near as optimistic as snowman or fintstone, IMO there is a viable military option in Iran, but it involves the total destruction of their entire national infrastructure with a massive prolonged conventional strategic precision bombing campaign.(damn that's a lot of adjectives). That obviously implies a strong national resolve.

[i]If[i/]the US had the national will it could keep Iran in a perpetual stone age indefinitely, or until they abandoned their nuclear ambitions. I seriously doubt we have the national fortitude for such a campaign.

IMO one time or limited strikes will be totally inneffective, and as pat indicated, will only encourage them anyway. A land campaign- also IMO- is as unrealistic as it is undesirable. We don't have the men, and even if we did it's just asking for needless loss of US life.

One thing is clear, if we do wish to act, the clock is ticking.

BTW, just for the record, a naval blockade is a universally recognized blatant act of war.

That's illegal, it's called piracy on the high seas and would initiate several UN treaties which require action against any country engaged in piracy.

Quote:

2. Knock off a couple dozen of the most crazy leaders

Murder is against the law.

Quote:

3. Stand back and watch the place self destruct

That's not going to happen either. Persia has been around for a very long time, and will be around a long time in the future.

Leave them alone. That what all Americans should demand of the US government.

We cannot leave them alone for one big reason

THEY ARE PLANNING TO ATTACK US AND OUR ALLIES by their own words. The consequences of a Nuke attack cannot be to give them a chance, any chance at all. In fact even the slighest doubt is to high a risk. There are no second chances in the nuke game and thats the game they elected to enter.

Therefore, we can legally elect to respond in any way necessary, the right of self defense. In the nuke game there is no option for letting them have the first strike, especially if they are sucidal, which they are. Its clear that MADD will not work with Iran.

Pat, you can elect to allow them first crack at you and your family, but NFW they will get that chance at mine.

We have no treaties of any kind with any nation that Iran has made "threatening ovatures" towards. No treaties, no legal method with which to justify and lawfully attack Iran.

Quote:

The consequences of a Nuke attack cannot be to give them a chance, any chance at all. In fact even the slighest doubt is to high a risk. There are no second chances in the nuke game and thats the game they elected to enter.

Utter nonsense, Iran has the right to any defensive weapon it wishes to acquire, just like any other naiton. Personally, I don't want any government to possess nuclear weapons, but that "genie" is well and truly out of the bottle. If the european countries, and the US government, hadn't routinely rattled the nuclear saber over the last five decades, this most likely wouldn't be happening. Just as China generated the acquisition of nukes by India, and then Pakistan went nuke because India had them, the whole of the mideast will have them eventually because Israel now has over 400 nucleaer warheads.

Quote:

Therefore, we can legally elect to respond in any way necessary, the right of self defense.

No, since there's no threat to America by Iranian nukes, which won't be in hand for another 8-10 years unless acquisition is accelerated by the US government's threats, there is no self defense claim.

Quote:

In the nuke game there is no option for letting them have the first strike, especially if they are sucidal, which they are. Its clear that MADD will not work with Iran.

Suicidal? Where did you get that idea, drinking too much Bush'ist KoolAid again?

Quote:

Pat, you can elect to allow them first crack at you and your family, but NFW they will get that chance at mine.

Only a complete ignoramus would write such words as you did.

"We only take losses in Iraq because we stayed after the war".

Please explain that. Sounds like a form of "cut and run", not "finishing the job".

The Iraq connection is clear. But don't forget about Iranian shenanigans in Afghanistan (that's the war you liberals are supposed to support, the "real" War on Terror)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/12/22/do2202.xml

Another pacifist (appeaser) who believes in the goodness of the United Nations.

I spoke with two other naive unsophisticated people the other day about this stuff and they share your position, but they have the excuse of being my 9- and 12-year old nieces.