SMH at this proposition. WWI started with a single bullet to the noggin of a Prussian leader. A few years later, millions and millions were dead.

One more of these insane attacks could set off a reaction that could leave the entire planet in a glass parking lot.

Don't care what the IAEA says. Iran is no threat to anybody. Leave them alone. They have 70 million people that deserve to live.

^^^ As do our soldiers that would die in an attack on Iran.

^This.

Wallstreet Journal has just posted an article dealing with a potential Israeli strike without U.S permission.

More worrying to Israeli strategic planners examining possible attack scenarios is the possibility that Iran would respond to an Israeli attack by ramping up support to groups battling U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to recently retired officials familiar with the military's thinking on Iran. If American soldiers start dying in greater numbers as a result of an Israeli unilateral attack, Americans could turn against Israel.

Iran could also disrupt the world's oil supply by cutting off exports through the Persian Gulf, roiling international oil markets.

"What will Americans say if Israel drags the U.S. into a war it didn't want, or when they are suddenly paying $10 a gallon for gasoline and Israel is the reason for it," says retired Brig. Gen. Shlomo Brom, former director of the Israeli army's Strategic Planning Division.

I think this is exactly how the scenario will go if an Israeli unilateral strike happens.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703757504575194223689622084.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

You have to use google to read the whole article.

Another thing I found interesting is the talk of airspace. Israel would have to go over U.S controlled airspace to get to Iran.

That puts us in a position where we have the choice of either shooting down the Israeli plane (not going to happen) or allowing them through, which effectively negates the ability of our government to pretend like we weren't complicit or didn't approve. This will no doubt inflame the Middle East that we helped them attack, and make life hell (even worse than it already is) for our troops stationed over there as they become retaliatory targets.

Gates and Mullin have been looking at containment options more than anything recently as both seem to want no part of a military option. That is not acceptable to Israel, but then they don't have 250,000 troops stationed over there to think about when assessing the cost/benefit of whether the blowback is worth it.

The U.S. will not invade Iran. We are broke & have no ability to pay for another expensive war without serious damage to ourselves. Israel will counter-balance anything they do. Our time will be spent continuing to foster good relations with the majority of the country who wants to get rid of their leaders. And , another shooting war would damage our economy with expensive oil again. Sanctions from the U.N. and other diplomatic issues will prevail. Their internal demographics will overwhelm Iran 's govt and either peacably or by civil war, & Iran will change. Time , not war, will make the changes we want.

IggyPride00 wrote: Another thing I found interesting is the talk of airspace. Israel would have to go over U.S controlled airspace to get to Iran.

That puts us in a position where we have the choice of either shooting down the Israeli plane (not going to happen) or allowing them through, which effectively negates the ability of our government to pretend like we weren't complicit or didn't approve. This will no doubt inflame the Middle East that we helped them attack, and make life hell (even worse than it already is) for our troops stationed over there as they become retaliatory targets.

Gates and Mullin have been looking at containment options more than anything recently as both seem to want no part of a military option. That is not acceptable to Israel, but then they don't have 250,000 troops stationed over there to think about when assessing the cost/benefit of whether the blowback is worth it.

Not necessarily as the war games from Brookings that I posted had them flying through Lebanon, Syria Turkey or Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait to Iran.

It is really longer, and Israel would need many refueling planes, many aircraft and precise munitions which they may not have.

BCSbunk wrote:Oh yeah but we have not fucked with them now that they can do some serious damage. Hopefully Iran gets some nukes and quick it will save many innocent lives if they do and stop the US from launching their evil assualt on them.

If we thought North Korea could hurt others...we would take them out....at this point they are a danger to themselves....If they had a reliable delivery vehicle, we would knock it down before it left Korean airspace.


You really think that allowing the most destructive weapon ever created to get in the hands of the likes of Iran and NK is a good thing?

The only reason deterrence worked during the Cold War is that neither nation had an advantage and both knew it was unwinnable. Put that power at the command of someone that could be easily influenced by a radical..you have a problem....someone might think that they don't need to win..only be a martyr.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

IggyPride00 wrote: Another thing I found interesting is the talk of airspace. Israel would have to go over U.S controlled airspace to get to Iran.

That puts us in a position where we have the choice of either shooting down the Israeli plane (not going to happen) or allowing them through, which effectively negates the ability of our government to pretend like we weren't complicit or didn't approve. This will no doubt inflame the Middle East that we helped them attack, and make life hell (even worse than it already is) for our troops stationed over there as they become retaliatory targets.

Gates and Mullin have been looking at containment options more than anything recently as both seem to want no part of a military option. That is not acceptable to Israel, but then they don't have 250,000 troops stationed over there to think about when assessing the cost/benefit of whether the blowback is worth it.

Not necessarily as the war games from Brookings that I posted had them flying through Lebanon, Syria Turkey or Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait to Iran.

It is really longer, and Israel would need many refueling planes, many aircraft and precise munitions which they may not have.

Using Arab airspace is not a realistic option, as I have read there are concerns that any Arab government who is complicit with an Israeli strike giving them the go ahead would be susceptible to be overthrown due to rage among their citizens.

The Saudi's would like to see a strike, but their citizens would revolt if it came out they were party to helping Israel. The extremists would set the country ablaze, and that goes for pretty much any other regime in that region.

That may have been the war games simulation, but I have read in numerous spots that none of those governments wants to open themselves up to the inevitable rioting and extremist backlash that would occur.

Let them have the weapon. They'll never use it, and will be a little tyrant like the pot bellied Kim Jong Il.

BoatShoes wrote: Should the United States Military just stick it out and get rid of the last evil dictator in the Middle East and kick start the moderate Iranian movement into having power in a democratic state? If it is true that we believe the right to life liberty and to pursue happiness and fundamentally endowed rights in all human beings, should we use the most dominant military force in history to help our fellow humans in Iran realize these rights since they cannot achieve them for themselves because of authoritarian leadership?

Should we do the same for North Korea and eliminate that dictatorship as well?

Last evil dictator? Saudi Arabia is one of the most oppressive nations in that region (Shariya law) yet we do nothing because they are our ally? Please, there is no need to do anything with Iran.

We won't even sit down and have diplomatic relations with Iran's leadership. Yes, we disagree a great deal with them, but why not talk it out over fighting it out? Fighting it out doesn't solve anything, at least that is what we are taught as young children.

Iran is no more a threat to the US than Iraq was. IMO, Russia is who we really should be worried about. Between Russia and China, those 2 countries could really hurt the US. Not any middle eastern nation.

Mr. 300 wrote: Let them have the weapon. They'll never use it, and will be a little tyrant like the pot bellied Kim Jong Il.

I think Kim is just misunderstood. The dude just loves his creative arts.

sjmvsfscs08 wrote:

BCSbunk wrote: OH WAIT................. The US is the one out attacking and invading nations at their whim and fancy.

Do you believe that? Really?

Ummmm YEAH....... what other country is doing that bullshit?

What other countries are now attacking other nations?

The US has been attacking and attacking lots......... defense my ass it should be called an OFFENSE BUDGET as they attack who they desire at their whim and fancy.

dwccrew wrote:

BoatShoes wrote: Should the United States Military just stick it out and get rid of the last evil dictator in the Middle East and kick start the moderate Iranian movement into having power in a democratic state? If it is true that we believe the right to life liberty and to pursue happiness and fundamentally endowed rights in all human beings, should we use the most dominant military force in history to help our fellow humans in Iran realize these rights since they cannot achieve them for themselves because of authoritarian leadership?

Should we do the same for North Korea and eliminate that dictatorship as well?

Last evil dictator? Saudi Arabia is one of the most oppressive nations in that region (Shariya law) yet we do nothing because they are our ally? Please, there is no need to do anything with Iran.

We won't even sit down and have diplomatic relations with Iran's leadership. Yes, we disagree a great deal with them, but why not talk it out over fighting it out? Fighting it out doesn't solve anything, at least that is what we are taught as young children.

Iran is no more a threat to the US than Iraq was. IMO, Russia is who we really should be worried about. Between Russia and China, those 2 countries could really hurt the US. Not any middle eastern nation.

DING DING DING we have a WINNER!!!

Hell The US is so screwed up by the Republicans that China..... yes China will be helping to install rail in California. LMFAO China? Really? China? Helping the US with infrastructure?

Yes it has gotten that bad because of conservative nonsense.

Just a quick question. Name me a Country/Empire that has survived that has tried to expand its empire, force its way of life on people who do not want it and while all of this is going on, the actual country itself is crumbling from the inside?

Instead of trying to build States in the Middle East, why don't we try to build states here in America?



"Preventative War was an idea of Hitlers. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously who came and talked about such a thing" - Dwight Eisenhower.

The idea to attack Iran just to prevent something from possibly happening is a terrible idea.

pmoney25 wrote: Just a quick question. Name me a Country/Empire that has survived that has tried to expand its empire, force its way of life on people who do not want it and while all of this is going on, the actual country itself is crumbling from the inside?

France? England? Russia?

CenterBHSFan wrote:

pmoney25 wrote: Just a quick question. Name me a Country/Empire that has survived that has tried to expand its empire, force its way of life on people who do not want it and while all of this is going on, the actual country itself is crumbling from the inside?

France? England? Russia?

I was reffering to Countries/Empires that were at the time considered the dominant country. Economically, Military, Socially etc...Of course the actual country will survive but the status and power that country had cannot sustain.

Russia- Just recent history will show this. Things worked out pretty well for the Soviets, didn't it?

France- When is the last time they were relevant or not giving in to foreign invaders?

England- Go back to when they were trying to govern/build a country from the other side of the world. I think we know how that one turned out.

My point was that America cannot and will not sustain it's place in the World if we continue to try and police the world and change mindsets and beliefs that have been around for thousands of years.

Military can kill and destroy people, buildings, houses and cities but cannot kill ideas/beliefts. These people will fight and die for their religious beliefs. It means more to them than life itself and you cannot win against that.

Something I read awhile back, not sure if it is verbatim but applies to this conversation. The Urge to save humanity is often a false front for the urge to rule. That is how people who are having their country taken over and having us occupy their lands view us. As a country trying to rule them and show them how to live.

I consider myself a Conservative/Libertarian and I believe the Military is used to protect our borders and not meant to build nations.

Some of you act like Al Qaeda is going to come over here and take over our country.

This may surprise some of those who think they know me, but here goes:


Bomb them back into the Stone Age. Leave them with no means of retalitation (or support) and let our Air Force patrol what's left of that country. No one is going to do anything to us, so we need to do this now. Those other piss-ant tyrant wannabees out there will get the message loud and clear that if you think you can fuck with us we will destroy you. The Iranian people, through their tacit approval of their government's policies, are guilty of wanting all of us dead, so we need to beat them to it and hasten their meeting with their maker. Don't worry about the price of oil, as our military will make sure the shipping lanes stay open.

^^ That = Genocide

Leave them alone, seriously. Iran is no threat to us. They know that if they instigated anything, we'd (despite what some think of Obama, he wouldn't hesitate to use force) bomb the hell out of them. We have enough problems in that part of the world without starting something new with a different country.

stlouiedipalma wrote: This may surprise some of those who think they know me, but here goes:


Bomb them back into the Stone Age. Leave them with no means of retalitation (or support) and let our Air Force patrol what's left of that country. No one is going to do anything to us, so we need to do this now. Those other piss-ant tyrant wannabees out there will get the message loud and clear that if you think you can fuck with us we will destroy you. The Iranian people, through their tacit approval of their government's policies, are guilty of wanting all of us dead, so we need to beat them to it and hasten their meeting with their maker. Don't worry about the price of oil, as our military will make sure the shipping lanes stay open.

I've been trying to avoid the internet for the summer, but there are so many things wrong in this post I had to respond.

Your obvious calls for interventionist genocide aside, I'll throw out some facts:

1. 61% of Iranians are dissatisfied with their form of government
2. 79% favor a democratic system where all people are replaced by a vote. 3. Nearly half of Iranians possess a favorable views of Americans
4. 60% favor normalizing diplomac relations with the US
5. Nearly 85% of Iranians favor working with the US on the nuclear issue

Claiming all Iranians want us dead is delusional at best. And you are crazy if you think a war in the Straits won't cause oil prices to skyrocket.

Basically this Iran fearmongering is the same fearmongering we heard leading up to the Iraq War.


http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Iran%20Survey%20Report.pdf

http://www.usip.org/iran/iran_presentation.pdf

eersandbeers wrote:

stlouiedipalma wrote: This may surprise some of those who think they know me, but here goes:


Bomb them back into the Stone Age. Leave them with no means of retalitation (or support) and let our Air Force patrol what's left of that country. No one is going to do anything to us, so we need to do this now. Those other piss-ant tyrant wannabees out there will get the message loud and clear that if you think you can fuck with us we will destroy you. The Iranian people, through their tacit approval of their government's policies, are guilty of wanting all of us dead, so we need to beat them to it and hasten their meeting with their maker. Don't worry about the price of oil, as our military will make sure the shipping lanes stay open.

I've been trying to avoid the internet for the summer, but there are so many things wrong in this post I had to respond.

Your obvious calls for interventionist genocide aside, I'll throw out some facts:

1. 61% of Iranians are dissatisfied with their form of government
2. 79% favor a democratic system where all people are replaced by a vote. 3. Nearly half of Iranians possess a favorable views of Americans
4. 60% favor normalizing diplomac relations with the US
5. Nearly 85% of Iranians favor working with the US on the nuclear issue

Claiming all Iranians want us dead is delusional at best. And you are crazy if you think a war in the Straits won't cause oil prices to skyrocket.

Basically this Iran fearmongering is the same fearmongering we heard leading up to the Iraq War.


http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Iran%20Survey%20Report.pdf

http://www.usip.org/iran/iran_presentation.pdf

I hope not to deter you from your quest to stay away from OhioChatter so feel free to ignore me. I'm sure someone else will answer. ...but fwiw, and even though I posed the question, I do not believe an Iranian invasion or strike of any kind is the answer.

But, my underlying question I think relates to you very well. You, I understand are a libertarian...which typically hold non-interventionist views....but you also post those numbers showing that Iranians, for the most part, in stark contrast to what some might believe, might actually desire to live in the free, open, self-reliant and humanistic kind of society that we Americans enjoy. Yet, they are stuck with governors and a government that does not represent them.

Is there not something that pulls at your heart that says, since you as a libertarian understand the joys and fruits of freedom from government, America ought to help?

BoatShoes wrote:
I hope not to deter you from your quest to stay away from OhioChatter so feel free to ignore me. I'm sure someone else will answer. ...but fwiw, and even though I posed the question, I do not believe an Iranian invasion or strike of any kind is the answer.

But, my underlying question I think relates to you very well. You, I understand are a libertarian...which typically hold non-interventionist views....but you also post those numbers showing that Iranians, for the most part, in stark contrast to what some might believe, might actually desire to live in the free, open, self-reliant and humanistic kind of society that we Americans enjoy. Yet, they are stuck with governors and a government that does not represent them.

Is there not something that pulls at your heart that says, since you as a libertarian understand the joys and fruits of freedom from government, America ought to help?

It's hard to ignore a messageboard for the whole summer. I don't know if I could do it anyways.

Well the US is already supporting the Jundallah which is a known terrorist group in Iran. I do not support propping up that group though.

Revolution can never happen when it is enacted from external sources. Despite their hatred for the government, Iranians are some of the most nationalistic people in the world. We saw this during the Iraq-Iran War when they gave up all hope for reforms to fight Iraq.

Reform in Iran will only come from Iranians. It cannot happen if it is imposed from the United States.

And it should not happen if imposed from the United States.

No. Even if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, that's Israels problem not ours.