The limb of all limbs here. Would it be that bad if we did bomb Iran....

[trumad]

and destroyed their nuclear capabilities?

[peacebird]

1. Yes, it would be "THAT BAD" and even worse than that bad.

[hector459]

54. Why do that? they are not a threat to us . the only nation to use nukes

is the US. No other country has done this in history and if we left other countries the hell alone, this would not be a problem. I think the evidence is in: all countries need a nuclear deterent to protect themselves for the US. We have invaded more countries, have our military stationed in more countries, and now occupy a nation which makes us equal to Israel and Syria. To my knowledge neither Iran or N. Korea occupy another nation. N. Korea is having trouble even being its own nation. It sure is more likely that N. Korea would occupy S. Korea than Iran occupying Iraq or any other nation. So what does the record show? Read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", study WWII and WWI, look around and see who has used, threatened to use nuclear weapons, and see who now occupies other nations. There's you answer. We have no right, no need, and no moral authority to bomb Iran.

[LynneSin]

2. Oh hell, let's just bomb North Korea, India, Pakistan, Russia, France...

...and a horde of other countries with Nuclear capabilities

:eyes:

[durablend]

5. Screw that...let's just bomb

Everything other than the United States since we're the center of the universe (that what * says) :eyes:

[tyedyeto]

20. According to Randy Newman circa 1972

No one likes us
I don't know why.
We may not be perfect
But heaven knows we try.
But all around even our old friends put us down.
Let's drop the big one and see what happens.

We give them money
But are they grateful?
No they're spiteful
And they're hateful.
They don't respect us so let's surprise them;
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them.

Now Asia's crowded
And Europe's too old.
Africa's far too hot,
And Canada's too cold.
And South America stole our name.
Let's drop the big one; there'll be no one left to blame us.

Bridge:
We'll save Australia;
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo.
We'll build an all-American amusement park there;
They've got surfing, too.

Well, boom goes London,
And boom Paris.
More room for you
And more room for me.
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town.
Oh, how peaceful it'll be;
We'll set everybody free;
You'll have Japanese kimonos, baby,
There'll be Italian shoes for me.
They all hate us anyhow,
So let's drop the big one now.
Let's drop the big one now.

[leftchick]

3. yes...

number one, we DON"T KNOW where all of their facilities are so we can not possibly destroy them all. Number two, wouldn't this be a great way to start WWIII?

Perhaps you need a little coffee trumad?

[Cooley Hurd]

4. It would be unfair to deny Iran a nuclear deterrent...

...while continuing to sanction Israel's nukes. Especially since Israel has shown its aggression repeatedly, and Iran hasn't.

[ixion]

6. I think a better solution

would be to stop the massive proliferation of nuclear weapons that's going on right here at home, and start treating other sovereign nations with the respect and diplomacy that is appropriate for the so-called Leader of the Free Nations, rather than opening yet another front in the neocrusades, a.k.a the 'War on Terror'.

But hey, I'm a peace nut, so what do I know.

[trumad]

7. OK..let me ask question two...

Would it be OK if Iran had nuclear weapons?

[ixion]

17. really, it's not okay for anyone to have them

it doesn't make a good case for the foundation of 'civilization' --namely progress and enlightenment -- to continually strive for better ways to destroy the earth and it's denizens along with it.


As Einstein said: "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."

I guess my point is that, as the only country to actually use them, I think we're not in a position to judge. As long as Israel is allowed to pursue the same, without fear of reprisal -- something the US supports in the name of 'protection' -- we're in no position to selectively enforce the same treaties we break.

[WilliamPitt]

8. Read my secret plan to win the war

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/2/21/43834/9243

[ashmanonar]

27. sounds like a better plan than bush's junta.

you should be secretary of defense! perfect example of psychological war and revolution.

[blondeatlast]

35. Brilliant; I mean it. We could win Afghanistan (given that they

received TVs and satellite capability) the same way.

My sister in law is from Iran originally, and she pretty much has already said what yyou did. I'll be sure to tell her about this.

Right now, already in frail health, she's a nervous wreck as she still has most of her family there.

Seriously, Will, from your lips to the faux-boy-god's ears.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

45. You're pretty much on target about Iran's youth

they are the future and a "gateway" to a better rapport with the West.
They do like us (much to the chagrin of their ruling class).
I say, also, let's wage a culture war.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

46. "MTV 24/7/365."

"The mullahs won't know what hit them"

I'm for it!

All we are saying is give MTV a chance
All we are saying is give MTV a chance

[rustydad]

52. Yes....but

Will, your plan has no component of population reduction in it. Bush's does. They want to control Iran AND to depopulate the region. The overriding issue for the neocons is the birthrate in Muslim countries. Simple demographics. A judicious use of nuclear bombs will certainly be an effective and somewhat painless method of population control. Bob

[punpirate]

9. First of all, you must be specific...

... about "nuclear capabilities." If you mean weapons, there's no evidence of them (remember Hussein's WMDs, or, lack of them?).

If you mean anything nuclear, then what's to prevent some other country from bombing our nuclear power plants in exactly the same fashion, in retaliation?

Next, if Iran does in fact have nuclear weapons facilities, if we destroy those, shouldn't we, for the sake of peace and stability in the region, also bomb Israel's nuclear weapons facilities in Dimona, and bomb their nuclear weapons stockpiles?

The great problem is that we in the US tend to see the problem only from our perspective, and usually, that perspective is greatly influenced by our government. Remember Vietnam? We were told that if we didn't stop communism there, the dominoes would fall all over the world. Fifteen years after losing that horror of a war, instead, the Soviet Union fell, of its own weight.

It's never as simple as, "maybe it won't be that bad." If we pursue yet another war in yet another country in the Middle East/South Asia, we risk decades of more trouble, at home and abroad. And, very likely, take that risk to enrichen multinational oil companies which depend on that region for their continuing profits.

Cheers.

[HereSince1628]

10. No we could use up those old bunker busters and make room

for newer nukes. I think we should have more nukes, bomb-making is the one industry that the nation protects, and that's been slow for a generation. Off-shoring needs to stop somewhere.

<sarcasm is never off>

[ananda]

11. worse

Whatever you mean by "that bad" will be nothing compared to the reality of what will happen if Bushco takes that irrational course.

It's not out of the realm of possibility, though, because Bush and his cadre are all mad people flinging shit.

First, the USA military is understaffed with competent officers and undertrooped with insufficient materiel.

Secondly, they are utterly incompetent and dangerously insensitive to other cultures.

Thirdly, Iran can and will fight back. They have a very large, well trained, well equipped military force.

It would be utter idiocy to attack Iran, but since that kind of idiocy is a stock in trade for Bushco these days, nothing would surprise me.

I just wonder if Syria might be a handy substitute to manipulate and mess with first. That sandbox is more amenable to black ops, for things like causing demonstrations and various fomentations in preparation for a vital need to .. errr.. stabilize the region. ahem

Sue

[WilliamPitt]

13. "mad people flinging shit"

As succinct a description of American foreign policy as I have ever read.

:toast:

[FromTheLeft]

39. My friend leaves tomorrow...

for the syrian border.

[bowens43]

12. Yes. Absolutely.

[Crunchy Frog]

14. Well, they might decide to bomb our soldiers in Iraq

in retaliation, or they might decide to bomb Israel in retaliation, or both, any of which scenarios could lead to all out war with Iran and possibly Syria by extension. With Russia forging ties with those two countries right now and presumably giving them some reasonably advanced weapons, this could lead us into a genuinely catastrophic military situation. Sort of Vietnam on steroids, but in a much more volatile region of the world where nukes could end up playing a role.

Apart from that, I don't really see any problems with it...

[Pharaoh]

15. What about this scenario

Let's say we do try and take out Iran military targets by air power,......
Now I think it might be quite easy to take out the saudi oil loading facilitys from Iran with missiles, The price of oil would go through the roof and the chaos would likely bring down the house of saud..........worldwide economic collapse would happen rather quickly I would think,

Who wins then?:party:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Should Iran preemptively strike America to defend it's people?

Same idea.

[trumad]

21. Good points by all...

I'm wondering is it was that big of deal when Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear plant? I can't recall?


Look...I'm throwing this out here because there's a great majority of this country who hasn't begun to think about the consequences of what a bombing run in Iraq would do. It think now is the time for us to get out talking points in order so that we can fight back against the gun "ho" media and the relentless propaganda of the Bush Admin.

[Vladimir]

18. Good bit of limbage

one has to ask, bad for whom? (leaving "legalities" and morals out of it, since then it ceases to be an interesting question) For the Iranians, it would be a disaster because it would remove their only viable defence mechanism. For joe public in the West, it would probably be an irrelevance if not followed up with an invasion and if succesfull; on the other hand if it failed, we might all feel a bit warmer as a result of any Iranian response.

[H2O Man]

19. I am positive

that you would not ask such a question to simply provoke a thoughtful discussion. (smile) I do not think that Iran's having nuclear weapons will add stability to the Middle East. One need not be particularly insightful to recognize that as more countries come to have WMDs, the chances of WMDs being used increases. The possibilities for their use increases: it could be by a ruthless sociopath; a terrorist group; or even an accidental usage .... last week, when there was a reported explosion in southeast Iran, it could have been considered a US/Israeli strike, and easily could have resulted in the launch of WMDs into the "green zone" in Iraq or into Israel.

We also need to be aware that people from a rigid religious world-view are potentially more likely to use WMDs than people with a moral/ethical and progressively scientific world-view. From the book "Imperial Hubris," for example, we know that at least one respected Islamic leader has divined that the use of WMDs is justified under circumstances that should give us pause to think about the insanity of the WMD mind-set.

However, the thought that we can curb the potential for violence with violence may fit more snugly into that insane world view, than into a rational plan to ease tensions in the world today. If we are to examine the situation in a rational manner, I think we can see that the present US leadership lacks the moral or ethical capacity to ease tensions in the Middle East. The chances are that they are moving towards a violent confrontation in Iran. And I think that the chances are that this will cause events to spiral farther out of control.

The reduction of irrational tensions, be they "religious" or economicly inspired, will only be accomplished by a world-wide peace movement.

[trumad]

22. LOL...see post 21

How are you H2?

[H2O Man]

25. Much better.

I think that a significant problem today -- one you are clearly addressing -- is that the public at large does not realize that a conflict with Iran is not going to be "part 3" of the adventure in Afghanistan and Iraq. Thus far, "only" about 1500 families have come to known the worst case scenario in Iraq (I am unsure how many soldiers have been horribly wounded). But, by and large, the war is "there."

I'm not a soldier. Anything I know about the military comes from friends & relatives who are/have been in the service, and reading a good amount on the subject. But I do know human nature, and I do know history. And from that combination, I recognize that we have but a specific amount of time to make a statement for peace and nonviolent reconciliation here, within the United States, that is loud enough for the rest of humanity to hear. I think we need to speak firmly enough that people begin to see peace and nonviolence as a viable alternative to the insanity of war.

[ashmanonar]

30. i think for some of those 1500 families,

it's more a kindness...those who have sons and daughters coming back wounded in mind and body will have that son or daughter for the rest of their lives, and will see the effect on these vets of bush's war every day.

i certainly wouldn't want to go to war, but if i did, and i returned missing limbs, or in a wheelchair, with ptsd or something similarly horrible, i would probably rather have died outright.

[ashmanonar]

29. hmmm...

"ruthless sociopath; a terrorist group; or even an accidental usage"...we don't have to go anywhere in the world to find one of those...we've got * and the neocons...

[H2O Man]

40. My choice of

words was meant to include that message.

[ashmanonar]

55. i figured as such.

but just voicing it out loud, for any of those who didn't get it.

[necso]

23. You mean as in "hot" nuclear targets?

Spreading radiation around is never a good idea. And if we do it to them, then we are risking exactly the same in return -- and who has the greater vulnerability.

But, of course, nuclear weapons proliferation is a bad thing, with more stuff floating around -- and in more places -- there is more chance of it being it used. And once used, weapons lose some of the stigma attached to them -- and are more likely to be used again.

Now, of course, nuclear weapons were used once (2 bombs, of course) -- but this was at the crescendo of a horrific war. They have not been used since -- and every sane person now hesitates at their use.

As to bombing attacks stopping nuclear weapons proliferation in Iran, I think not. It is possible that they would give up on making nuclear weapons (if they are even so doing). Or it is possible that this would make them even more (or newly) determined to do so. If they dispersed and hardened facilities, it might be impossible to take out these facilities with anything less than nuclear weapons (or by seizing them) -- and then we are immediately at the threshold.

Most likely, bombing would only delay Iran obtaining nuclear weapons -- if they are so determined. And this delay really only makes sense if we plan on going in there and staying in there to prevent them from ever getting nuclear weapons. (Besides, do you really think that we can pick out all the right targets -- even provided that they exist.)

And there would be all sorts of consequences there (even if we ignore "hot" targets -- which practise might make little sense) and elsewhere in the sort, medium and long terms. To treat this subject adequately would require a book. But the potential killing and injuring of Russian technicians would be one thing to consider.

In the worst case, even if Iran does acquire nuclear weapons, certain massive retaliation could be expected to deter their use. MAD, which involved our own destruction (and was therefore more to be feared), safeguarded this country for decades. Certain massive retaliation would probably save us from overt attacks for a comparable number of decades.

As to covert attacks, well there is some chance that any such weapon could be traced. -- Then comes the massive retaliation thingie.

[ashmanonar]

32. aha!

"and every sane person now hesitates at their use."...you've just struck gold. we know it's gonna happen now. does anyone here actually think that * and cabal are actually sane?

[necso]

34. Perhaps,

but there is almost always a haze of uncertainty concealing the future, even to the sharpest eye.

And sometimes there are forces and struggles going on that do not always meet the eye.

Time will tell.

[Skidmore]

24. We are just begging for that whole region to jump

our asses and kick them big. I don't care what kind of weaponry you have, nothing beats you like determination.

[neweurope]

26. You have the means but not the right. Nobody has. We're not cave men

anymore and the world has become much too dangerous for that kind of behaviour. I detest your even having asked this question.

But of course you WILL bomb them. Your administration is already saying as much. They REFUSE to negotiate along with the Europeans.

God (or whoever) help us all.

-------------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[trumad]

33. Somebody's gotta ask it...

How the hell are we gonna combat the push for it if we don't discuss it... I guess we should just sit back and allow Moran America to stick their heads in the sand...AGAIN!

[H2O Man]

43. Perhaps the only

serious complaint would be "why haven't Americans asked this before?" It's a good question. It's an important question. And if it isn't a "timely" question, that is only because it should have been asked before. (And, of course, it has; people on DU have discussed it on a regular basis since at very least a year ago.) But it is now a question that has to be discussed on a larger forum. I'm glad you asked the question.

[neweurope]

44. Alright alright - I'm just so very sick of the US - AND scared.

---------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[H2O Man]

47. Well,

what do you expect from a bunch of European boat people?

[Minstrel Boy]

28. American Exceptionalism, it's a helluva thing.

Leading the world in nuclear hypocricy since 1945.

[sendero]

31. My personal opinion is..

... we will rue the day we attack Iran. Iran is not Iraq, they have not been weakened by 10 years of sanctions,they have real leadership rather than a dictator who can't take a bite of food without worry, they have advanced weapons and probably a source for many more.

They have a population that is heavily skewed toward folks in their 20s (masses of cannon fodder) because of being encouraged to procreate 25 years ago. They are a unique combination culturally of religious and secular, and the Persian culture is as doggedly defiant against any insult as any Arab.

Anyone thinking we'll just fly over Iran and drop some bombs and that will be the end of it is delusional. Anyone thinking we could actually engage in a successful ground war in Iran is a drooling moron.

[durablend]

36. Well who's in the White House?

Delusional, drooling morons.

Answer your question?

[sendero]

38. Yes...

... but they are being enabled by a drooling moron populace.

A populace that thinks sticking a sticker on the back of their car is "supporting the troops". A populace that thinks we can throw a temper tantrum about 911 indefinitely, and there will be no consequence.

A populace who thinks America is the biggest baddest mofo on the block and we can kick anyone's ass. That any problem we have can be solved with bombs. That we can stop terrorism using the same tactics that have failed miserably for Israel.

Yes, you can hardly drive your car without skidding on the drool.

[DemonFighterLives]

41. I agree with you

But it is the same thing that was said about Iraq, that they were no Afghanistan.
I don't know how to stop it, but Bushco is definitely planning it. They have already denied having any plans for Iran, so it is a sure thing.

[Silverhair]

37. Don't strike. Here is why.

First, I am by no means a peacenik. There are situations that call for military actions. This is not one of them.

From what I have read, the targets are dispersed and some have been hardened. In any case, they seem determined to become a nuclear power, and strikes would only make them more determined.

Strikes would further inflame the region against us.

Iran isn't a totally crazy nation. They will quickly see that they can't use nukes without the complete loss of their own country. Nukes amount to little more than a national status symbol, and an expensive one at that.

However, with the continued spread of nukes, there is the increased risk that somebody will use them.

[FromTheLeft]

42. Many problems

1) We have no right. The world is not ours to police, and I personally feel that this is what makes the terrorists hate us in the first place.

2) We don't have the man power. We are stretched so utterly thin in Iraq already that we have no troops for the endeavor.

3) Iran is the second biggest terrorist haven. By attacking we would not only provoke the actual Iranian military (which is actually one of the more advanced military's in the world thanks to Russia) but every terrorist who has been lying in wait would be here in an instant, with the full funding of one of the richest governments in the world.

4) They want it more. If we were to invade Iran we are sending soldiers who are under orders and many would not agree with the principal of the attack. The Iranians troop come from an almost medieval mentality where their is little that is more honorable then to die for God and Country. With bare hands against our guns they would not stop come if provoked and that is a scary idea.

5) This would mean it never ends. I believe it was Orwell who said the only way to hold control over the masses is to hold them in a state of fear due to constant war.

I could go on for days but the point is this: Republicans push everything to far in the wrong direction. That is their main problem as a party. Everything to them is a means to their ends with no consequences that enough poor peoples deaths can't solve, so long as their children don't have to go too. I have said this over and over again in thread after thread the only way to justly stop this is mandatory service for everyone that would put their children on the front lines next to my friends. That is the only way that they will realize what they are doing to our country.

[Eloriel]

48. Just one question for YOU

what makes you think we have the right? Really, what gives us the right? That we're bigger and CAN? That we own the world or are in some way responsible for making other countries do what WE want?

Really. What is the rationale?

[trumad]

49. me personally?

Eloriel, what makes you think that I am pro pre-emption? For God Sakes, how are we going to learn anything if these types of questions are not thrown out there?

[Gyre]

50. An act of preemption, which is also an act of war

which is unsupported by reliable intelligence, which would necessarily involve a large loss of lives. Hmmm. That would be: 1) illegal (based on international law), 2) Immoral, 3) And BTW, where's Osama?


Gyre

[leesa]

51. You have to ask? Also, why can't they have nukes? Why are they not

allowed to defend themselves?

[trumad]

53. Well.... with that in mind...

why can't every tin pot dictator in the world be aloud to have Nukes?

[Disturbed]

56. My tinfoil hat theory.

If the Bush Junta were actually going to start a two war front with Iran and Syria I suspect that the Pres. and a few of his Junta would meet with accidental deaths. The U.S. Military is not as insane as the Bush Junta. I don't believe that the Oligarchy in Amerika is insane either. They are not looking for the End Days, which an attack on Iran and Syria could definetly usher in.