CRAWFORD, Texas (Aug. 13) - President Bush said he could consider using force as a last resort to press Iran to give up its nuclear program.
How do you feel about President Bush’s latest comment? How do you feel about using force against Iran?
Frankly, the statement doesn’t come as a surprise to me at all.
You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to imagine that Bush would love to be able to take a swipe at Iran.
It’s kind of amusing, but the drawdown of troops from Iraq simply might mean they all cross the border into Iran and kick some ass there instead…
Iran has been a hotbed of assholes for as long as I have been alive. I won’t shed a tear if they get stomped, but please, for the love of god, just gives us the truth and don’t hype up some huge fear in the public before invading.
All I want is the public to actually endorse the action based on the realities… and maybe if some real coalition could be built it would certainly help too.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
How do you feel about using force against Iran?
[/quote]
I fully support the use of force against Iran if the aim is to prevent them from having nuclear weapons. There’s no doubt in my mind that we will be less safe if they have a nuclear arsenal.
If we’re going to use force, we’d better do it before they get a nuclear bomb.
BTW, we now have forces on both their borders, given Iraq and Afghanistan (not that the border between Iran and Afghanistan is particularly well defined or anything, but we do have troops on both sides).
There is absolutely no way in hell a state that sponsors terrorism should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. The risk alone justifies military action.
Iran makes no apology for it’s sponsorship of terrorist organizations.
A significant portion of the public will never support military action of any kind. I doubt the Europeans will ever support it. Schroeder is running again and already distanced himself.
Russia, China and France will never allow UN action. They are business partners of Iran. It will fall to the US.
Bush should set a deadline for the end of the Iranian nuclear program and stick to it. Use a carrot and stick and mean it. The Iranians are smart they will not take the European attempts seriously because of their weakness.
The nuclear bunker buster munition is either ready or close to it, rumor has it. It wasn’t available in 2002 when Bush wanted to hit their facilities. (my opinion)That’s why they will give in now. We have the ability to decap the program only and leave the populace alone. We probably couldn’t do that in 2002.
We should have alrady kicked Iran’s ass twice by now. They have the whispers of political unrest and a growing affinity for democracy floating in the air. It probably wouldn’t take more than a little shove to topple the gov’t they have now.
I think that Syria should be leveled. That’s where the “insurgants” are coming from. I say kick the shit out of Syria, and put up a big freakin wall between them and Iraq. Then you’d see stability.
Amazing how we never learn from history. For example, Stalin allowed Hitler to move 120 divisions (120!) to his borders and Stalin insisted that the Germans would never attack! He was absolutely stunned when they did.
Now we have Iran announcing, broadcasting, to the world how they are working on a nuclear program. A terrorist state announces its intentions and all but the U.S. cower in their capitals, calling us war mongers (except the Aussies and Brits)! My hope is that if anyone gets nuked, it’s the GD cowards who won’t fight for their freedom!
Commentary from Jim Dunnigan. As usual he has good insight into the problem.
IRAN: They Have a Plan
August 12, 2005: The government apparently believes that money talks, and everything else walks. Europe has been told (officially) that Iran will continue its nuclear power program and (unofficially) its nuclear weapons program. The government is confident that its business partners, Russia and China, will use their UN vetoes to prevent any UN sanctions. The government apparently also believes that Europe will eventually do their usual compromise dance and restore full economic relations with Iran. The Europeans insist they won’t fold, but history is against them. Iran needs free access to European manufacturers if they expect to rebuild their armed forces.
Meanwhile, the government deals with widespread internal dissent with a combination of armed force (especially against recent violence by Kurdish and Arab Iranians), economic growth and nationalistic slogans. With oil going for over $60 a barrel, there is more money to spread around. High unemployment makes this money a powerful weapon. Talking up the nuclear weapons program is very popular. Iranians see themselves as the traditional superpower of the region, and nuclear weapons will enable them to regain that status. That’s because over two decades of sanctions has left the Iranian armed forces weak. Training and leadership has been crippled by the need for key military leaders to be politically reliable (that is, Islamic conservatives). The sanctions have prevented the military from maintaining weapons and equipment, or buying much new stuff. A growing domestic arms industry has provided supplies of the simpler weapons. But the Iranians are pretty weak when it comes to high tech weapons. Some nuclear weapons would change all of that.
The Islamic conservative minority (about a third of the population) that rules the country are mainly interested in holding on to their power. Makes sense. But that means everything else is secondary, including the Iranian economy, the welfare of the Iranian people and peace in the region.
The Islamic conservatives that rule the country openly preach the need to destroy the United States, support Islamic terrorism and establish a world wide Islamic republic. This differs from al Qaeda in that the Iranian fanatics want a Shia Moslem world government, while al Qaeda wants a Sunni Arab world government. Meanwhile, Iran’s neighbors worry about Iran getting stronger militarily, and using that power to expand the size of Iran. That’s what has happened so many times in the past.
Bush isn’t running for reelection.
If he is truly a man of his convictions, this is an instance where I don’t mind if he acts on those convictions, presuming of course that he doesn’t have to panic the populous in order to get the senate to approve the use of force.
Canada isn’t particulary enamored with Iran right now, as they seem to have a penchant for killing our women reporters and then thumbing their noses at us because they know we are basically powerless and not very significant in their area of the globe.
If Bush could pull his head out of his ass with respect to diplomacy it might be possible to get Canada to participate in action there.
Obviously, I see Iran very differently than I saw Iraq. Not that Saddam was good or anything, but his designs and motivations were quite different.
So, go ahead, call me some ultra-liberal anti-war hippy, I’m waiting.
Iranian is not a word. It does not define someone from or relating to Iran. Someone from Iran is Irani, not iranian. I’m sure the population of Iran does not run around calling us Americanians.
[quote]JohnGalt wrote:
Iranian is not a word. It does not define someone from or relating to Iran. Someone from Iran is Irani, not iranian. I’m sure the population of Iran does not run around calling us Americanians.[/quote]
Well that makes all the difference in the world, then.
How could anyone want to attack the Irani people after 75 years of being called Iranian?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Amazing how we never learn from history. For example, Stalin allowed Hitler to move 120 divisions (120!) to his borders and Stalin insisted that the Germans would never attack! He was absolutely stunned when they did.
Now we have Iran announcing, broadcasting, to the world how they are working on a nuclear program. A terrorist state announces its intentions and all but the U.S. cower in their capitals, calling us war mongers (except the Aussies and Brits)! My hope is that if anyone gets nuked, it’s the GD cowards who won’t fight for their freedom![/quote]
Amen brother!
[quote]vroom wrote:
Bush isn’t running for reelection.
If he is truly a man of his convictions, this is an instance where I don’t mind if he acts on those convictions, presuming of course that he doesn’t have to panic the populous in order to get the senate to approve the use of force.
Canada isn’t particulary enamored with Iran right now, as they seem to have a penchant for killing our women reporters and then thumbing their noses at us because they know we are basically powerless and not very significant in their area of the globe.
If Bush could pull his head out of his ass with respect to diplomacy it might be possible to get Canada to participate in action there.[/quote]
I think that would be great. I’ve heard some pretty damn good things about Canadian snipers.
Do you really think saddam’s motivations were very different? I think that it was very clear that Saddam was intent on derailing the US and any of it’s allies any way he could. Terrorism is a major threat to the very survival of the west, and Iran would just be another front in the war on terror.
[quote]
So,go ahead, call me some ultra-liberal anti-war hippy, I’m waiting.[/quote]
I personnaly don’t think you’re an ultra-liberal anti-war hippy. Although I think we seriously differ on our Iraq war views. I think dealing with Iran and Syria we be a major next step in squashing terrorism.
Obviously, I’ve been paying a great deal of attention to this.
I heard schroeder come out with another weak ass comment.
Seriously, what does it take for these people to stop being so damn myopic.
You may not even have to fight. Diplomacy with some nations is only successful with a CREDIBLE threat of force. The same dickheads (international community) who announced in advance that they would veto any military option against saddam, are already hamstringing the diplomatic effort by showing weakness over iran.
They are at it again. Seriously, if you are scared, try saying NOTHING. At the very least, don’t give the bad guys the hope that they can ride this out without any consequences.
Makkun, I hope you will join me in saying that your chancellor’s recent commentary is bad diplomacy. Remember that your blessed “international community” has been taking the lead with iran. This is not an American lead effort.
LEARN HOW TO BLUFF!!!
JeffR
I would appreciate the democrats on this board giving their opinions in advance.
I know, just like with Iraq, plenty of dems will be all for military action then turn against it mid-stream.
It would still be nice to have people on record.
As for me, I would favor diplomacy up to a point. This point probably includes another veto by the french/chinese. If that happened, then I would favor destruction of nuclear sites along with any known terrorist camps.
JeffR
The U.S. doesn’r have to do a damn thing to control Iran.
All we have to do is announce publicly that we will be lifting all restraints from Israel, and that the Israeli Armed Forces may now proceed with eliminating ALL threats to their nation’s security.
We’d see the Nuke Sites dismantled within the week.
[quote]JohnGalt wrote:
Iranian is not a word. It does not define someone from or relating to Iran. Someone from Iran is Irani, not iranian. I’m sure the population of Iran does not run around calling us Americanians.[/quote]
Please provide further details on this.
I just checked Wikipedia, Irani does not appear although Iranian does.
From www.m-w.com
Main Entry: Ira?ni?an
Pronunciation: i-'rA-nE-&n, -'ra-, -‘r?-; I-’
Function: noun
1 : a native or inhabitant of Iran
2 : a branch of the Indo-European family of languages that includes Persian – see INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES table
- Iranian adjective
It appears that both Irani and Iranian are legitimate although usage of Iranian is much more common.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
The U.S. doesn’r have to do a damn thing to control Iran.
All we have to do is announce publicly that we will be lifting all restraints from Israel, and that the Israeli Armed Forces may now proceed with eliminating ALL threats to their nation’s security.
We’d see the Nuke Sites dismantled within the week.[/quote]
I think that would be a mistake as it would fuel the “Jewish vs. Islamic” feud. It would also leave us in the more difficult position of having to protect Israel.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
rainjack wrote:
The U.S. doesn’r have to do a damn thing to control Iran.
All we have to do is announce publicly that we will be lifting all restraints from Israel, and that the Israeli Armed Forces may now proceed with eliminating ALL threats to their nation’s security.
We’d see the Nuke Sites dismantled within the week.
I think that would be a mistake as it would fuel the “Jewish vs. Islamic” feud. It would also leave us in the more difficult position of having to protect Israel.[/quote]
RJ’s right. Israel’s like a crazy-ass pit bull that no one’s fed for a while. They could eeeeeeeeasily fuck up Iran’s nuclear shit. Again.
And, Zeb…there is nothing in the world that will stop Islamic nutbags (as opposed to normal people who just happen to be Muslims) from blaming the Jews for everything from the weather to who got voted off of Survivor this week.
Plus…isral doesn’t need “protecting”.
They’ve kicked the ass of everyone in the region at least once. Were every nation inthe Middle East to team up Legion-Of-Doom style, it would change things in that it would take Israel a little longer to beat everyone’s ass.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
rainjack wrote:
The U.S. doesn’r have to do a damn thing to control Iran.
All we have to do is announce publicly that we will be lifting all restraints from Israel, and that the Israeli Armed Forces may now proceed with eliminating ALL threats to their nation’s security.
We’d see the Nuke Sites dismantled within the week.
I think that would be a mistake as it would fuel the “Jewish vs. Islamic” feud. It would also leave us in the more difficult position of having to protect Israel.[/quote]
Honestly? I would rather worry about a conventional AirLand battle between Jews and Muslems, than I would a nuclear war with anyone.