Will You Oppose Military Action against Iran?

[yellowwood]

The debate brought up this question. Where do you stand?

[Scuba]

1. In the streets. n/t

[PETRUS]

9. +1

[dana_b]

I'll be next to you n/t

[readmoreoften]

54. +1

[Hell Hath No Fury]

79. I have spent the last 10 years in the streets --

and will continue to do what is right.

No strikes on Iran.

[libodem]

2. opposed

[mike_c]

3. utterly, implacably opposed....

eom

[arcane1]

4. Absolutely n/t

[sabrina 1]

5. Yes ~

[donheld]

73. Me too.

[TheWraith]

6. I'll oppose it by reelecting President Obama.

The only viable candidate who opposes bombing Iran.

[frazzled]

13. +1

I hate these kinds of posts, because they are all based on a speculative premise that has no basis in fact. No, the bombing of Iran is not inevitable. Unless you are predicting a President BachPerry.

[MADem]

21. I agree with you. Plus, there's always the "IF" that might follow....

....IF they detonated a dirty bomb in San Francisco? for example. Not that they would, but you can't never say never. Best response is to say nothing save "All options remain on the table." That messes with their heads.

Iran is a very nationalist country, and despite their love of indolence (and who doesn't love that, to some extent?) they will fight like lions when it comes to their homeland. Even the disaffected majority that would love to toss the ruling Ulema and the rest of the present leadership into the sea would put those differences to the side in order to fight any and every invader. The Iran-Iraq war ground on for years precisely because of that doggedness they possess.

Also, the landscape is not friendly--the Zagros mountains are a fine barrier, as are the deserts in the south. Trying to find your way around the cities isn't a piece of cake either. Take down the signs and, beyond north is uphill and south is downhill in Teheran, you're screwed!

Anyway, the point of those "background notes" is that EVERYONE in the war-planning game knows this about the Iranians. No one is going to "invade" them. It would be bloody, brutal and completely unnecessary. That "boots on the ground" paradigm is a non-starter when it comes to them, particularly when just about any problem that needs to be resolved can probably be managed with discussion/diplomacy, surgical methods, sabotage, "stand off" means or continued support for, say, the Baluchis, who have a bone to pick themselves and can do a bit of mucking about should that be needed (recently--within the last day or so, in fact--there was a great big BOOOOOM!!!!!! outside Teheran, near Karaj, where there's a massive Revolutionary Guard base--and a huge ammo depot. It was felt in downtown Teheran, nearly thirty miles away from the base). A lot of RG people were killed. For awhile there was speculation it was sabotage, but it's starting to look like it was just a fuckup (Achmed and Reza dropped the bomb, or something).

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jmjazSpXuIKIu1c4EiVY-7TfbbUQ?docId=c089b3dfe3b44a729fe93327512d688b

[Fumesucker]

33. Iranians are "indolent"?

Mexicans too I guess..

:eyes:

[MADem]

41. I mean that in the nicest way possible. I enjoyed the indolent Persian lifestyle for many years.

You prioritize your friends and family, you work as little as possible--enough to make your wages and feed and house your family, and you take long naps in the heat of the day.

It's not a bad thing at all, with the right attitude.

So :eyes: right back atcha.

[Fumesucker]

48. Glad you're not my friend..

Synonyms, Thesaurus & Antonyms of 'indolent' Princeton's WordNet

1. (adj) faineant, indolent, lazy, otiose, slothful, work-shy
disinclined to work or exertion
Synonyms: indolent, otiose, superfluous, faineant, work-shy, wasted, purposeless, pointless, senseless, futile, unavailing, ineffectual, lazy, slothful

[MADem]

55. Work-shy, disinlined to work or exertion.

You'd be too, when the temperature soars over a hundred.

I'm glad I'm not your friend, too. You're way too judgmental, and you see the worst in everyone.

[Fumesucker]

57. Sure, because I disagree with you quite often I'm too judgmental..

Oh and I caught you slandering an entire nation, talk about your broad brush.

:hi:

[MADem]

58. You find the worst in everyone, and you certainly don't read contextually.

If you look at the sentence where I first used the word, anyone with the smallest ability to parse meaning would understand precisely how I meant it--and it wasn't an insulting comment in context, at all.

You, though, prefer to nitpick, and think with all of the subtlety of a cinder block. Broad brush, indeed.

That's your burden to bear. Whatever.

[Fumesucker]

59. A nephew of mine is half Iranian..

He's hyper, not indolent.

BTW, did you see this OP of mine?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2292154&mesg_id=2292154

[MADem]

68. He's not living in Tehran in the full bloom of summer, either, I suspect.

It can take a big chunk out of your day, particularly since a/c is not common in many places. When there is cooling, it's one of those swamp cooler things--they work pretty well except on the rare humid day.

My ties to Iran and the people there are very strong. Once you get past the whole ta'aroof game and get the culture/customs wired, you can have a blast. Best chello kebab in the world, too. Good eatin'!

I am an ardent supporter of the Mousavi and the Green Revolution. I have a deep dislike for the present regime.

I like DU as well--never saw your OP, but I agree with the sentiments. I take breaks every so often--sometimes for big chunks of time, owing to other obligations.

[Fumesucker]

71. South Georgia..

Not as hot as Tehran but a whole lot more humidity, they're only a few miles from the Okefenokee, everything that flies or crawls wants to bite or sting you.

The present regime is more or less the direct responsibility of the USA, if the Dulles brothers hadn't had a hardon for all that sweet Persian crude Mossadegh wouldn't have been overthrown, the Shah and Savak would never have happened and there would have been no counter-revolution with the consequent embassy hostages and no Khomeni.

:hi:

[MADem]

75. It was us or the Russians--everyone loves Iranian oil. nt

[ellisonz]

39. +2

[Obamanaut]

40. Why would he oppose bombing Iran? Several other countries have been fair game. nt

[woo me with science]

42. In the same way that he protects the poor and their safety nets.

:eyes:

[SomethingFishy]

46. Yeah because Obama would never ever

preemptively bomb anyone.... oh wait...

[Telly Savalas]

67. Me too

Despite my frustrations with the Democratic Party, it's clear that Obama is considerably less likely to militarily engage Iran than any of the yahoos trying to win the GOP nomination.

[MichaelMcGuire]

7. yes

[leveymg]

8. Question supposes a fact not in evidence. Psywar is spiking, spilling over, blow-back.

The GOP debate is irrelevant to actual US policy, and unless Obama wants a bloodbath, this is just more provocation. So far, Iran has not taken the bait or tried to bite us back.

[RKP5637]

10. I'm opposed. I think it will bring on years of violence. This would be several

steps beyond Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan IMO. If we keep it up we'll see the return of the draft, major financial sacrifices by most Americans, and all of the profits going to the MIC. I dare say some will see it as a way to fatten their bottom line profits. And, it will fold China and Russia into the fray. This could be the hinging point for WWIII IMO.

[Angry Dragon]

11. +15872

[Parker CA]

12. 100%

[neverforget]

14. Absolutely. By the US or Israel.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Our military action? Israel's? Both? Would we oppose aid to Israel if she attacks Iran?

As for me, I'd oppose all of the above.

[bemildred]

16. Why would I support it? Some sort of death wish? A desire to be further impoverished? nt

[TomClash]

17. Opposed

It will be another disaster.

[theophilus]

18. Yes, I will. Unless the Iranian people rise up and ask for help. n/t

[bvar22]

26. You mean like the Libyan "Rebels"?

Do you believe that our government would tell you the truth?

Can you spot the difference yourself?



Arab Spring in Tunisia





Arab Spring in Egypt





Libyan Civil War

[sabrina 1]

36. Shameful what was done to that country.

Now I see that the war profiteers are pouring in with their mercenaries to protect them, to 'rebuild' what NATO so thoughtfully destroyed for them. Not the Libyans, foreign 'contractors'. Lots of money to be made now in Libya, according to Lindsey Graham. They don't even hide the greed anymore.

Wondering why these 'contractors' need the protection of Mercenaries. I have been told this was a 'super popular uprising'!

[TheWraith]

50. Well, that's not at all biased and full of BS.

After all, it would be too honest to post an image like this:

[barbtries]

19. against

no MORE WAR

[Wwagsthedog]

20. YES!

[Mz Pip]

22. Of course.

We can't afford it. It would be a foreign policy disaster that would stir up more shit than we can possible forsee.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

23. Yes. nt

[nmbluesky]

I hate that war

[nmbluesky]

[nmbluesky]

24. YES.. I am so oppose Damn war

I don't want to see another damn war..

[spanone]

25. fuck war

[KansDem]

27. I will support war with Iran if reports show Saddam has WMDs!

:sarcasm:

We've heard this same song and dance before. I can't believe they're using it again to invade another victim of the MIC...

[TBF]

28. Oppose ... just as I have opposed the rest of the wars for oil.

nt

[roody]

29. of course I oppose

[mod mom]

30. Absolutely!

[grntuscarora]

31. Yes, if given the opportunity.

But I imagine military action, if taken, would be sudden, without benefit of public input.
And we'd all wake up some morning to a fait accompli.

[jimlup]

34. that senario is a very naive one and here's why

1. It would incite Iran to seriously up their program develop nuclear weapons and do to this with extreme secrecy.

2. It would likely be meet with destabilizing countermeasures from Iran.

3. Yeah sure - by that afternoon the price of oil would be $200 per barrel. While many Arab states are not friendly with Iran they would be absolutely opposed to such a unilateral action.

[grntuscarora]

37. Hope you're right, jimlup.

And in case there's any doubt, I oppose military action against Iran!

[jimlup]

32. Unconditionally opposed

[krabigirl]

35. um, yes. who the heck wants more wars???

[rusty fender]

38. Yes!

:thumbsdown:

[yellowwood]

43. Thank You

Assuming that our Democratic "powers that be" read DU, it's important to let them know what would be a dealbreaker for those of us who are (generally) Administration supporters.

[AndyTiedye]

44. It Would Bring On World War III

Russia and China would side with Iran. The Saudi government (and the ones it is propping up) would fall and be replaced by others that would also side with Iran.
Europe would try to be neutral, dependent as they are on Russian natural gas.
Things would spiral out of control quickly as TPTB here see themselves losing ALL of their sources of petroleum and start pushing buttons.

[coalition_unwilling]

45. IIRC, Iran has 1,000,000+ soldiers in its army and some 80,000+ in

its Revolutionary Guards. I'm not sure Iran would even need the USSR and China's help to administer a good ass-kicking to the U.S. military in the sands of Persia.

[Hippo_Tron]

61. We'd still crush them with our air superiority, but that's not the issue

The issue is what do you do after you destroy the country.

[grantcart]

47. Yes there is no justification for a military strike against Iran

It would be counter productive.


Israel estimates that a missle strike would buy only 2-3 years.


In the meantime it would undermine Iranian dissidents and solidify support for the regime.

[Abin Sur]

49. No.

[donheld]

74. Then Go.

[Lorien]

78. Not surprised

:eyes:

[roamer65]

51. Get ready, it will happen.

Either as a start to WW3 or as a byproduct of it.

[Nye Bevan]

52. Depends upon the circumstances.

In 1938 would you have unconditionally ruled out going to war with Japan or Germany? Obviously we should always do our best to avoid war, but you never know what course events are going to take.

[reggie the dog]

53. I already am, I teach at a university

and have already taken an anti war stance with my students, explaining that the usa helped people not far from iran, on 2 sides, get nukes and also pointing out the american troops are on the ground in 2 of irans neighboring countries.


if the usa invades iran i seriously may not even come back to the usa next summer for vacation.


invading iran will be a bloodbath, bombing them will unleash waves of attacks (conventional, and terrorist) and pretty much solidify support for an anti usa jihad.

[AntiFascist]

56. Most definitely! n/t

[frebrd]

60. Absolutely! n/t

[Poll_Blind]

62. I Oppose Military Action against Iran.

PB

[rgbecker]

63. Will, in fact, already Do oppose military action against Iran.

I smell a fish when I hear about Iran getting nuclear weapons and that we must attack. Meanwhile, North Korea (No oil), Pakistan (No oil), and Israel all have em and yet...nothing.

[sakabatou]

64. We don't need another war.

[RZM]

65. The OP needs to be a bit clearer here

US airstrikes? US ground invasion/occupation? Israeli airstrikes? Joint airstrikes?

I think most people here would oppose any and all permutations of those scenarios, but they are very different things and they differ greatly in their likelihoods.

I believe any direct US military involvement in Iran under the Obama administration is highly unlikely. I believe it's only slightly more likely in a Republican administration (and for some candidates, probably equally unlikely, their boasting notwithstanding). A full on invasion, which would require a 'real' war footing on our part, i.e. mobilization, is totally off the table and always has been. IMO, a US airstrike was rejected as an option in the last administration and continues to be rejected in this one.

Israel is a different story. I believe they are seriously mulling an airstrike. If I had to bet on it though, I would guess that they will not take that course of action before Iran has the bomb.

I would absolutely oppose any US involvement. And I guess I would oppose an Israeli strike as well, though less forcefully.

[slackmaster]

66. Insufficient data for a meaningful response

The question does not compute. Is this some kind of troll?

[socialist_n_TN]

69. Yes

NO MORE IMPERIALISTIC WARS!!!!!! NONE!

[lovuian]

70. yes I oppose the New World Order

this will lead to WWIII and they know it

[BlueIris]

72. I will strongly oppose it. I am as committed to doing that now as I was in '05.

When I first realized what those neocon freaks were trying to do, I cemented myself firmly on the Will Not Go side, and have never left.

Going to Iran is suicide. I will do what I can to stop it from happening.

[Raksha]

76. Absolutely OPPOSED!

Good thing we're in the streets already. This will double or triple the number.

[defendandprotect]

77. Always have -- !! VP Biden: "Israel would be justified in attacking Iran" --

Biden's been saying that for more than a year now!

:puke: