Oh, I see, Submitter. You think this is a bad idea and that we should invade Iran first, because, you know, that worked out so well with Iraq. I know who the REAL dumbass is.

tchamber: Oh, I see, Submitter. You think this is a bad idea and that we should invade Iran first, because, you know, that worked out so well with Iraq. I know who the REAL dumbass is.

Also, it's spelled I S R A E L.

tchamber: Oh, I see, Submitter. You think this is a bad idea and that we should invade Iran first, because, you know, that worked out so well with Iraq. I know who the REAL dumbass is.

Who said anything about invading Iran like Iraq? That's just silly.

Why not just take out Iran's nuclear facilities like Israel did 20 years ago in Iraq?

Israel can totally defend itself. They're some badass mo-fos. Why we continue to perceive them as helpless baby seals I'll never know.

ToxicMunkee: Israel can totally defend itself. They're some badass mo-fos. Why we continue to perceive them as helpless baby seals I'll never know.

This. As the people who brought you the Uzi, they know what they're doing. Besides, everyone knows that they have their own nukes anyway.

So subby thinks a preemptive strike is a good idea? What a moran.

*slaps submittard*

Being Famous Sucks: This. As the people who brought you the Uzi, they know what they're doing. Besides, everyone knows that they have their own nukes anyway.

Not to mention if they really think they are threatened, they will nuke first. And since apparantly it is a cardinal sin to criticize Israel, nobody will say a damn thing or do anything except slap them on the wrist and then give them more weapons.

I'm more inclined to think that the admins changed the tag to keep their precious POS politics meter in neutral territory.

/Can Smitty verify?

Does this even need to be stated? Isn't it a foregone conclusion that Iran will be a smoking hole if they ever nuked Israel?

This makes me M.A.D.

Well, I guess less MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION and more IRAN'S ASSURED DESTRUCTION.

Without religion, Israel would be just another pissant country of 10 million people.

/*starts humming "Imagine"*

2wheeljunkie: Does this even need to be stated? Isn't it a foregone conclusion that Iran will be a smoking hole if they ever nuked Israel?

Iran would be a smoking hole if France nuked Israel.

OlafTheBent: Without religion, Israel would be just another pissant country of 10 million people.

/*starts humming "Imagine"*

With nukes and a kickass military and a chip on their shoulder.

benlonghair: So subby thinks a preemptive strike is a good idea? What a moran.

Preventing hostile nations from acquiring nuclear weapons is one of the few clear circumstances that calls for a preemptive strike. Note the word "strike"...as in, not an invasion.

Destroying the Iraqi nuclear weapons facility at Osirak (Operation Opera) was entirely appropriate.

What is plan B? Nuke a foreign country for THINKING of nuking a country other than your own?

I love how everyone assumes, based on the headline, that submitter is in favor of a full scale Iraqi-style invasion in Iran.

It's a debate tactic I see both sides using -- they point to the other side and say "The other side is arguing for X" when that is in no way the truth. It's almost like a slight of hand trick. Sneaky.

SangamonTaylor: benlonghair: So subby thinks a preemptive strike is a good idea? What a moran.

Preventing hostile nations from acquiring nuclear weapons is one of the few clear circumstances that calls for a preemptive strike. Note the word "strike"...as in, not an invasion.

Destroying the Iraqi nuclear weapons facility at Osirak (Operation Opera) was entirely appropriate.

And the Iranians learned this lesson and the only way we will stop a nuke program is to nuke the nuke sites.

This will not happen. This should never happen.

KaponoFor3: I love how everyone assumes, based on the headline, that submitter is in favor of a full scale Iraqi-style invasion in Iran.

People tend to dumb-down any argument to a level their mind can handle.

Jesus...we give them billions of dollars, weapons, and everyone turns a blind eye to their nukes, and we STILL have to get involved preemptively?

I'm starting to think that Israel is just lazy.

Israel can use their own damned nukes.

KaponoFor3: I love how everyone assumes, based on the headline, that submitter is in favor of a full scale Iraqi-style invasion in Iran.

It's a debate tactic I see both sides using -- they point to the other side and say "The other side is arguing for X" when that is in no way the truth. It's almost like a slight of hand trick. Sneaky.

Perhaps, but there are an awful lot of people who say things like that and fully support a full scale invasion of Iran.

KaponoFor3: I love how everyone assumes, based on the headline, that submitter is in favor of a full scale Iraqi-style invasion in Iran.

So by everyone, you mean how tchamber sarcastically mentioned invasion as a valid option, and how the rest of us completely ignored invasion and talked about total annihilation?

/Project much?

So, option A) is to watch a sworn enemy, Iran, develop nuclear weapons in fortified bunkers and let them build their arsenal until they can threaten everyone around them, but simply hope that the threat of reprisal will deter them from actually using the weapons, thereby placing tens of millions of lives at stake in multiple nations, including the possible obliteration of our only real ally in the region, while option B) is to either support Israeli action or take preemptive action to prevent said arms from being developed, which would place (perhaps) hundreds of lives at stake.

This is a very simple equation, people.

GAT_00: Perhaps, but there are an awful lot of people who say things like that and fully support a full scale invasion of Iran.

I'd wait for them to say it first before responding to such things, or you will get hammered for bringing up a strawman.

GAT_00: Being Famous Sucks: This. As the people who brought you the Uzi, they know what they're doing. Besides, everyone knows that they have their own nukes anyway.

Not to mention if they really think they are threatened, they will nuke first. And since apparantly it is a cardinal sin to criticize Israel, nobody will say a damn thing or do anything except slap them on the wrist and then give them more weapons.

That's the reason we cave in to their every demand. If we even CONSIDER doing otherwise, we quickly get reminded about how we're doing exactly what Hitler would do by not doing something the Jews want us to do. I'm not an anti-semite, nor am I trying to Godwin this thread; but causing to happen that which Israel does not want to happen, or allowing that which they don't want to happen, is considered to be anti-semitism and pro nazism for reasons I'm not even gonna begin to try to understand.

/That and the whole rapture thing. That temple needs to be completely rebuilt for Jesus to return to this world, kill everybody and send all the good (Christian) boys and girls to Magical Happy Land to live with him and go to church every day for all eternity while the sinners - people who either are bad people or not followers of the "correct" religion - get to spend eternity in the pit of fire with Satan and his hot bisexual Japanese strippers, over-abundant marijuana, and heavy metal and hard rock playing on every radio station 24/7.

KaponoFor3: I love how everyone assumes, based on the headline, that submitter is in favor of a full scale Iraqi-style invasion in Iran.

lunchinlewis: People tend to dumb-down any argument to a level their mind can handle.

Yeah, the headline is an intelligent intellectual argument that deserves much more nuanced counter-arguments.

Submitter is really the aggrieved party in all of this, amiright?

King Something: That's the reason we cave in to their every demand. If we even CONSIDER doing otherwise, we quickly get reminded about how we're doing exactly what Hitler would do by not doing something the Jews want us to do. I'm not an anti-semite, nor am I trying to Godwin this thread; but causing to happen that which Israel does not want to happen, or allowing that which they don't want to happen, is considered to be anti-semitism and pro nazism for reasons I'm not even gonna begin to try to understand.

I hear more from old people on the street (70+ not 40s) about how it's in the bible that we need to have unwavering support for Israel, and any president that doesn't has no place in the White House.

/Why yes, I do live in the bible belt. Why do you ask?

tallguywithglasseson: Yeah, the headline is an intelligent intellectual argument that deserves much more nuanced counter-arguments.

I thought the headline was witty, in the tradition of the old less partisan Fark, remember those times? And as some have said, it's really nothing new as far as our military policy towards Israel goes. Israel doesn't pick up the phone to the Pentagon and get us to go do stuff for them, they handle things to the best of their own ability. It's a pride thing, as the end of the article states. I also think a lot of people who don't agree with the policies our government has had towards the middle east recently tend to play up the concept that Israel pulls the strings on us.

Iran was just recently trying to push their own version of the Bush doctrine in attempts to rationalize why a preemptive nuclear strike on Israel would be acceptable. It basically read: "It's A-COMIN RIGHT FOR US!!"

KaponoFor3: GAT_00: Perhaps, but there are an awful lot of people who say things like that and fully support a full scale invasion of Iran.

I'd wait for them to say it first before responding to such things, or you will get hammered for bringing up a strawman.

Strawman indeed. Troll indeed. I am subby.

My headline had everything to do with the stupidity of watching a nation lose millions of lives before anything is done about it (and nothing to do with an "occupying invasion"). It would only require a handful of nukes to do so to a nation of that size. It's basic common sense. If there was 100% solid evidence of a nuke going off here in the U.S. and we knew a rogue nation was behind it, I don't believe people here would want to wait idly until it's been done and then retaliate. Why wait for millions of lives to be destroyed as opposed to thousands (if not hundreds) of war-bent lunatics behind an Iranian nuke operation. There's going to be a bazillion trolls here but they can go fark themselves if they want to misrepresent the headline or insinuate something else such as war mongering. Slap yourselves.

Oh, fark Israel... they can defend themselves, as they've demonstrated many times before.

With regards to Iran, we should be engaging them in serious diplomatic talks at all levels with other nations in the area involved and hammer out a solution to this that comes to some sort of compromise that makes everyone involved happy. Won't be easy or quick, obviously, but it's certainly not impossible provided we (and the Iranians) are serious about working out a diplomatic solution.

Surgical strikes carried out prior to serious diplomatic efforts are only going to entrench the hardliners in Iran and fuel support for them among the Iranians, in my opinion.

lunchinlewis: I thought the headline was witty

Hm.

Well, moving on, I guess I don't see how an "umbrella" M.A.D. type of agreement is anything to get all panty-bunched about. It doesn't preclude other approaches at stopping Iran from getting nukes in the first place, including economic carrot-and-stick approaches, or even conventional military action (which should be a last, not first, resort).

It just puts it out on the table, officially, what every adversarial regime should know - if you somehow get your hands on nukes and use them on our ally, you will be annihilated. We have these agreements with other countries, as stated in TFA. Why not with Israel as well?

Can anyone really think of a good reason to use nuclear weapons on Iran other than them using nuclear weapons first? Just wondering if anyone actually advocates preemptive nuclear strikes.

keylock71: With regards to Iran, we should be engaging them in serious diplomatic talks at all levels with other nations in the area involved and hammer out a solution to this that comes to some sort of compromise that makes everyone involved happy.

Oh, my sides, they split from the laughter.

Negotiations are only good if you are negotiating with a party that wants and desires peace. I think it's pretty clear that the Iranian government (not necessarily its people) doesn't want peace in the Middle East, as evidenced by its longterm financial and logistical support for Hamas and Hezbollah. If that happened, all of a sudden their population will start to wonder why their lives suck so much, which is a threat to the mullahs that rule the country.

KaponoFor3: I'd wait for them to say it first before responding to such things, or you will get hammered for bringing up a strawman.

Since when do people argue rationally and logically on this site?

King Something: but causing to happen that which Israel does not want to happen, or allowing that which they don't want to happen, is considered to be anti-semitism and pro nazism for reasons I'm not even gonna begin to try to understand.

You won't get argument from me on that. I don't understand the "Israel can do no wrong" mentality either. Hell, if any other country acted like they do they'd be ostracized from the international community.

I thought that Israel already had nuclear subs, so even if they were nuked and everyone died they could still respond. I guess this just means that we would nuke the areas that they did not get. Can't have any gaps in the glass parking lot.

Plus Obama could use "nuclear fallout" as an excuse to pull our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Israel to me, dammit!

that1guy77: My headline had everything to do with the stupidity of watching a nation lose millions of lives before anything is done about it (and nothing to do with an "occupying invasion"). It would only require a handful of nukes to do so to a nation of that size. It's basic common sense. If there was 100% solid evidence of a nuke going off here in the U.S. and we knew a rogue nation was behind it, I don't believe people here would want to wait idly until it's been done and then retaliate. Why wait for millions of lives to be destroyed as opposed to thousands (if not hundreds) of war-bent lunatics behind an Iranian nuke operation. There's going to be a bazillion trolls here but they can go fark themselves if they want to misrepresent the headline or insinuate something else such as war mongering.

WTF are you arguing then? Do you think these types of agreements actually encourage countries to use nuclear weapons, or that with such agreements in place we can then only "sit idly by" and wait for it to happen?

/off to a meeting

KaponoFor3: Oh, my sides, they split from the laughter.

I was going to type something like that, but I was blinded by the rainbows and sunshine that spewed out of my monitor.

tallguywithglasseson: Well, moving on, I guess I don't see how an "umbrella" M.A.D. type of agreement is anything to get all panty-bunched about.

It's really not, I agree. It's a tacit agreement that we have had for a while I imagine. So again, nothing really new in Obama's position. And also, I don't think the hawks in this debate necessarily all would go nuke right away. There are ways to handle this, preemptively, with conventional weapons. Not that I agree it has come to that point, yet.

KaponoFor3:

Oh, my sides, they split from the laughter.

Negotiations are only good if you are negotiating with a party that wants and desires peace. I think it's pretty clear that the Iranian government (not necessarily its people) doesn't want peace in the Middle East, as evidenced by its longterm financial and logistical support for Hamas and Hezbollah. If that happened, all of a sudden their population will start to wonder why their lives suck so much, which is a threat to the mullahs that rule the country.

Here, you must have missed this part of my post while you were laughing:

but it's certainly not impossible provided we (and the Iranians) are serious about working out a diplomatic solution.

... and you'll forgive me if I actually reserve judgment on the Iranians' seriousness until concerted diplomatic efforts have actually taken place... diplomacy, not demands followed by threats.

Hey, 2 birds one stone comes to mind...

keylock71:

With regards to Iran, we should be engaging them in serious diplomatic talks at all levels with other nations in the area involved and hammer out a solution to this that comes to some sort of compromise that makes everyone involved happy. Won't be easy or quick, obviously, but it's certainly not impossible provided we (and the Iranians) are serious about working out a diplomatic solution.

Where have you been? Negotiations and such with Iran have taken place since 1979 when the Shah was overrun by Khomeini et al -- the country went from a constitutional monarchy to a batshiat crazy Islamic republic. There were no negotiation needs prior as they were "U.S. friendly" peace mongers. Jimmy Carter couldn't fix the issue of 52 U.S. diplomats being held hostage for 444 days with an anti-American, anti-Shah so what difference will Obama's "negotiations" make? Same players since then, same Democratic negotiator coming in office. Doesn't make sense.

If anyone whines about a nuking, it's your Messiah that said it. He must be laughing his ass off that millions of Americans voted him in thinking anything is really going to change. Either way you look at it, whether Israel is attacked first or not, the U.S. will be dragged into the fight (since an Israeli defense/attack is U.S. related in their eyes). Iran will be nuked and Damascus will be dragged into the fight due to their mutual defense pact and become razed as well.

tallguywithglasseson:

WTF are you arguing then?

/off to a meeting

My argument is plain and stupid, as suggested by the headline itself: What the "Messiah" said was farking stupid. Hillary should have been crowned the Dem nominee, she's not as reckless and naively retarded.

that1guy77:
My argument is plain and stupid,

Ohh geez... "Plain and simple." is what I meant. Here come the superficial trolls.

King Something: but causing to happen that which Israel does not want to happen, or allowing that which they don't want to happen preventing that which they want to happen from happening, is considered to be anti-semitism and pro nazism for reasons I'm not even gonna begin to try to understand.

FIFM.

that1guy77: If anyone whines about a nuking, it's your Messiah that said it.

that1guy77: What the "Messiah" said was farking stupid. Hillary should have been crowned the Dem nominee, she's not as reckless and naively retarded.

Aww jeez, you're one of those "wah wah wah messiah" people...

Move along folks, stupid headline is full of stupid.

Tastes Like Defeat:

Aww jeez, you're one of those "wah wah wah messiah" people...

Move along folks, stupid headline is full of stupid.

Is an ad hominem really your best? You lost at hello.

ToxicMunkee: Why we continue to perceive them as helpless baby seals I'll never know.

Join the club.

that1guy77: Is an ad hominem really your best? You lost at hello.

You lost at "your Messiah."

If you want intelligent, rational discourse, you have to be intelligent and rational, as well.

Israel has their own nuclear weapons. They can take care of themselves. We've freaking armed them enough. I don't give a good god damn about who feels threatened over there.

Here's what the US response should be:

"Hey Iran, so you've got nukes. Cool. Have fun, and if any of your material is used in an attack on American territory or forces, we will use our nuclear stockpile to kill every single person in your country."

That will be infinitely more effective than any foolish-ass invasion or airstrike. Also it's free and it won't get any of our personnel pointlessly killed.

Oh, and for what it's worth, if I lived next to Israel, I think I'd want nukes too. Why would you willingly let your neighbor be the one to hold the nuclear advantage over you?