If Iran gets a nuclear weapon it is EVERYONE'S problem. Given their rhetoric, do you have any doubts they would use it if they had it?


I'm a little surprised I didn't get more response to my extremist response to the thread's question. Believe me, I am not serious about bombing them back to the stone age, but a nuclear Iran poses a big problem to the entire world. Given their location, I would say much more so than North Korea. I really don't know how to deal with this problem, either. Military intervention could work, but only if all countries approved it and took part in it. That's not going to happen in my lifetime, but this is a serious threat which must be handled, and I feel sooner rather than later.

^^^
Saddam Hussein promised that we'd be in for the most epic war ever. Look how that turned out.

stlouiedipalma wrote: If Iran gets a nuclear weapon it is EVERYONE'S problem. Given their rhetoric, do you have any doubts they would use it if they had it?

Yes, given that any use of the weapon would be answered by a U.S. and NATO full retaliatory strike, either through conventional or nuclear operations. That includes if any weapons were detonated by Hamas or Hezbollah. The Iranian regime is self interested and would not do anything so stupid as to launch a weapons.

We said the same thing about the Soviets and Chinese.

I'm a little surprised I didn't get more response to my extremist response to the thread's question. Believe me, I am not serious about bombing them back to the stone age, but a nuclear Iran poses a big problem to the entire world.

Yes it is a problem, however bombing them is not the answer. There are other means to contain the Iranians if they cross that line. We don't want them to cross that line, but the U.S. and allies can create a regime that can restrict Iranian power.
It will be difficult, but it could really unite the region.

Given their location, I would say much more so than North Korea. I really don't know how to deal with this problem, either.

The region has enough problems, but I'd say that a nuclear Iran would actually unite the region like no other issue. The Saudis have the same view as the Israelis.

Military intervention could work, but only if all countries approved it and took part in it. That's not going to happen in my lifetime, but this is a serious threat which must be handled, and I feel sooner rather than later.

Military action will not work, short of a full on invasion and I don't think the U.S. military can really afford to really take action in a third country. Surgical strikes won't work unless there are several, several sorties of B52 and B2 on the numerous Iranian facilities.

Even then, any military action would actually lead to support of the regime, not opposition, leading to even more problem. Plus, it does not get to the core of the problem-the will the Iranians have toward nuclear enrichment.

I don't think military action is in the future. People were saying a war was coming between the Soviets and U.S. and the U.S. and China (save Korea of course). That did not happen. I see a nuclear Iran as a huge, huge problem, but one that can be contained.

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.

Bingo. We have a winner.

Explain to me how genocide is a good policy for the United States to take.

Iran is not Iraq. We wiped out of much of Iraq's military capability in the first Gulf War. It would take 500,000-1 million troops to march in and take Iran, and unless they attack us first, we would never be able to raise that kind of army.

Second of all, it would only turn the people of Iran against us, and when they do get the bomb they will hate us even more than they do now.

I wouldn't be opposed to offering some under the table help to Iranians that would want to change their government from within. Otherwise, all we need to say is, "It's none of our business if Iran has nuclear weapons. They might want to strongly consider opening up their entire program to UN inspections however, because if a nuclear device is detonated by any Muslim extremist group anywhere in the world, Iran will be a parking lot within an hour."

I Wear Pants wrote: Explain to me how genocide is a good policy for the United States to take.

Because that is what the right wing is all about. They love war and death. Kill em all let god sort em out.

They are a lower substandard type of human so it is okay that we bomb them till it turns to glass. This is how the right wing thinks the more innocents that die the more excited they are and they feel safer, please do not forget the feel safer part.

BCSbunk wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: Explain to me how genocide is a good policy for the United States to take.

Because that is what the right wing is all about. They love war and death. Kill em all let god sort em out.

They are a lower substandard type of human so it is okay that we bomb them till it turns to glass. This is how the right wing thinks the more innocents that die the more excited they are and they feel safer, please do not forget the feel safer part.

Serious question.

Is it all about the right wing with you?
Any input at all, anywhere about the left?

The posters that tend to side with the left on here aren't suggesting we participate in mass scale genocide. So it's a lot easier to focus on how ridiculous the right is.

Genocide is far more batshit insane than shitty social programs IMO.

I Wear Pants wrote: The posters that tend to side with the left on here aren't suggesting we participate in mass scale genocide. So it's a lot easier to focus on how ridiculous the right is.

Stlouie is as liberal as they come, and he is the only one suggesting genocide.

Cleveland Buck wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: The posters that tend to side with the left on here aren't suggesting we participate in mass scale genocide. So it's a lot easier to focus on how ridiculous the right is.

Stlouie is as liberal as they come, and he is the only one suggesting genocide.

I was unawares of this. I hereby recant my statement that the crazies have any party affiliation other than crazy.

Neither side wants that.