POLL: Would you support Israeli/American pre-emptive strikes on Iranian Nuclear sites?

What you have to understand about Iraqis is that they are exactly the same people as you're friends with here in the United States. I don't know any way of describing the disparity between social order in the United States and social order in Iraq. The only way I can do that is to draw up a hypothetical situation in which the US is invaded by, say, China. But everyone gets upset about the implausibility of that scenario and never listens.

Those people are exactly like any other people you know with the same motivations and aspirations and deprivations as people in the United States. The only differences are economy, education, and environment. You change or pacify a people by changing those three factors. You cannot change a people with bullets no matter how hard you try. Though this has been proven over, and over, and over, and over again I'm still amazed to hear people say I'm un-American by saying Iraqis or Iranians are people who are just as good as people in the United States, or that we cannot win an insurgent war without using silent weapons.

Originally posted by BeingWatchedByThem
If America wants to survive, it needs to stop making enemies all around the globe. We wouldn't last long if everyone wanted to destroy us, no matter what you think, you can't win the three-legged race without a partner.

Why be in a three-legged race in the first place? A person can run faster if he's alone. A partnership in a race just slows you down.

And you mean the world won't last very long if their intent is to destroy us. They would be utterly committing suicide on their part to seek our destruction!

I want to live in a world where the top story is economic successes, like the SpaceShipOne

I think a good top story would be: No one in the world went hungry last night! or No one died in the past 24 hours as the result of an act of violence!

Sad to say! You'll never see these headlines in your lifetime!

I don't see the big deal with Space Ship One. It could've been done a long ago. The only reason that it was done now is because the motivation for the prize money. Hardly an economic success and the prize money hasn't been awarded yet.

[edit on 30/9/04 by Intelearthling]

Intelearthling, would you be ready to go to Iran to fight against them if a war breaks up? What I mean is that it is easy to talk about killing and bombing people behind your computer but would you be ready to go up there and die? Also I haven't seen ANY US city leveled in any war by occypyig forces or aerial bombardments ever so do you really know what's it like to rebuild your country from scrap after bombings.
My country have experienced it.

And something about the Spaceshipone and the Ansari-prize. Do you really think they are after the money??? The development of those crafts is much more than 10 million dollars so I really wouldn't say that they are only after the money. A bit narrowsighted, IMO.



[edit on 30-9-2004 by Samiralfey]

But only if israel gives up its nukes without exception. They have the US to support them and the US has enough Nukes. No nukes in the middle east or my BMW won't go vroom vroom. [no oil silly = no petrol] just think all those great cars sitting there rotting away porsche, ferrari, etc, etc. Its a sin.

"As Soviet leader Gorbachev knew what he was sitting on. His initiative led to a joint declaration with former U.S. president Ronald Reagan that a nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought."

Amen

See also:

Statement on Nuclear Weapons by International Generals and Admirals
Signed by 60 retired generals and admirals from 17 countries

We, military professionals, who have devoted our lives to the national security of our countries and our peoples, are convinced that the continuing existence of nuclear weapons in the armories of nuclear powers, and the ever present threat of acquisition of these weapons by others, constitute a peril to global peace and security and to the safety and survival of the people we are dedicated to protect.

Link:
Statement on Nuclear Weapons


I do not support a nuclear strike on Iran, while conventional strikes are neither viable. We need to use all our force of will and consensus upon peace making. That means putting aside even what we think are most sacred convictions if they are a stumbling block to it, in fact our most sacred conviction and convocation should be peacemaking. If you read the Sermon on the Mount you would know that "blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the sons of God."

[edit on 30-9-2004 by SkipShipman]

If pre-emptive strikes were made legal, then there will be lots of "pre-empive strikes" all over the place. Not just in Iran (and Iraq). Those who fire the first bullet, starts the war. If no one fire any bullets, there won�t be war. But those who profit from wars don�t want that, would they? Stop believe in propaganda, they don�t tell the truth. Go to war and you�ll be sorry. Haven�t history taught you anything? (adressing the war-mongers here).

peace

Originally posted by SkipShipman
"As Soviet leader Gorbachev knew what he was sitting on. His initiative led to a joint declaration with former U.S. president Ronald Reagan that a nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought."

It is ironic that you used Russia as the example, because their nuclear doctrine was always that nuclear war is winnable. Look no further then the heavy investment they made in bunkers as evidance.

While I agree that nuclear war should be avoided at all costs, it is not an unwinable one. It would just exact the highest price payed by life since the extinction of the dynos.

If you want to survive nuclear war, all you have to do is get a map, and find a place very far away from cities, millitary bases, and industrial bases. Then make sure you are down wind.

No to the strikes.

Why? well you will see when they happen.

A point missing from all of this is that there is damn near 3 times the population in Iran that there is in Iraq. It's definately escalation, I don't think that the US can pay that bill. Bring Israel in and it's WW3. Kiss all our asses goodbye.

Iran has 76 million people and a .5 trillion dollar annual GNP. This is about equal to the US' entire annual defense budget. The country has lived under effective Western blockade since 1979 and has the indigenous technology to produce small-scale jet aircraft, tanks, and copies of western missiles such as the rapier and AIM-9. They have about 12 million men for for military service. The US has never recognized the current Iranian government.

The majority of Iranians are Shi'a, just like many Iraqis. The situation now is this: If the US or Israel attack Iran, Iran has a couple options:

Attack US carriers in Gulf with everything they have. Notice the carriers deployed there are the non-nuclear ones.

Launch missiles at Israel.

Launch missiles at US troop depots and Green Zone.

Directly aid and fund insurgents in Iraq through established ties in-country, or even outright invasion of Iraq.

So, we should make sure we don't bite off more than we can chew.

Essentially, widening the conflict over there will have outcomes that are barely predictable. And it's no guarantee that Iran will be prevented from obtaining the bomb even if we do bomb some facilities.

[edit on 30-9-2004 by taibunsuu]

Why people start threads like this is beyond any logic, they aren't after opinions, they don't want discussion, they don't want to listen, they won't change their opinions, they can't even be bothered to remove their blinkers for one second, short sighted, arrogant and ignorant.

Since when did the Neo-Cons give 2 sh!tes about the opinion of those who prefer not to go to war as a way of resolving problems.

It's not idealism to not want war, it's human nature to strive towards equality and freedom for all.

As long as the US, and other western governments keep funding, training and supplying these countries, they can continue to create reasons for war, and at the same time justifying vast amounts of expenditure on "security" (yeah right..!!) and the development of more weapons, which in turn will be sold to countries that will end up warring, the vicious cycle continues....and continues....and continues.

The self-centred Neo-cons will never complain cos' their business is war, and as long as they can keep that war away from their own shores they are more than happy to see rape, torture and genocide take place, cos' it's bloody good for business.

The narrow mindedness of some of the posters on this thread never ceases to amaze me, they are so full of bitter hatred and resentment it amazes me that they have the strength to get out of bed with such a big chip on their shoulders.

I would be against it,
atleast we the usa have some sort of humaniterian policey and other civilesd policies in place; however isreal does not

its kinda like the police department going to one ghetto and saying look we are going after your rival gang in this other ghetto will you help us?

untill isreal adopts more humaniterian policies and becomes more civilised I dont think they should be a part of any effort to stablise the world because its only going to backfire, tho they should be doing something for all that money we give them out of our global welfare fund I dont believe this it the appropriate task.

I would be for it if we could do it quietly. By off some insurgents and let them go to work. You see how persistant they are in Iraq.

Yes we need to regrettably ,with the Moslem world exporting so much terrorism throughout the world the last thing they need is a source of depleted uranium, might take a look at North Korea also.

While I think someone as unstable as Iran is, by that I mean the out loud rebellious in your face do it or Ill kick your but attitude of Iran who dont listen to anyone and refuse to accept the Sovereinty of a country who in the world circle is acknoledged as soverein,and who bickers with any one of the countries around them just for the hell of it, no they should not have the most powerful death machine known to man they are know to not have fear of conflict and will fight at the slightest antaginization. I truely if they cant be stopped in making the nukes the nex glow on there horizon wont be that of the sunrise but Israel,Iraq,Pakistan or some other near but country being vaporized in a nuke fireball.


Dont let them have them.

As a proclaimed "NeoCon" and a "war-monger" myself.......
You "pacifist" can kiss the bullseye on my silly arse, eh, k?! j/k

Iran is not deemed to be "muslim", any Iranian youth these days will tell you that. Those who think that Iran is "muslim" are the same people who need to believe that the entire rest of the world is "Muslim." BUT getting back to the POLL: a pre-emptive strike on Iran by either the US or Israel will be a mistake at this juncture in the historical timeframe. To be perfectly honest, I'm of the "unconfirmed" opinion that the Theocracy of Iran already has a nuclear device or two. The fear to the West, with consideration(s) of/to Israel, is that Iran having such a device will represent to the rest of the Islamic world a sacred "Islamic Bomb".....hence the supposed need to "pre-empt" Iran.

Think about it.



seekerof

[edit on 30-9-2004 by Seekerof]

No

But I would support a series of strikes on America and Israel.

Ireland too?!


seekerof

I, for one, find it exceptionally ironic AND hilarious that the Iranians are rattling their sabres about possible attacks against their nuclear infrastructure.

Consider this: what do you think Saddam Hussein would have done with his nuclear weapons (and he would have gotten them) if the Israelis HAD NOT decided to directly intervene and attack that Iraqi nuclear facility in the early 1980's?

I tell you what he would have done. He would have launched them agains the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War, and Tehran would have been reduced to a radioactive ashtray. He had the Scuds and the long range aircraft to deliver them, he had the motive, and he already had experience and set presidence in using WMD's against civilians.

And now the Iranians (who openly call for the destruction of other sovereign nations) are complaining about veiled threats being wispered behind their backs.

Don't the Iranians realize that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it?

Originally posted by Seekerof
As a proclaimed "NeoCon" and a "war-monger" myself.......
You "pacifist" can kiss the bullseye on my silly arse, eh, k?!

j/k

I�m not sure if that was adressed to me...
If it was, I�m not a "pacifist" FYI. I do believe in selfdefence.
Which you can see some perfect examples of in this thread