1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Zogby: Majority Favor Strikes on Iran

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by trickblue, Oct 30, 2007.

  1. Sasquatch

    Sasquatch Lost in the Woods

    4,642 Messages
    208 Likes Received
    Aren't we talking about Iran using nuclear weapons to advance its evil designs? Isn't that the specter that the administration is using to whip up support for yet another insane military adventure?
  2. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    Yes, we are... You asserted that if Iran attacked Israel, the response would be swift and overwhelming. Again I'll ask, by whom and what will that response be?

    It's not another insane military adventure, it's the same one.
    They're connected.
  3. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    80,199 Messages
    4,870 Likes Received
    It would be a swift and overwhelming by the US if Iran were to use nuclear and I'm sure even our allies would back us.
  4. zrinkill

    zrinkill Diamond surrounded by trash

    33,291 Messages
    1,006 Likes Received
    Our allies would ...... France, Russia, and China would not.
  5. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    80,199 Messages
    4,870 Likes Received
    Russia and China I agree. France maybe they did get involved with Desert Storm in 91 though it was limited. A nuclear attack I think they would.

    Problem is if such an attack takes place it would be too late for Israel and they are not in any position to wait and see. They will take out any attempt in Iran developing nuclear weapons, that I have no doubt about nor would I blame them for doing it.

    I think any responsible leader would do the same. Case in point Cuba when Russia was attempting to put short range missile there the US was not going to sit back and allow it to happen the consequences are just too high of a risk to take
  6. Sasquatch

    Sasquatch Lost in the Woods

    4,642 Messages
    208 Likes Received
    Sarkozy would most definitely involve France in a US-Israeli coalition against Iran in the event of a nuclear attack.
  7. jterrell

    jterrell Penguinite

    20,276 Messages
    1,689 Likes Received
    I say drop 100K convicted murderers off in afghanistan; each with a camcorder for sending to Fox for reality tv viewing.
    They can form teams of ten and each win 1 million dollars for the head of Bin Laden.

    That ten we allow back into the country.
    The other 990K we leave and the money we save in food, clothing goes towards the rewards as would prfoits of the highest rated show on tv: american manhunt!

    Chuck Norris and Rambo could co-host!!!!
  8. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Winter is Here Staff Member

    61,895 Messages
    5,277 Likes Received
    [IMG]
  9. jterrell

    jterrell Penguinite

    20,276 Messages
    1,689 Likes Received
    In a nod to our Cowboys rookie draft class of 1975 I could expand my thinking to 1.2 million convicted murderers and make the teams 12 men strong!!!!


    See, who said I wasn't a flexible thinker!!!

    :)
  10. arglebargle

    arglebargle Well-Known Member

    5,063 Messages
    152 Likes Received
    The problem with this 'Israel blasts Iran' plan is that there is no way that Israel planes can get to Iran without going through controlled airspace. They probably aren't going to be going through Turkish or Russian airspace. Pretty much every other avenue is controlled by American airpower. While it may play well domestically that 'We had nothing to do with it', everywhere else they will know that this will have had to be approved by the USA for armed jet fighters/bombers to get to Iran. And it would be a legit call.

    The possibility is there that this will be done: Cheney wouldn't mind dumping this in the lap of the next administration, I am sure. Either via proxy Israel or in person. Just like Papa Bush dumped Somalia on Clinton.

    Now the thought of Iran with a nuke certainly does not make me sleep easy. Religious zealots in power anywhere, are a dangerous thing. But I think you give a bit too much credence to the public pronouncements of the Iranian goof. He says what he does because it plays well with the middle eastern masses, and it riles their western foes. He's poking the bear. Newt Gingrich used to introduce resolutions calling for the suspension of the constitution, the rounding up of drug users, and putting them in concentration camps in various sports arenas. I never thought he was serious, he was just poking the bear. While I am sure the mullahs would love to make Israel disappear, I don't think they have a chance of doing it.

    It's not that I think the Iranians are nice guys. I just think that the idea that we bomb their country and they just suddenly decide to play ball with us is foolish. I think their reaction would be widespread and nasty. The terrain in Iran is not good for us, our military is overstretched, the Iranians are not pushovers like the Iraqis, and they would have most of the masses of the middle eastern world on their side. Given the recent history of unrealistic decisions in the US, at the top, I suspect this sort of thing would boomerang on us badly.
  11. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    Do you think this is a deterrent to Iran?
  12. arglebargle

    arglebargle Well-Known Member

    5,063 Messages
    152 Likes Received

    Yes.

    Though political leaders who think that the world is going to end soon are a bit scary.
  13. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    An all out military assault would lose the people of Iran, and I'm sure this country doesn't want that. It's hard to tell exactly what the real plan is. Sanctions are not truly hurting Iran and threats have gotten us where we are now: Ahmadinejad's sabre rattling as a result of American's actions over the last number of years. He wants to hold the threat of striking Israel as a kind of collateral.

    I don't think the plan is the same model as Iraq. Iraq was/is to get close and have a base, as is Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Turkey and the Gulf. Another reason it's drawn out is because it requires much better planning than stepping on Iraq as a launching pad.

    Direct military conflict would surely draw a line in the sand with America, France, Australia and the UK as principles on one side, and China and Russia, as well as a number of other Mid East countries backing Iran. Working the fence riders is part of what has Rice traversing the Mid East on a regular basis. Summits with Egypt and our diplomacy with India are all part of it.

    Bush did say a nuclear Iran risks WWIII. I know what that means. Not necessarily a nuclear war, but the very real prospect a number of nations allied against each other on a large scale. Putins surprise visit and warnings of military action against Iran isn't idle chatter, he knows where this could end up.

    War with Iran won't be just another American military excursion that we can watch on CNN. They can and will extend a lot of damage beyond their own borders, as well as having big friends like China and Russia. I think it'd be nuts for Israel to act first, but I doubt they care what I think. Such an act could easily trigger a major domino effect.

    It's going to take a better mind than what we have now to navigate this thing properly.
  14. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    I hope you're right... but they don't appear to be giving any pause to their actions.
  15. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    80,199 Messages
    4,870 Likes Received
    I think taking out their nuclear reactors and military installations will slow them down. I'm not a war monger by any means but I do know that Israel can not afford to take the chance of having a nuclear Iran and I don't think we or are allies can afford the risk of a nuclear Iran who is one of the biggest supporters of terrorist in the world. I would compare this situation very simular to that of the Russian nuclear weapons in Cuba and we saw what the US did and how far we were willing to go to prevent this. For me the scary part is I always felt the Russians would never cross a certain line and frankly I don't feel that way about Iran I think they would do it
  16. Sasquatch

    Sasquatch Lost in the Woods

    4,642 Messages
    208 Likes Received
    You don't think that might be because a country that routinely threatens them has invaded countries on either side of them and they know they only way to avoid an invasion is to possess nuclear weapons?

    From what I've read, Iran is still years aware from being able to develop a functional nuclear device, so once again I am skeptical about the administration's dire warnings and the timing of the issue.
  17. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    Stop acting like Iran is innocent. Had they any inclination to be honest and sincere in diplomacy, they might not have to face the consequences of their own bad choices.

    There is another way to avoid such things as getting their *** kicked: reign in Hezbollah and make a sincere effort at diplomacy and stop making demands out of thick headed pride. The fact that they've instead turned to screaming about hidden Imams and blasting civilizations off the map should be enough to see that maybe America isn't always at the root of the problem.

    Regardless of what you've read, Russia swooping in to help with reactors is good enough evidence to think sitting on your hands in procrastination is unwise.

    Iran has proven enough times that it wil act with crude weaponry, why should anyone wait until they have something more sophisticated to hope they'll finally grow up?
  18. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    I think slowing them down simply equates to putting off the inevitable, which is why we're dealing with it now. Carter didn't have the sack, Reagen concentrated on the Soviets and their predecessors just basically ignored it.

    This administration, whether handling it well or not, I think has it in mind to finally confront the issue.

    There are no misconceptions about how our Government feels about a nuclear Iran. It's not bluster, they really are against it and I don't doubt that there is an intention to thwart it completely. I'm just unsure if it would be wise to have Israel do it.

    Diplomacy doesn't work, threats don't work and sanctions don't work; they haven't been deterred yet.
  19. Sasquatch

    Sasquatch Lost in the Woods

    4,642 Messages
    208 Likes Received
    Iran isn't innocent nor is it the bugbear that we make it to be. Nor are we innocent. If we meddle in another country's affairs by supporting materially and technically dissenting elements, many times armed, would that justify a military strike against the mainland United States in your opinion? Because we've done just that on many occasions. The rationale is typical hypocrisy. It's a game that we ourselves engage in but we object when someone else does it.

    Besides, what is Iran going to do once it gets nukes that keeps you up at night, VTA? We've seen the same fear mongering with the Indian sub-continent and with North Korea, and despite the racial, national, and religious prejudices behind these hysterical claims that so-and-so is unfit to possess a nuclear weapon, the fact remains that we are the only nation to have ever used them against a civilian population. And we did it twice.
  20. arglebargle

    arglebargle Well-Known Member

    5,063 Messages
    152 Likes Received
    Doesn't count. No one really knew much about them, or their very dangerous ongoing effects then. I am sure that Truman was not presented with detailed analyses of bomb radiation effects, etc. It was more like, 'One bomb, does the work of thousands!' The first nuclear bombings were done without full knowledge of the danger or repurcussions.

    Now the next person who approves such a thing, has no such defense, and should have the entire weight of history dropped on their scrawny little necks....

Share This Page