How Long Before We Invade Iran?

[Free4Life11]

I won't argue with you about that. The only thing I will say is that there are many monsters in this world and I do find fault in the way we pick and choose which ones to do something about.

Considering that Israel is one of our allies and the Iranian president wants Israel "wiped off the map," I think that's a very just reason to keep a close eye on Iran. Israel is about the only shred of democracy in the region.

But then again maybe Israel will finally get the "supernatural protection" that is alluded in the Book of Revelation (or is that just Left Behind nonsense?)

 

[JudicialTyranny]

Mr Bush just gave a pass to India about nuclear enrichment , contrary to all accords about non proliferation that exist, but Iran connot have it...hummmm

If you cannot see the differences between India and Iran, then you are blind to reality.

India has a stable democratic government and a strong participant in the global economy. They are not going to use nukes other than as a deterrent.

Iran is run by a lunatic under a repressive Islamist goverment that supports terrorism around the world. Chances are they will use a nuke against us or one of our allies, or provide nuke material to some terrorist organization.

Plus India, with its large population and growing economy, needs nuclear power.

Iran has its own large oil reserves and does not need nuclear power - their claim of using their nuclear research to generate power is a farce. They are using it as a guise solely to develop an Islamist Bomb to use against the west.

THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INDIA AND IRAN.

And it's our responsibility to do something about it - do you want your children and grandchildren living in a world where crazies like Ahmadinejad have nukes?

Is it going to be easier or harder to deal with this before or after Iran gets nukes?

Think about a middle east with Iran and Ahmadinejad holding a nuke. Not a pretty thought.

 

[LukenDC]

I am a harsh critic of the Bush administration and did not support the invasion of Iraq. That said, I do support denying Iran nuclear weapons, using reasonable military means if necessary. It's bad enough that North Korea has nuclear weapons and we cannot allow religious zealots to have nukes.

 

[Holly]

I am a harsh critic of the Bush administration and did not support the invasion of Iraq. That said, I do support denying Iran nuclear weapons, using reasonable military means if necessary. It's bad enough that North Korea has nuclear weapons and we cannot allow religious zealots to have nukes.

Scary then, that our president has them. Hell, God already told him to invade Iraq, who knows what God will instruct him to do next?

 

[Sylvester McBean]

I think it's going to be a surgical strike against the nuclear facilities. the interesting thing is going to be which country launches the weapons.

 

[SamIAm21]

Iran is also a very mountainous country with lots of rough terrain, unlike Iraq. It would be extremely difficult to wage a successful land battle in that country. I would expect airstrikes and lots of them against Iran, but not necessarily by the US.

 

[dcentity2000]

Iran has a well trained army and a cause to defend - any military invasion would be a bloodbath.



Rich::

 

[salmoneous]

Couple of problems with your surgical strike against their nuclear facilities plan. First, these aren't necessarily isolated factories out in the middle of nowhere. In many cases we are talking about heavily fortified bunkers in the middle of Tehran. There are no "surgical" strikes that can take them out. It would have to be something very messy, with lots of causalities.

Second, we don't know where all the facilities are. We think we know where some of them are, but there is no possible way to be sure. Our track record is pretty bad. We badly misestimated the nuclear development of everyone from China to North Korea. For every above ground facilities we know about, they could easily have 1-2 secret facilities we don't know about. If we bomb the heck out of a country, we better be darn sure they don't have any nuclear weapons at the end of the day.

Finally, let's assume everything goes perfectly and we do take out their research facilities. What's to keep Pakistan (or North Korea) from just selling Iran a few nukes?

Fact is, there is almost nothing we can do to stop Iran from getting weapons. We better start focusing on ways to make sure they don't use them.

 

[jocon]

Given the civil tone of this thread so far ( I know, the normal whackos from both side have not arrived yet), I think we all truly understands the threat that Iran poses - Contrary to the farse that is Iraq. I am not a political supporter of President Bush, but I still pray that he possesses the wisdom to successfully navigate this storm.

 

[nliedel]

While Bush did give a pass to India several other cabinets in the past have been worried about India, for no reason in my mind.

I am not a supporter of Bush and his knee jerk policies (not just his but the people around him) worry me. I am not anti Republican. I thought Reagan did a masterful job of placing people around him who were smart and trustworthy. I do not think Bush does the same, rather relying on cronies. That is not a dig it's just how I see it.

 

[dcentity2000]

Philosophically (and politically), Iran is a tricky one. Whilst we ignore the international community, we are chastising Iran for not listening to said international community.

Iran would be hazardous with nukes; I mean, they've already taken up a hostile stance towards another nation.

I've heard that it was possible to limit research to peaceful enterprises - can anyone back or refute this?



Rich::

 

[AMcaptured]

We will not be attacking Iran but Israel will be. I am sure we will give Israel lots and lots of intelligence and probably air patrol back up but they will be the one to strike Iran, not the US.

The crackpot running Iran right now was one of the "students" who originally took over the American Embassy in Tehran in the late 70's. Unfortunately, we are dealing with Iran today because of how terribly America handled its Islamic overthrow almost 30 years ago. Sorry but this is Jimmy Carter's legacy. The fact Iran was even allowed to be overthrown by radical Islamic fundamentalists was one of the worlds biggest mistakes.

The current leader of Iran has pledged to destroy Israel for no other reason than he believes all Jews should be killed. Nice guy, huh? Germany's new chancellor, Angela Merkel has compared the worlds inability to stop this man with pacifists of the 1930's who thought if they ignored Hitler he would go away too. Yes the world was full of pacifists in the 30's, sound familiar?


Here is a very liberal news sources article on the man

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4510922.stm

Does anyone really believe we should sit back and allow Israel to be subject to a nuclear weapon? A nuclear weapon in Israel doesn't just affect Israel, it will affect the whole entire world.

 

[lw49033]

If they were to reinstitute a draft to fight any of this bs, and my son were draft age, I would get him a one-way ticket to Canada. The Middle East has never been truly at peace, but it was never our mess until we decided it was going to be by jumping into the Arab-Israeli fight. I don't CARE what happens to Israel. Israeli security or even national existence is not worth any of our kids' lives!

(By the way, Mr. President, I thought democratic nations were peaceful nations? Ahmedinjad is an elected leader. So are the Shia theocrats you helped to take over Iraq, who would be helping the Iranians, not us, if the two countries were ever to tangle.)

 

[manchurianbrownbear]

This is definitely a pickle. As previous posters have stated, Iran’s motivation for developing nuclear weapons is much different than the motivation of other nations that possess them.

Leaders of other nations, even North Korea, have to be at least a little concerned about what the rest of the world would think if they used a nuclear weapon because ultimately, they have a very strong desire to stay in power. Their fear of retaliation keeps them in check. Iran may be quite willing to accept overwhelming retaliation if they could use a nuclear weapon against Israel, or an “infidel” target.

I really pray that our allies tackle Iran. Or least take the lead. But I fear that if any “western” or “Christian” nation acts against Iran to prevent an attack on Israel, it would not play well in any Muslim nation.

 

[LisaR]

Does anyone really believe we should sit back and allow Israel to be subject to a nuclear weapon? A nuclear weapon in Israel doesn't just affect Israel, it will affect the whole entire world.

No, under normal circumstances, I don't think we should take a wait and see approach. However, I also believe our military is straped at the moment and I don't want to see a draft. I am honestly very divided on this one.

 

[LukenDC]

I've heard that it was possible to limit research to peaceful enterprises - can anyone back or refute this?
Rich::

Iran claims that its nuclear energy research and cultivation is for peaceful uses only. The United States, UK, and France have stated publicly that the type of nuclear research being pursued in Iran has no peaceful, civilian application.

It is possible to apply nuclear technology to peaceful enterprises, but the West is adamant that Iran is developing nuclear technology for military purposes.

 

[dcentity2000]

"The United States may have the power to cause harm and pain but it is also susceptible to harm and pain," said a statement issued by Iran's delegation at the talks.

"So if the United States wishes to choose that path, let the ball roll."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was also defiant: "If we put up a firm resistance, they will be defeated and humiliated by the Iranian nation's will."

"Harm" and "pain"?! Holy dingos!



Rich::

 

[lw49033]

The current leader of Iran has pledged to destroy Israel for no other reason than he believes all Jews should be killed.

According to whom, AIPAC? That is absolute bunk.

 

[LukenDC]

Does anyone really believe we should sit back and allow Israel to be subject to a nuclear weapon? A nuclear weapon in Israel doesn't just affect Israel, it will affect the whole entire world.

Isreal is very much at the heart of the arguement regarding Iran's nuclear program. The Muslims are crying foul because Israel is a nuclear armed state and its nuclear program is not subject to the same inspections that the West demand occur in Iran. Israel will neither confirm nor deny its ownership of nuclear arms, but it has long been identified as a nuclear power by NATO. If Iran attacked Israel with nuclear arms, then the Israeli response would be swift and devastating.

 

[MouseWorshipin]

I'm no big fan of the President Bush (or President Clinton - I guess I don't like Presidents in general ), but I am worried about Iran. Even more than Syria.

Iran isn't even pretending, like Iraq did, that they aren't trying to make nuclear weapons. They are saying flat out that they are working on them and will release them in Israel and the United States when they have them.

I don't like anything about war, but I'd rather see Iran's nuclear plants go than mushroom clouds over American cities.

...but that's just me. Just my one little opinion in the whole big world. And it is entirely selfish, I'm aware of that.