Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

I think the headline needed to be stopped:

Principal Skinner speaks: Just because Iran's president is batshiat insane, has bragged about acquiring nukes and is test-launching missiles doesn't mean there's anything to worry about

I'm pretty sure the middle one is a delusion and the second one is unimportant.

I know I'm supposed to be terrified of these new Iranian missles, but it's worth pointing out that they have a range of only 2000km. Compare this to the fact that the US was shooting rockets to the moon 45 years ago and it makes this missle look rather pathetic.

Yes, why would Iran want to lie about having nuclear weapons? It's not like the United States starts respecting nations which have nuclear weapons instead of dictating to them and... wait, we do.

If Iran is a nuclear power, we're far less likely to try and impose our will upon them than if they were merely and *aspiring* nuclear power. So it's in their best interests to make us think that they have nuclear weapons, even if they don't.

Correct. There is little to worry about, except for the neocons who want to start a war with Iran.

Pfft let Israel bomb them like they did to Iraq.

They need something to do with the billions of dollars in defense money we send to them while obligating them to use that money to buy munitions from american defense contractors.

Come to think of it... that's a pretty sweet deal...
...unless you're a taxpayer.

fark!

What a well-informed headline this is. It accurately reflects the content of the article.

/sarcasm

a new thread about the big bad scary Iranians?

Is Israel bombs Iran, I wouldn't expect China and Russia (and even perhaps India) to take it in stride.

Nestea Plunge:Don't all hurt yourselves, Righties, while you leap under your beds to hide from scary Iran and terra-ists.

Hawkish Republicans = cowards. Don't agree? Prove me wrong, right-wingers.

just remember this guys. a war with Iran means a draft.

think about that when you cast your vote

My ONLY problem with giving military aid to Israel, the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, is that it's made the cost of ammunition excessively expensive. Combine that with SF's fascist concealed carry laws (don't worry Diane Feinstien has one so we're covered), and I'm a bit pissy this morning.

Perhaps if Israel and the Pentagon would stop threatening Iran he'd calm down a bit.

But since Iran has had a big, fat neo-con bullseye on it since PNAC you'd be a little nervous too if you were he.

Our ships circling, the Israeli planes we paid for running drills, that's pretty provocative stuff.

Yet, they fire a few firecrackers IN RESPONSE to the U.S. and Israeli provocation and (of course) it's reported and characterized as AGGRESSION.

Israel wants this war bad. I've heard there is quite a lot of influence in Washington from supporters of Israel. Therefore, before this madman puppet of a president leaves the Oval Office, there will probably be a strike of some sort.

Which will suit the corporate power elite that has bought both sides of the Congressional aisle just fine. War is extremely profitable for them.

Hobodeluxe:just remember this guys. a war with Iran means a draft.

think about that when you cast your vote

I can make things up too you know. Did you hear about the Equilax attacking Great Sampson's Bumblebee Tower? It blew up into a billion bits of onion on my belt

/style of the time

Israel performs war games to show off offensive capabilities: "Well that's perfectly reasonable, given the climate. A military is supposed to be prepared."

Iran performs war games to show off defensive capabilities: "OMG THEY'RE INSANE! THIS IS CLEARLY A THREAT."

Hobodeluxe:just remember this guys. a war with Iran means a draft.

think about that when you cast your vote

I don't know if it means a draft, but it's either that or an even more absurd stretching of our forces than we've already got. Take your pick, neither is good.

homerdrew415:Did you hear about the Equilax attacking Great Sampson's Bumblebee Tower? It blew up into a billion bits of onion on my belt

Actually, that was caused by jet fuel.

Larry Mahnken:If Iran is a nuclear power, we're far less likely to try and impose our will upon them than if they were merely and *aspiring* nuclear power. So it's in their best interests to make us think that they have nuclear weapons, even if they don't.

That didn't work out so well for Saddam.

Rapmaster2000:I know I'm supposed to be terrified of these new Iranian missles, but it's worth pointing out that they have a range of only 2000km. Compare this to the fact that the US was shooting rockets to the moon 45 years ago and it makes this missle look rather pathetic.




and then there was iran. insane leader, just as insane as saddam, completely nuts. only they actually have access to nuclear materials, that they are beginning to convert into some sort of a bomb. that they will eventually put into a missile, and five hundred iranians will throw it at us.

Has anyone figured out yet that Iran's president has no power over the military?

Mnemia:Nestea Plunge:Don't all hurt yourselves, Righties, while you leap under your beds to hide from scary Iran and terra-ists.

Hawkish Republicans = cowards. Don't agree? Prove me wrong, right-wingers.

Hawkish republican here. Flew over 50 collection missions on RC-135's during the early to mid Eighties (remember KAL007?). Kiss my ass.

I thought subby was talking about Korth Korea.

OttoDog:Hawkish republican here. Flew over 50 collection missions on RC-135's during the early to mid Eighties (remember KAL007?). Kiss my ass.

I stand by my statement.

We need a rebuttal piece ffrom Supernintendo Chalmers.

OttoDog -- thank you for your service to this great country.

OttoDog:Hawkish republican here. Flew over 50 collection missions on RC-135's during the early to mid Eighties (remember KAL007?).

this doesn't answer the charge that you are a little pussy afraid of a country that can barley project power in their own region let alone globally...

baltimoreron:OttoDog -- thank you for your service to this great country.

Just to be clear - I'm not criticizing his service. I'm saying that it's cowardly to be a hawkish Republican, because cowardice is the only serious justification for attacks on countries like Iraq and Iran. The fact that he served in the military does not lessen the fact that he supports cowardly polices.

2004

"9/11! 9/11!"
"Eek! Time to vote Republican!"

2006

"9/11! 9/11!
"Ho-hum."

2008

"Iran! Iran!
[To Be Continued...]

"Prove me wrong, children. Prove me wrong!"

Headso:this doesn't answer the charge that you are a little pussy afraid of a country that can barley project power in their own region let alone globally...

I think we should be fair, now that I think about it. There are evil hawkish Republicans, and cowardly hawkish Republicans. A lot of them support attacks on Iran because they are cowards, and they are afraid of Iran's puny missiles and non-existent nukes. Others support it because they are evil and want American world domination. So he could be an evil supporter, and not a coward. Either way, his opinions are wrong and deserving of ridicule.

Ugh. Here we go again. my essay on Iran. More in my profile:

It seems that these days more and more people are talking about how military action on Iran is a necessity. In my estimation, the case for this is not only built on shaky criteria, but also will deliver far more negative consequences than positive ones.

First off, the supporters of military action have two main supports that build off each other as to why action is needed. I will address both these supports in later sections, but will touch upon them briefly in this section. They are:

1) Iran's Nuclear Program
2) Ahmadinejad's comments on Israel

Considering our understanding of Iran's nuclear program is limited, and as based on our very own intelligence reports,^{1, 2} not for the purpose of weaponry, this starts the argument on very weak footing.

Following on this trail. Pro-military action supporters then use a quote of Ahmadinejad's to build the case that if Iran does get nuclear weaponry, they would indeed use it on Israel. (I will get into this quote in more depth in a later section)

Well, to use this line of reasoning, some very relevant facts need to be overlooked. First off, the quote most often used is indeed a mistranslation.^{3, 4, 5} The argument can be made that even the correct translation doesn't paint a rosy picture. This is true. However, if the original statement is alarm enough on it's own, why press the mistranslation? Why are people so reluctant to use the correct version? Obviously, the mistranslation uses more graphic imagery, and thus it is embraced the most by people who would like to see Iran painted as dangerous in order to make a possible strike more of a reality.

That aside, Ahmadinejad has no power over the Iranian military. (I will get into the VERY confusing explanation of the Iranian political system in a later section.) Also, Iran has had WMDs for years⁶ without using them on Israel.

So, the argument for a military strike against Iran is based on a nuclear program that as far as we understand is not geared toward weaponry, coupled with the fear that they will use nuclear weapons based on an incorrect quote from a person who has no control over the use of Iran's military, overlooking Iran's history with it's WMDs.

Still, in the face of this flimsy argument, supporters press on. Their support crumbling from the seemingly solid points addressed earlier to strictly gut feelings and the concept that it's too much risk to NOT strike, thus the lack of concrete argument shouldn't be a hindrance.

Entertaining this concept and overlooking everything mentioned earlier, what would be the results of even a very surgical air strike against Iran's nuclear sites only?



Part of that slide assumes that it's an impossibility to target most of Iran's nuclear sites. This is a concept that has recently been put forth by the pentagon⁷.

So there you have it. The Case for an Attack on Iran: A weak argument based on shaky criteria that needs to be overlooked altogether in order to begin to entertain the concept of a strike which will have definite negative long term consequences and no long term solution.

Sources:
¹ Fox News. December 7th, 2007. Bush Administration Credibility Suffers After Iran NIE Report (new window)
² NPR. December 3rd, 2007. NIE Report on Iran Contradicts Bush Claims (new window)
³ The Guardian. June 14th, 2007. Lost in translation (new window)
⁴ BBC. March 6th, 2007. Wiped off the map? (new window)
⁵ American Chronicle. January 18th, 2007. "WIPED OFF THE MAP" - The Rumor of the Century (new window)
⁶ GlobalSecurity.Org Report. April 6th, 2008. Chemical Weapons - Iran (new window)
⁷ Telegraph.co.uk. May 7th, 2008. US Pentagon doubts Israeli intelligence over Iran's nuclear programme (new window)

(Sources work in my profile)

Yes, but is Aurora Borealis located entirely within his kitchen?

Mnemia:want American world domination.

Even if you want that kind of imperialism for America there are better ways to achieve it than craptacularly planned military operations...

Mnemia:Either way, his opinions are wrong and deserving of ridicule.

Dude -- you need to stop with the personal attacks.

Let's send Will Smith and Tom Cruise over to Iran in fighter planes. They can air drop Dianetics, e-meters, and vitamins to the people, and crash their plane into the Mullah's castle or whatever. They stand back to back with machine guns blazing while smoking cigars, and when they run out of bullets they start punching the Iranians lights out!

Then the belly dancers and children would come out and exclaim "We're free! We're free! Thank you L. Ron Hubbard!". An old guy will kill his best livestock for a grand feast and offer his youngest daughter to the men. After Tom Cruise turns down the offer because he's gay, Will takes her to the back of the tent and removes the veil from her face. When she is revealed to be all buck toothed and ugly, he'll say, 'Aw, hell naw!' and the war will be over!

How hard could it be?

And, just because Israel has a 100 nukes, a huge air force, has been expanding its territory beyond the 1948 UN resolution relentlessly, and last week flew a bunch of jets menacingly around Iran, threatening to blow up its nuclear power facilities, doesn't mean Iran has anything to be concerned about.

Yes, I'm w/ you guys...lets give Iran the bomb. See how long it takes before they blow their wad.

And he's right you know. The president of Iran, Ahmadinejad, has no more authority to order a missile launch than you do. The president of Iran is a figurehead position, so he can rant about anything he wants to, doesn't mean its going to happen, because he controls nealry nothing.

The guy that runs the show is (and maybe his title may give this away) Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni . I really wish people would try to get this straight, especially our most senior presidential candidate (new window)

Headso:Even if you want that kind of imperialism for America there are better ways to achieve it than craptacularly planned military operations...

Agreed. The neoconservatives spectacularly combine overwhelming hubris with incredible incompetence.

SquirrelsOfDoom:Dude -- you need to stop with the personal attacks.

How is it a personal attack to criticize his opinions? That's an attack on his opinions, not him personally. And he attacked me first, with his statement "kiss my ass".

I admit that my tone was a bit harsh, but I'm getting pretty pissed off at the supporters of military action against Iran. They are swallowing propaganda hook, line, and sinker and their ideas, if carried out, may well lead to the permanent downfall of America as a major world power.

child_god:Let's send Will Smith and Tom Cruise over to Iran in fighter planes. They can air drop Dianetics, e-meters, and vitamins to the people, and crash their plane into the Mullah's castle or whatever. They stand back to back with machine guns blazing while smoking cigars, and when they run out of bullets they start punching the Iranians lights out!

Then the belly dancers and children would come out and exclaim "We're free! We're free! Thank you L. Ron Hubbard!". An old guy will kill his best livestock for a grand feast and offer his youngest daughter to the men. After Tom Cruise turns down the offer because he's gay, Will takes her to the back of the tent and removes the veil from her face. When she is revealed to be all buck toothed and ugly, he'll say, 'Aw, hell naw!' and the war will be over!

How hard could it be?

That was actually the funniest thing I read all week.

Good job.

Mnemia:Nestea Plunge:Don't all hurt yourselves, Righties, while you leap under your beds to hide from scary Iran and terra-ists.

Hawkish Republicans = cowards. Don't agree? Prove me wrong, right-wingers.

Ah, peace in our time.

Mnemia:Headso:this doesn't answer the charge that you are a little pussy afraid of a country that can barley project power in their own region let alone globally...

I think we should be fair, now that I think about it. There are evil hawkish Republicans, and cowardly hawkish Republicans. A lot of them support attacks on Iran because they are cowards, and they are afraid of Iran's puny missiles and non-existent nukes. Others support it because they are evil and want American world domination. So he could be an evil supporter, and not a coward. Either way, his opinions are wrong and deserving of ridicule.

Well, in the interest of fairness, there are also arrogant morans that think their opinion is the only one that counts.

TheGreyPiper:Ah, peace in our time.

Terrible, dishonest analogy. Iran has not invaded another country, and they are not being appeased. Far from it, they are being provoked, deliberately.

TheGreyPiper:Mnemia:Nestea Plunge:Don't all hurt yourselves, Righties, while you leap under your beds to hide from scary Iran and terra-ists.

Hawkish Republicans = cowards. Don't agree? Prove me wrong, right-wingers.

Ah, peace in our time.

Appeasers! Hurrrrrrrr!

SeismicJizzer:burndtdan:and then there was iran. insane leader, just as insane as saddam, completely nuts. only they actually have access to nuclear materials, that they are beginning to convert into some sort of a bomb. that they will eventually put into a missile, and five hundred iranians will throw it at us.

it's a quote you know...

homerdrew415:My ONLY problem with giving military aid to Israel, the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, is that it's made the cost of ammunition excessively expensive. Combine that with SF's fascist concealed carry laws (don't worry Diane Feinstien has one so we're covered), and I'm a bit pissy this morning.

Don't worry. Costco has twelve-packs of surface-to-air missles on for $24.99 this weekend.

b3rnt:Well, in the interest of fairness, there are also arrogant morans that think their opinion is the only one that counts.

Not all opinions are equally worth listening to. The opinions of more informed people, like Persepolis on this issue, are more valid than the opinions of people who get their information about Iran solely from Fox News.

HotWingConspiracy:Israel performs war games to show off offensive capabilities: "Well that's perfectly reasonable, given the climate. A military is supposed to be prepared."

Iran performs war games to show off defensive capabilities: "OMG THEY'RE INSANE! THIS IS CLEARLY A THREAT."

Except Israel has not openly and enthusiastically dedicated itself to the extermination of its neighbors. You need to distinguish between who is the aggressor and who is not.

TheGreyPiper:Ah, peace in our time.

Appeasement was giving Hitler Czechoslovakia and Austria. Who has Iran invaded?