US Preemptive Action Against Iran

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by cslewis, Apr 21, 2006.

  1. cslewis macrumors 6502a

    cslewis

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    40º27.8''N, 75º42.8''W
    #1
    Once again, FUX news is squawking about Iran's uranium enrichment, dropping not-so-suttle hints that they're fully for war against Iran. Today on 'My Word' :)rolleyes: ) with John Gibson, that witchy columnist Anne Coulter merrily commented on how to fix high oil prices. 'Well, erm, why don't we just invade Ear-raaahn? They've got plenty [sic] oil, and we'd settle the whole bomb issue!'

    With Ann Coulter around, nobody has to waste the word "bitch" on dogs anymore.

    That got me thinking. Personally, I'm rather freaked out by the whole idea of Iran having the bomb. I mean, do we have to wait until there's a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv to do anything? I know that's what it would take to get international acceptance for the war. But is it the right decision? If we invaded Iran before they attacked anyone, we'd be the big, bad boogymen (as usual). But if we waited until after an attack, everyone would scream that we didn't provide leadership and were too timid. We'd be cursed as the evil, evil Americans that we are.

    So where does that leave us? How can we disarm this whole conflict without completely killing what's left of our international image?
     
  2. XNine macrumors 68040

    XNine

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
    #2

    It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Either way you cut it, we're going to be the bad guy. The Iraq war, we were plainly the bad guys. We had no right to go in there. But this one, it's a little different situation.

    Iran has not said "we are against America." They've said "We want the destruction of Israel." Well, I think, for the best, we should step aside and let Israel fight on its own. If it gets nuked, then yes, we have to nuke Iran.

    But should we attack them now, they have 40,000 suicide bombers, a stealth torpedo, and nuclear capabilities that they will unleash on U.S. embassies, military bases, and other countries that are on our list of friends.

    It'd be wise to be the reactor instead of the instigator.
     
  3. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #3
    what about reactors?

    General rule of thumb:

    Do the opposite of whatever Ann Coulter suggests.
     
  4. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #4
    Not to rain on anyone's parade, but isn't this subject being covered in the "Nuclear Option against Iran?" thread?
     
  5. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #5
    No one's dropping nukes. Conventionals should do just fine. Give em a call and give them 10 minutes to leave,maybe 15. leave or die. Next There will be no more Nuclear Weapons. 11th commandment.
     
  6. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #6
    There are plenty of recruitable Iranians to do most of the work. They just need the particulars of how, where and when. No need to get Israel or US directly involved.
    Remember, lots of younger Iranians do not like their govt anymore than Americans like theirs.
     
  7. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #7
    Are you under the impression that the US is _not_ currently funding Iranian dissidents? If so, you are mistaken.
     
  8. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #8
    sorry stu but this sounds like another rumsfeld hallucination.
     
  9. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #9
    I think this is the first time I've ever agreed with stu, but it's very true.

    Something like half of all Iranians are under the age of 30. After the Shah was ousted, all birth control and abortions were banned and of course the birth rate exploded. It didn't take long before the rulers of Iran realized that this wasn't a good thing. Iran is once again a large proponent of birth control and abortion is once again legal.

    What's more, jobs are pretty darned scarce and drug usage amongst the young has skyrocketed over the last decade. There are a lot of very unhappy young Iranians. Both male and female. The new guy, Ahm........ was elected on a platform of jobs for everyone. Unlike the previous leaders, he didn't lead a flashy life as Mayor of Tehran. Unfortunately, until the Iranian economy is opened up, and the tradition of nepotism done away with, there's little hope that the majority of young Iranians will ever have a decent paying job.

    I wouldn't think it would take much to stir up some revolutionary fervor.
     
  10. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #10
    Don't know why you thought that?
    Of course we are funding some, we do that about everywhere. Don't most countries? I think it would be more interesting to know who doesn't. (of course no one would know cause some are secret.)
     
  11. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #11
    News are reporting a Russian /Iran deal. Enriching on Russian soil. Looks like Iran may be having 2nd thoughts about declining this earlier.
     
  12. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #12
    i certainly don't disagree with your description of conditions within the country of iran, especially for the younger generation...but i'm exceedingly skeptical that these same disenfranchised people can have any effect on iran's nuclear program.

    are these the same unhappy people who will meet us with sweets and flowers should we invade their country?
     
  13. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #13
    I'm not sure how you could possibly have inferred from my post that Iran is a hotbed of pro-American invasionism? Could you help me out here and point that out? I'm most definitely confused...

    Here's what I said, so I'm even more confused that you could spin such a fantastic tale out of such meagre thread.

    Perhaps you could explain your assumption>?
     
  14. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #14
    not wishing to offend...

    my point is that there are similiarities between the 2 countries and our political meddling. we ( meaning this administration-not you personally) confuse a country's general unhappiness with their willingness to accept our brand of change.

    and i think iraq is the perfect example of how incredibly hard it truly is to stir up a revolution.

    maybe i wasn't clear( not the first time) but that was all i was wishing to say. stu's rosy picture of how we could change another country to better suit our desires is very much like the wishful thinking that got us into the iraqi quagmire.
     
  15. evoluzione macrumors 68020

    evoluzione

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    down the road, that's where i'll always be
    #15
    "pre-emptive strike" = "unprovoked attack"

    what gives the US the right to [think it does at least] rule the world through force? if you want to rule the world, do it with power, not force.

    The US will remain as hated as it is if it tries to run the world with a "do as i say" attitude, when it should be setting examples with a "do as i do" attitude. what gives the US the right to attack countries that it thinks have nucular [sic] capabilities when they themselves have so many nukes it could destroy anyone it wanted?


    ok, rant over, thanks for reading :)
     
  16. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #16
    This is true, which is exactly why the US should try to leave the situation alone, dropping munitions (of any kind) is going to inflame the nationalists and focus the younger Iranians on the US, rather than on their leaders and their failures. The Iranians are doing this precisely because of its ability to distract the populace from their real problems.
     

Share This Page