Must invade Iran NOW!

[KarlMarx]

Do you guys really think that we are capable of waging another war in the Middle East? Are we really capable of dealing with another country that we'd have to take over after an invasion?

Think of the alternative.

Iran completes its nuclear weapon, then after some time a situation arises where they decide to point those missiles at Israel. Israel also has the bomb and decides to point theirs at Iran.

Iran decides to bomb Tel Aviv, Israel retaliates.... now we have a nuclear war in the Middle East.

That's what we are talking about.

Where is this money coming from? On top of us having our resources drained, we will be igniting more hatred from the Islamic fundamentalist community, which will leave us even more vulnerable to attack on our home soil. The war on terror is not just against Iran and Iraq-- it's against an ideology. There is no one face to it; taking out Iran is not the solution.

Good point on the money. To address that, I am sure there are a few hundred billion dollars of fat in the budget. Let's start with every pork barrel bill that favors Ted Kennedy, then there's the "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska, a few hundred thousand here and there for studying fruit flies and belly button lint, the Tennessee Valley Authority (which provides subsidized electricty to 2% of the population, enacted during FDR's administration to help him win an election, I'm sure he won't mind, he's been dead for over 60 years).

Your point on the Islamic fundamentalists hating us though, isn't. Their problem with us is that we were born. They hate us anyway, so I say, bomb the suckers and let God sort 'em out. Frankly, I'd be in favor of bombing Mecca during the hajj if we are attacked again. But, the Islamofascists aren't going to attack us, that was the argument you had when we invaded Iraq. They didn't do it then, they aren't going to do it now.

Also, why is it okay for us to have nuclear weapons? That's kind of hyppocritical and weakens our credibility in the global community.

I'm not saying that we should let him blow anyone off the planet, but a little bit of talking can't hurt...

Why is it OK for us to have nuclear weapons? Because our enemies have nuclear weapons and would not hesitate to threaten us with them if we didn't have them. That's not hypocrisy, that's survival. That is, unless you enjoy living in totalitarian state.

Also, don't seem to realize that Britain, France, India, Pakistan, China, Russia, Israel all have the bomb and many countries would like to get their hands on that technology. I don't think having nuclear weapons threatens our credibility. What threatens our credibility is starting a military operation then cutting and running as people on your side of the argument suggest we should do. We did it in Vietnam, you want us to do it again in Iraq. That sort of thing harms our credibilty for decades, not possessing nuclear weapons. The Islamofascists are counting on us doing the same thing in Iraq as we did in Vietnam. That's what keeps their hopes up.

 

[ekrem]

http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?idr=527&id=640497

this is a russian newspaper in english edition. Russia cancelled selling S-300 Anti-Missile Batteries to Iran. Plus this newspaper claims to have investigated that Russia has an evacuation plan for Russians in Iran ready.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

No--we are the ONLY country who had them and has used them--so far.

what year was that? Were you even born yet? I wasnt. Get real. Use your brain instead of bumper sticker slogans.

If you really think a nuke is better in the hands of the Iranian president than ANYONE we elect, then you credibility will be rather,,,well, RATHERish, Dan that is.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Btw--has anyone notified the liberals that diplomacy regarding Iran has been ongoing for sometime now and has included countries in Europe and Asia? What allies we have left are being consulted and ALL of the world powers are aware of our feelings regarding this matter. I'd just hate for them to miss it.

"whatever allies we have left" will step up to the plate on this one. As for germany and france, they will always instantly become our allies once they need us, and never would be our allies if they didnt.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Ya we were--they attacked us at Pearl Harbor etc. remember? They wanted to become a world power and we embargoed the hell out their oil supply so they pre-emptively tried to take us out. They lost because we pulled together a bunch of people to make nukes and we used em.
So in fact--yes--we are the only country that has used them so far and anyone who thinks nuclear war is survivable needs to read more.

They lost because we had nukes and they didnt?

First, IF that were true, all the more reason we should have them and not Iran. PROOF we used them only for good. Kinda like cops having guns and criminals dont. I know thats a tough concept, especially in todays liberal enviorment, but when I was a kid, movies had good guys and bad guys.

BUT.........................

I dont know, I musta read the wrong books, but mine told me we had kicked the nips butts all the way back to Japan by the time we nuked em. Is that true? Or were the liberals already busy re writing history back then too?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The gun control comparison is interesting and I think that's a shrewd observation-- and yes, I do support gun control; I support it on the grounds that if you are an American citizen, you can only have a gun if you demonstrate that you will use it appropriately.

In my comparison to Iran, though, I was just trying to show that having the bomb and then telling others not to have it hinders our message...it's like someone eating sweets right in front of you, but then saying you can't have any because they are bad for you. It makes us come across as if we are above the law, which we are not.

And I do think that he is "crazy," but we even with that said, going to war is simply too risky...I know you guys are conservatives and I'll assume Hawks, but to me this is a common sense issue-- we need to exercise EVERY option before military intervention and we cannot go at this alone...we need allies. There's a reason why George H. W. Bush (41) built up a strong coalition for Desert Storm-- because he knew it was too risky to do it alone...obviously, his son didn't inherit the common sense gene.

Bush has been pressing China and Russia on this. The irony is he has also been doing that with North Korea, but all the libs keep on doing is exclaiming that the logic we used to ouster Saddam, why arent we invading North Korea too. As a matter of fact, I had to unveil my plan of using the Kennedy/Kerry fortunes and enlisting all the illegals and any Mexicans wanting US citizenship to go and beat their asses.

Now, for you "sweets" analogy, it fails because another person eating sweets wont hurt me. A more apt analogy would be drinking in front of an alcoholic.
Now, being a recovered alcoholic, I do not want to tell others they cant drink, and in fact I tell them dont feel uncomfortable drinking in front of me. And furtherly, I have no right to tell them not to drink because they have demonstrated the ability to use it responsably, while I havent, and that they should do what they can to keep me from drinking, if Im showig that tendency.

 

[dilloduck]

We have demonstrated the ability to have them and not use them

Your quote---it's not true.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Your quote---it's not true.

it is true. I used to drink. I havent had a drink n 20 years. I have proven the ability to be around alcohol and not drink. In fact, I have bought alcohol for others.

Doing something once a long time ago does not preclude one from being able to "control" the activity they engaged in.

 

[archangel]

Ya we were--they attacked us at Pearl Harbor etc. remember? They wanted to become a world power and we embargoed the hell out their oil supply so they pre-emptively tried to take us out. They lost because we pulled together a bunch of people to make nukes and we used em.
So in fact--yes--we are the only country that has used them so far and anyone who thinks nuclear war is survivable needs to read more.

At the end of WWII the US had taken all of Japans Islands up to the main Island of Japan at a cost of tens of thousands of troops...The Generals and Admirals of the time estimated troop loses in the hundreds of thousands in order to take the main Island of Japan...thus they used the Atom bombs to eliminate the loses to our brave young men...Japan was given the option to surrender prior to the dropping of the bomb!They refused and still did after the first bomb...the second one did the trick!

 

[dilloduck]

At the end of WWII the US had taken all of Japans Islands up to the main Island of Japan at a cost of tens of thousands of troops...The Generals and Admirals of the time estimated troop loses in the hundreds of thousands in order to take the main Island of Japan...thus they used the Atom bombs to eliminate the loses to our brave young men...Japan was given the option to surrender prior to the dropping of the bomb!They refused and still did after the first bomb...the second one did the trick!

The fire-bombings of major Japanese cities did more damage and killed more people than both nukes put together. The point is no one can prove that Iran will use a nuke if they develop one. Kruschev threatened to "bury" America but never fired a nuke. In fact no other country than the US has ever used one in warfare. Isn't it quite hypocritical for the US to say no one can be trusted with one when we are the only one used one?

 

[dilloduck]

it is true. I used to drink. I havent had a drink n 20 years. I have proven the ability to be around alcohol and not drink. In fact, I have bought alcohol for others.

Doing something once a long time ago does not preclude one from being able to "control" the activity they engaged in.

You mean we have proven that we can refrain from using nukes 3 times?

 

[Bonnie]

Thanks to the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a new word has entered the political vocabulary: mahdaviat.

Not surprisingly, it's a technical religious term. Mahdaviat derives from mahdi, Arabic for "rightly-guided one," a major figure in Islamic eschatology. He is, explains the Encyclopaedia of Islam, "the restorer of religion and justice who will rule before the end of the world." The concept originated in the earliest years of Islam and, over time, became particularly identified with the Shi‘ite branch. Whereas "it never became an essential part of Sunni religious doctrine," continues the encyclopedia, "Belief in the coming of the Mahdi of the Family of the Prophet became a central aspect of the faith in radical Shi‘ism," where it is also known as the return of the Twelfth Imam.

Mahdaviat means "belief in and efforts to prepare for the Mahdi."

In a fine piece of reporting, Scott Peterson of the Christian Science Monitor shows the centrality of mahdaviat in Mr. Ahmadinejad's outlook and explores its implications for his policies.

As mayor of Tehran, for example, Mr. Ahmadinejad appears to have in 2004 secretly instructed the city council to build a grand avenue to prepare for the Mahdi. A year later, as president, he allocated $17 million for a blue-tiled mosque closely associated with mahdaviat in Jamkaran, south of the capital. He has instigated the building of a direct Tehran-Jamkaran railroad line. He had a list of his proposed cabinet members dropped into a well adjacent to the Jamkaran mosque, it is said, to benefit from its purported divine connection.

He often raises the topic, and not just to Muslims. When addressing the United Nations in September, Mr. Ahmadinejad flummoxed his audience of world political leaders by concluding his address with a prayer for the Mahdi's appearance: "O mighty Lord, I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last repository, the Promised One, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace."

On returning to Iran from New York, Mr. Ahmadinejad recalled the effect of his U.N. speech:

one of our group told me that when I started to say "In the name of God the almighty and merciful," he saw a light around me, and I was placed inside this aura. I felt it myself. I felt the atmosphere suddenly change, and for those 27 or 28 minutes, the leaders of the world did not blink. … And they were rapt. It seemed as if a hand was holding them there and had opened their eyes to receive the message from the Islamic republic.

What Mr. Peterson calls the "presidential obsession" with mahdaviat leads Mr. Ahmadinejad to "a certitude that leaves little room for compromise. From redressing the gulf between rich and poor in Iran, to challenging America and Israel and enhancing Iran's power with nuclear programs, every issue is designed to lay the foundation for the Mahdi's return."

"Mahdaviat is a code for [Iran's Islamic] revolution, and is the spirit of the revolution," says the head of an institute dedicated to studying and speeding the Mahdi's appearance. "This kind of mentality makes you very strong," the political editor of Resalat newspaper, Amir Mohebian, observed. "If I think the Mahdi will come in two, three, or four years, why should I be soft? Now is the time to stand strong, to be hard." Some Iranians, reports PBS, "worry that their new president has no fear of international turmoil, may think it's just a sign from God."

Mahdaviat has direct and ominous implications for the U.S.-Iran confrontation, says an Ahmadinejad supporter, Hamidreza Taraghi of Iran's hard-line Islamic Coalition Society. It implies seeing Washington as the rival to Tehran and even as a false Mahdi. For Mr. Ahmadinejad, the top priority is to challenge America, and specifically to create a powerful model state based on "Islamic democracy" by which to oppose it. Mr. Taraghi predicts trouble ahead unless Americans fundamentally change their ways.

I'd reverse that formulation. The most dangerous leaders in modern history are those (such as Hitler) equipped with a totalitarian ideology and a mystical belief in their own mission. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fulfills both these criteria, as revealed by his U.N. comments. That combined with his expected nuclear arsenal make him an adversary who must be stopped, and urgently.

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3258

Yes he must be stopped sooner than later!!!!

 

[dilloduck]

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3258

Yes he must be stopped sooner than later!!!!

Aren't there several ways to stop him or are nukes the only answer?

 

[archangel]

The fire-bombings of major Japanese cities did more damage and killed more people than both nukes put together. The point is no one can prove that Iran will use a nuke if they develop one. Kruschev threatened to "bury" America but never fired a nuke. In fact no other country than the US has ever used one in warfare. Isn't it quite hypocritical for the US to say no one can be trusted with one when we are the only one used one?

The firebombings did not do as much damage as the two Nukes...and this strategy failed to deliver a surrender...as did the first nuke...the second got it's point across without the lose of hundreds of thousands of US soldiers and sailors lives...Japan was made aware of the strike before it happened they refused to surrender,until the second bomb...I am quite sure the US President would have preferred to not drop this horrendous bomb,but had no other choice...and by the way we nor Russia ever used the bomb after the results were a known entity...it is just used for posturing by Super Powers...would not be the case by Radicals...ie:Twin Towers still ring a bell?

 

[dilloduck]

The firebombings did not do as much damage as the two Nukes...and this strategy failed to deliver a surrender...as did the first nuke...the second got it's point across without the lose of hundreds of thousands of US soldiers and sailors lives...Japan was made aware of the strike before it happened they refused to surrender,until the second bomb...I am quite sure the US President would have preferred to not drop this horrendous bomb,but had no other choice...and by the way we nor Russia ever used the bomb after the results were a known entity...it is just used for posturing by Super Powers...would not be the case by Radicals...ie:Twin Towers still ring a bell?

http://www.answers.com/topic/bombing-of-tokyo-in-world-war-ii

Check you facts, Arch.

I'm not implying that the US should feel guilty about the nukes. I'm just stating the we are the only country that has ever used them. Hopefully no country will ever use them again.

 

[archangel]

http://www.answers.com/topic/bombing-of-tokyo-in-world-war-ii

Check you facts, Arch.

I'm not implying that the US should feel guilty about the nukes. I'm just stating the we are the only country that has ever used them. Hopefully no country will ever use them again.

however I said damage...the article said more lives were lost to firebombings than the nukes...so I suppose we are both correct in 'our' statements!

 

[liberalogic]

Just to make it clear-- I DO NOT think we should "cut and run" from Iraq...I think the entire war was unjustified and has been terribly mishandled, but cutting and running would be counterproductive and make us come across as weak, just as you imply...I couldn't agree with you more.

And also it is true that they hate us because we were born, but our invasion of an Islamic country certainly doesn't make us appear to be better. If it did, why are we still being attacked by insurgents in Iraq? They're attacking us because we are there-- the same would happen in Iran.

If military action does take place, it would be nice to have international support for this cause-- I would hope that we can agree on that.

 

[dilloduck]

however I said damage...the article said more lives were lost to firebombings than the nukes...so I suppose we are both correct in 'our' statements!

http://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html

Check out the chart of the percentage of damage to the 67 napalmed cites.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Just to make it clear-- I DO NOT think we should "cut and run" from Iraq...I think the entire war was unjustified and has been terribly mishandled, but cutting and running would be counterproductive and make us come across as weak, just as you imply...I couldn't agree with you more.

And also it is true that they hate us because we were born, but our invasion of an Islamic country certainly doesn't make us appear to be better. If it did, why are we still being attacked by insurgents in Iraq? They're attacking us because we are there-- the same would happen in Iran.

If military action does take place, it would be nice to have international support for this cause-- I would hope that we can agree on that.

some good points.

However, the terrorists are not attacking us because we are there.
They attacked us when we were here, 9/11. They have bombed Bali, london, Spain and recently Jordan. Kinda blows up that theory.

Bush was brilliant in taking the war to their soil instead of here. Hence no terrorist attacks since 9/11.

 

[archangel]

http://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html

Check out the chart of the percentage of damage to the 67 napalmed cites.

this relates to physical damage of buildings...I was referring to damage in my original reply as to the 'will' to continue the fight! :usa: