Is War With Iran Necessary?

[Tchocky]

No, war is not necessary. The talk of war and threat of nuclear weapons become a self-realising discourse. I'm sure any nation would engage in a show of force when there is constant talk of attack.
Ideally, no side should make provocative moves, but that's not this world. There is much discontent in Iran with the political leadership and overall economic situation, change may well be in the air.
War, or even air strikes, would bind the nation together. Not a good thing for those looking for progress. I do hope John McCain either modifies his position or fails miserably in November.

[kurtz]

Yes let's stop mucking about and this ltime let's not muck about with regime change, just dismantle anything they can use to harm us and go. Hey, I've got a better idea let's just take the oil wells and get some nice cheap petrol to recompense us for all the trouble they've caused.

No. I'm not being ironic. Yes I think we should do this everywhere.

[Skybird]

Is War With Iran Necessary?

translates into:

Do I accept a nuclear armed Iran yes or no? Do I accept nuclear proliferation benefitting terror organisations?

the latter is my primary concern. I never seriously believed in Iran sacrificng itself by reaching out with nuclear weapons itself.

However, a nuclear armed Iran, if if it does not use them, and just commits itself to proliferation (which I take as a given), will shift balances in the region and in the world, making the present ways of adressing tensions and diplomatic problems as well as resisting the pressure of the Islamic world much more difficult if not impossible. the mere threat of Islamic organisation to use nukes already would potentially be enough to paralyse the West and leave it vulnerable, if not defenseless to their demands.

Without force, Iran simply will not give up its nuclear military ambitions. It will not happen, believe it or not, it will not happen. That simple. Period. I do not believe that report of the program being stopped for a single minute. Not even for a second I believed it. It is illogical from an Iranian perspective to give it up. I do not expect an enemy to act stupid, or illogical.

So this is the question it comes down to indeed: do you accept a nuclear armed Iran? Sounds almost harmless and simple a question, but it is complex and has a lot of hidden intricacies.

I personally think it already was a very huge mistake to not find nout about the Pakistn program in time, and see how Pakistan messes up the whole region, far beyond its own borders. If it were possible to board a time machien, I would be willing to go back in time and destroy the nation before it built nulcear weapons, but that is not possible anymore, obviously. I do not want that bad example to be a story repeating itself. also, nukes in iran will mean nothing else but a nuclear arms race in the gulf region in total. Saudi Arabia alraedy has started first steps with a nuclear program years ago. More slamic nations having nukes. More threat of nulcear proliferation. How much can the world handle of that, before the sh!t happens? How long will the world's luck last, when everything is done to make it run out?

Which brings us to the next question:

Do I accept to deny Iran gaining nukes by using nukes against Iran myself?

Because I take it as a given that with conventional means the program can at best be delayed, but not stopped or prevented.

We should use as little force as possible but as much force as needed to prevent Iran getting nuclear arms. No matter what it costs. Preventing Iranian nukes must be our only top priority, and we shall not accept foul compromise - it will cost us more than what we have saved in the first. And that will necessarily include the need to use small nukes on selected target areas. While their immediate effect in taking out deep hidden research bunkers may be possible to save cities, towns and the civilian population, the lpongterm effect from contamionation of soil, groundwater and air remains, so even if the Pentagon speaks entzhusiastically of mini-nukes as bunker-busters, don't be mislead: it will remain to be an extremely dirty affair in the long range. However, if you are not willing to go all the way, don't start war action: nothing worse than to kill and destroy all for nothing. If you go for it, do what needs to be done, without mercy, and go all the way. There is no in-between.

So make damn sure you are sure about your motives.


With the exception of Israel I do not see any Western nation seriously willing the use of nukes in Iran. And that is the Iranian gamble: they know that western politicians will not accept the use of nukes, and will be afraid of the population at home. That's why they are pressing on: it is their winning strategy, and the strongest move they have: it will win them what they want. Sanctions they can easily aford. conventional strikes they can easily survive, and even strike back in various different means. since I cannot see a military operation like I figured, I do see a nuclear armed Iran in the future. That will be the reality we will have to deal with. there will also be nuclear blackmailing of the West soem time later. This is the most likely scenario in my thinking, and eventually we will realise that the price has been too high. but then it will be too late for us to correct it.

Maybe we should do like that danish ministre once proposed during the cold war: he wanted to set up a telephone answering machine linked with the kremlin, and a tape saying: "Welcome to Denmark, we surrender."

[STEED]

More to the point, what dose the general public think of this one in America & England? Forget the scheming politicians for the moment.

Here in the UK the Army's moral is rock bottom and more and more are leaving once there term is up, so sending them in to Iran will do nothing for them. As for the general public, the feeling seems to be no trust to wards politicians on this one. And with recession now a fact I hardly think we're going any where unless Iran had nuclear weapons in the here and now as of today.

Israel is keeping an eye on them and most likely will act if they need to. It all boils down to who is running Iran and at the moment its a lot of wind bags. And of course the oil situation will play its part in 20 to 30 years from now.

[moose1am]

War with Iran may come soon.

It will start out as a conventional war using plastic explosives not nuclear warheads.

But Iran and the world should remember this:

The USA was the first country to develop nuclear weapons and we (so far) have been the only country willing to use them on an enemy!

Iran should think about that long and hard before they attack any of our men in the Persian gulf region.

The western worlds will fight to maintain their standard of living and won't go down without a huge fight.

Many countries obtained the information on how to make a nuclear weapon thanks to many traitors in the US who passed that information onto the USSR back in the late 1940's.

Within 4 to 5 years the USSR had detonated it's first nuclear weapon. Britain has nukes as does France. Now Pakistan and N. Korea have nukes as well.

If Iran gets nukes and sits on them like everyone else then thing won't be much different than before. But Iran's leaders have declared that they want to destroy Israel. Israel is known for it's intelligence and for their first strike actions. The best defense is an aggressive offense perhaps.

Do any of you honestly think that if the USA or Israel used nuclear weapons on Iran that some other country may take exceptions to that action. I mean there is Russia and Pakistan sitting downwind from Iran and they will object to having radioactive dust falling on their county's land. Will they take out Israel with nukes in retaliation for our attack on Iran?

Two things are behind this entire problem. Oil and Israel. Will the US start WWIII over oil in the Persian Gulf and Middle East? Or will Obama sit down with the Iranian leaders and work something out? I think I know where McInsain will go. Imagine being held captive and helpless for years and then finally getting your hands on the button? What would you do after you have been beaten sensless and had your bones broken by an enemy. McCain has shown his temper more than once. Imagine what he will be like when he is President.

Think of Nero and the Roman Empire. Do you want an man that can go insane in the white house at this time in our world?

I think that it's time to build a new fall out shelter. I lived though the cuban missile crisis and I don't want to repeat that type of event ever again.

Perhaps it's time to go live up at the Poles until this all blows over. I would guess that there will be much less radiation fallout at the North and South Poles than in the middle Latitudes. Perhaps mankind can survive the fallout and the years of radiation poisoning if they can live in area with less radiaton falling out of the sky. But without resupply coming to give you more ammo and fuel and cloths you won't have much of a chance. You will have to live like our forefathers did in 10,000 years ago. Perhaps the summers up there will be milder due to the effects of global warming. But after the end of the world there won't be anymore CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere and it will cool down pretty fast at the poles.


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

[QUOTE=Skybird]Is War With Iran Necessary?

translates into:

Do I accept a nuclear armed Iran yes or no? Do I accept nuclear proliferation benefitting terror organisations?