The fact of the matter is that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have wound down successfully. Our objectives have been met in Iraq and they are almost met in Afghanistan. Shifting those troops to Iran to pressure the theocratic government there to give up their nuclear ambitions is an overall boon to the entire region.

Obama has already shown that he's willing to rattle sabers with Iran. The question is whether he is man enough to strike them in the heart and take them down. Hopefully he is, for all of our sakes.

It's hard to argue in the post-Iraq political environment, but I've always supported an aggressive nuclear non-proliferation policy. The problem with Iraq from the outset wasn't the idea of using military force to prevent a rogue nation from obtaining nukes. The problem with Iraq was threefold:

1) Iraq didn't have any damn nukes. And sorry, but chemical and biological weapons have demonstrated nowhere near the destructive power of nukes, so "WMDs" only matter if they're nukes.

2) There was no credible evidence Iraq was anywhere near getting nukes.

3) Invading, conquering, and occupying a country are not necessary to excising its nuclear program.

Persuade me that a rogue nation like Iran is somewhere close to getting nukes, and that you have a plan to deal with it--even a military plan--that doesn't involve an Iraq-like debacle, and I'm on board for a military solution too.

But your argument has to appeal to my mind. The moment you pull this "you're with us, or you're with the terrorists" bullsh*t, or in any way insinuate that people who aren't on board right away are unpatriotic, then as with Bush, it becomes clear that your invocation of military force is motivated not by protecting the country, but by exploiting fear for political profit.

Cyber_Junk: for those who want to keep score of people in this thread who are all for attacking Iran:

hitchking
AverageAmericanGuy
violentsalvation
soy_bomb

So... you're saying that the estimate from the poll is waaay off?

Or that Fark has a very low number of likely voters in its ranks?

AverageAmericanGuy: Let's stop these guys from getting nukes, then we can talk peace.

Goarmy.com (new window)

Good luck over there, AverageAmericanGuy! We're all counting on you!

Cyber_Junk: for those who want to keep score of people in this thread who are all for attacking Iran:
hitchking
AverageAmericanGuy
violentsalvation
soy_bomb

If it means the difference between a nuclear armed Iran and not, yes.

Seth'n'Spectrum:
Invading Iran would be at least four times more costly than invading Iraq was. Why four times? Have a look at the map posted upthread and notice that Iran is roughly four times larger than Iraq.

So, yeah, nobody's invading Iran.

meh, the majority of the cost of invasion comes in holding the country. We could steamroll their military at little initial cost. If we attempted to control the country afterwards, though....

<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/6925760/74810789#c74810789" target="_blank">Plant Rights Activist</a>:</b> <i>1984 was not intended to be a reference guide</i>

we were always at war with eastasia.

EnviroDude: When you fight Iran, you have to deal with their best friends China and Russia. Now that is a bridge too far.

This point can't be stressed enough. That means no way in hell is the UN Security Council going to sign off on anything. That means the US has to go around finding allies who care enough about Israel or think that Ahmadinejad isn't simply trying to unite his people against a common external foe so as to remain in power. And while Obama seems to have restored public opinion of our government in the West, I can't help but presume that, on military matters, even long-time allies such as Britain and, uh, Poland (among so many others) might be a little leery of following the US on a preemptive strike against Tehran.


Elandriel: We need to cut Israel loose if you ask me. I don't know how often this question would be asked if they weren't constantly rattling sabers.

My understanding is they're disproportionately powerful in terms of lobbying Washington--sort of like Cuban-Americans and that scary communist threat 90 miles off our shores--and while plenty of reasonable, level-headed people talk about doing just that, it never happens, no matter how little sense it makes to abide by the old policy.


hitchking: Do you folks think there is no distinction between bombing Iran and launching a full-scale land invasion?

Because the last ten years have taught that the latter is usually a terrible idea. But the former? Worked nicely in Libya.

Iran isn't Libya. And I'm not sure how I'd feel about a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. But "OMG it'd be just like Iraq!!!" or "conscription then!!" isn't really relevant.

In Iraq, a bombing campaign preceded a full-scale land invasion. In Libya, a bombing campaign was all that was needed.

The latter, while it once had a nuclear program which was dismantled within the past decade, I don't recall being seen as much of a threat with regard to WMDs. The former, it was stated with absolute certainty back in 2003, did possess not only a nuclear program but WMDs which it intended to use. As such, Libya was a lesser threat to our own security than was Iraq (or so we were told).

Iran is quite more ominous. Given how the War in Iraq transpired, I'm not confident that any preemptive attack by the US and its allies wouldn't be followed by some sort of invasion and lengthy occupation. Unless, of course, Iran is able to start lobbing nukes at Israel and Europe and putting them on planes to the US. I'm not suggesting the global community should do nothing, but I don't believe that bombing Iran, or any substantial military involvement on the part of the US, is the answer.

IIRC, Ahmadinejad is fairly unpopular among Iranians until he starts spewing his anti-Israeli and anti-American rhetoric; then, people usually stand behind him. If there were some way to turn his people against him, Israel and the US might not have to do anything big.

DarnoKonrad: Yea, but what if the Israelis go full retard and nuke em knowing full well a conventional bombing campaign won't work?

First, we don't know if Israel has the proper nukes to get deep enough into Iran's new facilities to neutralize them. Second, any facilities destroyed can be rebuilt with time and with patience, although, yes, radiation would make it much more difficult to resume certain activities. Once the knowledge, the know-how, the blueprints are there, you can't turn back the clock all that easily.

Third, if Israel were to nuke an Iranian city (or even use nukes at all), it would face even bleaker international isolation. All of its European allies would be forced to abandon it, including the stalwarts such as Germany. Turkey, Egypt, and maybe even the Saudis would have to distance themselves from them. And finally, Israel would then be a declared nuclear power and that would bring even more interesting diplomatic sanctions against it.

So, at the end of the day, Israel isn't going to use its nukes for anything other than deterrence. It won't strike first and it probably can't.

Churchy LaFemme: AverageAmericanGuy: Let's stop these guys from getting nukes, then we can talk peace.
Goarmy.com (new window)
Good luck over there, AverageAmericanGuy! We're all counting on you!

I realize you are trying to be witty, but the Army typically isn't the branch of the military that does the bombing. The Air Force and Navy perform that activity for the most part for our military.

/I wouldn't mind hitching a ride on a B-52

CrispFlows: hitchking: You think China and Russia would get militarily involved?

Let's see the countries involved:
[www.climate-zone.com image 480x360]

Well, the two countries I think that would get involved are not exactly up to snuff, militarily.

You have a point there.

What is just north of the region shown on your map? I'm having trouble remembering . . . I think maybe it's all ocean up there, so no problem.

Ed Finnerty: Overextension, then the fall.

It was nice being a superpower while it lasted.

Overextension? We are barely mobilized.

Seth'n'Spectrum: DarnoKonrad: Yea, but what if the Israelis go full retard and nuke em knowing full well a conventional bombing campaign won't work?

First, we don't know if Israel has the proper nukes to get deep enough into Iran's new facilities to neutralize them. Second, any facilities destroyed can be rebuilt with time and with patience, although, yes, radiation would make it much more difficult to resume certain activities. Once the knowledge, the know-how, the blueprints are there, you can't turn back the clock all that easily.

Third, if Israel were to nuke an Iranian city (or even use nukes at all), it would face even bleaker international isolation. All of its European allies would be forced to abandon it, including the stalwarts such as Germany. Turkey, Egypt, and maybe even the Saudis would have to distance themselves from them. And finally, Israel would then be a declared nuclear power and that would bring even more interesting diplomatic sanctions against it.

So, at the end of the day, Israel isn't going to use its nukes for anything other than deterrence. It won't strike first and it probably can't.



I'm aware of all that. I just don't trust the judgment of theocrats. An attack on Iran of any scale would throw the world into chaos -- and yet here we are discussing it like it was some kind of inevitability.

For those concerned about the prospect of war with Iran, serious question:

What if they declare war on us in retaliation for taking out their nuclear program, and we just don't show up in their desert to fight?

I have complete faith in the United States Air Force's and Navy's ability to decisively dispense with any prospective Iranian invasion before it gets out of the Arabian Sea. I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt Iran has any offensive air capacity capable of reaching the United States. And if it does, it's probably so backwards that we could swat it down like a fly.

mrjones61: I like all this war business going on, and would be willing to fight if the wars weren't so damn far away. Why not have a war with Canada instead? It's close enough I could probably see my family on the weekends. Anyways, it's too hot in Iran, let's fight in some place nice for once.

That would be all well and good until they brought in the hockey hooligans. Then it would be game over, USA.

soy_bomb: I realize you are trying to be witty, but the Army typically isn't the branch of the military that does the bombing.

In my own experience I've often found that the biggest tough-talking war mongers often turn out to be frightened pussies on a personal level.

Tough talk is easy when you live in a country that requires no sacrifice.

Times like this, I'm glad my vision is too bad for me to be draftable.

bugontherug: For those concerned about the prospect of war with Iran, serious question:

What if they declare war on us in retaliation for taking out their nuclear program, and we just don't show up in their desert to fight?

I have complete faith in the United States Air Force's and Navy's ability to decisively dispense with any prospective Iranian invasion before it gets out of the Arabian Sea. I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt Iran has any offensive air capacity capable of reaching the United States. And if it does, it's probably so backwards that we could swat it down like a fly.



So we police a no-fly zone over it like Iraq for 10 years bombing their measly resistance. Meanwhile the 4th largest oil producer will be out of business -- that's just not a tenable situation in the long run.

I love the smell of blowback in the morning.

Seth'n'Spectrum: Once the knowledge, the know-how, the blueprints are there, you can't turn back the clock all that easily.

There are a handful of people in the world who know how to build nuclear weapons. Whoever has been assassinating Iran's nuclear scientists have the right idea. It might be easier to turn back the clock than you think.

This was polled after the world news tonight said that gas might go up $6/gal this summer.
/awwww shiat no! WAR!!!!

vudukungfu: Best possible option is to tell every other nation, we will turn our nukes off when we have proof you don't have any.

Well actually, that's kinda how the NPT was supposed to work - new countries promise to not develop nukes, and in exchange, the "nuclear having countries" (or however the English version is) would DISARM. They would work towards disarmament.

But that hasn't really happened. We have the US insisting on the right of first strike, even, we have talk of "bunker buster" tactical little baby nukes. We have the "missile defense" which people rightly understand as an offensive weapon (because it undermines MAD).

And so wow, hey, countries say fark that noise and think about getting nukes. If they're such a great peaceful deterrent for the US and other nuclear having countries (which is what those countries insist on every time the topic comes up) then it should work just fine for the other countries TOO, right? Peacefully?

Then on top of it you have the US invading various countries but just happening to avoid stirring up NK too much, because wow hey, they have nukes.

Mind you I don't think Iran with nukes is a good thing, but from their POV it's not a crazy desire at all. And that's even before talking about Israel's nukes.

J. Frank Parnell: AverageAmericanGuy: It's unpopular because it's the right thing to do. We'd be in big trouble if we always took the easy way out.

Let's stop these guys from getting nukes, then we can talk peace.

You fell for the weapons of mass destruction claim once already as a pretense to invade somewhere, that turned out to be a lie, and you haven't learned a damn thing since.

They're right to try the exact same thing again, because you really are that stupid.


Re-Quoted because 49% of Americans need to be slapped upside the head with this exact quote. Repeatedly.

DarnoKonrad: So we police a no-fly zone over it like Iraq for 10 years bombing their measly resistance. Meanwhile the 4th largest oil producer will be out of business -- that's just not a tenable situation in the long run.

Soviet containment worked a miracle in the long haul. Iraq containment was working just fine too. Containment would work for Iran.

The oil situation might be dispositive. I don't really know how much losing their supply would affect us.

But let's say it means a dollar more per gallon of gas for the next ten years. It's possible that's better than the prospect of a nuclear armed Islamic theocracy run by Achmadinnerjacket or whoever his nutty successor turns out to be.

I'd be surprised if 49% of Americans could even find Iran on a map of the world.

Finger51: J. Frank Parnell: AverageAmericanGuy: It's unpopular because it's the right thing to do. We'd be in big trouble if we always took the easy way out.

Let's stop these guys from getting nukes, then we can talk peace.

You fell for the weapons of mass destruction claim once already as a pretense to invade somewhere, that turned out to be a lie, and you haven't learned a damn thing since.

They're right to try the exact same thing again, because you really are that stupid.


Re-Quoted because 49% of Americans need to be slapped upside the head with this exact quote. Repeatedly.

Not every president is a Republican psychopath willing to exploit war for political profit. And not all military solutions involve invasion, conquest, and occupation. Nuclear proliferation is a real problem. The situation requires a careful assessment of costs and benefits, of course. But a military solution should definitely be on the table.

bugontherug: DarnoKonrad: So we police a no-fly zone over it like Iraq for 10 years bombing their measly resistance. Meanwhile the 4th largest oil producer will be out of business -- that's just not a tenable situation in the long run.

Soviet containment worked a miracle in the long haul. Iraq containment was working just fine too. Containment would work for Iran.

The oil situation might be dispositive. I don't really know how much losing their supply would affect us.

But let's say it means a dollar more per gallon of gas for the next ten years. It's possible that's better than the prospect of a nuclear armed Islamic theocracy run by Achmadinnerjacket or whoever his nutty successor turns out to be.



You're way too gung-ho. Soviet containment, firstly was a false assumption. The soviets weren't into global domination as much as our propaganda portrayed. Secondly, it was largely the result of MAD, not our proxy wars.

And at the end of the day you still have a nuclear armed theocracy called Israel -- they just want us to help in the dirty work of securing regional hegemony for Israel, and I don't want to be apart of that.

I'm more than happy to buy Iran's oil -- we need to stop pretending "freedom oil" burns better than "bad guy oil" to defend our strategic interests in the region - not neoconservative visions of manifest destiny in the mideast.

madden101: If there were some way to turn his people against him, Israel and the US might not have to do anything big.

...and attacking Iran is probably the precisely WRONG thing to do, if the idea is to turn the people against the government.

bugontherug: What if they declare war on us in retaliation for taking out their nuclear program, and we just don't show up in their desert to fight?

They stop selling the US oil.

Cyber_Junk: for those who want to keep score of people in this thread who are all for attacking Iran:

hitchking
AverageAmericanGuy
violentsalvation

Hmmm?

Why am I on that list? Where did I say I support attacking Iran?

I've made two points in this thread:

1. Targeted strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities is not the same as a full-scale land invasion. We should keep them separate when talking about this issue.

2. I'm not sure how I feel about a targeted strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Strap that knee of yours down to keep it from jerking.

We should just let Pakistan give Saudi Arabia nukes as well, thus assuring a stable balance of power in the region.

AverageAmericanGuy: The fact of the matter is that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have wound down successfully. Our objectives have been met in Iraq and they are almost met in Afghanistan. Shifting those troops to Iran to pressure the theocratic government there to give up their nuclear ambitions is an overall boon to the entire region.

Obama has already shown that he's willing to rattle sabers with Iran. The question is whether he is man enough to strike them in the heart and take them down. Hopefully he is, for all of our sakes.

wow. I really hope you're trolling. Did it ever cross your mind that the picture being painted may be a bit rosier than reality?^

Invasion: no. Bombing: meh.

Does that clear up my position?

Look, let's just boil this down to the basics...

What methods are available that will kill *most* Iranians, while leaving all the hot Persian chicks untouched?

bugontherug: Nuclear proliferation is a real problem

I just don't think so. Building a bomb isn't that hard. But what is hard is an effective delivery system. Which requires stealth or ICBMs. I just don't see how nuclear bombs are a threat to America from nations like Iran. And even if they do get one, they've just joined the MAD club, accept it won't be very "mutual" if they use one -- they'll be wiped off the map without so much as a retaliatory peep.

unitednihilists: [www.harpers.org image 600x340]

[harpers.org image 576x475]

I don't really understand the 2nd one... seems like the Iranian people want that for themselves, hence the election protests. If anything that cheese would say "War with U.S." since it's the Neocons baiting it.

DarnoKonrad: You're way too gung-ho. Soviet containment, firstly was a false assumption. The soviets weren't into global domination as much as our propaganda portrayed. Secondly, it was largely the result of MAD, not our proxy wars.

And at the end of the day you still have a nuclear armed theocracy called Israel -- they just want us to help in the dirty work of securing regional hegemony for Israel, and I don't want to be apart of that.

I'm more than happy to buy Iran's oil -- we need to stop pretending "freedom oil" burns better than "bad guy oil" to defend our strategic interests in the region - not neoconservative visions of manifest destiny in the mideast.

I find it comical that I'd be called "gung ho." I opposed the Iraq war for realist foreign policy reasons. I support possible military intervention against Iran for realist foreign policy reasons. I'm not out to remake the world in our image. That kind of crap gets us bogged down in quagmires in distant deserts and jungles. I am interested in ensuring that the greatest threat to human existence doesn't spread around the planet out of control.

I'm not fond of Israel having nukes either, nor Pakistan, nor India for that matter. If I had been charged with foreign policy for the past thirty years, I would have acted aggressively (maybe or maybe not militarily) to prevent proliferation to those countries too. But those ships have done sailed. The more crazy, unstable autocrats get ahold of nukes, the more likely they will be used.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the "freedom oil" vs. "bad guy oil." I'm less concerned with who we buy our oil from, than with who gets control of a big shiny candy-like red button. There's definitely a difference between "freedom nukes" and "bad guy nukes."

Unsung_Hero: Look, let's just boil this down to the basics...

What methods are available that will kill *most* Iranians, while leaving all the hot Persian chicks untouched?

Enjoy them while they last.

MARG BAR DICTATOR

Mija: Aarontology: I'll bet that number would shrink considerably if we conscripted them and their family members to fight the inevitable war.

They should also have to pay fifty percent of their income to support the war. Those who oppose war pay nothing. Oh boy, the war mongers would turn into dirty, commie hippies so fast your head would spin.

Now this idea I love. "Warmongers" pay for all their evil policies and the do-gooders pay for all their "compassionate" ones. See who starts to reconsider first.

DarnoKonrad: bugontherug: Nuclear proliferation is a real problem

I just don't think so.

Nuttery. Pure nuttery. There are some people who just shouldn't have control over nuclear weapons, ever. Keeping them from getting them is a critical foreign policy goal.

Dunno how old you are. I'm old enough to remember growing up terrified of nuclear war. The idea of it has dropped off our radar since the Soviet Union collapsed. But it's still there. It's like climate change: it's a threat too many people will deny until it's too late. This world may yet end in fire.

remember when John McCain sang that little song "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" to the tune of the beach boys' song "barbara ann"?

that would be much better-received nowadays.