It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

For or Against War with Iran

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   
iran would be a whole new can of worms compared to iraq, be sure of that. Also it would pretty much solidify the bush was going after muslims rather than just terrorists (which up till then would be debatable).

ALso the states doesnt have the man power to do it effectively, they are already spread pretty thin, it would be possible that more men and women would die on both sides than is necessary as this might draw the fight out longer than it should be.

Plus can the states even afford another war that would make them more hated than ever before?

I am against it, but i want to hear the explainations for this one from bush first.




posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid

Originally posted by The Astral City
I would be totally and unquestionably against war with Iran. For logistic, economic, social but most of all moral reasons I would be against a war. It would probably end up more of a mess than Iraq has been, and America does not have the military for it.

May Peace And Logic Prevail
~Astral


I completely agree with you on these points...

Iran should stop pursueing nuclear arms.

They should allow access to all military installations by US inspectors.

They should remove all mullahs that demand the "death of Israel"

They should also remove all mullahs that demand the death of america.

They should allow free elections.



Um why should they do any of those things? I agree that nukes arnt good for anyone but shouldnt they be allowed to have them, i know you are going to say to stop them from going to terrorists but (just devils advocate that they wont) why should you be allowed to have the worlds largest stockpile and best methods of delivery while they cant have something not even remotely close to the american methods?

Why allo US military inspectors on their sovereign land, and especially into their military bases? What right does the US have to go there and poke their nose around where its not invited? The states is one of the worlds largest threats right now to the world and i think that Canada should be allowed to inspect all of your military bases to see what you have around there! Its an obvious joke but the logic is the same, we dotn have the right to go into your land and go through your bases.

Other than those 2 points i agree about the mullahs and the elections



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Super Strokey his reply will go on the lines of
its americas god given right to attack to get rid of the evil



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
They should allow access to all military installations by US inspectors.


Why US and not UN, and can we have UN inspectors inspect US bases



They should remove all mullahs that demand the "death of Israel"


Remove all Americans who want death for everyone who doesn't agree with the American way of life.



They should also remove all mullahs that demand the death of america.


see above



They should allow free elections.


Like in America


----------------------

note: i'm in a bad mood at the momment...can you guess


edit: I'm against war with Iran, give it time and the Mullahs will fall.


[edit on 22-1-2005 by UK Wizard]



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   
It is clear that Iran is in the CROSS HAIRS right index finger is on the trigger. The matter of when is the important factor which depends on finding a rational paltable to Americans, no matter how hard logic will have to be stretched. We have take the logic of national interest to land lunacy, and beyond that is Iran, lunacy based on threat bulit on a form of government. I am against going to war with Iran unless we can prove that they are in fact developing nuclear weapons, not guess work, not based unreliable sources, but hard evidence. Another reason I could support preemptive action, if there is wholesale involvement of Iranians in the actions of the Insurgents. The later reason would definitely give us CAUSE OF WAR.

[edit on 22-1-2005 by Kuehn06]



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   
You have voted UK Wizard for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


you just smaked it



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
You have voted UK Wizard for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


you just smaked it


thanks



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I will voice an opinion of absolutely no. And I'll give you some reasons why even premptive stikes against Iran just don't make sense.

1) Preemptive strikes might solve a short term goal, but will undoubtedly cause Iran more desire for nukes in the long term. A prime example of this is Israel's attack on Osirak, Iraq in June of 1981, which had the effect of Saddam turning a $400 million, 400 man program into a $10 Billion, 7,000 man operation, as well as dispersing his program largely into the underground.

2) Attacks would likely weaken any coalition available against Iran, as well as likely result in increased US dimplomatic isolationism. The US would also have a much tougher time after attacks of convincing the UN Security Council to impose sanctions. And without the sanctions, Iran would be able to allocate much more human and financial resources toward its nuclear program. The Osirak example indicates that in all likelihood, Iran's program would increase dramatically. And attacks would arguably provide Iran a real reason to pursue them, claiming the need to defend its sovereignty against nuclear-armed agressors.

3) It would likely cause Iran to withdraw from any current talks and treaties which are already signed or in progress, and particularly the NPT.

4) It would likely ignite a dimplomatic crisis between the US and Russia, as many Russian scientists are working in Iran, and would likely be killed or seriously injured. This would have an effect on US-Russian trade, as well as other international matters, including the war on terrorism.

5) As one of Iran's largest symbols of national pride and technological advancement, attacks on nuclear facilities would cause domestic opposition forces in Iran to unite with the hawkish majority and abandon calls for protests and reform.

6) The potential for retaliation. Iran has stated it has the ultimate deterrent, has warned the US that it is prepared for such an attack, and would at least likely attack Israel and/or US forces in Iraq. Iran has the missile capabilities to hit Israeli cities and bases, as well as US bases in Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, and Iraq. While it is true that Saddam's SCUDs were not highly accurate, the variants that Iran has are much more accurate and have higher payloads. Multiple missile attacks on Israeli or US bases could potentially be devasting.

The bottom line is that unless the US is prepared for an all out invasion of Iran, preemptive strikes should not be attempted, for the consquences are far too great. And as far as an all out invasion, I think most would agree that the US is not ready for that, and won't be anytime soon on its own. Even with help from the UK, the prospects of this would be slim, because there is also public support to consider. Oh, I forgot, public support doesn't count for anything anymore, my bad.


[edit on 22-1-2005 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   
I support taking down the Iranian government, we have been in a low-intensity conflict with them since the fall of the Shah. What I worry about, is China's response...did'nt they just cut a deal to develop oil fields in Iran?

Also, If we go into Iran a draft will be necessary...Im thinking 400,000 to 600,000 ground troops with enormous logistical support....lets not even talk about the cost.


Max



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Im against it, but not for the reasons that most have stated here. The US is not ready for another War at this time, there is unfinished work left to do in Iraq. Also from a financial standpoint it would be more of a drain on US treasure than Iraq is. It will result in huge loss of life for the Iranians and then the US will be left to try and restore order afterwards, as we see in Iraq that is easier said than done.
Also i believe the only way that the US could go to War with Iran in the conventional sense and retain the same presence in Iraq would be to re-instate the draft, historically conscript Armies tend to be less effective than an entirely volunteer force, with the exception i think of WW2 plus the draft would be hugely unpopular back in the US. Also there is a very real risk a War in Iran would destabilise the entire region, perhaps with Countries who see themselves on the list of Countries that the US views as rogue states taking pre-emptive action against US interests in the Middle East.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Great Britain won't support such an attack unless Iran aggressively starts a war. The UK is firmly committed to a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear program. The US, thanks to its unilateralism, arrogance, and costly misadventure in Iraq, must either commit itself to the diplomatic solution with Iran, or get used to the idea of nuclear Mullahs.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Let's say we don't do anything then an Iranian nuclear weapon explodes over Tel Aviv. What do we do then? Or let's say Iran threatens to do that unless they are allowed to take Iraq and Saudi Arabia?



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   
In the last 10 years or so Iran was becoming more and more westernised and that was an accepted fact. They realised it was necessary in order for trade and that fact was recognised by even the UK leadership who were in talks with the Iranian government.
Then, along came Shrub with all his "axis of evil" rhetoric and sabre rattling and blew any progess away.
Change in a country like Iran is gonna take time, so it should be allowed to happen naturally and, hopefully, with as little bloodshed as possible and by the people of Iran. NOT by cruise missiles, bombs and warfare by an outside aggressor.
No proof has so far been presented that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, just the same speculation and outright lies by those who will be thousands of miles from any fighting. Like Saddam Hussein, how can they possibly prove they don't have something? It's an impossibility


So, after all the rambling above, I finally get to the point of saying I strongly disagree with any military action



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Let's say we don't do anything then an Iranian nuclear weapon explodes over Tel Aviv. What do we do then? Or let's say Iran threatens to do that unless they are allowed to take Iraq and Saudi Arabia?


Im not saying something shouldn't be done about the Nukes that Iran may or may not have. I just think that Militarily it would be a bad idea at this time.
Why not get the Israelis to do the job, after all they owe the US a bucket full of favours. Maybe its time to call a few in.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Let's say we don't do anything then an Iranian nuclear weapon explodes over Tel Aviv. What do we do then? Or let's say Iran threatens to do that unless they are allowed to take Iraq and Saudi Arabia?


1. why would iran nuke Israel?

2. israel attack their neighbours daily
iran with nukes would be a great detturent against US/Israeli attacks

3. why would Iran want to take saudi or Iraq ( get your facts straight )

brings me to last point
every country has the right to deffend their boarders in any means


[edit on 22-1-2005 by bodrul]



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I am fully against attacking Iran. We have absolutley no right to tell anyone they cant have a nuclear weapon until the day ALL of our nuclear weapon capabilities have been scrapped. I dont care if they are our enemy, if they have attacked us, or anything.


If a nuke goes off over Tel Aviv I just hope it takes out the Isreali goverment. It will be sad to loose all of the innocent people, but it will be great to get rid of Sharon & Co.

Isreal is a pain in the worlds sides especially our side. (The USA) I have no frickin clue how the hell we keep standing up for that terrorist nation!

By the way before anyone says I'm not against jews. I have absolutley nothing against them. I am however against any country (at least its goverment) that continuously attacks outside its borders, violates international law which it agrees to, steals other countrie's land, or goes on revenge killing sprees.
Isreal fits all of the above, and slowly we are to.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   


I am fully against attacking Iran. We have absolutley no right to tell anyone they cant have a nuclear weapon until the day ALL of our nuclear weapon capabilities have been scrapped. I dont care if they are our enemy, if they have attacked us, or anything.


Ok, that is like telling a 6 year old they can have an M80.
There is a reason everyone does not want them to have it.

And down the road, when you get your way and some underdeveloped country uses nukes just cause they don't like your face and your ass starts bleeding blood out of your parts because of the radiation....I'll be standing right here with my CBN gear on saying "I told ya so".

think.

Edited because I said a bad word, it got dropped and it didn't make any sense, so I added "Bleeding out of YOUR PARTS. Instead of what was there


[edit on 22-1-2005 by Derek Trance]



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Uk Wiz guy

US inspectors are "required" becuase the IAEA is a complete failure. Lets see why....aaaaahhhh India, Pakistain, N Korea. The UN is uselss.

Bod baby

Iran has sowre for years to nuke Israel the first change it gets.

To ALL. If the US wanted to take over the world it would have years ago.

Based on SALT treaties......The US and USAR (old) nukes are open for inspection and have been reduced significantly. 10,000 have been destoyed in the US alone.

I would suggest France be disarmed immediately because of the Oil for Food scam. If they will take bribes from Saddam then they will sell nukes to Iran. Oh yeah, they already have...the Iran reactors are "french" designs. Iran will by the EU just like Saddam bought it and the UN.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xerrog
If a nuke goes off over Tel Aviv I just hope it takes out the Isreali goverment. It will be sad to loose all of the innocent people, but it will be great to get rid of Sharon & Co.


Ok, well the truth does out. Those against war with Iran want Iran to destroy Israel! Now I understand...



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   


US inspectors are "required" becuase the IAEA is a complete failure. Lets see why....aaaaahhhh India, Pakistain, N Korea. The UN is uselss.


I agree.




Iran has sowre for years to nuke Israel the first change it gets.


And every other country over there.




To ALL. If the US wanted to take over the world it would have years ago.


Right after WWII would have been a good time if we actually wanted that.




Based on SALT treaties......The US and USAR (old) nukes are open for inspection and have been reduced significantly. 10,000 have been destoyed in the US alone.


No idea on this one.




I would suggest France be disarmed immediately because of the Oil for Food scam. If they will take bribes from Saddam then they will sell nukes to Iran. Oh yeah, they already have...the Iran reactors are "french" designs. Iran will by the EU just like Saddam bought it and the UN.


The frogs won one war....The French Revolution. That's all I have to say about that.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join