Iran
 

Would any anti-war folk like to talk a little bit about what they feel should or should not be done, from both a US and then a UN perspective, in regards to Iran amidst its apparant nuclear ambitions coupled with its call for the elimination of another state? If you aren't caught up, here are some links:


Iran Moves Closer to Enriched Uranium

Iran Missile Deal

Iran considered "very dangerous"

World Losing Patience

Holocaust denial

"Israel Must Be Wiped Off the Map"

Re: Iran
 

Why don't you get the ball rolling...what do you think the US should do to Iran?

Re: Iran
 

It is really a tough issue, after this election. The Iranian politics seems to have shifted from pragmatic (meaning tough rhetoric but will to negotiate) to ideologic (anti-Israel etc.). I think a real threat of use of force is necessary. Not necessary to invade the country though, bombing a few oil facilities will send the message necessary.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you get the ball rolling...what do you think the US should do to Iran?

[/ QUOTE ]

For starters, how about telling them if they don't cut the crap, they will lose ALL of their nuclear R&D facilities (and any suspected sites as well).

If we have to follow through on this, and if we are met with military resistance, they should lose their largest military bases as well.

In other words--we should tell them cut the crap--or ELSE. Plain and simple.

Negotiations haven't worked, and have done nothing but buy them time. They are clearly and completely intransigent and fully intend to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran's hardline government is telling it like it is--the way they see it--to the world. It's high time we speak as plainly to the Iranian government.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
For starters, how about telling them if they don't cut the crap, they will lose ALL of their nuclear R&D facilities (and any suspected sites as well).

[/ QUOTE ]


Didn't Israel send them a "message" a few years back? I wouldn't be surprised to see them adding a "p.s." to it.

With our problems in Iraq, I don't expect us to do anything except arm-twisting in the UN. Probably a lot of background haggling/dealing in our "allies" capitols. But anything more, not agreed on in the UN, I think won't happen.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not necessary to invade the country though, bombing a few oil facilities will send the message necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are going to mess with a rattlesnake, you don't just hit it with a stick and just stir it up, you need to inflict serious damage to its ability to strike.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Plain and simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

M6, the common refute of that line of thinking goes something like:

[ QUOTE ]
The scene is complex. No complex thing can be cast in terms of black and white. That's what the right does so well -- sees everything as good and evil, black and white. That's why the airwaves are filled with conservative commentators. They can pound their fists and act like the world is unambiguous. The trap the left is falling into is seeing things in black and white. Don't buy it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am unfortunately stuck in the trap of believing that the Iranian government and its intentions are "evil" and that "evil" needs to be met with "good". Ambiguous at first, yes, but then that at least serves as the platform for the construction of a strategy. Because clearly if the Iranian government was "good" then the strategy from its conception would have to be entirely different.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not necessary to invade the country though, bombing a few oil facilities will send the message necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are going to mess with a rattlesnake, you don't just hit it with a stick and just stir it up, you need to inflict serious damage to its ability to strike.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does it have any ability to strike that can not easily be countered?

Re: Iran
 

If you are happy countering post hoc, then no. But Israel cannot allow itself to be subject to even one nuclear attack because it is such a small country. Nor should we allow Iran to sit on a nuclear arsenal as a semi-deterrent which would allow it to get away with more conventional military actions and support of terrorism.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you are happy countering post hoc, then no. But Israel cannot allow itself to be subject to even one nuclear attack because it is such a small country. Nor should we allow Iran to sit on a nuclear arsenal as a semi-deterrent which would allow it to get away with more conventional military actions and support of terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I seriously doubt that Iran would ever launch a nuclear strike on anyone. For that matter i dont think nuclear weapons would ever be used by a government unless they had already lost. With this in mind Israel's real threat is a conventional war in which they could easily kick the crap out of Iran.