Bombing Iran?

[Desperado]

Doesn't mean it isn't in our best interest to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.

It is in our interests that Iran not get a nuclear bomb, obviously.

It is not so obvious that it is in our interests to PREVENT Iran from getting a bomb: that would involve a war, and we don't seem able either to win any wars against Muslims, or to get out of these losing wars in less than ten years with a huge financial deficit.

Better just wait and see.

A "wait and see" attitude is enabling Iran in getting bombs. Constantly upsetting their activities and slowing them down until we have someone with the brains and courage to face this situation with a solution and the resolve to facilitate that solution is key.

Sorry, I don't care how you frame it, there is absolutely no justification for pre-emptive wars.

 

[sealadaigh]

Doesn't mean it isn't in our best interest to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.

It is in our interests that Iran not get a nuclear bomb, obviously.

It is not so obvious that it is in our interests to PREVENT Iran from getting a bomb: that would involve a war, and we don't seem able either to win any wars against Muslims, or to get out of these losing wars in less than ten years with a huge financial deficit.

Better just wait and see.

A "wait and see" attitude is enabling Iran in getting bombs. Constantly upsetting their activities and slowing them down until we have someone with the brains and courage to face this situation with a solution and the resolve to facilitate that solution is key.

that does sound a bit like the "we had to destroy the village to save it" concept.

why not just call for unilateral disarmament everywhere.

 

[sealadaigh]

Wait and see with the enemy is like what happened before the Second World War when a lot of people wanted to wait and see about the good old nazis.

With Iran, the choice is wait and see and risk the balance of power completely changing in favor of the Islamists and the enemies of the West .....or taking necessary steps before is too late.

so, you are for nuclear disarmament. it is nice to finally agree with you about something.

Why would you assume I am for nuclear disarmament, when this has nothing to do with the terrible threat posed by the Islamists?

well, islamists has become a rather vague term, so i am not quite sure what you mean by that.

if you mean the persians/iranians. the last time they fought an aggressive war was against the greeks in about 500 B.C. or thereabouts.

there is one country in the mideast that has waged aggressive wars, and they are a nuclear power. in fact, they have committed acts o war against many states, lebanon, jordan, iraq, egypt, syria, turkey...and another i won't mention directly because of a dispute about mistaken identity, which certainly doesn;t alter the fact that it was an act of war. i don't think their disarming would disrupt this "balance of power" as you call it, any more than iran acquiring nukes would tip it in the other direction. it is about russia and the USA.

so, yes, i am all for unilateral disarmament...and i actually have worked with nuclear weapons as artillery rounds.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

I do believe that with the spread of nuclear technology to nations that are less than friendly to the US, coupled with rapidly expanding Chinese military capability, that we should not be shrinking our military, but rather enlarging its strike capability across the globe.
Obama is making poor decisions by shrinking it.

 

[Connery]

It is in our interests that Iran not get a nuclear bomb, obviously.

It is not so obvious that it is in our interests to PREVENT Iran from getting a bomb: that would involve a war, and we don't seem able either to win any wars against Muslims, or to get out of these losing wars in less than ten years with a huge financial deficit.

Better just wait and see.

A "wait and see" attitude is enabling Iran in getting bombs. Constantly upsetting their activities and slowing them down until we have someone with the brains and courage to face this situation with a solution and the resolve to facilitate that solution is key.

Sorry, I don't care how you frame it, there is absolutely no justification for pre-emptive wars.

"Preemptive" is not the term, it is an active defense, military presence and protection against those who do not comply with inspections and make threats against the US and their allies.

 

[skye]

so, you are for nuclear disarmament. it is nice to finally agree with you about something.

Why would you assume I am for nuclear disarmament, when this has nothing to do with the terrible threat posed by the Islamists?

well, islamists has become a rather vague term, so i am not quite sure what you mean by that.

if you mean the persians/iranians. the last time they fought an aggressive war was against the greeks in about 500 B.C. or thereabouts.

there is one country in the mideast that has waged aggressive wars, and they are a nuclear power. in fact, they have committed acts o war against many states, lebanon, jordan, iraq, egypt, syria, turkey...and another i won't mention directly because of a dispute about mistaken identity, which certainly doesn;t alter the fact that it was an act of war. i don't think their disarming would disrupt this "balance of power" as you call it, any more than iran acquiring nukes would tip it in the other direction. it is about russia and the USA.

so, yes, i am all for unilateral disarmament...and i actually have worked with nuclear weapons as artillery rounds.

Iran attacks by proxy and is the world’s most active state sponsor of terrorism.Tehran uses terrorism to further Iranian foreign policy interest.


"Over the past months, a spate of terrorist plots targeting U.S. and Israeli foreign interests
has illustrated Iran’s propensity for sponsoring attacks abroad. Some were thwarted, including
plots in Thailand, Bulgaria, Singapore, Kenya, Cyprus, and Azerbaijan. Others were not, including
bombings in India and Georgia. Some of these operations were carried out by Iranian agents,
others by Iran’s primary proxy, Hezbollah. A few were joint operations executed by Hezbollah
operatives working with Iranian intelligence or members of the Qods Force, an elite branch of
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ."



Iran will not be allowed to get nuclear weapons, mark my words.

 

[sealadaigh]

Why would you assume I am for nuclear disarmament, when this has nothing to do with the terrible threat posed by the Islamists?

well, islamists has become a rather vague term, so i am not quite sure what you mean by that.

if you mean the persians/iranians. the last time they fought an aggressive war was against the greeks in about 500 B.C. or thereabouts.

there is one country in the mideast that has waged aggressive wars, and they are a nuclear power. in fact, they have committed acts o war against many states, lebanon, jordan, iraq, egypt, syria, turkey...and another i won't mention directly because of a dispute about mistaken identity, which certainly doesn;t alter the fact that it was an act of war. i don't think their disarming would disrupt this "balance of power" as you call it, any more than iran acquiring nukes would tip it in the other direction. it is about russia and the USA.

so, yes, i am all for unilateral disarmament...and i actually have worked with nuclear weapons as artillery rounds.

Iran attacks by proxy and is the world’s most active state sponsor of terrorism.Tehran uses terrorism to further Iranian foreign policy interest.


"Over the past months, a spate of terrorist plots targeting U.S. and Israeli foreign interests
has illustrated Iran’s propensity for sponsoring attacks abroad. Some were thwarted, including
plots in Thailand, Bulgaria, Singapore, Kenya, Cyprus, and Azerbaijan. Others were not, including
bombings in India and Georgia. Some of these operations were carried out by Iranian agents,
others by Iran’s primary proxy, Hezbollah. A few were joint operations executed by Hezbollah
operatives working with Iranian intelligence or members of the Qods Force, an elite branch of
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ."



Iran will not be allowed to get nuclear weapons, mark my words.

well, i am not sure what the source of your information is and i would question its accuracy, and i certainly do not regard the testimony of matthew levitt, a jewish person who did his studies in israel and the member of a right wing think tank, as an unbiased source but...

why in the world would you think it would bother me one single little bit if iran didn't develope nuclear weapons. that is what i have been saying. no nukes are good nukes.

i wouldn't be so sure that they won't get them however. they really aren't that hard to come by.

 

[Swagger]

Why would you assume I am for nuclear disarmament, when this has nothing to do with the terrible threat posed by the Islamists?

well, islamists has become a rather vague term, so i am not quite sure what you mean by that.

if you mean the persians/iranians. the last time they fought an aggressive war was against the greeks in about 500 B.C. or thereabouts.

there is one country in the mideast that has waged aggressive wars, and they are a nuclear power. in fact, they have committed acts o war against many states, lebanon, jordan, iraq, egypt, syria, turkey...and another i won't mention directly because of a dispute about mistaken identity, which certainly doesn;t alter the fact that it was an act of war. i don't think their disarming would disrupt this "balance of power" as you call it, any more than iran acquiring nukes would tip it in the other direction. it is about russia and the USA.

so, yes, i am all for unilateral disarmament...and i actually have worked with nuclear weapons as artillery rounds.

Iran attacks by proxy and is the world’s most active state sponsor of terrorism.Tehran uses terrorism to further Iranian foreign policy interest.


"Over the past months, a spate of terrorist plots targeting U.S. and Israeli foreign interests
has illustrated Iran’s propensity for sponsoring attacks abroad. Some were thwarted, including
plots in Thailand, Bulgaria, Singapore, Kenya, Cyprus, and Azerbaijan. Others were not, including
bombings in India and Georgia. Some of these operations were carried out by Iranian agents,
others by Iran’s primary proxy, Hezbollah. A few were joint operations executed by Hezbollah
operatives working with Iranian intelligence or members of the Qods Force, an elite branch of
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ."



Iran will not be allowed to get nuclear weapons, mark my words.

If Russia and China, the most likely sources of Iran's nuclear hardware, continue supplying Tehran, what measures do suppose the United States and her allies will use to prevent further transactions?

Russia clearly wants to keep regimes in the Middle East sweet to maintain its naval assets in the eastern Mediterranean; and China's eager to assert itself as an emerging superpower. Neither will take kindly to western interference in their respective interests and ambitions. Indeed, they may react forcefully to any meddling, however aggressive, in their respective affairs.

 

[Connery]

This is a bit more to the picture.

"Iran lost an estimated $40 billion in 2012 in oil export revenues as the West tightened sanctions, according to the IEA. The country’s oil production in January hit a 30 year low.

The sanctions introduced against Iran as part of the dispute over Tehran’s nuclear programme cost the country over $40 billion in export revenues in 2012 or about $3.4 billion per month, according to International Energy Agency.

In February the United States introduced sanctions which “effectively bar Iran from repatriating earnings from its oil exports, depriving Tehran of much needed hard currency,” the IEA said in its monthly report on the world oil market. The US Treasury said earlier in February that the countries continuing to buy Iranian oil will have to retain their payment for the oil and Iran will be able to use the proceeds only to buy goods in the countries where it exports its oil."

Sanctions cost Iran $40bn in 2012, oil production contracts ? RT

 

[skye]

well, islamists has become a rather vague term, so i am not quite sure what you mean by that.

if you mean the persians/iranians. the last time they fought an aggressive war was against the greeks in about 500 B.C. or thereabouts.

there is one country in the mideast that has waged aggressive wars, and they are a nuclear power. in fact, they have committed acts o war against many states, lebanon, jordan, iraq, egypt, syria, turkey...and another i won't mention directly because of a dispute about mistaken identity, which certainly doesn;t alter the fact that it was an act of war. i don't think their disarming would disrupt this "balance of power" as you call it, any more than iran acquiring nukes would tip it in the other direction. it is about russia and the USA.

so, yes, i am all for unilateral disarmament...and i actually have worked with nuclear weapons as artillery rounds.

Iran attacks by proxy and is the world’s most active state sponsor of terrorism.Tehran uses terrorism to further Iranian foreign policy interest.


"Over the past months, a spate of terrorist plots targeting U.S. and Israeli foreign interests
has illustrated Iran’s propensity for sponsoring attacks abroad. Some were thwarted, including
plots in Thailand, Bulgaria, Singapore, Kenya, Cyprus, and Azerbaijan. Others were not, including
bombings in India and Georgia. Some of these operations were carried out by Iranian agents,
others by Iran’s primary proxy, Hezbollah. A few were joint operations executed by Hezbollah
operatives working with Iranian intelligence or members of the Qods Force, an elite branch of
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ."



Iran will not be allowed to get nuclear weapons, mark my words.

If Russia and China, the most likely sources of Iran's nuclear hardware, continue supplying Tehran, what measures do suppose the United States and her allies will use to prevent further transactions?

Russia clearly wants to keep regimes in the Middle East sweet to maintain its naval assets in the eastern Mediterranean; and China's eager to assert itself as an emerging superpower. Neither will take kindly to western interference in their respective interests and ambitions. Indeed, they may react forcefully to any meddling, however aggressive, in their respective affairs.

For the purpose of upsetting the balance of power which is in favor of the US, China and Russia are trading with Iran and are not hostile to its regime.

However, if crunch time comes and it is necessary to take military action against Iran, it is very doubtful whether this two powers would decide that intervention is worth the risk.

They will make a lot of political noise at the UN and will leave it at that.

 

[blackhawk]

"A top American Jewish leader on Sunday criticized the Obama administration for cutting its aircraft carrier presence in the Persian Gulf region from two carriers to one. He said the move sent entirely the wrong message to Iran about America’s commitment to keep all options, including the military option, on the table in the struggle to thwart Tehran’s nuclear drive.

“I’m personally very disturbed by the withdrawal [of one of the US's two aircraft carriers] from the Persian Gulf, the Arab Gulf, because of the message it sends to the Iranians,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, the long-time executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organization, in unusually critical comments. “We have to think about how the Iranians perceive it.”

Jewish leader raps US for taking aircraft carrier out of Gulf | The Times of Israel

i just really have to wonder why this businessman is going to israel and complaining about a move that takes our kids (and my kid is in a carrier group).

also, who is this "we" he is speaking about?

whether you like obama or not, this is just wrong. do not go to a foreign country and disrespect ours. that weakens us worse than the withdrawl of an aircraft carrier.

The truth is the military option was and never will be on the table at least not by the U.S. or the United Nations so one or two carrier's it really does not matter the only Nation that is likely to take military action is Israel.

that is not the point. i don't care if we have the whole pacific fleet in the persian gulf and our military decides to move one life raft.

the point is that i do not think an american citisen and a powerful businessman who heads an organisation full of equally powerful americans should go into a foreign country and criticise to the prime minister of that country, in a very public forum, the actions of our military.

to make the matter worse, there is a very important meeting coming up between these two heads of state and their relationship with each other could easily and accurately described as contentious.

Sorry I don't buy that it weakens us any more than if he said it here if in fact it weakens us at all. It's sure not going to make the relationship between Obama and BIbi any worse those two have disliked each other from day one.

 

[Connery]

It is in our interests that Iran not get a nuclear bomb, obviously.

It is not so obvious that it is in our interests to PREVENT Iran from getting a bomb: that would involve a war, and we don't seem able either to win any wars against Muslims, or to get out of these losing wars in less than ten years with a huge financial deficit.

Better just wait and see.

A "wait and see" attitude is enabling Iran in getting bombs. Constantly upsetting their activities and slowing them down until we have someone with the brains and courage to face this situation with a solution and the resolve to facilitate that solution is key.

that does sound a bit like the "we had to destroy the village to save it" concept.

why not just call for unilateral disarmament everywhere.

Why should we?

 

[sealadaigh]

A "wait and see" attitude is enabling Iran in getting bombs. Constantly upsetting their activities and slowing them down until we have someone with the brains and courage to face this situation with a solution and the resolve to facilitate that solution is key.

that does sound a bit like the "we had to destroy the village to save it" concept.

why not just call for unilateral disarmament everywhere.

Why should we?

perhaps you do not quite grasp the concept of "mutually assured destruction." a lot of people are rattling thaat sword, and a lot of other people wuold like to have that sword to rattle.

don't bother me. i woke up one evening in a field hospital and realised every day from here on in is a bonus.

 

[sealadaigh]

The truth is the military option was and never will be on the table at least not by the U.S. or the United Nations so one or two carrier's it really does not matter the only Nation that is likely to take military action is Israel.

that is not the point. i don't care if we have the whole pacific fleet in the persian gulf and our military decides to move one life raft.

the point is that i do not think an american citisen and a powerful businessman who heads an organisation full of equally powerful americans should go into a foreign country and criticise to the prime minister of that country, in a very public forum, the actions of our military.

to make the matter worse, there is a very important meeting coming up between these two heads of state and their relationship with each other could easily and accurately described as contentious.

Sorry I don't buy that it weakens us any more than if he said it here if in fact it weakens us at all. It's sure not going to make the relationship between Obama and BIbi any worse those two have disliked each other from day one.

maybe you're right. i never knew why everyone was mad about jane fonda either.

 

[Connery]

that does sound a bit like the "we had to destroy the village to save it" concept.

why not just call for unilateral disarmament everywhere.

Why should we?

perhaps you do not quite grasp the concept of "mutually assured destruction." a lot of people are rattling thaat sword, and a lot of other people wuold like to have that sword to rattle.

don't bother me. i woke up one evening in a field hospital and realised every day from here on in is a bonus.

I grasp that as a nation we muc be armed with the most sophisticated and effective weapons in order to protect ourselves and deter any war from occurring. Those weapons in time may phase out nuclear devices, but for today this is the order of things.

 

[sealadaigh]

Why should we?

perhaps you do not quite grasp the concept of "mutually assured destruction." a lot of people are rattling thaat sword, and a lot of other people wuold like to have that sword to rattle.

don't bother me. i woke up one evening in a field hospital and realised every day from here on in is a bonus.

I grasp that as a nation we muc be armed with the most sophisticated and effective weapons in order to protect ourselves and deter any war from occurring. Those weapons in time may phase out nuclear devices, but for today this is the order of things.

i don't really grasp that. who wins? who survives? who benefits?

what we have to do is figure out a better way to solve problems.

it's kinda like when muhammad ali said..."i ain't got no quarrel with the vietcong...
no vietcong ever called me ******". it really doees make sense on a broader scale as well.

the world does not need nukes.

 

[Connery]

perhaps you do not quite grasp the concept of "mutually assured destruction." a lot of people are rattling thaat sword, and a lot of other people wuold like to have that sword to rattle.

don't bother me. i woke up one evening in a field hospital and realised every day from here on in is a bonus.

I grasp that as a nation we muc be armed with the most sophisticated and effective weapons in order to protect ourselves and deter any war from occurring. Those weapons in time may phase out nuclear devices, but for today this is the order of things.

i don't really grasp that. who wins? who survives? who benefits?

what we have to do is figure out a better way to solve problems.

it's kinda like when muhammad ali said..."i ain't got no quarrel with the vietcong...
no vietcong ever called me ******". it really doees make sense on a broader scale as well.

the world does not need nukes.

The problem is not weaponry, it is the insane pursuit of annihilating anyone who does runs contrary to the Koran. This is not new, Thomas Jefferson had to address this issue in the First Barbary War and there were no nukes back then just the same insanity, hatred and savagery as today.

'In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once."
http://memory.loc.gov/master/mss/mtj/mtj1/005/0400/0430.jpg


Take the weapons away and the problem remains. I rather have an advantage over those who wish me death, I want my country to protect me against those who wish to destroy us as Iran has expressed.

 

[Nika2013]

The reason for the reduced presence is that the Obama administration has decided to use diplomacy, rather than threat and most likely this businessman is a representative of the conservative group that sponsors the journal, Foreign Affairs, and these people actually have vigilante supporters who collect money for a war against Iran and do their own planning outside of government. The movie, Syriana (spelling?) explains this...Interesting post...thank you

 

[Desperado]

A "wait and see" attitude is enabling Iran in getting bombs. Constantly upsetting their activities and slowing them down until we have someone with the brains and courage to face this situation with a solution and the resolve to facilitate that solution is key.

Sorry, I don't care how you frame it, there is absolutely no justification for pre-emptive wars.

"Preemptive" is not the term, it is an active defense, military presence and protection against those who do not comply with inspections and make threats against the US and their allies.

Sorry
Call it what you will.... Preemptive or first strike... Not only is it not the American way it is also morally wrong.

 

[Connery]

Sorry, I don't care how you frame it, there is absolutely no justification for pre-emptive wars.

"Preemptive" is not the term, it is an active defense, military presence and protection against those who do not comply with inspections and make threats against the US and their allies.

Sorry
Call it what you will.... Preemptive or first strike... Not only is it not the American way it is also morally wrong.

I have heard that argument from people who refused to join the military as it was "morally wrong" they let the other guy get his hands dirty while enjoying the freedoms and taking advantage of a society borne of preservation based on sacrifice and service.