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 11:10:43 PM

MarkEC: 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?


This bears repeating.
 
2012-02-06 11:11:39 PM
Bombing anything is stupid. Sorry.
 
2012-02-06 11:14:20 PM

Cyber_Junk: 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


Jeezy creezy, ignored for repetitive bullshyte.
 
2012-02-06 11:21:15 PM
AverageAmericanGuy: 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.


Think about what you just claimed for a second. The USA goes in and bombs the Iran, killing Lord knows how many of them, after setting the rules that they will invade any nation that doesn't have nukes and leave alone anyone who does. And you think that they will look kindly on us after this and change their government because of it? I would say that it would have the exact opposite effect, setting off a surge of Iranian nationalism and giving the Mullahs even more power. Your statement sounds very suspiciously like Dick Cheney assuring everyone that the Iraqis would "greet us as liberators". And then it Dick Cheney was a lying farking idiot who along with his buddy Rumsfeld lost two wars for the United States and allowed Bin Laden to live in safety for as long as he remained Vice President.
 
2012-02-06 11:23:19 PM

varmitydog: those carriers have been obsolete for twenty years now due to the upgrades in ballistic missiles.



Ballistic missiles only work against stationary targets, not relatively small vehicles that scoot through the open ocean at 30+ knots.
 
2012-02-06 11:23:20 PM
Fark knows it's standard deviations, right? If 100 is the mean IQ, and we follow the basic rules of how standard deviations are calculated, we can assume that 50% of the population is at, or below, an IQ of 100.

The 49% listed here are, arguably, morons.
 
2012-02-06 11:41:27 PM
BigNumber12: Ballistic missiles only work against stationary targets, not relatively small vehicles that scoot through the open ocean at 30+ knots.

The war nerd, "how the carriers will die": Link
Two of our own experts from the US Naval Institute: "Twilight of the $uperfluous Carriers" Link

The Falklands war, which proved that sea going vessels were obsolete, was thirty years ago. Technology has improved a mite since then.
 
2012-02-06 11:48:45 PM
I want to know who this Stan guys was cuz there's like six countries named after him.

Who is Stan and why have't we heard from him.
 
2012-02-06 11:50:48 PM
Stan is an unknown quantity.

Don't fark with Stan.
 
2012-02-06 11:57:38 PM

hitchking: 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!


AND

h4b1t:
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.



Israel had a had-on for Iraq just like it has a hard-on for Iran. In fact, Israel's hard-on for Iran has been going on so long that its dick is being strangled by the priapism.

Israel led the charge against Iraq - feeding us false intel and conning us into attacking when there was NO justification for doing so.

Israel is now leading the charge against Iran - feeding us false intel and trying to con us into attacking when there is NO justification for doing so.

Israel wanted Iraq taken down, and it was. Now they're after Iran.

Who's next?
 
2012-02-06 11:58:00 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 .


Boo-yah

Now you are a racist for pointing this out
 
2012-02-07 12:02:12 AM
Bomb that frkker,,,,,twice
 
2012-02-07 12:12:19 AM

dosboot: 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 .

Boo-yah

Now you are a racist for pointing this out


I'd be pretty pissed if he came out in support of it. And I'd be superduper pissed because there's not a viable alternative to vote for if this were to happen before the presidential election.
 
2012-02-07 12:19:50 AM

varmitydog: Two of our own experts from the US Naval Institute: "Twilight of the $uperfluous Carriers" Link



It's certainly our military's responsibility to plan based on the assumption that these things are 100% effective, but I have serious doubts that China's D can do what they're claiming and hoping that it will now, let alone "20 years ago." Has anyone seen a convincing test of this variant of a traditional ballistic missile? These are the guys who brought us the J-20, ffs. And Iran's short range toy hitting a stationary boat... please. The terminal-phase guidance needed to hit an evading nuclear carrier is an enormous technological hurdle. Even the Russians can't do this.

Now, in 10 - 20 years... who knows?
 
2012-02-07 12:21:59 AM
Sabyen91

I love the smell of blowback in the morning.

Muslims, ahem "Persians", would never dare strike within the USA.
 
2012-02-07 12:25:47 AM

studebaker hoch: Sabyen91

I love the smell of blowback in the morning.

Muslims, ahem "Persians", would never dare strike within the USA.


Iran is predominantly Buddhist.

Your (poorly directed) racism is showing.
 
2012-02-07 12:36:31 AM
That "Axis of Evil" of thing didn't come out like Bush planned, now did it. Three nations, Iran, Iraq, and N. Korea were singled out. The one that was attacked had no weapons of mass destruction, the other two figured out the only way to not be attacked was to get nuclear weapons.

Good job President Bush.
 
2012-02-07 12:38:40 AM

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


People say stupid shiat like that all the time, but it just isn't true.

For one thing, it isn't as if the people who are most likely to make these decisions are immune from the risks. Combat is one of the few burdens that historically weighed on the great and small alike. Kings and princes routinely died in battle. William, second in line to the British Crown, served in Afghanistan; his uncle in the Falklands. Most US presidents have been under fire and many of those that haven't (Carter and Bush 43) had dangerous military assignments. JFK, Nixon, and Bush 42 were nearly KIA themselves.

Nor is it true that those who have be exposed to the risk become less hawkish. The military, even the enlisted ranks, routinely support a strong defense posture.
 
2012-02-07 12:39:47 AM

Rapmaster2000: Bombing is always seen as a panacea by Americans for any conflict. It's popular because it's an easy answer. You start asking follow up questions like "what is the result" and "how do we measure success" and "what comes after that" and you'll get a blank stare.



Well, about 67 years ago the answers to those questions were, "A brisk end to a major conflict", "By the expeditiousness of the cessation of conflict" and "3+ generations of not WWII", respectively.

Today, those answers might be:

1. Destruction / incapacitation of Iran's nuclear armament resources, and/or sufficient deterrent to prevent further (re)development thereof.

2. By the continuing absence of mushroom clouds over Riyadh and Tel Aviv.

3. In reality probably yet another Middle East clusterfark, but one that doesn't involve the capability of one loose cannon to turn a regional flare-up into a full-tilt world war with the press of a button.
 
2012-02-07 12:39:58 AM
Here's one scenario on how things could escalate beyond a simple bombing attack...

1. Iran is attacked.
2. Iran fires missiles in retaliation at Israel and at US bases in Iraq/Afghanistan.
3. Israel launches additional air attacks, pushing Iran to continue retaliating.
4. Every time Iran retaliates, the US and Israel escalate their attacks.
5. The shiate blocks in Iraq demand the Iraqi government support Iran, throwing the already fragile Iraq into disarray. The Iraqi economy collapses and civil war breaks out.
6. The Pakistani leadership, which fears falling into the same chaos as Iraq, severs relations with the US, officially taking a neutral stance, but turning a blind eye to extremists and rogue elements of the ISI supporting Iran. This covert support is not concealed very well.
7. India, seeing the shift in Pakistan, escalates their forces on the Pakistani border, causing Pakistan to do the same.
8. China offers Pakistan support against any perceived advantage that India seems to gain during this escalation, causing India to pressure the US to offer the same level of support. Pakistan, upon seeing the US increase it's support for India, is pushed farther towards supporting Iran.
9. The economic turbulence caused by the escalations thus far collapsed the economies of Greece and Italy and threatens the viability of the Euro as a currency.
10. The arms industries in China and Russia start selling weaponry secretly to Iran, Pakistan, and their supporters in Iraq, while opening selling arms to most of the other countries in the Middle East, who are now all afraid of being drawn into the growing conflict.
11. Border skirmishes and insurgent attacks begin to escalate all over the region.
12. The whole region looks ready to fall into chaos.
13. Israel pressures the US to do a full scale of invasion of Iran, while secretly threatening to nuke Iran if the US refuses to secure the region before everything falls apart.
14. The US can't afford an invasion and occupation at this point, and tries to call Israel's bluff. Israel doesn't back down and nukes multiple sites in Iran.
15. Hardliners in Pakistan demand that war is declared against Israel in response. Civil war looks more and more likely in Pakistan.
16. India, which has already had several border skirmishes with Pakistan, decides it has to act before the Pakistan government collapses and loses control of it's nuclear arsenal. India launches a first strike with the goal of taking out Pakistan's retaliatory ability.
17. Pakistan, while heavily crippled, manages to launch a minor second strike and takes out New Delhi. India responds by taking out Islamabad.
18. Numerous countries around the world are shocked by the nuclear first strikes by Israel and India and demand that their leadership be held accountable. The US blocks any attempts at this in the UN.
19. Multiple countries quit the U.N. in protest.
20. The european union, already weakened by the collapse of the Euro, breaks up as well.
21. Refugees from the nuclear strikes flood across the region, throwing things into even more chaos.
22. The entire Middle East and North Africa devolves into a low level civil war, with various factions fighting to redraw borders and establish anti-western governments.
23. The loss of New Delhi sinks the India economy, pulling many others down with it.
24. The Chinese economy sinks as well, but their arms industry has been doing well, and helps cushion the fall. The US however, with the collapse of the EU and India, finds it's economy bankrupt and gutted. On top of that, numerous countries begin to break off trade with the US over its refusal to hold Israel and India accountable for their actions.
25. When the dust finally settles, the Middle East ends up a mess that takes a generation to stabilize, the US finds itself about as strong as Russia was after the fall of communism, and China finds itself poised to assert itself as the world's new superpower.

(But hey, Iran never got their nukes... so it was worth it.)
 
2012-02-07 12:48:47 AM
Republicans + Jews = 49%, apparently.
 
2012-02-07 12:50:13 AM
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/6925760/74806822#c74806822" target="_blank">hitchking</a>:</b> <i>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.</i>

6/10.
 
2012-02-07 12:53:46 AM

The My Little Pony Killer: Iran is predominantly Buddhist.


[ NotSureIfSerious.jpg ]
 
2012-02-07 12:57:18 AM
49% of Americans wish for Jesus to return and believe that something of this nature must precede said glorious return

"If the world does come to an end here, or wherever, or if it limps into the future, decimated by the effects of religion-inspired nuclear terrorism, let's remember what the real problem was that we learned how to precipitate mass death before we got past the neurological disorder of wishing for it."

Bill Maher, Religulous

He's a pompous douche, but that quote hits the nail straight on the head.
 
2012-02-07 01:04:23 AM
USA has got this really big need to control everything
and in the process has failed to pick its battles carefully;

the country is bankrupt paying for a pointless war
before any necessary or unavoidable wars
have occurred

it's scary.

imagine a tenth of that money spent at home on jobs, infrastructure
instead of shoveled by the bucketload to criminals and their pals.

i just can't believe you are letting them strip you of your constitutional liberties, too.
everything great about America has been undone in less than a decade.
 
2012-02-07 01:27:25 AM
BigNumber12 : It's certainly our military's responsibility to plan based on the assumption that these things are 100% effective, but I have serious doubts that China's D can do what they're claiming and hoping that it will now, let alone "20 years ago." Has anyone seen a convincing test of this variant of a traditional ballistic missile? These are the guys who brought us the J-20, ffs. And Iran's short range toy hitting a stationary boat... please. The terminal-phase guidance needed to hit an evading nuclear carrier is an enormous technological hurdle. Even the Russians can't do this.

I wouldn't call the Iranian Zafir cruise missile "a short range toy", especially when they are mass producing them and will more than likely deploy them in waves of 100+. Just one lucky shot could take out a destroyer or frigate. And the Iranians will at the same time be sowing the Persian Gulf with mines, so when the ships start maneuvering they will have those obstacles as well. The war games the US Navy ran against these things back before the invasion of Iraq resulted in a disaster for the American forces, until the admiral in charge fudged the rules. And that was BEFORE the new Chinese ballistic stealth missile was added to the mix. This is the exact same thing that the Japanese did before Midway in WWII, discounting the hard facts of a carefully prepared war game scenario for bravado.

Perhaps you are correct about the pop-up ballistic missiles, I have not seen any videos on them hitting moving targets, only on stationary ones. And nobody knows for sure whether or not the Chinese have even sold their latest ballistic missiles designed specifically for air craft carriers to the Iranians. And nobody knows what their friends the Russians might have supplied them with either. But I sure would not want to be a sailor on a ship which has "no effective defense" against that type of weapon. Like I said before, surface vessels have been obsolete for thirty years against ballistic missiles, there just hasn't been any live firing exercises to prove it. Let us hope that the diplomats can work this out without our guys serving as targets for the next generation of naval warfare.
 
2012-02-07 01:36:53 AM
Nothing solves a horrible debt crisis like spending a boatload of cash on another war. And God knows, nothing boosts our credibility like blowing up anyone who doesn't do things exactly how we tell them to do them.

Seriously, war is rarely the best answer. There are times when it is---I don't personally believe this is one of them. Nor was it in Iraq. Nor Afghanistan.
 
2012-02-07 01:50:00 AM
Devil's advocate:

There's a difference between starting a full-on war and lobbing a few missiles at a nuclear installation. Nuclear weapons are complex & require a fair amount of infrastructure to build. Destroying some critical link in that infrastructure should not be anywhere near as difficult as occupying a country & enforcing regime change.

...and when/if they re-build (after months or years of effort) another few missiles can do the job again. Rinse & repeat. It's easier, cheaper, and faster to destroy than it is to build.
 
2012-02-07 01:50:31 AM
BigNumber12 The war nerd on the 2002 American naval war games in the Persian Gulf. Link You can bet your last nickle that the Iranians have studied General van Riper's low tech naval tactics in great detail.
 
2012-02-07 01:53:44 AM

positronica: Here's one scenario on how things could escalate beyond a simple bombing attack...

1. Iran is attacked.
2. Iran fires missiles in retaliation at Israel and at US bases in Iraq/Afghanistan.
3. Israel launches additional air attacks, pushing Iran to continue retaliating.
4. Every time Iran retaliates, the US and Israel escalate their attacks.
5. The shiate blocks in Iraq demand the Iraqi government support Iran, throwing the already fragile Iraq into disarray. The Iraqi economy collapses and civil war breaks out.
6. The Pakistani leadership, which fears falling into the same chaos as Iraq, severs relations with the US, officially taking a neutral stance, but turning a blind eye to extremists and rogue elements of the ISI supporting Iran. This covert support is not concealed very well.
7. India, seeing the shift in Pakistan, escalates their forces on the Pakistani border, causing Pakistan to do the same.
8. China offers Pakistan support against any perceived advantage that India seems to gain during this escalation, causing India to pressure the US to offer the same level of support. Pakistan, upon seeing the US increase it's support for India, is pushed farther towards supporting Iran.
9. The economic turbulence caused by the escalations thus far collapsed the economies of Greece and Italy and threatens the viability of the Euro as a currency.
10. The arms industries in China and Russia start selling weaponry secretly to Iran, Pakistan, and their supporters in Iraq, while opening selling arms to most of the other countries in the Middle East, who are now all afraid of being drawn into the growing conflict.
11. Border skirmishes and insurgent attacks begin to escalate all over the region.
12. The whole region looks ready to fall into chaos.
13. Israel pressures the US to do a full scale of invasion of Iran, while secretly threatening to nuke Iran if the US refuses to secure the region before everything falls apart.
14. The US can't afford an invasion and occupation ...


That's farking scary.
 
2012-02-07 02:24:39 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: 49% or Americans couldn't spell Iran if you spotted them the I-R-A


The Irish Republican Army is in cahoots with Iran?

I always knew those Irish were rotten bastards.

Bomb them too!

Seriously though, the result was 49% of those surveyed thought we should be willing to use military force. Those of you calling the 49% dumb or Republican - don't forget President Obama has stated his policy includes the option of military force.

Is he dumb or Republican?

/Fark - if there is no reason for outrage, Fark Progressives will make one up!
//Stoopid Republicans!!
 
2012-02-07 02:25:45 AM

Amos Quito: hitchking: 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!

AND

h4b1t: 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.


Israel had a had-on for Iraq just like it has a hard-on for Iran. In fact, Israel's hard-on for Iran has been going on so long that its dick is being strangled by the priapism.

Israel led the charge against Iraq - feeding us false intel and conning us into attacking when there was NO justification for doing so.

Israel is now leading the charge against Iran - feeding us false intel and trying to con us into attacking when there is NO justification for doing so.

Israel wanted Iraq taken down, and it was. Now they're after Iran.

Who's next?


Let me ask you this, put all your Israel hatred aside, simple yes or no question.

Are you OK with Iran creating nuclear weapons? No knee-jerk but but buts. Are you OK with Iran and their current regime having the bomb?
 
2012-02-07 02:29:44 AM
simple we claim oil as our own and leave them to fight each other

bonus We let companies have 15 year old military tech if they can afford it and let them take the oil thus our government isnt directly involved.
 
2012-02-07 02:43:05 AM

Sliding Carp: 49% of Americans are below average intelligence.


This! And thread done.
 
2012-02-07 02:46:36 AM
sabiansymbols.typepad.com
 
2012-02-07 02:59:57 AM

positronica: Here's one scenario on how things could escalate beyond a simple bombing attack...

1. Iran is attacked.
2. Iran fires missiles in retaliation at Israel and at US bases in Iraq/Afghanistan.
3. Israel launches additional air attacks, pushing Iran to continue retaliating.
4. Every time Iran retaliates, the US and Israel escalate their attacks.
5. The shiate blocks in Iraq demand the Iraqi government support Iran, throwing the already fragile Iraq into disarray. The Iraqi economy collapses and civil war breaks out.
6. The Pakistani leadership, which fears falling into the same chaos as Iraq, severs relations with the US, officially taking a neutral stance, but turning a blind eye to extremists and rogue elements of the ISI supporting Iran. This covert support is not concealed very well.
7. India, seeing the shift in Pakistan, escalates their forces on the Pakistani border, causing Pakistan to do the same.
8. China offers Pakistan support against any perceived advantage that India seems to gain during this escalation, causing India to pressure the US to offer the same level of support. Pakistan, upon seeing the US increase it's support for India, is pushed farther towards supporting Iran.
9. The economic turbulence caused by the escalations thus far collapsed the economies of Greece and Italy and threatens the viability of the Euro as a currency.
10. The arms industries in China and Russia start selling weaponry secretly to Iran, Pakistan, and their supporters in Iraq, while opening selling arms to most of the other countries in the Middle East, who are now all afraid of being drawn into the growing conflict.
11. Border skirmishes and insurgent attacks begin to escalate all over the region.
12. The whole region looks ready to fall into chaos.
13. Israel pressures the US to do a full scale of invasion of Iran, while secretly threatening to nuke Iran if the US refuses to secure the region before everything falls apart.
14. The US can't afford an invasion and occupation ...


Your newsletter, I must have it!
 
2012-02-07 03:01:08 AM
Man, I always know when I'm right when the troll I targeted first ignores me, then disappears from the radar.
 
2012-02-07 03:34:29 AM

positronica: Here's one scenario on how things could escalate beyond a simple bombing attack...

1. Iran is attacked.
2. Iran fires missiles in retaliation at Israel and at US bases in Iraq/Afghanistan.
3. Israel launches additional air attacks, pushing Iran to continue retaliating.
...



...except that Step 3 doesn't follow. Apparently those who fail to learn from history can still post on Fark. We ran this drill about 20 years ago - that's not what happens.

The first rule of doomsday scenarios is, they have to be plausible. Israel has little to gain and much to lose from indulging tit-for-tat conventional squabbles with an enemy three hostile airspaces away. And in Step 16 of your apocalypse, India would probably stop to realize that while many things can be achieved with an attack, improved stability in your opponent's government isn't one of them.

Nice touch in Step 14 with the Israel-nukes-everything canard, though - one could be forgiven for wondering if the real reason for your diatribe wasn't to massage that one into the realm of the believable....especially considering that everything you list beyond Step 1 is fallout from a ground war, not a targeted bomb strike (i.e. a strawman that no one even brought up).
 
2012-02-07 03:52:19 AM
I'm so glad Obama is in charge. He is a man that understands nuance, subtlety and diplomacy. He and Hilary Clinton have done an awesome job in our foreign affairs since they took the reigns.

He can understand how a 21st Century world works. He promotes American interests, but knows how to do it without being an asshole to the other countries. In crisis situations, he carefully weighs evidence and solicits a variety of opinions from many experts. He is willing to listen to opposing points of view and doesn't just surround himself with yes-men. I am confident his cool-headed, Spock-like brain will make the right decisions in this matter.

All you assholes who prefer an "America, fark Yeah" foreign policy can suck it.
 
2012-02-07 03:54:55 AM

positronica: Here's one scenario on how things could escalate beyond a simple bombing attack...

1. Iran is attacked.
2. Iran fires missiles in retaliation at Israel and at US bases in Iraq/Afghanistan.
3. Israel launches additional air attacks, pushing Iran to continue retaliating.
4. Every time Iran retaliates, the US and Israel escalate their attacks.
5. The shiate blocks in Iraq demand the Iraqi government support Iran, throwing the already fragile Iraq into disarray. The Iraqi economy collapses and civil war breaks out.
6. The Pakistani leadership, which fears falling into the same chaos as Iraq, severs relations with the US, officially taking a neutral stance, but turning a blind eye to extremists and rogue elements of the ISI supporting Iran. This covert support is not concealed very well.
7. India, seeing the shift in Pakistan, escalates their forces on the Pakistani border, causing Pakistan to do the same.
8. China offers Pakistan support against any perceived advantage that India seems to gain during this escalation, causing India to pressure the US to offer the same level of support. Pakistan, upon seeing the US increase it's support for India, is pushed farther towards supporting Iran.
9. The economic turbulence caused by the escalations thus far collapsed the economies of Greece and Italy and threatens the viability of the Euro as a currency.
10. The arms industries in China and Russia start selling weaponry secretly to Iran, Pakistan, and their supporters in Iraq, while opening selling arms to most of the other countries in the Middle East, who are now all afraid of being drawn into the growing conflict.
11. Border skirmishes and insurgent attacks begin to escalate all over the region.
12. The whole region looks ready to fall into chaos.
13. Israel pressures the US to do a full scale of invasion of Iran, while secretly threatening to nuke Iran if the US refuses to secure the region before everything falls apart.
14. The US can't afford an invasion and occupation ...


Your number 6 is not necessarily going to happen. Pakistan is Sunni. Just like Saudi, they would probably applaud Iran getting its ass whipped.
 
2012-02-07 04:28:18 AM

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


Only in method do they differ. They're really the same thing.

Go on...


That's is the point. You just don't get it.

Is it really so tough to explain? I'm a liberal Canadian, not some war-mongering neocon. And I'm not saying that a US or Israel strike on Iranian nuclear facilities is a good idea.

So, rather than dismissing anyone who doesn't instantly and fully agree with you, why not tell me why you think a targeted missile strike on nuke facilities is essentially the same as a full-scale land invasion of Iran?


I'm Canadian too and came here to make the same point. If they really don't plan to occupy Iran, but rather mean to bomb it, then there is actually no historical precedent.

If Russia and China weren't interested in the outcome, it could possibly work out okay. Especially if the bombing was smallish in scale done by drones and the damage contained to obvious nuclear facilities.

But it seems that Russia and China might take a stand and obviously that could be bad, like WW3 bad. Yet if push came to shove China might finally have to admit that they're actually a capitalist country now, that they're not really interested in WW3, and that they prefer schmoozing with the US and Europe more than hanging out with Russia. Also maybe both Russia and China might think twice when it really came down to supporting an Islamic crazy regime (since both Russia or China already have hate on for Islamic peoples.).
 
2012-02-07 04:36:07 AM

serpent_sky: sno man: Russia can't afford it, although Putin is pining for the old days and gunning to fire up the cold war again...
We can't afford it, either....

China will not jeopardize it's global economic interests for Iran, oil or not.
That is actually a good point that makes a lot of sense.
I still don't think we should be involved in any sort of war with Iran. Or anyone, for that matter. We're finally out of Iraq and have a schedule for getting out of Afghanistan.

And it's different than Libya, because there was already a civil war in progress, we(collective) picked the rebel side, and did some strategic bombing to help them out.

Absolutely. And that was a coalition of nations, not us and Israel invading/attacking/bombing yet another sovereign nation in the Middle East. I don't see a remote parallel between Libya and Iran, as multiple nations agreed it was in their/our best interests to help the rebels (though the jury appears to still be out on that).


I'm pretty sure we could find even more countries to form a coalition to stop Iran from getting nukes. With Libya it was sort of fun for them to get rid of a long-term pest. Iran is actually a regional threat.

I'm not saying that Iran is very comparable to Libya, but just saying that the "coalition" part is pretty easy to organize to support intervention in Iran.
 
2012-02-07 04:37:32 AM

MarkEC: 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?


The solution to hyper aggressive foreign policy isn't to become a hermit. Substituting one extreme for the other gets us no where.
 
2012-02-07 04:53:41 AM

positronica: Here's one scenario on how things could escalate beyond a simple bombing attack...

1. Iran is attacked.
...snip...


Or it goes like this:
1. Iran's nuclear facilities are hit with targeted missile/drone/bomb/sabotage, with the usual coalition of Brits, French, Canadians, etc. weighing in with agreement that it had to be done.
2. Iran stirs up some minor military shiat: in the Strait of Hormuz, maybe firing on a carrier and then getting all their boats sunk in return, and firing some rockets towards Israel. Maybe some damage, something like the S.C.U.D. attacks in the first Iraq War.
3. Russia and China send strongly worded letters indicating how they don't think we should be meddling, but secretly enjoy seeing Islamic crazies get bombed. They might even realize that when it comes down to it that they like us more than Iran.
4. Various terrorist groups do some showy but generally ineffective acts -- some Westerners die
5. Everything continues much as it is today, with Iran's nuke program set back a couple years. We still hate them, terrorists still hate us, Russia still wants to find something to believe in.

As a possible more messy alternative scenario, maybe bombings in Iran embolden the opposition there into an Arab Spring type uprising, then we do a Libya and provide air support to rebel operations.

As long as we stay away from any ground operations, I really don't see it rising to the complexity and cost of Iraq, Vietnam or Korea.
 
2012-02-07 05:36:14 AM
Iran is belligerent and has few friends left in the region or abroad. They could put the breaks on this situation, but seem all too happy to antagonize the UN and everyone related.

When the world has to choose between a nuclear armed Iran (holding the region for ransom, like a happy little North Korea in the tinder bed of the middle east) and a burning hole in the ground, many go for the latter.
 
2012-02-07 05:53:35 AM
Meanwhile, Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who unequivocally opposes military action against Iran. If 49% of Americans agree with attacking Iran, why isn't Paul getting the support of the 51% who disagree?

The American people are frustrating sometimes.
 
2012-02-07 06:13:55 AM
Iran want a small-ish, physical confrontation. It will get rid of some of their young (of which they have too many to support the 'revolution' on a continuous basis), and rally the rest of those young behind their 'cause' (which is essentially the ability for a certain, aging, generation, to continue to live a lavish lifestyle).
 
2012-02-07 06:18:26 AM
For once I'm kind of on board with the war machine. A lot of people are under the impression that one of these rogue countries would need to launch an entire arsenal of nukes at the US to destroy it. The fact of the matter is, it would only take 1. All that is required to functionally shut down the US infrastructure is one single high altitude nuke going off in the atmosphere above us, everything electronic in LOS of the blast would suffer EMP damage.

So if anyone is wondering why the US gov has such a bug up it's ass about not letting rogue countries obtain nukes, this is the reason.
 
2012-02-07 06:31:13 AM

Elandriel: Gordian Cipher: 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.

But...! But...! But... that little scrap of desert that our invisible sky fairy told us was important for some reason! We can't let that go!

As long as we're taking thousand year old books as gospel (snerk) let's go ahead and believe everything in The Iliad while we're at it.


I make an offering to Aphrodite every evening.
 
2012-02-07 06:49:14 AM

nlindstrom: Elandriel: Gordian Cipher: 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.

But...! But...! But... that little scrap of desert that our invisible sky fairy told us was important for some reason! We can't let that go!

As long as we're taking thousand year old books as gospel (snerk) let's go ahead and believe everything in The Iliad while we're at it.

I make an offering to Aphrodite every evening.


Aphrodite looks down upon teaspoon-sized offerings.
 
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