'Site found where Iran building 6,000 km ballistic missile'

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Lets make some comparisons here. In the 90's OBL publicly declared war on the US. We ignored it. Then we had the first WTC bombing. We ignored it. Then two of our embassies in Africa got blown up. We ignored it. Then the USS Cole was attacked. We ignored it. Then we got 9/11. Any connections?

Fast forward to the present. Iran says they want to blow Israel off the map. We are ignoring it. Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb. We say it's none of our business. Iran sends IED's to Iraq to blow up our troops. People call for "talks". Iran develops missiles that can reach Europe. People still call for "talks". Iran states that all western countries that do not repent will be destroyed. People still call for "talks". Is history repeating itself? At what point do the "talkers" realize that action is the only thing that will save us? When a major European city blows up?

What kind of action are we currently in a position to take?

[GaryC 7]

Lets make some comparisons here. In the 90's OBL publicly declared war on the US. We ignored it. Then we had the first WTC bombing. We ignored it. Then two of our embassies in Africa got blown up. We ignored it. Then the USS Cole was attacked. We ignored it. Then we got 9/11. Any connections?

Fast forward to the present. Iran says they want to blow Israel off the map. We are ignoring it. Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb. We say it's none of our business. Iran sends IED's to Iraq to blow up our troops. People call for "talks". Iran develops missiles that can reach Europe. People still call for "talks". Iran states that all western countries that do not repent will be destroyed. People still call for "talks". Is history repeating itself? At what point do the "talkers" realize that action is the only thing that will save us? When a major European city blows up?

What kind of action are we currently in a position to take?

Do we have the option to do nothing? What we are experiencing now in the way of problems conducting military actions is minor compared to the sacrifices taken in past wars. We could, if we were willing to make that hard choice, stop Iran. I don't like our men and women dieing in a war any more than you do. I don't like the debt involved in wars any more than you do either. But the consequences of inaction is higher than those costs. It seems that we don't have a choice for much longer. We can choose to do nothing and let a huge problem ensue or make a commitment to take action now and head off that problem. I just don't see how sanctions and diplomacy will help.

[mawilson 2,133]

Lets make some comparisons here. In the 90's OBL publicly declared war on the US. We ignored it. Then we had the first WTC bombing. We ignored it. Then two of our embassies in Africa got blown up. We ignored it. Then the USS Cole was attacked. We ignored it. Then we got 9/11. Any connections?

Fast forward to the present. Iran says they want to blow Israel off the map. We are ignoring it. Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb. We say it's none of our business. Iran sends IED's to Iraq to blow up our troops. People call for "talks". Iran develops missiles that can reach Europe. People still call for "talks". Iran states that all western countries that do not repent will be destroyed. People still call for "talks". Is history repeating itself? At what point do the "talkers" realize that action is the only thing that will save us? When a major European city blows up?

What kind of action are we currently in a position to take?

Well....we could let the Iraqis take over, and move the troops (all 100,000 of them) across the border.

[Peikko 1,575]

What exactly are you proposing Gary? As the Iranian government is democratically elected, short of killing everyone in Iran, I can't see what military intervention without provocation is going to achieve. Do you think the Iranian people will cow tow once the might of the American military strikes down their forces or what?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Lets make some comparisons here. In the 90's OBL publicly declared war on the US. We ignored it. Then we had the first WTC bombing. We ignored it. Then two of our embassies in Africa got blown up. We ignored it. Then the USS Cole was attacked. We ignored it. Then we got 9/11. Any connections?

Fast forward to the present. Iran says they want to blow Israel off the map. We are ignoring it. Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb. We say it's none of our business. Iran sends IED's to Iraq to blow up our troops. People call for "talks". Iran develops missiles that can reach Europe. People still call for "talks". Iran states that all western countries that do not repent will be destroyed. People still call for "talks". Is history repeating itself? At what point do the "talkers" realize that action is the only thing that will save us? When a major European city blows up?

What kind of action are we currently in a position to take?

Well....we could let the Iraqis take over, and move the troops (all 100,000 of them) across the border.

Nah. That wouldn't happen.

[GaryC 7]

Lets make some comparisons here. In the 90's OBL publicly declared war on the US. We ignored it. Then we had the first WTC bombing. We ignored it. Then two of our embassies in Africa got blown up. We ignored it. Then the USS Cole was attacked. We ignored it. Then we got 9/11. Any connections?

Fast forward to the present. Iran says they want to blow Israel off the map. We are ignoring it. Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb. We say it's none of our business. Iran sends IED's to Iraq to blow up our troops. People call for "talks". Iran develops missiles that can reach Europe. People still call for "talks". Iran states that all western countries that do not repent will be destroyed. People still call for "talks". Is history repeating itself? At what point do the "talkers" realize that action is the only thing that will save us? When a major European city blows up?

What kind of action are we currently in a position to take?

Well....we could let the Iraqis take over, and move the troops (all 100,000 of them) across the border.

You know, that is a real choice. If Iran was no longer funding the insurgency Iraq could take over very quickly. Iran is the real problem in Iraq. Without their funding and support the Iraqis could quickly become self sufficient.

What exactly are you proposing Gary? As the Iranian government is democratically elected, short of killing everyone in Iran, I can't see what military intervention without provocation is going to achieve. Do you think the Iranian people will cow tow once the might of the American military strikes down their forces or what?

Remember that Hitler was elected also. We don't need to move in and take over. We could destroy all their military installations from the air.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Lets make some comparisons here. In the 90's OBL publicly declared war on the US. We ignored it. Then we had the first WTC bombing. We ignored it. Then two of our embassies in Africa got blown up. We ignored it. Then the USS Cole was attacked. We ignored it. Then we got 9/11. Any connections?

Fast forward to the present. Iran says they want to blow Israel off the map. We are ignoring it. Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb. We say it's none of our business. Iran sends IED's to Iraq to blow up our troops. People call for "talks". Iran develops missiles that can reach Europe. People still call for "talks". Iran states that all western countries that do not repent will be destroyed. People still call for "talks". Is history repeating itself? At what point do the "talkers" realize that action is the only thing that will save us? When a major European city blows up?

What kind of action are we currently in a position to take?

Well....we could let the Iraqis take over, and move the troops (all 100,000 of them) across the border.

You know, that is a real choice. If Iran was no longer funding the insurgency Iraq could take over very quickly. Iran is the real problem in Iraq. Without their funding and support the Iraqis could quickly become self sufficient.

Not until they've had their war with the Al-Sadrists and every other wannabe warlord.

[Peikko 1,575]

So, you destroy all the military targets, should that be possible to do (No military genius here so I really don't know) then what? The Iranians just go, "oh well, never mind we'll play the game by US rules now?"

Edited April 11, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Dan J 277]

Remember that Hitler was elected also. We don't need to move in and take over. We could destroy all their military installations from the air.

Attacking Iran without provocation would destory any political process moderates are making in Iran. It would also give Iran the poltical power it need to openly interfere in Iraq.

We dont have the money or manpower to fight both in Iraq and Iran. Putting in a draft or tax to meet those needs would be met with negativity. Nor does an attack on Iran represent the views of most of the American people.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

First I don't think Iran is part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so they aren't doing anything wrong except saying they are developing a Nuclear Program for energy purposes only and not war heads.

Second International Law in laymen terms states they would have to attack us first before we could proceed to strike unless we did a preemptive strike but we would have to have very clear just cause that they were a direct threat to us. Preemptive strikes are very sticky situations. For one it can be seen as violating their sovereignty and second spreading "American Imperialism".

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Remember that Hitler was elected also. We don't need to move in and take over. We could destroy all their military installations from the air.

Attacking Iran without provocation would destory any political process moderates are making in Iran. It would also give Iran the poltical power it need to openly interfere in Iraq.

We dont have the money or manpower to fight both in Iraq and Iran. Putting in a draft or tax to meet those needs would be met with negativity. Nor does an attack on Iran represent the views of most of the American people.

It would likely also bankrupt the country.

[Peikko 1,575]

I can't see the rest of the sovereign Middle Eastern nations just sitting around going, 'yeah, those Iranians deserved that, hurrah for the US, wish they'd done that long ago.' Seems to me like there might a domino effect. Not to mention what China might make of this...

Edited April 11, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[GaryC 7]

I can't see the rest of the sovereign Middle Eastern nations just sitting around going, 'yeah, those Iranians deserved that, hurrah for the US, wish they'd done that long ago.' Seems to me like there might a domino effect. Not to mention what China might make of this...

So your solution is? Talking? Do you really think Iran can be talked out of their stated goals? I really doubt it. So I guess that means your willing to sit back, let Iran make nuclear bombs, make missiles to send them over most of Europe and then talk to them some more?

[Dan J 277]

I'm waiting for the hawks to show us how we have the resouces for a war with Iran and its likely consequences.

Remember Iraq was suppose to be a short and cheap engagment, but we are still there. If you think bombing Iran is going to be short and cheap, you are sadly mistaken. It will generate reprocussions that we wont have the resources to deal with.

In this situation, we are much better off letting the poltical process in Iran to take care of itself. Only if Iran attacks first will we have the poltical power to get Europe behind any military action.

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes Gary, I really think your fears are entirely justified, Iran is planning a nuclear offensive against Europe so let's just 'take 'em out'!