Why war with Iran would spell disaster

[jeremy]

Is there anything you havent done? I am starting to think you have lived 3 lifetimes. You are an expert on like everything, been there done that, still got time to post about it on INGO.

Bravo dude, I spend way too much time in front of the TV. Maybe those 400 star trek episodes didnt need to be watched... 4 times.

Seriously, mad props. I have wasted my life.

LOL!

I never really thought about my life like that. I was told at a young age, if you want to do something do it, and do it before you get to old to be able to do it. That was one of the reasons I joined the Army, World Travel and adventure. I have been everything from a Grunt to a Mechanic and several jobs in between in the Army. I have had the opportunity, to both take Foreign Military Schools and Weapons Training.

I didn't realize how unique some of my opportunities were until I transitioned to the Guard and was around a broader selection of Servicemembers.

I like to learn new things constantly, not just tactics and Strategies, Not just new Weapons Systems, I like to learn everything I can.

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

The future of the human race depends on preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It doesn't matter what the sacrifice would be, how much it would cost, what it would do to the world economy, or how many of our brave fighting men would die if war became necessary.

Preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is absolutely necessary to the future of the human race. There is no way around it.

My parents' generation lived through most of the cold war and understood the serious threat of nuclear war. The minions in Washington today in their 20s and 30s can hardly remember that time and have absolutely no clue what would happen if a hostile state like Iran became nuclear-armed.

World War II would pale in comparison to what will happen if Iran gets a bomb. "World War" is going to have a literal meaning if that day comes.

I really hope that diplomatic means work, and that Iran gives up its nuclear ambitions. But there is no room for compromise on this. Iran cannot be allowed to have a weapon. NO way, no how.

WWIII would involve a literal meaning, I agree, but not all would be engaged in it. The world will feel the result of the fighting in the entire Middle East. The Islamic tribes can't even get along with each other, let alone outside their religion. They will annihilate one another and the blown up infrastructure will decimate the world economies because of no flow of oil.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Less Iranians?

Given their hobby of being a state sponsor of terrorism for decades, that should make the world a nicer place. On the other hand, given our knack for being able to snatch failure from the jaws of success, I won't take any cash bets on the outcome should there be a war.

 

[Denny347]

Less Iranians?

To be fair, we could do without their government. However, many of the people mean us no harm. The Persian population has no love for the Arab fundamentalists leading the country.

 

[NYFelon]

Given their hobby of being a state sponsor of terrorism for decades, that should make the world a nicer place. On the other hand, given our knack for being able to snatch failure from the jaws of success, I won't take any cash bets on the outcome should there be a war.

To be fair, we could do without their government. However, many of the people mean us no harm. The Persian population has no love for the Arab fundamentalists leading the country.

Granted, it was in poor taste, but I said it in jest.

 

[rambone]

This war is going to result in less Americans and less freedom too.

 

[NYFelon]

please see above.

Also, see my first post in this thread.

 

[Denny347]

Granted, it was in poor taste, but I said it in jest.

Oh I know

 

[88GT]

If I stood outside your business and prevented you from doing business with anyone I didn't personally approve of, and then even used force to enforce it (embargo), what would you do?

My opinion on foreign affairs has always been one of non-involvement unless actually attacked.

Well which is it? Is an embargo an act of war or not? You're twisting out of the contradiction by putting the U.S. in different roles for the different scenarios. If an embargo is an act of war, then why would the U.S. have to wait for a physical attack to retaliate? Or is it just the U.S. that has to sits with its thumbs up it butt while every other nation is free to defend itself from these egregious acts of war?

I find it ironic that your statement that embargoes are functionally an act of war essentially annihilates the libertarian premise of non-intervention. Apparently non-intervention is only required of the U.S. And those act-of-war embargoes against us would somehow be our fault anyway, so let's give 'em a free pass, heh?

Modern conventional weapons are pretty damn impressive in the amount off death and destruction that can be dealt out quickly as well...

Firebombing Tokyo killed more citizens than the blast from the nuclear bombs. Probably wouldn't be quite like that today, but conventional weapons are no sissies.

Isreal is right, we either take them out now or we wait untill they are better equipted and lose alot of US Servicemen for waiting. With a nuke they wouldn't need to hit one of our carrier groups to wipe it out, just hit anywhere within a couple of miles of it. A carrier group would have at least 7,000 men and women attached to it. I say let Isreal take the lead on this and back them up as needed.

Churchill said the exact same thing to Parliament and Whitehall in the late '30s. And look where we ended up in that mess.

 

[thebishopp]

Well which is it? Is an embargo an act of war or not? You're twisting out of the contradiction by putting the U.S. in different roles for the different scenarios. If an embargo is an act of war, then why would the U.S. have to wait for a physical attack to retaliate? Or is it just the U.S. that has to sits with its thumbs up it butt while every other nation is free to defend itself from these egregious acts of war?

I find it ironic that your statement that embargoes are functionally an act of war essentially annihilates the libertarian premise of non-intervention. Apparently non-intervention is only required of the U.S. And those act-of-war embargoes against us would somehow be our fault anyway, so let's give 'em a free pass, heh?.

It is not "non-involvement" when we dictate what goods can or can not be import or exported from a foreign countries ports and use the threat of force to enforce it. Nor is it "non-involvement" when we freeze the assets of another foreign country. If we don't agree with them then we don't trade with them - we do not seek to prevent them from trading with anyone else nor do we hold all the assets they had in our country prior to our disagreeing with them (we give them back).

Of course this isn't all that was going on back then in regards to our involvement prior to the attack.

 

[j706]

There will not be a war with Iran. They will get their facility's bombed into small pebbles in a few air and cruise missile strikes. The silly ones will cry for a while about how Iran got bombed....again. And then Iran will get to work on their nuclear program again. Iran isn't anything but blowhard radicals. They want no part of US or Israeli forces.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

There will not be a war with Iran. They will get their facility's bombed into small pebbles in a few air and cruise missile strikes. The silly ones will cry for a while about how Iran got bombed....again. And then Iran will get to work on their nuclear program again. Iran isn't anything but blowhard radicals. They want no part of US or Israeli forces.

Your post assumes that Iran stands alone against Israel and the US and that no other major country will come to their aid, either overtly or, more likely, covertly by supplying sophisticated anti aircraft capabilities and other aid. Although there are a number of MiddleEastern countries that are afraid of a nuclear-armed Iran, none are afraid enough to assist the US or Israel in removing the threat. Russia has an economic interest in Iran and has provided them with raw materials and expertise. China is using the United States' current preoccupation with the Middle East and Iran to start making military moves in the China Sea. Whether this is taking advantage of a perceived US unwillingness to spread its attention further, or is a calculated attempt to divide our attention during a time of crisis remains to be seen.