Quote: Original post by laeuchli

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by LessBread
There are no good military options when it comes to dealing with Iran. The Iranian government has said that it will regard any military attack on their facilities as a declaration of war. It seems too obvious to have to point out, but most governments would respond that way if facilities in their nation were attacked by the military of another nation. Iran has bigger claws than Iraq did. How many lives is the effort to stop Iran worth?

I really don't know how many lives it is worth to stop Iran if it sets off a bomb, bringing the world closer to nuclear terrorism and inspiring an arms race among nations completely unfit for possessing nuclear arms. Maybe Sunnis in the middle east can help us decide. They'll be none too happy if the Persians invade them.

I would hope US strategists are competent enough to come up with a plan for pushing Iran's rivals in the region into fighting it directly if necessary, but given our misadventures over the last decade, I have my doubts.

Iran hasn't set off a bomb so hold your horses with the bloodlust. How many lives would be lost in a war with Iran? How many Iranians, Americans, Israelis, and Iraqis? Is preventing Iran from getting the bomb more important than those lives? Is preventing Iran from getting the bomb so important that we'll start a war to do so? Bombing Iran would start a war with Iran. It would expand the theater of the current wars. It would keep troops stuck in Iraq and lock in the continual drain on the national treasury. Oil prices will skyrocket. The economy will tank even further. The military option does not benefit the United States. It doesn't benefit the people of Iran either.

When Lessbread, the neo-cons in the DoD who thought invading Iraq was a smooth move, and the military top brass all agree that the military options with respect to Iran are poor...then that should give one pause for thought. If just about every group that normally cant agree on anything unite to agree that something is a bad idea, then maybe just, maybe it is...

LessBread for President!...?

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by LessBread
There are no good military options when it comes to dealing with Iran. The Iranian government has said that it will regard any military attack on their facilities as a declaration of war. It seems too obvious to have to point out, but most governments would respond that way if facilities in their nation were attacked by the military of another nation. Iran has bigger claws than Iraq did. How many lives is the effort to stop Iran worth?

I really don't know how many lives it is worth to stop Iran if it sets off a bomb, bringing the world closer to nuclear terrorism and inspiring an arms race among nations completely unfit for possessing nuclear arms. Maybe Sunnis in the middle east can help us decide. They'll be none too happy if the Persians invade them.

I would hope US strategists are competent enough to come up with a plan for pushing Iran's rivals in the region into fighting it directly if necessary, but given our misadventures over the last decade, I have my doubts.

Iran hasn't set off a bomb so hold your horses with the bloodlust. How many lives would be lost in a war with Iran? How many Iranians, Americans, Israelis, and Iraqis? Is preventing Iran from getting the bomb more important than those lives? Is preventing Iran from getting the bomb so important that we'll start a war to do so? Bombing Iran would start a war with Iran. It would expand the theater of the current wars.

These are weighty questions. Let's leave it to the Iranians to decide. Hopefully they're wise enough to make the right choice: halt their weapons program.

Quote: It would keep troops stuck in Iraq and lock in the continual drain on the national treasury. Oil prices will skyrocket. The economy will tank even further. The military option does not benefit the United States. It doesn't benefit the people of Iran either.

An outbreak of proliferation and then hostilities in the middle east would have similarly disastrous effects. The biggest cause for concern right now is that oil facilities are not adequately secured against an Iranian retaliatory strike. If those could be secured, and the Iranian navy and long-range missiles neutralized, then the fallout could be minimized.

Quote: Original post by Kaze

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by LessBread
There are no good military options when it comes to dealing with Iran. The Iranian government has said that it will regard any military attack on their facilities as a declaration of war. It seems too obvious to have to point out, but most governments would respond that way if facilities in their nation were attacked by the military of another nation. Iran has bigger claws than Iraq did. How many lives is the effort to stop Iran worth?

I really don't know how many lives it is worth to stop Iran if it sets off a bomb, bringing the world closer to nuclear terrorism and inspiring an arms race among nations completely unfit for possessing nuclear arms. Maybe Sunnis in the middle east can help us decide. They'll be none too happy if the Persians invade them.

The problem I see is that military action after Iran tests a bomb isn't going to accomplish much and will be incredibly risky* but military action before they have a bomb will likely cause most of the scenarios were trying to avoid.

*I don't think their dumb enough to give nukes to terrorists but when US troops are a day from their capitol they might reconsider.

Typically when a nation tests its first bomb, it doesn't have any big ones. It likely doesn't have any spares to donate, either.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by LessBread
There are no good military options when it comes to dealing with Iran. The Iranian government has said that it will regard any military attack on their facilities as a declaration of war. It seems too obvious to have to point out, but most governments would respond that way if facilities in their nation were attacked by the military of another nation. Iran has bigger claws than Iraq did. How many lives is the effort to stop Iran worth?

I really don't know how many lives it is worth to stop Iran if it sets off a bomb, bringing the world closer to nuclear terrorism and inspiring an arms race among nations completely unfit for possessing nuclear arms. Maybe Sunnis in the middle east can help us decide. They'll be none too happy if the Persians invade them.

I would hope US strategists are competent enough to come up with a plan for pushing Iran's rivals in the region into fighting it directly if necessary, but given our misadventures over the last decade, I have my doubts.

Iran hasn't set off a bomb so hold your horses with the bloodlust. How many lives would be lost in a war with Iran? How many Iranians, Americans, Israelis, and Iraqis? Is preventing Iran from getting the bomb more important than those lives? Is preventing Iran from getting the bomb so important that we'll start a war to do so? Bombing Iran would start a war with Iran. It would expand the theater of the current wars.

These are weighty questions. Let's leave it to the Iranians to decide. Hopefully they're wise enough to make the right choice: halt their weapons program.

Why leave the decision with them? Why such passivity? Are you claiming the United States has no decision to make or that the US has already made it's decision? You seem to be saying that it will be Iran's fault if they get bombed and not the fault of any country that might conduct such an attack.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: It would keep troops stuck in Iraq and lock in the continual drain on the national treasury. Oil prices will skyrocket. The economy will tank even further. The military option does not benefit the United States. It doesn't benefit the people of Iran either.

An outbreak of proliferation and then hostilities in the middle east would have similarly disastrous effects. The biggest cause for concern right now is that oil facilities are not adequately secured against an Iranian retaliatory strike. If those could be secured, and the Iranian navy and long-range missiles neutralized, then the fallout could be minimized.

Disastrous effects now to avoid possible hostilities later. That's a bad bargain.



Maybe we should listen to Scott Ritter this time? Keeping Iran honest Simply put, Iran is no closer to producing a hypothetical nuclear weapon today than it was prior to Obama's announcement concerning the Qom facility.

Or Gary Sick? How to Keep Iran in Check Without War Officially, both the United States and Israel now agree that Iran is unlikely to be able to produce a bomb until about 2013 or 2014—the same five-year window that was being predicted seventeen years ago in 1992.

Here's what Iran did wrong: Iran Violated International Obligations on Qom Facility -- It failed to report it's decision to build a new centrifuge facility as specified by the Safeguards Agreement it ratified in 1974.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
You seem to be saying that it will be Iran's fault if they get bombed and not the fault of any country that might conduct such an attack.

If they're developing a nuclear bomb, it's no one's fault but their own if they get bombed. They should have thought about that before starting a weapons program, funding and conducting terrorism abroad, and deliberately pandering to extremists and trying to distract their people from problems at home by aiming veiled threats at Israel. These are the kind of things that governments can be held accountable for.

Quote: Disastrous effects now to avoid possible hostilities later. That's a bad bargain.

We don't have to bomb them right now -- we're obviously not in a good position to be doing that at the moment -- but if diplomatic and economic pressure does not dissuade them from pursuing a bomb project, they should be bombed when they're too close for comfort to possessing a nuke.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by LessBread
You seem to be saying that it will be Iran's fault if they get bombed and not the fault of any country that might conduct such an attack.

If they're developing a nuclear bomb, it's no one's fault but their own if they get bombed. They should have thought about that before starting a weapons program, funding and conducting terrorism abroad, and deliberately pandering to extremists and trying to distract their people from problems at home by aiming veiled threats at Israel. These are the kind of things that governments can be held accountable for.

Blame the victim coupled with American exceptionalism. If Iran gets bombed, it can only blame itself. That sounds a lot like "If Iraq gets bombed, it can only blame itself" or "If a woman gets raped she can only blame herself". Who would never say "If the US gets bombed, it can only blame itself"? Who would always say "If the US gets bombed, it can only blame the bad guy at the top of it's enemies list"? Terrorism is another issue. This time it's a Hezbollah connection rather than an Al-Qaeda connection. Is Hezbollah a target too? Iran "deliberately pandering to extremists and trying to distract their people from problems at home" - it sounds like they have a lot in common with the Republican noise machine.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Disastrous effects now to avoid possible hostilities later. That's a bad bargain.

We don't have to bomb them right now -- we're obviously not in a good position to be doing that at the moment -- but if diplomatic and economic pressure does not dissuade them from pursuing a bomb project, they should be bombed when they're too close for comfort to possessing a nuke.

So we should have bombed North Korea years ago?

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Blame the victim coupled with American exceptionalism. If Iran gets bombed, it can only blame itself. That sounds a lot like "If Iraq gets bombed, it can only blame itself" or "If a woman gets raped she can only blame herself". Who would never say "If the US gets bombed, it can only blame itself"? Who would always say "If the US gets bombed, it can only blame the bad guy at the top of it's enemies list"? Terrorism is another issue. This time it's a Hezbollah connection rather than an Al-Qaeda connection. Is Hezbollah a target too? Iran "deliberately pandering to extremists and trying to distract their people from problems at home" - it sounds like they have a lot in common with the Republican noise machine.

It's hard to think of a situation when a woman would deserve to get raped. I actually can't come up with any right now. On the other hand, it is certainly possible to think up scenarios when striking first to defend one's self would be morally justifiable. Like everything, the decision to strike first has to be justified by a credible threat. We don't have to wait for a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv. Or an emboldened Hezbollah. Or whatever else the Iranian regime will feel entitled to with the protection of its shiny new weapon. Nor do we have to wait to allow every other government in the region to develop their own bomb.

Quote: So we should have bombed North Korea years ago?

North Korea is a problem that is much more limited in scope. It is bordered by South Korea and China, only one of which it has designs on. US troops are already stationed there for the purpose of defending the South and engaging the North if necessary. Both North and South believe they will eventually reunify. North Korea is ruled by a batty family dictatorship that is interested primarily in its own survival, not by religious lunatics concerned with religious purity and a secretive cabal of military leaders who actively promote terrorism abroad.

There's no question North Korea should have been bombed if it were at all possible to set back its nuclear ambitions, and those of other nations like Iran, without incurring disastrous losses. Perhaps the diplomatic efforts could have been handled better, but I think North Korea has generally been handled well. Pick battles you can win. If there is a good case to be made that Iran's retaliation can be contained, then there is no moral reason for opposing a military strike, especially if carried out by a nation in the neighborhood whose very existence is at stake.

i am iranian! you must to know iranian nation hate iran goverment politics.

see protests in iran and violence treatment of goverment with them :

http://search.cnn.com/search?query=iran%20protest%20shoot&type=news&sortBy=date&intl=false

more than 100 of protests killed !

Quote: Original post by trzy
If there is a good case to be made that Iran's retaliation can be contained, then there is no moral reason for opposing a military strike, especially if carried out by a nation in the neighborhood whose very existence is at stake.

Shouldn't the primary concern be wether or not Iran is a real threat, not wether or not they can retaliate ? (Preemptive strikes are just plain evil, You can't murder people just because their nation may or may not do something in the future)

If they want the nukes to keep their neighbours from attacking them its their choice, seeing that the US doesn't follow the non-proliferation treaty and Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea hasn't even signed it I can't see how anyone has the right to tell Iran what it can or cannot do anymore.

Quote: Original post by SimonForsman

Quote: Original post by trzy
If there is a good case to be made that Iran's retaliation can be contained, then there is no moral reason for opposing a military strike, especially if carried out by a nation in the neighborhood whose very existence is at stake.

Shouldn't the primary concern be wether or not Iran is a real threat, not wether or not they can retaliate ? (Preemptive strikes are just plain evil, You can't murder people just because their nation may or may not do something in the future)

If they want the nukes to keep their neighbours from attacking them its their choice, seeing that the US doesn't follow the non-proliferation treaty and Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea hasn't even signed it I can't see how anyone has the right to tell Iran what it can or cannot do anymore.

Iran has signed the NPT. It doesn't who and who hasn't signed on to it. Once Iran signed into that NPT then they became answerable to the UN, UNSC, and IAEA.