Americans Deserve a Pre-Emptive Debate on Attacking Iran.

Bringing this issue to public attention without interference or deliberate intention to aggravate and disperse fictitious information is undoubtedly difficult. Now, let's consider that the vast majority of the America populace either don't care, don't know they exist, believe the mainstream media, to busy with life, or just to consumed with material things to seek out alternative information sources other than our spoon fed version.

If our mainstream media resources regarded honest reporting as fundamental to the public, would the people want to engage in political forum more ambitiously knowing the facts beforehand and it's ramifications down the road to our general welfare as a country.

There are many things that our nation and the world for that matter would probably consider more important before engaging in war and hostilities.

Let's consider the following regarding Iran:

Source

There is almost no discussion on the costs of a strike to take out that nuclear capacity - be it by Israel or the United States - in lives, money and regional and global standing.

Figuring out possible side effects of confrontation and war, one doesn't have to look very far to find answers. The Bush administrations wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had tremendous global consequences adding to geopolitical turmoil, and undoubtedly still undercuts our current national state of being, contributing to the ongoing crisis.

Newsday

This follows two unsatisfactory experiences over the past 10 years. In 2003, President George W. Bush said the invasion of Iraq was justified to remove Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. "It would not be that hard," Vice President Dick Cheney assured Americans.

It was hard and costly, and the weapons proved not to exist. More than 4,400 Americans were killed, and it cost more than $800 billion, while Iraq remains unstable and the region's more lethal threat, Iran, is empowered.

These costs to Americans are significant, and another war in the region will be just as or more costly, conceivably spreading throughout the entire region. If the American public understood this and it's extent, it's quite possible to avert escalations. Because IMO we as a country cannot endure another war economically or socially.

Consider this. Do we want to have our troops and forces stationed in this arena for years to come? Do we want to pay for another war which we can't substantiate in terms of overall cost to human lives on both sides of the fence?

The Iran project, a bipartisan think tank, developed a (pdf) report that layed out a possible view of what exactly may need to happen if an attack is initiated. And the outcome of possible scenarios is one everyone should know before steps are taken to involve American soldiers and it's taxpaying public.

Source

They wrote, “Even in order to fulfill the stated objective of ensuring that Iran never acquires a nuclear bomb, the US would need to conduct a substantially expanded air and sea war over a prolonged period of time, likely several years. If the US decided to seek a more ambitious objective, such as regime change in Iran or undermining Iran’s influence in the region, then an even greater commitment of force would be required to occupy all or part of the country. Given Iran’s large size and population, and the strength of Iranian nationalism, we estimated that the occupation of Iran would require a commitment of resources and personnel greater than what the US has expended over the past 10 years in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.”

Can we afford this, no. Can the world afford this, no...Should the general population in the U.S. know this, yes. Will the MSM discuss this, probably not.

Newsday

Unlike in the U.S., there's a very open debate about all this in Israel, where a number of intelligence and military officials have publicly opposed Netanyahu's eagerness to strike. The most compelling opponent is Meir Dagan, who was the head of intelligence and special operations for Mossad for more than eight years.

If your interested in a recent interview with Mr. Dagan you can see it here. His insights and reasoning should be heeded.

Well my fellow Americans we are at the crossroads again. Like so many times in the past we have been led to believe we are supporting the right thing by misleading information, not to suggest this is the case. In the time leading up to the election and after for that matter, beware of rhetoric by politicians to propagate narratives to fit agenda's that incite a blind willingness to deceive the masses for selfish gain.


On that note a word from Ron Paul:




~Daedal~

If Israel were to launch a preemptive, unilateral strike on Iran, based on only their own 'evidence' of Iran's alleged nuke capabilities, it would be viewed as an attack on a secular Islamic nation. It would do more to unify Arabic nations against Israel than anything else. By what authority does Israel have in removing Iran's potential nuclear development program? Israel doesn't abide by the nuclear non-proliferation treaty itself, so where does it get the right to deny any other nation that capability? Iran has met with and worked towards cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about it's nuclear program, and if any multinational effort to remove said nuclear program were to come from anything it would be the UN and the IAEA - the very organizations Israel itself does not comply with. Now you can debate the relationship between the IAEA and Iran all day, that could be another topic, but the fact is Israel does not abide by any non-proliferation treaty and is using the USA as it's shield in it's belligerence to Iran.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


I agree. Who do you think would be the more suitable candidate in avoiding further conflict. I think Romney's iffy. And it appears Obama is less likely to follow suit. Could be wrong though.

reply to post by Daedal


Let us be simple about this.

We don't want a nuclear device getting into the hands of Islamic Extremists do we??? We KNOW what they will do given half the chance.

On that basis we have to try our best to defend ourselves against that potential and very very very very REAL THREAT!!!

1 + 1 = 2

or

Bomb in the hands of Islamic Extremist means mass death of Western People!

reply to post by Revolution9


Wow Grape or Cherry, I prefer non flourinanted water over your kool-aid any day.... You must be BiBis' nephew or something cause you are eating up propaganda with forks in both hands. When your full I got some more BS for you too ingest.... Wow Hillary Clinton goes by Revolution9 who knew???

SaneThinking

reply to post by Revolution9


Like bombs in the hands of Western "terrorists" (that's governments you're referring to) ended up with the deaths of around 200,000 Japanese (more when you count all the post-event mutations and sicknesses).

There's a few nations whose use of this type of weaponry concerns me: Iran isn't one of them.

Why would American deserve a pre-emptive debate? It is the Israelis who are contemplating such an attack, and that is a reaction to Ahmadinejad making a public statement (threat) that Israel should be erased from the planet. I don't think the US position aligns with Israel's, however when Netayahu draws a red line, escalates the prospect of war. Israel has the right to defend herself, but launching a first strike on Iran... would be a mistake.

Does Iran have a right to generate nuclear power? perhaps so. Do they have a right to make terror threats on their neighbors? definitely not. To the heart of the matter is their religious background, which is fueling the hatred. There is nothing preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons from a 3rd party, handing over the weapons to Hezbollah to carry out the attack. And honestly, it does not even have to be nuclear weapons. As we know from 9/11, a creative terrorist will make an aircraft a weapon of mass destruction. Chemical weapons, EMP missiles, etc.

Islam is not going to be able to use Allah and the Quran as a reason to erase Israel. Bottom line is a middle eastern nuclear strike is going to make that an uninhabitable place to live. I can see how the US might take a position, but this really is not their fight (yet).

The question is what would Iran do with such a weapon. While we do not know exactly we do know that they have attempted to spead the revolution to the rest of the Arab and Islamic world over the last few decaded by both covert and overt attacks. Iran's attemted airstrikes on Kuwait, attacks on oil tankers and mine laying in the Gulf during the Iraq/Iran war drove the Arab states even further into the US hands for protection. Once the use of coventional means was taken off the table Iran doubled down on covert means of attacking the Gulf states and other moderate Islamic states throught out the world. They also of course did the same to Western states and Israel.

Irans threats against the Gulf states have largely been ignored by them do to US protection. However, if Iran had nuclear weapons the question becomes would they use that as yet another tool to spread the revoution, the main goal of Iran. It is possible they would bank on the US not being willing to get in a nuclear exchange with Iran to protect the Arab states. What the US would do is anybodys guess in that case. The Arab states would also ask this same question. Since they could not be sure of the answer they would have to take their own security in their hands and go nuclear as well.

Now Iran and the several of the Gulf states would have nukes. Maybe they would not use them on each other. maybe they would. What would the effects on other states nearby in the former Soviet Union be? In Europe? Africa? Several of them would see the only way of protecting themselves from from all these new nuclear armed states by getting nukes themselves.

Now some people migh say but, Israel has nukes and nothing has happened. This is true. The difference between Iran and Israel however is Israel has had the conventional militray power to what it wanted to the Arabs states before it went nuclear. The addition of nukes did not change the balance of power in the region. It simply maintained it. This would not be the case with Iran. Nobody really knows what Iran would do with that power, All people have to look at is what is has done with the limited power it already has and that is why nobody wants them going nuclear.

reply to post by Daedal

Americans Deserve a Pre-Emptive Debate on Attacking Iran.,

Since when do citizens of any country get to debate whether or not their country goes to war?

Citizens fight the wars and the and the weapons manufactures reap the dividends.

Wrap it up in patriotic music, red white and blue, fear mongering, BS ideology and off we go to kill folks much like ourselves.

War is a business. Marketed, packaged, and sold like soap, dvds, and cheap wine. From my perspective of the world view; business is booming. With the coming Iran war; might I suggest investing in copper, brass, uranium mining stocks, blood banks and medical supply companies.

God help us!!

Originally posted by Revolution9
reply to post by Daedal

 

Let us be simple about this.

We don't want a nuclear device getting into the hands of Islamic Extremists do we??? We KNOW what they will do given half the chance.

Saying this with all respect, but that sounds like fear talking.

What do we have to be afraid of? Let's say your absolute worst fears come to life. Iran drops a nuke on the U.S. (with what? nevermind, we are in the realm of pure fantasy). Then what? Iran will cease to exist, no more to be said about it. There will be no more Iran. You know it, I know it, they damn sure know it.

It won't happen, even if they have an arsenal, which they don't. They can't touch us, and they wouldn't even if they could. That's it. Don't be afraid, and don't let fear lead you in to irrational actions. They may believe different things than you, but they are not insane. Iran will not hurt you, wherever you live. There is no need to fear.