Will America attack Iran?

[Diego440]

Diplomacy is a joke, it's like telling a little kid in the lamest voice possible..."don't do that" and slap them on the hands. They don't learn. If you want to use diplomacy you have to show force, give them an ultimatim and if they fail to meet it let them feel the hand of God and then ask them again. Think about it, ask them to do something, they don't, we smoke check a few of their leaders and see what happens then.

That's a pretty retarded statement.

Smokechecking a few of their leaders... that'll be really effective at making them (and the rest of the world) abide by the law of the US. 👍

Diplomacy should be your first and foremost option. What's the point of showing force and later using diplomacy? Really.

 

[Keef]

Diplomacy is our, and the UN's, first tactic. If that doesn't work, we get tougher and eventually, as a last resort--always as a last resort--attack. Diplomacy did not work with Iraq, they just ignored everything the UN said. Since we are the big, tough friend of the UN, we kicked ass when Iraq didn't listen. We may have to do the same with Iran, but I believe we won't need to go that far.

 

[Diego440]

Diplomacy is our, and the UN's, first tactic. If that doesn't work, we get tougher and eventually, as a last resort--always as a last resort--attack. Diplomacy did not work with Iraq, they just ignored everything the UN said. Since we are the big, tough friend of the UN, we kicked ass when Iraq didn't listen. We may have to do the same with Iran, but I believe we won't need to go that far.

I agree. But the part about kicking Iraq's ass is still questionable... or at least it seesm the ass kicking has gone both ways... but that's subject for another thread.

What people should really understand is that war is the option nobody wants. Why? Because no one really wins at war. The US hasn't had to really live a war within its own soil... or at least not the way Europe has. And that is themain reason why European countries usually don't backup plans for war and will always look for diplomatic solutions.

 

[Danoff]

I agree. But the part about kicking Iraq's ass is still questionable... or at least it seesm the ass kicking has gone both ways... but that's subject for another thread.

It's pertinent to this thread... at least in a discussion of whether Iran could put up much of a fight. The answer is no. The reason is that we wouldn't try to occupy, only surgically remove the facilities at issue. We can do that without ever getting close enough to shoot at.

What people should really understand is that war is the option nobody wants. Why? Because no one really wins at war. The US hasn't had to really live a war within its own soil... or at least not the way Europe has.

.... we're talking recently-ish right? Because we did lose 600,000 Americans on our soil only 140 years ago. (There's arguably also Perl Harbor and 9/11, but I know that's not what you're talking about) I mean, WWII was 60 years ago.

 

[Joey D]

That's a pretty retarded statement.

Smokechecking a few of their leaders... that'll be really effective at making them (and the rest of the world) abide by the law of the US. 👍

Diplomacy should be your first and foremost option. What's the point of showing force and later using diplomacy? Really.

No it's not, think about it...Iran is pretty thick headed and probably don't want to talk things out. Show them we mean business and they might come around, it's like disciplining a child, just telling them not to do something won't work, if you give em a little swat on the bum they will realize that wasn't right because they will have something to remember it by. Same with Iran, we tell em not to do something, if they do it again tell them we will take military action, they don't comply we take out some leader...which is perfectly with in the rules of combat...and then ask again, if they still don't give it keep taking more and more action till they run out of options and we level the whole damn country.

 

[Keef]

It's called operant conditioning. Kids learn most often when they recieve a reward or get a bad stimulus taken away. Positive and negative reinforcement, respectively. Then there is punishment, different from negative reinforcement, in which pain, either physical or mental, is the "reward". Soon the kid, like animals, learns "That hurts, so I better not do what I did." Most adults, especially very mature adults, say, the ones who might run a country, are far beyond operant conditioning. You can appease them, you can stop pestering them, you can tell them to stop and send a couple cruise missiles, but they will just decide to ignore you and will most likely stay weary of your intentions. They aren't dumb, and they don't get sucked into the "I'll slap your hand with a cruiser or two" gimmick. That's another thing Saddam ignored, in fact. The only thing we can do is get them to believe how crazy they are. They know how crazy they are, they just choose to substitute the consensus reality with their own.

 

[Joey D]

Well by at least trying giving ultimatums will at least keep the liberal hippy anti-everything people somewhat happy. But really I don't think I can respect that USA if they say they are going to do this then back out, either do it or don't and quit screwing around.

 

[Keef]

Who said we were going to do what?

 

[Joey D]

There has been these talks of attacking Iran for a long time, either do it or don't...don't keep saying you might, that makes up look wishey-washey.

 

[Keef]

I believe these rumors have been created by news organizations who saw "they have nukes" and freaked out and fueled by people from all over the world who don't realize that rumors cause problems. I can't remember the government saying "we might attack Iran". Everyone knows it is a possibility but many people have turned it into a fact, or at least a conspiracy-like situation. Many people think that we have plans for attack, inventories, and strategies already set up, and an Easy button to launch with the presidents finger hovering above it, while his other finger hovers above a button that reads "launch". The latter is simply not true, and we are ready to create the former, but we don't have it yet. I doubt it.

 

[Joey D]

Hmmm good point, the media does over do just about everything under the sun. But I'm assuming we do have plans, a strategy, and a stock pile...but then again I think the US has that for a lot of countries just in case.

 

[Speedy Samurai]

The UN's tolerance levels are FAR too high. Not only on this, but from others as well. What's the point of having an organization that is supposed to enforce international laws that NEVER enforces them?

When superpowers such as the United States, scoff at the UN, and other institutions such as the World Court, there's not much the UN can do. The UN is just a sockpuppet now.

Perhaps Iran is after nuclear weapons as a deterrent. It seems nothing deters the mighty superpower like the threat of Nuclear retaliation (well, in most cases). If I were Iranian, I would be scared to death that the big bully that is the U.S. wants something I have. How would I deter them?

The other member of Bush's Axis of Evil, North Korea, has military capabilities that have, until now, deterred Uncle Sam from bothering with them. Of course, North Korea has no resources that the U.S. wants as well.

Now that the U.S. policy of preventative war (not pre-emptive, preventative) that is part of its National Security Strategy has been executed and notice has been served to the world, who's next?

 

[TurboSmoke]

Hardly.

yes it did..

How?

blind as ever...

Aside from the fact that that's exactly what we're currently doing.

we shall see if you let the UN di its job this time, i doubt it.

We care most about protecting ourselves from hostile nations looking to build a nuclear arsenal.

that 'excuse' didnt wash last time and it wont wash this time...if you want to protect your country, try perventing terrorists entering your unmanned borders. That would have saved two countries from devastation.

You forgot to add the other alternative. I'd rather not wait to see if their program is for nuclear weapons. Better to get them to take steps now, and if they don't comply, force the issue.

i didnt forget anythng...try giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Iran is sitting on top of abundant energy. They don't need nuclear power, there is only one reason they're after it.

The US is sitting atop abundant power...it doesnt need nuclear energy. We all deserve the same rights.

 

[TurboSmoke]

at least in a discussion of whether Iran could put up much of a fight. The answer is no.

.

dan, cant you see? this isnt about whether certain countries can 'put up much of a fight'

the US is bigger and has a more advanced military, a bully if you will. Of course you will destroy the country. Iran is readying itself to try and stop itself from becoming another afghan/iraq.

If i were to be attacked by a much bigger person that me i wouldnt sit back and take it, i would arm myself.

Rumours abounded that Iran was next on the axis of evil hit list during the Iraq war. Judgement has already been passed on them.

Oh yes, you can kick their ass...why not...

 

[Casio]

the US is bigger and has a more advanced military, a bully if you will. Of course you will destroy the country. Iran is readying itself to try and stop itself from becoming another afghan/iraq.

If i were to be attacked by a much bigger person that me i wouldnt sit back and take it, i would arm myself.

100% Agree. Iran knows that the US is right on their doorstep, and they're going to defend themselves. What's wrong with that?

I'm pretty sure Iran isn't building Nuclear weapons to launch a preemptive attack on the US. They know that if they did that, the whole country of Iran would be rubble by morning.

 

[James2097]

I've a feeling that Iran really is 'next' after Iraq is adequately sorted.

A cynical thought: for the majority of the western world, a new war with Iran simply means we need to stock up on chips and softdrink for the TV coverage. I know several people where this was the case before Iraq...

 

[TurboSmoke]

100% Agree. Iran knows that the US is right on their doorstep, and they're going to defend themselves. What's wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing. Perhaps the nukes (if that is the case) will be used as a deterrant against large aggressive countries. It's how the USA justifies it.

I'm pretty sure Iran isn't building Nuclear weapons to launch a preemptive attack on the US.

I agree, thats an absurd assumption. The biggest threat to the US are sleeper cells already living and working in the US, possibly in possesion of a Green Card or citizenship papers. Their problem is not with the civilians of Iran who will bear the brunt of casualties if they do attack.

 

[Diego440]

No it's not, think about it...Iran is pretty thick headed and probably don't want to talk things out. Show them we mean business and they might come around, it's like disciplining a child, just telling them not to do something won't work, if you give em a little swat on the bum they will realize that wasn't right because they will have something to remember it by. Same with Iran, we tell em not to do something, if they do it again tell them we will take military action, they don't comply we take out some leader...which is perfectly with in the rules of combat...and then ask again, if they still don't give it keep taking more and more action till they run out of options and we level the whole damn country.

The problem is you can't "take out one of their leaders" and expect them to be alright about it and then abide by your rules. As you can't expect the rest of the world to be alright about it either.

Remember Saddam before the Gulf War, if you were old enough to remember. Saddam said "war with Iraq will not be a vacation for the US as Vietnam was".

One more thing, why did Vietnam score so low within the US? Apart from the US losing the war, another point was the media showed countless images of American soldiers being killed and wounded. How many such images have you seen from the Gulf/Iraq war? Less than ten I'm sure. It's all part of the media manipulation. Lack of such images only goes to make you think the US are indeed kicking ass in Iraq and nothing is going wrong. The 2000+ deaths are just casualties. Moreover, notice that all of the images of attacks to the US have come from non-American TV stations.

The problem is most Americans who do support this kind of action just think Iran is full of camels and ragheads. Mostly because that's what they've been showing in movies and TV. In the mid-80s the US decided that in order to be superior in the military, compared to other countries, they had to invest in technological advancements. Meaning that the more advanced weaponry they had, the more superior they'd be... but notice how Iraq, with a few pipe bombs and suicide bombers is putting up such a fight.

One last note. If it has taken the US more than 2 years to "dominate" a country measuring 168,754 sq mi and less than 30 million inhabitants, most of which were repressed by their own government and in desperate need for a change, how long do you think it'll take to take over a 636,372 sq mi country with around 70 million inhabitants, all happy and faithful to their government because its defending itself against the world's bully. Let alone the fact that similar countries could stand by Iran if such an action were to take place.

In the end, the war is because of terrorism, or at leats that's what they say. Terrorists don't fight armies. Terrorists bomb civilian installations, mainly. If the US attacks Iran, the main loser will be the rest of the world's civilians.

 

[Speedy Samurai]

it's really a Catch 22 for countries such as Iran. If the don't have a viable deterrent they get walked on (just like Iraq and Afghanistan), if they try to obtain some kind of deterrent then they are labeled 'aggressive' and face getting walked on. Israel is believed to have Nuclear weapons as well as chemical and biological weapons, and an aggressive military that will use them, yet they allowed to have them. Why? (this is a rhetorical question)

 

[Joey D]

The problem is you can't "take out one of their leaders" and expect them to be alright about it and then abide by your rules. As you can't expect the rest of the world to be alright about it either.

You must not know the routine for war, it's always start with the top and work your way down, even on the battlefeild you do that. The rest of the world already hates us, but there is no place millions of people would rather be then America, that's why they sneak in from all over the world.

Remember Saddam before the Gulf War, if you were old enough to remember. Saddam said "war with Iraq will not be a vacation for the US as Vietnam was".

Bush Sr. really F'ed up the Gulf War, he should have kept going and gotten Saddam when he had the chance.

One more thing, why did Vietnam score so low within the US? Apart from the US losing the war, another point was the media showed countless images of American soldiers being killed and wounded. How many such images have you seen from the Gulf/Iraq war? Less than ten I'm sure. It's all part of the media manipulation. Lack of such images only goes to make you think the US are indeed kicking ass in Iraq and nothing is going wrong. The 2000+ deaths are just casualties. Moreover, notice that all of the images of attacks to the US have come from non-American TV stations.

Liberal media will always skew things to make it look like its bad, I have several friends in Iraq right now and they tell me the only thing that sucks about being their is the spiders, the sand, and the lack of entertainment. They think we are doing quite well and are pretty much sick of the media being a bunch of idiots when it comes to the war, all they are doing is catering to the Bush bashing fad that's been going around. I suggest talking to soliders to get the rael picture.

The problem is most Americans who do support this kind of action just think Iran is full of camels and ragheads. Mostly because that's what they've been showing in movies and TV. In the mid-80s the US decided that in order to be superior in the military, compared to other countries, they had to invest in technological advancements. Meaning that the more advanced weaponry they had, the more superior they'd be... but notice how Iraq, with a few pipe bombs and suicide bombers is putting up such a fight.

We have one thing that other countries don't have...a huge air force. Before any ground troops were sent in, the place would be rubble anyways. And it's not like any of us would be detected because we fly stealth missions with stealth planes. Iran does not have the technology or training our military has.

One last note. If it has taken the US more than 2 years to "dominate" a country measuring 168,754 sq mi and less than 30 million inhabitants, most of which were repressed by their own government and in desperate need for a change, how long do you think it'll take to take over a 636,372 sq mi country with around 70 million inhabitants, all happy and faithful to their government because its defending itself against the world's bully. Let alone the fact that similar countries could stand by Iran if such an action were to take place.

How long? I say a year air campangin to blow the living hell out of everything and a good clean up with ground troops and then pull out and go home, we don't need to rebuild that country. In and out at the most 3 years.

The US isn't a bully, we are almost expected to do something. It's damned if we do, damned if we don't. My theory has always been cut the world off and let us just be us and not get envolved with anything. Tsunami hits the far east...not our problem, war in the mid east...not our problem, genocide in Africa...not our problem. Isolationism is a good thing.

In the end, the war is because of terrorism, or at leats that's what they say. Terrorists don't fight armies. Terrorists bomb civilian installations, mainly. If the US attacks Iran, the main loser will be the rest of the world's civilians.

Terrorism is because of Jews, I've said it several times before. If the USA didn't protect Isreal we would have no problems what so ever, but since we feel we have to then we will have to fight off it's aggessors.

 

[DQuaN]

Remember Saddam before the Gulf War, if you were old enough to remember. Saddam said "war with Iraq will not be a vacation for the US as Vietnam was".

WTF????? I would hardly call the Vietnam War a vacation.

Terrorism is because of Jews, I've said it several times before. If the USA didn't protect Isreal we would have no problems what so ever, but since we feel we have to then we will have to fight off it's aggessors.

Sorry, but that is one of the stupidest and most infuriating posts i have ever read.

 

[Joey D]

Care to explain why? If it makes you so mad you really should give an explanation. I can tell you how I reached my conclusion.

Muslims hate Jews, I mean it's a holy war as old as time itself. We support the Jews and Isreal therefore we are an enemy of the Muslim community because we protect their enemy, it's quite simple really. They don't have the proper means to fight us so they attack out civilians and civilian buildings, this is how we get terrorism.

Really it's out own fault for putting Isreal in area where people hate Jewish people.

 

[TurboSmoke]

there are so many things wrong with your post but this statement is simply stunning in its broad sweeping accusations.

Britain, Ireland, Cloumbia, Philippines, Indonesia, Spain all hit hard by terrorism in recent years, nothing to do with the Jews. Try political factions wanting independance from thier supressors.

Terrorism is because of Jews, I've said it several times before. If the USA didn't protect Isreal we would have no problems what so ever, but since we feel we have to then we will have to fight off it's aggessors.

 

[Speedy Samurai]

The US isn't a bully...

This cracks me up. Ask an american citizen if they think the U.S. is a bully and he/she will say no. Ask a citizen of a country that has suffered at the hands of the U.S. and/or U.S. sponsored terrorism and the answer will be different.

Countries to ask about America's bullying:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Cuba
Brazil
Guatemala
Venezuela
Nicaragua
Libya
Vietnam
Indonesia
Sudan
El Salvador
Diego Garcia (good luck finding a citizen of this country, the U.S. won't let them go back to it.)
Soon to be added; Iran, and it won't be the last unfortunately.

Isolationism is a good thing.

Your president doesn't think so.

Terrorism is because of Jews, I've said it several times before. If the USA didn't protect Isreal we would have no problems what so ever, but since we feel we have to then we will have to fight off it's aggessors.

Yes, the U.S. support of Israel does cause a lot of problems, but that is not the only issue. Your statement sounds anti-semitic...

 

[Joey D]

A good deal of terrorism comes from just that, the USA supporting Jews in Isreal, how don't you see that?

Also Britain and Ireland have different terrorist if I'm not mistaken, isn't that between the Catholics and the Protestants? Other then that they are friendly with the US, so are the Philippines, Indonesia, and Spain. Columbia is fully of riff raff, so their terrorist activities I know nothing about and probably were by their own people.

This cracks me up. Ask an american citizen if they think the U.S. is a bully and he/she will say no. Ask a citizen of a country that has suffered at the hands of the U.S. and/or U.S. sponsored terrorism and the answer will be different.

A lot of those countries you posted I can't even think of anything we've done to them. But a lot of time America is expected to do something.

Your president doesn't think so.

No president in the past 75 years thinks so.

Yes, the U.S. support of Israel does cause a lot of problems, but that is not the only issue. Your statement sounds anti-semitic...

That's not my intention, Israel causes problems, Israel is the Jewish homeland, hence Jews cause terrorism. Not the sole reason but support for Israel is a huge factor that pisses Muslims right off.

 

[Swift]

BX is actually very correct. Our ties and resulting actions from those ties to Israel are the main reason we face the threat of terrorism we do today.

Though I wouldn't say it's "Because of the Jews" I would say it's because of the conflict and we picked a side.

 

[Joey D]

The only reason I said because of Jews was due to the fact that Jewish people occuply Israel if I'm not mistaken.

 

[TurboSmoke]

no, you said that Jews are the reason for terrorists. Why do you mean by different terrorists? There is only one type of terrorism. Look it up.

it not only sounds anti-semitic, it states that if you remove Jews, you end terrorism.

no, there are many reasons for terrorism, not all of them have a gripe with Isreal.

A good deal of terrorism comes from just that, the USA supporting Jews in Isreal, how don't you see that?

Also Britain and Ireland have different terrorist if I'm not mistaken, isn't that between the Catholics and the Protestants? Other then that they are friendly with the US, so are the Philippines, Indonesia, and Spain. Columbia is fully of riff raff, so their terrorist activities I know nothing about and probably were by their own people.

 

[Joey D]

Different terrorist, like non-middel easterners. The terrorism in Ireland and Britain was caused by Catholics and Protestants as far as I know, I know the London bombings were different but for a good chunk of their terrorism it was between those two over different religion.

Like this...
http://terrorism.about.com/od/historyofterrorism/a/ireland_2.htm

And it's not get rid of the Jews, I don't support genocide of them, but I do support getting rid of our protection of Israel...they have caused us a great deal of problems.

 

[Speedy Samurai]

A lot of those countries you posted I can't even think of anything we've done to them. But a lot of time America is expected to do something.

You should really do a bit of research (and please, use some sources outside of the american media) instead of just 'thinking' about it. You may uncover some information you were not aware of before.

Columbia is fully of riff raff, so their terrorist activities I know nothing about and probably were by their own people.

You should look into the correlation between U.S. supplied arms to Colombia and the atrocities committed there. I think the U.S. would have significantly decreased the terrorist crimes in Colombia if they had not funded it.