Bush Budget Plans for Iran Attack

[Drew and Tik 0]

I do think you're partially right on that, but at the same time we never actually nuked each other, or directly went to war with each other. There were many times during the Cold War when talking prevented a literal apocalyptic event, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis...yes, there were often threats of force involved, but we always showed restraint, knowing what the consequences of attacking each other would be.

[GaryC 7]

I do think you're partially right on that, but at the same time we never actually nuked each other, or directly went to war with each other. There were many times during the Cold War when talking prevented a literal apocalyptic event, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis...yes, there were often threats of force involved, but we always showed restraint, knowing what the consequences of attacking each other would be.

That works when your opponent doesn't want to die. I fear Iran (or the nuts running the show) want conflict. Talking to them just gives them more time to get ready.

[no name 1]

That works when your opponent doesn't want to die. I fear Iran (or the nuts running the show) want conflict. Talking to them just gives them more time to get ready.

So we should just pre-emptively strike then? You know, JUST IN CASE.

Edited October 31, 2007 by devilette

[Drew and Tik 0]

It does seem a bit hopeless, doesn't it? I mean, there are people there that don't care about dying, that will destroy themselves before accepting peace. I don't think the majority of the civilians in the country are like that though.

I think it will take a lot more thinking and brainstorming to solve this issue than what we can do on a message board. Unfortunately I also think it will take a lot more thinking and brainstorming than what our government has done. I just fear a backlash that will cause Americans and our allies to lose their lives for something that might not have ever materialized into a threat to begin with. Look at Iraq (old news, I know). I seriously believe every person in this country, whether agreeing or disagreeing with the justification for the war, will have to agree that more Americans died because of the war than if we were to never go into it. If we bomb Iran without a very good reason, we will have even more people pissed off at us and who knows what they'll do. Will it be worth it?

Edited October 31, 2007 by Drew and Tik

[bradcanuck 1]

If God told him to do it, then it makes sense why he would have to.

[GaryC 7]

It does seem a bit hopeless, doesn't it? I mean, there are people there that don't care about dying, that will destroy themselves before accepting peace. I don't think the majority of the civilians in the country are like that though.

I think it will take a lot more thinking and brainstorming to solve this issue than what we can do on a message board. Unfortunately I also think it will take a lot more thinking and brainstorming than what our government has done. I just fear a backlash that will cause Americans and our allies to lose their lives for something that might not have ever materialized into a threat to begin with. Look at Iraq (old news, I know). I seriously believe every person in this country, whether agreeing or disagreeing with the justification for the war, will have to agree that more Americans died because of the war than if we were to never go into it. If we bomb Iran without a very good reason, we will have even more people pissed off at us and who knows what they'll do. Will it be worth it?

I can't see it increasing the threat to the USA by taking Iran out. The radical terrorists are going to attack us whether we do anything with Iran or not. Remember that 9/11, the USS Cole, the first WTC bombings and the two embassy attacks in Africa came before we invaided Iraq. But Iran does have a stated goal of dominating the area and to destroy Israel. And they are not cooperating in any way with the UN in regards to their nuclear programs. The problem with Iran is really two seprate issues. They are supporting terrorists in Iraq, Afgansistan, Lebanon and Israel and at the same time trying to attain nukes and long range missles to deliver them. The UN has been trying to talk to them and it has gotten us no where. I don't see that changing any time soon.

[Drew and Tik 0]

You might be right about them not changing and eventually we will have to do something about it before it's too late. At this point though I think we will be spreading our resources thin considering we already have unfinished business in other countries. I think those guys and girls want to come home and it would be a damn shame to start the whole magilla again in another country, especially one that is more powerful and capable of defending the initial attack. We can't take out Iran. We can topple their current administration, but that would do little to stop the terrorists I think. It might stop a little, but the price in lives and resources would be too high.

[GaryC 7]

You might be right about them not changing and eventually we will have to do something about it before it's too late. At this point though I think we will be spreading our resources thin considering we already have unfinished business in other countries. I think those guys and girls want to come home and it would be a damn shame to start the whole magilla again in another country, especially one that is more powerful and capable of defending the initial attack. We can't take out Iran. We can topple their current administration, but that would do little to stop the terrorists I think. It might stop a little, but the price in lives and resources would be too high.

The idea behind attacking Iran isn't to stop terrorism. There isn't much we can do about that short of invasion. That would be a dumb move. It would be to remove their ability to attain nukes before they get them. We wouldn't go in with foot solders, we would just bomb the military sites and leave.

[Drew and Tik 0]

I guess, so long as they're right. Would hate for people to die on a whim, but if it's all true, there may be some legitimacy to bombing the nuclear sites. Only if we're sure though, real proof. That funky black & white picture of "WMD labs" is only gonna' work once .

[russ 1]

I'd be curious on what legal terms could the U.S. strategical strike at Iran without violating international treaty laws? What stops us from strategically knocking out N. Korean nuclear facilities?

Huh? Treaties are not laws. We have no non-agression treaty with Iran. We are still at war with North Korea.

We can bomb whoever we want, such is the nature of war. It is the political outcomes that stop us. There is no international "law" that countries are ultimately accountable to. Sure, the UN could pass some resolution, but those are worthless things unless other countries are willing to back them up with force or sanctions. (which they aren't in this case).

This is an art in foreign policy called "brinksmanship" or "sabre-rattling." Kind of like a game of chicken. When the other side is convinced you will act, and are prepared for thre reprocussions, they are more likely to negotiate.

North Korea? The real threat is pissing off China, and the Japanese and South Koreans don't want us to.

[russ 1]

So we should just pre-emptively strike then? You know, JUST IN CASE.

The Isrealis did so to Iraq, which would seem to be a good thing in hindsight.

The Iranians could stop building a bomb, you know, "JUST IN CASE."

[GaryC 7]

I guess, so long as they're right. Would hate for people to die on a whim, but if it's all true, there may be some legitimacy to bombing the nuclear sites. Only if we're sure though, real proof. That funky black & white picture of "WMD labs" is only gonna' work once .

When you consider the fact that Iran will not let UN inspectors in it makes one think that they have something to hide. If they want to put it all to rest they have that in their power, open up the sites to a third party inspector and that would slam the door on any talk of a strike.

[mawilson 2,133]

Huh? Treaties are not laws. We have no non-agression treaty with Iran. We are still at war with North Korea.

We can bomb whoever we want, such is the nature of war. It is the political outcomes that stop us. There is no international "law" that countries are ultimately accountable to. Sure, the UN could pass some resolution, but those are worthless things unless other countries are willing to back them up with force or sanctions. (which they aren't in this case).

This is an art in foreign policy called "brinksmanship" or "sabre-rattling." Kind of like a game of chicken. When the other side is convinced you will act, and are prepared for thre reprocussions, they are more likely to negotiate.

North Korea? The real threat is pissing off China, and the Japanese and South Koreans don't want us to.

I am glad someone understands.

Also we don't really care about Korea - we have no strategic interest in the region.

[GaryC 7]

Huh? Treaties are not laws. We have no non-agression treaty with Iran. We are still at war with North Korea.

We can bomb whoever we want, such is the nature of war. It is the political outcomes that stop us. There is no international "law" that countries are ultimately accountable to. Sure, the UN could pass some resolution, but those are worthless things unless other countries are willing to back them up with force or sanctions. (which they aren't in this case).

This is an art in foreign policy called "brinksmanship" or "sabre-rattling." Kind of like a game of chicken. When the other side is convinced you will act, and are prepared for thre reprocussions, they are more likely to negotiate.

North Korea? The real threat is pissing off China, and the Japanese and South Koreans don't want us to.

I am glad someone understands.

Also we don't really care about Korea - we have no strategic interest in the region.

And they also are not a real threat to the area. The N Koreans are led by a corrupt government that has bankrupt the country. They have nothing but foot solders to use for cannon fodder.

[Otto 83]