Originally Posted by leejo

I do believe that the attitude in this thread that there's nothing to be done seems more about gloating over GWBs political body than actively dealing with the threat Iran poses.

---

I do think that many who are taking the position that there's nothing to be done are merely taking the position that is opposite of the President's, and I do think that several of you would just about rather see something horrible happen than have GWB "win".

Originally Posted by Overlag

I'm pretty sure if America (or any country for that matter) releases a nuke on Iran, EVERY one of its allies will turn against them.... your allies will turn into your foes, and your foes will decide to group together and DO something (like invade, Iraq, afghanistan, all the way to Israel and I'm sure South Korea will be pretty ****ed too). I'm 90% sure that China, Russia, and knowing how things are lately, Germany and france (france doesnt deserve a capital F) will do something too, so i just don't see ANY good coming out of any "silly" premature strike.

and i don't see any of the US allies standing up for the US if they did anything nuclear....

and as a lot of people have already said (including myself) Why do you think Iran (or any small country for that matter) wants to make nuke bombs? to protect itself from the biggest bully (in there minds) in the whole world.

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

Well, Iran is not a "small" country. It's also the largst state sponsor of terror in the world. And I would guess based on the statements they make that they aren't trying to get nukes to protect themselves from the US, but moreso to further their plan of wiping Israel of the map.

Originally Posted by Steeler

Barely a thread goes by that doesn't feature some permutation of this statement. People who disagree with x do so simply because they hate the President.

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

Well, Iran is not a "small" country. It's also the largst state sponsor of terror in the world. And I would guess based on the statements they make that they aren't trying to get nukes to protect themselves from the US, but moreso to further their plan of wiping Israel of the map.

Originally Posted by Overlag

to be quiet honest i dont blame them, america wouldnt like it if someone come along and took away half the East coast and called it some random country name would you?

and WHO says Iran is the "Largest state sponsor of Terror?"

Originally Posted by The Atlantic Monthly

Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, and unless its policy is changed by the incentives it is offered or the warnings it receives, it will succeed.

Originally Posted by The Atlantic Monthly

If sufficiently provoked—by evidence that Iran was involved in a terrorist incident, for example, or that it was fomenting violence in Iraq—the United States could probably be effective with a punitive bomb-and-missile attack on Revolutionary Guard units.

Originally Posted by The Atlantic Monthly

The problem is that Iran's nuclear program is now much more advanced than Iraq's was at the time of the raid. Already the U.S. government has no way of knowing exactly how many sites Iran has, or how many it would be able to destroy, or how much time it would buy in doing so. Worse, it would have no way of predicting the long-term strategic impact of such a strike. A strike might delay by three years Iran's attainment of its goal—but at the cost of further embittering the regime and its people. Iran's intentions when it did get the bomb would be all the more hostile.

Originally Posted by The Atlantic Monthly

A full-scale "regime change" operation has both obvious and hidden risks. The obvious ones are that the United States lacks enough manpower and equipment to take on Iran while still tied down in Iraq, and that domestic and international objections would be enormous. The most important hidden problem, exposed in the war-game discussions, was that a full assault would require such drawn-out preparations that the Iranian government would know months in advance what was coming. Its leaders would have every incentive to strike pre-emptively in their own defense. Unlike Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a threatened Iran would have many ways to harm America and its interests. Apart from cross-border disruptions in Iraq, it might form an outright alliance with al-Qaeda to support major new attacks within the United States. It could work with other oil producers to punish America economically. It could, as Hammes warned, apply the logic of "asymmetric," or "fourth-generation," warfare, in which a superficially weak adversary avoids a direct challenge to U.S. military power and instead strikes the most vulnerable points in American civilian society, as al-Qaeda did on 9/11. If it thought that the U.S. goal was to install a wholly new regime rather than to change the current regime's behavior, it would have no incentive for restraint.

Originally Posted by The Atlantic Monthly

Here the United States faces what the military refers to as a "branches and sequels" decision—that is, an assessment of best and second-best outcomes. It would prefer that Iran never obtain nuclear weapons. But if Iran does, America would like Iran to see itself more or less as India does—as a regional power whose nuclear status symbolizes its strength relative to regional rivals, but whose very attainment of this position makes it more committed to defending the status quo. The United States would prefer, of course, that Iran not reach a new level of power with a vendetta against America. One of our panelists thought that a strike would help the United States, simply by buying time. The rest disagreed. Iran would rebuild after a strike, and from that point on it would be much more reluctant to be talked or bargained out of pursuing its goals—and it would have far more reason, once armed, to use nuclear weapons to America's detriment.