Would you attack Iran? - Page 3

Kham · 01-29-2008, 06:42 PM

I would not attack Iran if we knew they were acquiring nuclear weapons.

First, because Iran would not attack us with nuclear weapons. Despite their hatred for the U.S., they do not hate us enough to destroy themselves in the process. Deterrence would clearly remove any incentives to launch an attack.

This has clearly been the case for even the most "irrational" leaders. Even Idi Amin and Qaddafi caved in when their ability to rule was threatened by the British or U.S. Also, there is "two of everything" in Iran. Ahmedinejad, despite being the president, does not control the Iranian military, the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei does. He would be making that decision.

In regard to nuclear terrorism, deterrence checks this as well. There is no reason to think that we would not retaliate against anyone that gave a terrorist nuclear weapons. But I think nuclear terrorism is flawed on a deeper level. My criticism is twofold, first, it is not easy to launch a nuclear weapon. If I came into possession of a nuclear weapon, I could not launch it from my home. It takes expensive technology and facilities that terrorists don't have. This means they would have to use Iran's, thus making deterrence plausible. Second, we're assuming that if terrorists could get nuclear weapons they would. I think this misunderstands the aims of terrorism. Terrorists do not care about wanton havoc as an end in itself, its a means to a political goal. Terrorists would rather opt for conventional, biological, or chemical tools that would allow them to maintain their secrecy and further their political ends. Its much easier to poison our water supply, etc.

Second, U.S. intervention is what causes the sort of hatred that would even make us suspect Iran of being likely of attacking us. This is the CIA's blowback theory, and its supported by plenty of literature on the subject. Terrorists don't hate us because of our freedom, they hate us for our involvement in their regions of the world. Why does Iran resent us? Because we overthrew their legitimately elected leader in favor of the Shah, who, by the way, was pro-U.S. He was also a monarch. Finally they overthrew the monarchy in the 80s, and they still don't have a very high regard for us, go figure.

Third, our actions may actually cause proliferation. India will not sign the NPT (nuclear non-proliferation treaty) because they view it as a mechanism for the U.S. to entrench its interests as a hegemon. North Korea left the NPT and began building nuclear weapons as we attacked Iraq in the gulf war.

Finally, Iran possessing a nuclear weapon may actually be a good thing because it may stop us from acting aggressively. Remember, the only time a nuclear weapon has ever been used is when we possessed them and no one else did.

buzz2 · 04-28-2008, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pseudonous

Quote:

I'll pose it like this: Name the details of the situation in which You would authorize military force against Iran.

When Iran declared war on us.
When Iran began destroying American commercial properties (sinking ships, etc...) outside their territory.
When Iran provided direct support to an organization which declared war on us or destroyed American commercial properties.
Basically, when Iran committed hostile acts toward us which could not be considered self defense. This does not include them improving their defense capabilities in any way other than in such instances when it involved a direct threat to our country.
I can't think of any other just reasons to declare war on another country.

By your definition, we have already been attacked by Iran. In recent weeks they have been harrassing our warships just outside of their waterways in international waters. Should we now go to war with them? They even took over a British ship and took hostages. What about that? The Iranian president (I won't even try to spell his name), has stated that he wants to wipe both Israel and U.S. off the face of the world. Calling us, big satan and little satan. How do you deal with a maniac like that? I say we take out their capability to wage nuclear war. They can not beat us in a conventional war.
I think... now this is just my opinion... if we take out Iran, alot of the problems in Iraq would cease too. Since Iran is arming alot of the insurgents in Iraq. That, I think has been a proven fact also, except I can't remember where I heard that from. So, yes I'd support a pre-emptive strike on Iran. It would ultimately save many American lives. Just as nuking Japan did at the end of WWII. I don't mean we should nuke Iran. We have large enough conventional bombs, such a MOAB (Mother Of All Bombs), that can do the job. Take out their nuclear facilities. Also, worrying about what the UN or other countries think about us, is not an option to me. Do you think the Iranian govt. will worry about that when they give nukes to terrorist orgs. or try to launch a nuke at us themselves? I doubt it. I say take 'em out before they try to do it to us.

buzz2 · 04-28-2008, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kham

I would not attack Iran if we knew they were acquiring nuclear weapons.

First, because Iran would not attack us with nuclear weapons. Despite their hatred for the U.S., they do not hate us enough to destroy themselves in the process. Deterrence would clearly remove any incentives to launch an attack.

This has clearly been the case for even the most "irrational" leaders. Even Idi Amin and Qaddafi caved in when their ability to rule was threatened by the British or U.S. Also, there is "two of everything" in Iran. Ahmedinejad, despite being the president, does not control the Iranian military, the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei does. He would be making that decision.

In regard to nuclear terrorism, deterrence checks this as well. There is no reason to think that we would not retaliate against anyone that gave a terrorist nuclear weapons. But I think nuclear terrorism is flawed on a deeper level. My criticism is twofold, first, it is not easy to launch a nuclear weapon. If I came into possession of a nuclear weapon, I could not launch it from my home. It takes expensive technology and facilities that terrorists don't have. This means they would have to use Iran's, thus making deterrence plausible. Second, we're assuming that if terrorists could get nuclear weapons they would. I think this misunderstands the aims of terrorism. Terrorists do not care about wanton havoc as an end in itself, its a means to a political goal. Terrorists would rather opt for conventional, biological, or chemical tools that would allow them to maintain their secrecy and further their political ends. Its much easier to poison our water supply, etc.

Second, U.S. intervention is what causes the sort of hatred that would even make us suspect Iran of being likely of attacking us. This is the CIA's blowback theory, and its supported by plenty of literature on the subject. Terrorists don't hate us because of our freedom, they hate us for our involvement in their regions of the world. Why does Iran resent us? Because we overthrew their legitimately elected leader in favor of the Shah, who, by the way, was pro-U.S. He was also a monarch. Finally they overthrew the monarchy in the 80s, and they still don't have a very high regard for us, go figure.

Third, our actions may actually cause proliferation. India will not sign the NPT (nuclear non-proliferation treaty) because they view it as a mechanism for the U.S. to entrench its interests as a hegemon. North Korea left the NPT and began building nuclear weapons as we attacked Iraq in the gulf war.

Finally, Iran possessing a nuclear weapon may actually be a good thing because it may stop us from acting aggressively. Remember, the only time a nuclear weapon has ever been used is when we possessed them and no one else did.

Another one of the "blame America" crowd. Dang son, get a clue! Islam is not gonna stop until the whole world converts or is killed. That's what their Qu'ran says. We are in a holy war, whether we want to be or not. Just listen to what all those imams are teaching to their people. Iran wants to drive Israel into the sea and destroy America. THAT'S the horrible truth. They will lie to our faces because their book says it's ok to do so, because we are the infidels. We need to take them out before they can get to us first.

Repsa · 06-01-2008, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotConvinced

oh, and assume the year is 2010, so it isn't "ol' Cowboy Bush up to his old tricks again."

My money is on there will be an invasion of Iran before your election (before 2010). If so then ol' man river (John McCain) will be your next president. This is coming from outside looking in. I'm Australian and know bugger all about your political climate in the US. Saying that, this is something McCain will use to his full Adventage. First of all in a time of war/unpeace it has been proven worldwide in politics that the public is less willing to change governments and on this issue McCain will be able to use it to grow support and stamp his support on such a global issue knowing full well the UN will be fully behind military action if Ahmadinejad don't start co-oparate soon.

Kham · 06-02-2008, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzz2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kham

I would not attack Iran if we knew they were acquiring nuclear weapons.

First, because Iran would not attack us with nuclear weapons. Despite their hatred for the U.S., they do not hate us enough to destroy themselves in the process. Deterrence would clearly remove any incentives to launch an attack.

This has clearly been the case for even the most "irrational" leaders. Even Idi Amin and Qaddafi caved in when their ability to rule was threatened by the British or U.S. Also, there is "two of everything" in Iran. Ahmedinejad, despite being the president, does not control the Iranian military, the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei does. He would be making that decision.

In regard to nuclear terrorism, deterrence checks this as well. There is no reason to think that we would not retaliate against anyone that gave a terrorist nuclear weapons. But I think nuclear terrorism is flawed on a deeper level. My criticism is twofold, first, it is not easy to launch a nuclear weapon. If I came into possession of a nuclear weapon, I could not launch it from my home. It takes expensive technology and facilities that terrorists don't have. This means they would have to use Iran's, thus making deterrence plausible. Second, we're assuming that if terrorists could get nuclear weapons they would. I think this misunderstands the aims of terrorism. Terrorists do not care about wanton havoc as an end in itself, its a means to a political goal. Terrorists would rather opt for conventional, biological, or chemical tools that would allow them to maintain their secrecy and further their political ends. Its much easier to poison our water supply, etc.

Second, U.S. intervention is what causes the sort of hatred that would even make us suspect Iran of being likely of attacking us. This is the CIA's blowback theory, and its supported by plenty of literature on the subject. Terrorists don't hate us because of our freedom, they hate us for our involvement in their regions of the world. Why does Iran resent us? Because we overthrew their legitimately elected leader in favor of the Shah, who, by the way, was pro-U.S. He was also a monarch. Finally they overthrew the monarchy in the 80s, and they still don't have a very high regard for us, go figure.

Third, our actions may actually cause proliferation. India will not sign the NPT (nuclear non-proliferation treaty) because they view it as a mechanism for the U.S. to entrench its interests as a hegemon. North Korea left the NPT and began building nuclear weapons as we attacked Iraq in the gulf war.

Finally, Iran possessing a nuclear weapon may actually be a good thing because it may stop us from acting aggressively. Remember, the only time a nuclear weapon has ever been used is when we possessed them and no one else did.

Another one of the "blame America" crowd. Dang son, get a clue! Islam is not gonna stop until the whole world converts or is killed. That's what their Qu'ran says. We are in a holy war, whether we want to be or not. Just listen to what all those imams are teaching to their people. Iran wants to drive Israel into the sea and destroy America. THAT'S the horrible truth. They will lie to our faces because their book says it's ok to do so, because we are the infidels. We need to take them out before they can get to us first.

I wrote a lengthy response but the forums malfunctioned. I won't retype it. In sum, I already responded to your arguments in my previous post, in detail. And I am not part of some "anti America" crowd. Read my post again, much of it came from the CIA. Do you consider CIA analysts to be anti-American?

Muslims do not hate us because of the Quran, they hate us because of intervention or political instability, and only some of them do at that. Ask yourself why the substantial Muslim population in Philadelphia isn't violent?

To understand why groups hate us, look at history. For Iran in particular, it's probably because we overthrew their elected government in 1953 to install a pro-West democracy. They overthrew the monarchy in the 1980s, so, of course you see anti American sentiments.

Nothing is as simple as you'd make it out to be. Research the countries you'd have the U.S. attack, and you'll probably find a different story than the GOP would tell.

AB517 · 06-02-2008, 10:47 AM

Iran would use nuc's
or give them to some who would.

Kham · 06-02-2008, 04:23 PM

I'm leaving the forum.

I type a thought out and well-constructed post, and in response I get:

Quote:

Dang son, get a clue!

Quote:

Iran would use nuc's
or give them to some who would.

I already covered both of these points, and stating claims like that with no warrants is not a way to further discussion. This is a total waste of time.

Repsa · 06-03-2008, 09:54 AM

Kham you make some good points. As much as Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei hate the U.S. They are smart enough not to try to use nuclear weapons on the U.S. Saying that these to guys are loopy and if the U.S was to invade Iraq style. I have no doubt they will lunch there nukes asap at Israel. I agree that nuclear weapons are not weapons of choice for an act of terrorism. But the fact that they could, if they wish get there hands on nuclear weapons serves a point by instilling fear in the minds of the public. Bush will be on there doorstep before he leaves office.

xexon · 06-03-2008, 11:02 PM

I fail to see why Iran needs to be attacked.

So they have a nuclear program? So they "might" make nuclear weapons.

What country has ever asked permission from it's peers to do likewise?

Who are we to give that permission, or not?

Iran is in a rough neighborhood. Crazy Israel on one side. Uncle Sam and his stormtroopers on another. One of the biggest reserves of oil on the planet beneath their feet.

The US has been involved in Iranian internal affairs for almost a 100 years now. They are sick to death of it. So am I. The people of Iran have a legal beef against the west for the smear campaign against them.

All because of oil. And our addiction to it.

The Iranians aren't the problem.

x

AB517 · 06-04-2008, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xexon

I fail to see why Iran needs to be attacked.

So they have a nuclear program? So they "might" make nuclear weapons.

What country has ever asked permission from it's peers to do likewise?

Who are we to give that permission, or not?

Iran is in a rough neighborhood. Crazy Israel on one side. Uncle Sam and his stormtroopers on another. One of the biggest reserves of oil on the planet beneath their feet.

The US has been involved in Iranian internal affairs for almost a 100 years now. They are sick to death of it. So am I. The people of Iran have a legal beef against the west for the smear campaign against them.

All because of oil. And our addiction to it.

The Iranians aren't the problem.

x

So true,

But till then, I am not going to sit around and wait for them to hit us first.
Destroy their infra structure, take their oil, then leave. Gas prices will not exceed $2.00 a gallon in the USA.