Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 50

Thread: Are we on the path to war with Iran?

  1. #21
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]If Israel presents hard facts, not speculation, that Iran was planning to attack them with nuclear weapons (which most experts say Iran is a good 10 years away from being capable of producing) then by all means thay should attack Iran, and i wont say anything against them. But, present the evidence first...and make sure its not BS, like the evidence we had that Saddam was an imminent threat to us.[/QUOTE]

    What would constitute "hard facts" in this case?

  2. #22
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,675
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]What would constitute "hard facts" in this case?[/QUOTE]

    For starters, They need confirmed intelligence that they either have or are close (within a year or two the most) of developing a nuclear weapon. Then they need intelligence that a plan to invade is being developed. This cannot be based on what someone thinks Ahmedinejaad meant in a speach to rile up the base or speculation that he would like to invade in the future. Or hopes to have weapons to invade. "Want and hope to " is not a basis to invade.

  3. #23
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,460
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]What would constitute "hard facts" in this case?[/QUOTE]

    Well, obviously its not regime figures openly talking about it, otherwise this would do:

    [QUOTE] "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran. . . .

    He said since Israel is the product of Western colonialism, "the continued existence of Israel depends on interests of arrogance and colonialism and as long as the base is helpful for colonialism, it is going to keep it.

    Hashemi-Rafsanjani advised Western states not to pin their hopes on Israel's violence because it will be "very dangerous".

    "We are not willing to see security in the world is harmed", he said, warning against the "eruption of the Third World War.

    "War of the pious and martyrdom seeking forces against peaks of colonialism will be highly dangerous and might fan flames of the World War III", the former Iranian president said, backing firmly suicide operations against Israel.
    Quoted by the official news agency IRNA, Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani said weakening of Palestinian Jihad is "unlikely", as the Palestinians have come to the conclusion that talks would be effective only "in light of struggle and self-sacrifice- the two key elements that gave way to beginning of the second Intifada".

    Iranian analysts and commentators outside Iran immediately reacted to Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s statement, expressing fear that it might trigger an international backlash against Iran itself, giving Israel, the United States and other Western and even Arab nations to further isolate Iran as a source of threat to regional security.

    "Jews shall expect to be once again scattered and wandering around the globe the day when this appendix is extracted from the region and the Muslim world", Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani warned, blaming on the United States and Britain the "creation of the fabricated entity" in the heart of Arab and Muslim world.
    [/QUOTE]

  4. #24
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,675
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hey Doggin,

    North Korea has a crazy leader who actually has Nuclear weapons in his possession and has threatened to use them against us (not Israel). Dont you think we should invade them before Iran? After all Iran is a good 10 years away from a weapon and N. Korea has threatened us directly. Shouldnt they be our [I]First[/I] Target?????

  5. #25
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Hey Doggin,

    North Korea has a crazy leader who actually has Nuclear weapons in his possession and has threatened to use them against us (not Israel). Dont you think we should invade them before Iran? After all Iran is a good 10 years away from a weapon and N. Korea has threatened us directly. Shouldnt they be our [I]First[/I] Target?????[/QUOTE]


    The whole point is to do it before they have them. NK is negotiating getting rid of them while Iran is actively seeking them. When was the last time NK killed or attacked US soldiers or civilians?

    This is not the US alone who doesn't think Iran should have nukes, it's practically the entire world including their neighbors who aren't Israel. If Iran gets them than SA and Egypt needs them. It is not only in ours and Israel's interest to keep them out of Iran's hands, it is in the interest of every country in that region and in the world to keep them out of Iran's hands. Even Chirac admits they want to develop bombs and while he doesn't think them having 1 or 2 nukes is a big problem, it's a proliferation problem.

  6. #26
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=parafly]Given our administration's actions for the last several years...[/QUOTE]

    1) Retribution for killing 1000s of Americans in minutes
    2) Enforcing a PEACE treaty (WITH ACTION NOT WORDS) iraq signed in 1991
    3) Protecting the homeland from any more attacks
    4) Rebuilding an economy devastated by 9/11
    5) Attempting to keep madmen from developing nuke programs
    6) Trying to clean up a corrupt un

    That big old US bully!

  7. #27
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs] When was the last time NK killed or attacked US soldiers ...
    [/QUOTE]
    July 27th 1953.

    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs] ... civilians?
    [/QUOTE]
    What's today's date?

  8. #28
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    29,953
    Post Thanks / Like
    Anyone ever see the movie "Duck Soup" with the Marx Brothers? They do this one musical number in the movie where they sing about going to war, probably one of the funniest musical comedy songs ever.

    I dunno, the title of the thread made me think about that song. :D

  9. #29
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,675
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]The whole point is to do it before they have them. NK is negotiating getting rid of them while Iran is actively seeking them. When was the last time NK killed or attacked US soldiers or civilians?

    This is not the US alone who doesn't think Iran should have nukes, it's practically the entire world including their neighbors who aren't Israel. If Iran gets them than SA and Egypt needs them. It is not only in ours and Israel's interest to keep them out of Iran's hands, it is in the interest of every country in that region and in the world to keep them out of Iran's hands. [B]Even Chirac admits they want to develop bombs [/B] and while he doesn't think them having 1 or 2 nukes is a big problem, it's a proliferation problem.[/QUOTE]

    Chirac also thought Saddam had WMDs....

    NK is negotiating to get rid of them???Are you kidding me! You actually believe thay will get rid of them??? How long did it take to get them to negotiate this after they developed them??/ Dont you think Iran should be given just as much time to come to the negotiating table??

  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    13,518
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Spirit of Weeb]1) Retribution for killing 1000s of Americans in minutes

    :eek: [B][COLOR=Red]How has he done this? bin Laden and most of the top guys in al Quaeda are still free. Saddam had no involvement in 9/11.[/COLOR][/B]

    2) Enforcing a PEACE treaty (WITH ACTION NOT WORDS) iraq signed in 1991
    [COLOR=Red]
    [B]To this date, no WMDs have been found and Bush's own people have admitted that Iraq had ZERO involvement in terrorism.[/B][/COLOR]

    3) Protecting the homeland from any more attacks

    [B][COLOR=Red]By having a porous border and trying to give control of several of our major ports to a corporation whose home country has a long track record of supporting terrorism? It took a true bipartisan effort to sway him.[/COLOR][/B]

    4) Rebuilding an economy devastated by 9/11

    [COLOR=Red][B]In theory, yes. But we still have many of our white and blue collar jobs being exported.[/B][/COLOR]

    5) Attempting to keep madmen from developing nuke programs

    [B][COLOR=Red]And failing miserably. North Korea continues to defy us while they are trying to build a long range missile that can reach our west coast. Iran continues development as we speak.[/COLOR][/B]

    6) Trying to clean up a corrupt un

    [B][COLOR=Red]How is he doing that?

    If he's this great leader, why doesn't he try to clean up our own government, which cares more about the concerns of special interests and lobbyists instead of their constituents? Why isn't our Champion of Freedom addressing this?[/COLOR][/B]
    [/QUOTE]

    ...

  11. #31
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,460
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Hey Doggin,

    North Korea has a crazy leader who actually has Nuclear weapons in his possession and has threatened to use them against us (not Israel). Dont you think we should invade them before Iran? After all Iran is a good 10 years away from a weapon and N. Korea has threatened us directly. Shouldnt they be our [i]First[/i] Target?????[/QUOTE]

    North Korea already has nuclear weapons to go with its loony-tunes leader. That means that an attack on North Korea would likely be met with a nuclear response.

    As such, no, we shouldn't be attacking N.Korea at the moment.

  12. #32
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,460
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Hey Doggin,

    North Korea has a crazy leader who actually has Nuclear weapons in his possession and has threatened to use them against us (not Israel). Dont you think we should invade them before Iran? After all Iran is a good 10 years away from a weapon and N. Korea has threatened us directly. Shouldnt they be our [i]First[/i] Target?????[/QUOTE]

    In other words:

    Yeah, I guess what Doggin posted qualifies as hard evidence. Let me change the subject.

  13. #33
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,675
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it]North Korea already has nuclear weapons to go with its loony-tunes leader. That means that an attack on North Korea would likely be met with a nuclear response.

    As such, no, we shouldn't be attacking N.Korea at the moment.[/QUOTE]

    So we should wait for them to attack us first.
    Interesting!

  14. #34
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,460
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]So we should wait for them to attack us first.
    Interesting![/QUOTE]

    No. So we should wait until what we are preempting is an attack, as we can no longer act to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons.

    When the risk/reward calculus changes, the goals and impetus of our actions must change too.

    If you don't understand that, you have no business discussing policy.

  15. #35
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Chirac also thought Saddam had WMDs....

    NK is negotiating to get rid of them???Are you kidding me! You actually believe thay will get rid of them??? How long did it take to get them to negotiate this after they developed them??/ Dont you think Iran should be given just as much time to come to the negotiating table??[/QUOTE]


    NK is on the border with China, there are ongoing negiotations with NK right now and frankly there isn't a lot we can do it about for a number of reasons.

    NK does pose a threat to us as you pointed out. The threat is they have Nukes and are developing long range missles. Why would we possible want the same situation to exist in the ME where the energy supply for most of the world comes from and you could threaten the entire world economy without long range missles?

    Unlike NK, we can do something about Iran. Arguing that we shouldn't because a nut in NK has them makes very little sense, in fact it's a good argument for preventing another nut to have them. The entire world seems to disagree with you regarding Iran since the UN and the security council has been very vocal in it's opposition to Iran having Nukes.

  16. #36
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,844
    Post Thanks / Like
    I would like to know why the leaders of Iran, North Korea and the US just wont sit down and talk. There must be common ground I would think!

  17. #37
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it]North Korea already has nuclear weapons to go with its loony-tunes leader. That means that an attack on North Korea would likely be met with a nuclear response.

    As such, no, we shouldn't be attacking N.Korea at the moment.[/QUOTE]

    not quite true. They have barely tested a very small bomb and still lack the delivery methods to threaten the USA. To get a bomb to America you need ICBMs, the NKs don't have those... yet.

  18. #38
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,460
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti]not quite true. They have barely tested a very small bomb and still lack the delivery methods to threaten the USA. To get a bomb to America you need ICBMs, the NKs don't have those... yet.[/QUOTE]

    They have enough to be able to launch, say, a retaliatory nuclear attack on an american base in South Korea, and a leader insane enough to do just that.

    That alone is a consequence worth factoring in.

  19. #39
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,675
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it]No. So we should wait until what we are preempting is an attack, as we can no longer act to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons.

    When the [B]risk/reward [/B] calculus changes, the goals and impetus of our actions must change too.

    If you don't understand that, you have no business discussing policy.[/QUOTE]
    Thats the key!!
    Risk/Reward. Thats why invading Iraq made no sense. The risk of attack by Iraq/Saddam was miniscule, and there was little or no reward to be expected as the results in Iraq were predictable- chaos/violence/civil-war, followed by the ultimate takeover by the shia majority and a govt that is closer to Iran and will never stand with us in the WOT esp if Iran is the target.

    Whats the risk/reward with Iran??? About the same as with Iraq.

  20. #40
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Thats the key!!
    Risk/Reward. Thats why invading Iraq made no sense. The risk of attack by Iraq/Saddam was miniscule, and there was little or no reward to be expected as the results in Iraq were predictable- chaos/violence/civil-war, followed by the ultimate takeover by the shia majority and a govt that is closer to Iran and will never stand with us in the WOT esp if Iran is the target.

    Whats the risk/reward with Iran??? About the same as with Iraq.[/QUOTE]
    It was a difficult decision and the right one, particularly when and if Iran's international threat is neutralized, by violence or otherwise.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us