BG…I don’t believe anyone is suggesting boots on the ground in Iran. The choices seem to be between conventional (or tactical nuclear if you believe Der Trihs) strikes designed to take out or hamper Iran’s nuclear program, or sanctions…or doing nothing I suppose, since some seem against even sanctions.
-XT
Nonsense. As I said, we were their enemies before the present regime existed; we imposed a dictatorship on them for our own purposes. The present government exists because of our own malice towards Iran. They’ve tried to mend fences with us in the past and just gotten slapped in the face with accusations of being part of an “Axis of Evil”. We don’t want friendly relations with them.
In the long run, not getting nukes means their destruction as a nation and most likely the extermination of the leadership; no harm caused by sanctions can match the dangers of not having nukes. Both the self interest of the leadership and any sense of patriotic duty they have demands they acquire nukes by any means possible.
Yeah, suuure, that worked real well for Iraq. :rolleyes:
Someone has already initiated hostilities by assassinating key people in Iran’s nuclear program. Between that and sanctions, perhaps Iran’s weapons program can be slowed.
There are many difficult steps between an enrichment program and a military capability.
I would never say “never”, but I could not support such a war based on current information. The war talk smells too much like the case for Iraq II. I expect the next Republican president to push for it.
Did you read the OP?
War, with boots on the ground, is the topic of this thread.
It’s worse than that; they’ve long assumed they’d lose a conventional war against the US, and have prepared for such a guerrilla conflict. The invasion would be easy; the regular military might not even put up much of a fight but be ordered to go into hiding. It’s the occupation that would be horrible.
The OP is.
Bush threatened to use nukes, and nukes are simply what we’d need to do the job without sending people in person to the facilities.
or the internal destruction of their equipment and the assassination of the scientists involved. Which has already taken place.
So the current government of Iran is the same as the last one?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
War, with boots on the ground, is the topic of this thread.
[/QUOTE]
:smack: I skimmed it, to be honest and, well, I missed that part. :o To me, boots on the ground in Iran is pure fantasy, regardless of what happens.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Nonsense. As I said, we were their enemies before the present regime existed; we imposed a dictatorship on them for our own purposes. The present government exists because of our own malice towards Iran. They’ve tried to mend fences with us in the past and just gotten slapped in the face with accusations of being part of an “Axis of Evil”. We don’t want friendly relations with them.
[/QUOTE]
And yet, we haven’t attacked Iran, despite the fact that there have been multiple Republican presidents in power since the revolution. Basically most of this is fantasy or highly spun history, but that’s really the bottom line…despite arch-conservatives like Reagan and Bush II being president, we haven’t attacked Iran.
Oh horseshit. They don’t need nukes to ensure their continued rule.
:rolleyes: To you as well. Iraq was an aberration. The circumstances that allowed for Iraq to happen were extremely narrow. And now, having gone through it, the chances of anything even remotely similar happening to Iran are even more remote. And Iran could substantially lower even the remote chance of conflict with the US by simply opening up and not being such a freaking rogue nation. Get rid of their support for terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah (as well as a few others), open up their nuclear program to UN inspection and basically playing nice with the rest of the world. Again, even if you think the US is The Evil Empire (which I know you do), surly you know that the Europeans wouldn’t continue the pressure OR support US military operations if Iran did those things…right? I know you aren’t that crazy.
As to the supposed entrenched US enmity, have you noticed that US relations with Britain have softened over time somewhat? 
If Iran straightened up and played nice, eventually the US would normalize relations even with such an arch enemy as Iran, because, you know, we’ve done that with other countries that have pissed us off in the past. Especially if there is money to be made. Perhaps you’ve noticed our close relations with that obscure country called ‘China’ (it’s been in a few papers lately, but it’s pretty small, granted)?
-XT
Well the U.S. and other nations CHOSE to impose sanctions. They took it up a notch.
As far as I know there are already UN inspectors in Iran.
Well they say they have no proof. Am I to disbelieve them? Panetta and Barak say Iran hasn’t made the decision to pursue nukes.
Great More instability in the region. I bet all the good guys will get the power this time.
Who have been saying, for years, that Iran is denying them the access they need to verify the status of Iran’s nuclear program and who just released a report addressing the probable military dimensions to Iran’s program.
I would support war with Iran as much as I’d support war with anyone. Is an ally under attack? Did they attack us? Are we otherwise obligated to act due to some other treaty?
Otherwise let them be for Eris’s sake.
[QUOTE=WillFarnaby]
Well the U.S. and other nations CHOSE to impose sanctions. They took it up a notch.
[/QUOTE]
Vicious circle, ain’t it? New evidence comes out that Iran is seemingly pursuing nuclear weapons (in violation to the treaty they signed), and the US/Europe impose new sanctions. The easy way to avoid this being…don’t look like you are pursuing nuclear weapons in violation of the treaty you signed, especially when you are already considered a rogue nation. Seems fairly simple and straight forward to me. We haven’t, for instance, imposed sanctions (new or otherwise) on, say, Japan lately, despite the whole ‘dropping an atomic bomb on two of their cities’ thingy. We haven’t imposed sanctions (same) on Saudi either, despite the fact that they have lots of that oil stuff. The lesson here is, don’t do stuff like that and you won’t get sanctions imposed on you.
Yep. And guess who it was who came back and said that Iran was probably pursuing a weaponized nuclear program? I’ll give you 3 guesses…
I doubt it. A revolution in Iran would be a horrible mess. You know how Iran could avoid that?
-XT
Oh oh oh, I know I know! They could avoid it by getting nukes and not giving their people freedom, right?
As if America has ever been concerned about freedom. We’ve always opposed freedom in Iran (and pretty much everywhere else), and helped to put the Shah into power in order to prevent it. We don’t want “freedom”; we want puppets.
Of course we have; we supported Iraq in their war against Iran, we’ve supported terrorist groups within their borders, we even blew up an airliner of theirs and gave the officers who did it medals.
They do against us; that’s the lesson of Iraq.
China; which is large and has nukes. Britain; which has nukes and is full of white Christians who speak English.
Der, I know that you have a script and by gum you’re stickin’ to it, but the question wasn’t what America would do, but how Iran could avoid a revolution. Insert “Grr, America!” where it’s at least relevant, please.
Exactly.
Why do people act like the United States and Iran are equivalent?
By continuing with what they’re doing?
www.armscontrol.org/factssheet/NuclearweaponsWhohaswhat shows that U.S has up to 5,113 active nuclear warheads, and Israel has up to 200 nuclear warheads, so why is Iran not allowed to defend itself? Do people really want another expensive war and for what? It is shameful, and are we not yet wise to how this allegation
of Iran’s nuclear program is just the same bullying and threatening way to draw us into something we will all regret? I cannot imagine that we will be duped again by warmongers.
One of the worst misuses of a phrase for political value to come out of the adventure in Iraq is ‘preemptive war’. The war with Iraq was not preemptive, and neither would a war with Iran be preemptive. A preemptive war is a war launched against an enemy who is preparing to imminantly launch an unavoidable war of their own. The 1967 Arab-Israeli war was a preemptive war initiated by Israel against its Arab neighbors who were very clearly planning to go to war with Israel at some time in the very near future. In the war against Iraq and a hypothetical war with Iran the US faces no such imminant threat. At best it is preventative war to prevent some possible threat emerging from these nations at some point in the indeterminate future.
As per Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms 12 April 2001
Note the deliberate use of incontrovertible and imminent.
We’re broke.
If not, then yes.
Since we are broke, no.