If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   Having seen the successes of the past decade, 49% of Americans support bombing Iran to prevent them from gaining nukes   (thehill.com) divider line 271
    More: Fail, Iran, United States, Americans, nuclear weapons, Strait of Hormuz, sanctions against Iran  
•       •       •

3737 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Feb 2012 at 8:15 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



271 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-06 09:45:08 PM

DarnoKonrad: 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.


The chance of Iran deciding to drop a nuke on the US is precisely zero.

There are a couple of frightening things about them getting the bomb, though. First, when Americans consider a foreign policy "nightmare scenario", it's usually that the government of Pakistan is overthrown by an al Qaeda-style group of extreme fundamentalists (giving them control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal). Nuclear weapons in Iran accomplish *almost* the same thing in reverse.

Also, there's concern about a renewed nuclear arms race in the Middle East. If Iran has the bomb, Saudi Arabia will want one, and so on and so on.

Plus, there's something to be said about nuclear non-proliferation. This was once a big policy goal for progressives like myself. Of course, it wasn't really intended to be accomplished by force...

Anyway, I don't know if that adds up to enough to justify bombing Iran. Probably not, mostly because of the terrible impact that will have on the democratic/dissent movement in that country. But I certainly don't shed any tears of dismay when the US sets them back by several years with a computer virus, or even when some motorcycle-riding Israeli pulls a James Bond...
 
2012-02-06 09:45:39 PM

vudukungfu: CygnusDarius: One wears a hat

Cowboy or turban?


Ah... Oh shiat.
 
2012-02-06 09:47:45 PM
It does not matter what the people think or want, they aren't really in charge. We will not be invading or even attacking Iran unless they test a nuke or start block the straight.

RELAX. Unbunch your panties. Inhale. Exhale.
 
2012-02-06 09:50:05 PM

CapnBlues: 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.


Not to me. That kind of bullsh*t tells me "this is an asshole who doesn't appreciate the gravity of military confrontation." I want a president who understands that bombing a country is serious business, not something leaders of the free world sing novelty songs about. Yes, I say that knowing full well McCain's history. When he did that, he told me "this man has a similar moral compass to Bush when it comes to military force. He cannot be trusted with the presidency."
 
2012-02-06 09:51:38 PM

Karac: DarnoKonrad: 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.

Well, if you need to blow something up in a half hour, you need an ICMB. If you need something blown up in a few hours, you need an intercontinental bomber. If you just need something blow up in two to three weeks, there's nothing to prevent you from just sticking the thing in a shipping container and sailing it into New York, Washington D. C., L. A or Tel Aviv. Which works just as well from a 'do what we say or we'll fark you up' positition as an ICMB would.



Yea, well, I just can't justify preemptive wars to stop hypothetical indefinite terrorism. Human nature is to always assume our enemies are more craven, brutal, and barbaric than we are. That's as old as humanity itself. But you don't base policy on shadows in the dark.

There are better and more prudent ways to police proliferation than warring on nation states IMHO.
 
2012-02-06 09:51:42 PM

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.


I agree. Let's invade San Diego!
 
2012-02-06 09:51:57 PM
GTG. Might bbl.
 
2012-02-06 09:53:16 PM
What we should do is just stick our heads in the sand and ignore Iran.
 
2012-02-06 09:53:48 PM

DarnoKonrad: 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.


The direct threat isn't the problem. By having a nuclear weapon countries can basically nullify the threat of force by the U.S. or its allies by threatening a counterattack on any of the U.S. allies. Allowing any of the U.S. allies to be nuked would be a complete P.R. disaster and threaten the already weakened U.S. hegemony. Hell, a government unable to deliver its payload could even nuke its own people and blame it on U.S. aggression and receive a good deal of sentiment for them.

The threat of force is what helps keep some countries in line. I by no means condone some of our recent nation building efforts but I do realize that a credible threat of force can provide the U.S. a great deal of leverage. A nuclear deterrent neutralizes that threat.
 
2012-02-06 09:54:16 PM
Look how hysterical the world got when about 3,200 people died on September 11, 2001. Now imagine a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel (or Pakistan and India, or a Best Korean nuke dropped on Worst Korea, etc.) I guarantee you that people around the world will go positively insane. And, remember, there's still plenty of nukes in the American and Russian nuclear arsenal, so there's always the small possibility of escalation into nuclear Armageddon which will scare the shiat out of people even more.

Somehow the world managed to go almost 67 years without a nuke being used. There were two very close calls during the Cold War. The first was during the Cuban Missile Crisis when a Soviet submarine off of Cuba was depth-charged by an American ship and came within one officer's vote of launching a nuclear torpedo which probably would have escalated to Armageddon within minutes. IIRC, Kennedy even estimated that there was a 50/50 chance of nuclear war afterwards. Then there was 1983 when a confluence of the Able Archer exercise among NATO, the shooting-down of a Korean jetliner, a bad radar reading, and extreme paranoia among Soviet brass almost touched off WWIII.

I have no clue exactly what will happen in the wake of the next military use of nukes against people other than to predict it will be cataclysmic in nature. Pandora's Box will never ever be shut and it's just a matter of time, maybe one year or a hundred years...
 
2012-02-06 09:55:46 PM
U.nending S.eries of A.dversaries.
 
2012-02-06 09:57:09 PM

bugontherug: 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.


Like I said, I find that kind of moral certitude, to be disturbing. The Soviets were managed with diplomacy -- and there were still people that thought they were just too evil to trust. And now those paranoid arguments are fashionable again.
 
2012-02-06 09:57:41 PM
Iran is run by its military at this point, and they know they would end up being annihilated if they ever used a nuclear weapon.

Pakistan has nukes and we still went in and killed Osama on their turf. So nukes don't make you bulletproof.
 
2012-02-06 09:58:31 PM

Seth'n'Spectrum: Bombing Iran would only set back their nuclear program by a few years. Totally futile. As an added bonus, it would reinforce the hardliner's message that the only way Iran can protect itself is by having nukes... so not only would it be futile, it would be counterproductive.

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.


Thank you for the voice of reason.
 
2012-02-06 09:58:45 PM
"Men acquainted with the battlefield will not be found among the numbers that glibly talk of another war."

Dwight D. Eisenhower
 
2012-02-06 09:59:59 PM
www.global-air.com

(new window)
 
2012-02-06 10:00:58 PM
so basically, we are supposed to commit the same offense in order to prevent another from committing that very offense? logical! not to mention wholly preemptive, which is what has gotten us into a bit of trouble a few times before. this is like shooting someone on the street who might have a sidearm, just in case they have one and decide to draw one and fire on you. or better yet, shooting someone for opening up their umbrella.
 
2012-02-06 10:02:25 PM

DarnoKonrad: Karac: DarnoKonrad: 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.

Well, if you need to blow something up in a half hour, you need an ICMB. If you need something blown up in a few hours, you need an intercontinental bomber. If you just need something blow up in two to three weeks, there's nothing to prevent you from just sticking the thing in a shipping container and sailing it into New York, Washington D. C., L. A or Tel Aviv. Which works just as well from a 'do what we say or we'll fark you up' positition as an ICMB would.


Yea, well, I just can't justify preemptive wars to stop hypothetical indefinite terrorism. Human nature is to always assume our enemies are more craven, brutal, and barbaric than we are. That's as old as humanity itself. But you don't base policy on shadows in the dark.

There are better and more prudent ways to police proliferation than warring on nation states IMHO.


I wasn't advocating going to war with Iran - it'd be a terrible idea. Upthread a bit, I gave two reasons why bombing probably wouldn't work anyway, and to think at this point that what we need is a third middle eastern war is simply ground for being committed. I was simply trying to point out that if you've got a country willing to throw enough money at the problem, they can build and deliver a nuclear bomb - it might not be the biggest blast in history, and it may take a while to get to the target, but if you've got the cash, you can get it done.
 
2012-02-06 10:03:36 PM

DarnoKonrad: bugontherug: 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.

Like I said, I find that kind of moral certitude, to be disturbing. The Soviets were managed with diplomacy -- and there were still people that thought they were just too evil to trust. And now those paranoid arguments are fashionable again.


Hmmm... so the lesson you've taken from the Cold War is "it was never anything to worry about!"?

Even after we've learned of several incidents where the world escaped complete annihilation by the skin of their teeth, you consider the statement "some people shouldn't have nukes" disturbing? You think that's a "paranoid argument"?
 
2012-02-06 10:06:29 PM
So basically the chickenhawks of the US want to act like that kid you just couldn't beat at the arcade game, the one game you actually love (let's say, King of Fighters, choose which was your favorite year, or another fighter game), the one everyone challenged but no one gets to remove him from either the game or the scores. And, when you find the game alone, and you're playing it, you suddenly hear the quarter inside the machine and the five words of doom: "HERE COMES A NEW CHALLENGER!".
 
2012-02-06 10:07:28 PM
There is a deep, dark side of me who really is curious how Americans are going to react when a nuke does get used anywhere in the world. I'll bet political discourse is going to get really nasty in this country...

BTW, I guess it's actually closer to 3,000 lost on 9-11. It's still a drop in the bucket compared to the fatalities that would occur if Islamabad or Tel Aviv or Tehran or Seoul gets a 15 kT fark-you dropped on them. I'm guessing there might even be a few governments toppled in the wake of even a limited nuclear war...
 
2012-02-06 10:08:54 PM
for those who want to keep score of people in this thread who are all for attacking Iran (or who think it might be a good idea):

hitchking
AverageAmericanGuy
violentsalvation
prekrasno
MacG
 
2012-02-06 10:09:45 PM
Having seen the successes of the past decade 66.6 years

www.digitalhistory.uh.edu
 
2012-02-06 10:09:59 PM
FTA: "Nearly half of likely voters think the United States should be willing to use military force to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, according to this week's The Hill Poll"


Yeah, but how many Uhmericuns would be willing to use military force to prevent Haiti from obtaining Photon Torpedoes?


/Klingons!
 
2012-02-06 10:10:15 PM

Plant Rights Activist: The threat of force is what helps keep some countries in line. I by no means condone some of our recent nation building efforts but I do realize that a credible threat of force can provide the U.S. a great deal of leverage. A nuclear deterrent neutralizes that threat.


100% honestly, I think the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq called the US bluff in some ways, and NOT for the better. If I has to make a list of bad effects the Bush years had, that would be way up there.
 
2012-02-06 10:10:39 PM
One of the big news items of the past year concerned the fact that China, which we called "Red China," exploded a nuclear bomb, which we called a device. Then Indonesia announced that it was going to have one soon, and proliferation became the word of the day. Here's a song about that:

First we got the bomb, and that was good,
'Cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb, but that's okay,
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way.
Who's next?

France got the bomb, but don't you grieve,
'Cause they're on our side (I believe).
China got the bomb, but have no fears,
They can't wipe us out for at least five years.
Who's next?

Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day.
South Africa wants two, that's right:
One for the black and one for the white.
Who's next?

Egypt's gonna get one too,
Just to use on you know who.
So Israel's getting tense.
Wants one in self defense.
"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm,
But just in case, we better get a bomb.
Who's next?

Luxembourg is next to go,
And (who knows?) maybe Monaco.
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb.
Who's next?
Who's next?
Who's next?
Who's next
 
2012-02-06 10:11:15 PM
Israel is the aggressor here.

Once we've disarmed the Zionist State, we can talk about how to deal with Iran.
 
2012-02-06 10:12:34 PM

propasaurus: Unless, of course, Obama comes out in favor of nuking Iran into a glass parking lot; in which case, that same 49% will be wringing their hands about what an evil, despotic, bloodthirsty dictator he is.



And all the Libs will be suddenly in favour of a full invasion, and calling any dissenter a racist .
 
2012-02-06 10:13:27 PM

vudukungfu: One of the big news items of the past year concerned the fact that China, which we called "Red China," exploded a nuclear bomb, which we called a device. Then Indonesia announced that it was going to have one soon, and proliferation became the word of the day. Here's a song about that:...


Gotta love Tom Lehrer. Even his song 'Vatican Rag' has has become topical once more.
 
2012-02-06 10:14:46 PM
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.


The first thing that Iran would do if we or the rogue state of Israel bombed them would be to take out all our carriers in the Persian Gulf. The technology has changed, those carriers have been obsolete for twenty years now due to the upgrades in ballistic missiles. Iran has been trading with China for years, and are sure to have a lethal dose of the very latest ones. Those carriers and their support ships going down would mean at least 10,000 American deaths, and a long term shooting war. And for what? Israel? So that the military industrial complex would sell more toys to the defense department?

This whole thing is completely farking insane. What ever happened to the Powell doctrine anyways?
And why do I think that this asinine poll was conducted in northern Virginia, home of the military industrial complex?
 
2012-02-06 10:14:50 PM

Cyber_Junk: for those who want to keep score of people in this thread who are all for attacking Iran (or who think it might be a good idea):

hitchking
AverageAmericanGuy
violentsalvation
prekrasno
MacG


You're not very bright, are you?
 
2012-02-06 10:16:52 PM

An example of polling questions to get different results...

Another Poll
Only Seventeen Percent Of U.S. Public Supports Military Action Against Iran
While some of the more hawkish rhetoric and efforts to drive forward on unilateral sanctions continue to come out of Congress, the new United Technologies/National Journal "Congressional Connection Poll," found that public support for a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities is extremely low.
Forty-seven percent of respondents favored economic sanctions against Iran, only 13 percent said the U.S. should "go farther and take covert action against Iran such as sabotage and assassination of scientists working on their nuclear program," and 17 percent would support "tak[ing] military action against Iran, including bombing weapons facilities inside the country."

The TFA poll question
Should US Be Willing to Use
Military Force to Prevent Iran
from Getting Nuclear Weapons?
Yes/No/NS

When that changes to open up for alternate options, you get a different picture:

"how far do you think the United States should go to prevent" Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Some 47 percent favored economic sanctions against Iran, but only 13 percent said the U.S. should "go farther and take covert action against Iran such as sabotage and assassination of scientists working on their weapons program," and just 17 percent would go still farther and "take military action against Iran, including bombing weapons facilities inside the country."
 
2012-02-06 10:21:15 PM

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.


Said Objectives being 'Killing lots of brown civilians and pouring an uncountable amount of US taxpayer money into the pockets of the military industrial complex? Oh and convincing the rest of the world that Americans are gullible, warmongering retards driven by crazy religious whackjobs?'

uh, well sure, MISHUN ACCIMLPISHD!
 
2012-02-06 10:24:00 PM
I wonder if a Las Vegas casino takes bets of an Iran/Israel war escalating into WWIII. The great thing is that they really wouldn't have to pay off the winners...
 
2012-02-06 10:25:55 PM
ok, fine. you want to fight the entire world, we're instituting a mandatory draft.

I'm all for it: send MItt back to France.

After all, he was in a pro-draft demonstration at Stanford. After the years on the Riviera.
 
2012-02-06 10:27:04 PM

Amos Quito: Yeah, but how many Uhmericuns would be willing to use military force to prevent Haiti from obtaining Photon Torpedoes?


My god, we don't even know how those are made. Anyone could be making them!
 
2012-02-06 10:27:29 PM

Cyber_Junk: for those who want to keep score of people in this thread who are all for attacking Iran (or who think it might be a good idea):

hitchking
AverageAmericanGuy
violentsalvation
prekrasno
MacG


You can put me down as a solid something probably has to be done somehow or other some time soon.
 
2012-02-06 10:29:03 PM

Little.Alex: propasaurus: Unless, of course, Obama comes out in favor of nuking Iran into a glass parking lot; in which case, that same 49% will be wringing their hands about what an evil, despotic, bloodthirsty dictator he is.


And all the Libs will be suddenly in favour of a full invasion, and calling any dissenter a racist .


RACIST!

DRINK!
 
2012-02-06 10:31:49 PM
So when Obama bombs Iran, will all of you denouncing taking such action on this site change your registration to Republican and vote for Ron Paul in the primaries so we can have the foreign policy you claim to support?
 
2012-02-06 10:31:58 PM
^yawn*

I'm outta here...
 
2012-02-06 10:41:18 PM

hitchking: Cyber_Junk: for those who want to keep score of people in this thread who are all for attacking Iran (or who think it might be a good idea):

hitchking
AverageAmericanGuy
violentsalvation
prekrasno
MacG

You're not very bright, are you?


hitchking: Cyber_Junk


He or she certainly isn't.
 
2012-02-06 10:45:59 PM
remember that time Israel bombed Iraqi nuclear reactors and they had that huge war that lasted decades?
neither do I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
 
2012-02-06 10:53:20 PM
I think you're all underestimating the relative goodwill the average Iranian on the street has for the US. They love our movies. They love our jeans. They love our cosmetics. They certainly love our universities because they come over here in droves. An attack to take out the illegal weapons program would be welcomed, as it would finally put the screws to the theocracy to open up and free the people or to hunker down and be obliterated.

A new generation is rising up to replace the old theocracy, but this movement needs help. Letting the mullahs flaunt international treaties is sure fire way to keep the democratic movement in check. If we don't take first action, who will? Israel? That's an outcome that has no winners.
 
2012-02-06 10:54:31 PM

MacG: Cyber_Junk: for those who want to keep score of people in this thread who are all for attacking Iran (or who think it might be a good idea):

hitchking
AverageAmericanGuy
violentsalvation
prekrasno
MacG

You can put me down as a solid something probably has to be done somehow or other some time soon.



Seems like SOMETHING has to be done about that little paranoid A$$HOLE of a nation that already has nukes (and G-D knows what else) and is constantly making false accusations, attacking their neighbors, murdering their scientists, and generally stirring up trouble around the world.

Shouldn't that be a priority?

And soon?
 
2012-02-06 10:56:20 PM

h4b1t: remember that time Israel bombed Iraqi nuclear reactors and they had that huge war that lasted decades?
neither do I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera



I seem to remember a little tiff involving Iraq between 2003 and 2011, and killed tens of thousands of people.

Fortunately no Israelis were hurt.
 
2012-02-06 11:03:28 PM

Amos Quito: h4b1t: remember that time Israel bombed Iraqi nuclear reactors and they had that huge war that lasted decades?
neither do I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera


I seem to remember a little tiff involving Iraq between 2003 and 2011, and killed tens of thousands of people.

Fortunately no Israelis were hurt.


Yes, a direct result of Israel's actions only twenty years prior!
 
2012-02-06 11:03:50 PM
Amos Quito:
I seem to remember a little tiff involving Iraq between 2003 and 2011, and killed tens of thousands of people.

Fortunately no Israelis were hurt.

There's a difference between bombing and going to war. Reagan and Clinton bombed the hell out of half the middle east but never got into a long war. If you ask me eradicating the nuclear ambitions of a country that believes we should not exist is a good thing.
 
2012-02-06 11:04:42 PM
Two wars, nearly a trillion dollars in unbudgeted expenditures, 5,000 soldiers killed, massive drop in citizen and solider morale, netting nearly zero useful accomplishments while toppling two governments and leaving awful power vacuums and massive internal violence, stirring up already strong anti-American sentiment in the region.....

So let's do it all over again in the country between the two we already shredded? Screw that. Blockade and sanction them until either they give in and allow the dismantling of their nuclear program, or their people revolt and tear the government down. We haven't paid for our last two wars which have driven us into the ground financially. Let's not do this again. There are other ways that are much cheaper.
 
2012-02-06 11:05:29 PM
Can't seal team six just run in there and take out like 10-15 important guys and call it a day?
 
2012-02-06 11:05:48 PM
Cyber_Junk: for those who want to keep score of people in this thread who are all for attacking Iran (or who think it might be a good idea):

hitchking
AverageAmericanGuy
violentsalvation
prekrasno
MacG
h4b1t
 
Displayed 50 of 271 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report