POL - Cheney: Iran faces consequences

rexallllsc · 03-07-2006, 02:49 PM

Quote:

hxxp://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-03-07T162337Z_01_N07147141_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN-USA.xml&rpc=22

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons and faces "meaningful consequences" if it persists in defying the international community, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Tuesday.

Cheney, speaking to the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, also reaffirmed that the United States was keeping all options on the table -- including military force -- in its determination to prevent Iran from developing nuclear arms.

"The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course the international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences," Cheney said.

Cheney spoke as the 35-nation International Atomic Energy Agency governing board was meeting in Vienna to decide its next steps on Iran.

"For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table. ... We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," Cheney said.

At what point do we start worrying about the best interests of the USA, not the best interests of Israel?

PSUColonel · 03-07-2006, 02:54 PM

Sorry there Chief, but Iran not obtaining nukes IS in the best interest of the U.S., if you don't think so, you're nuts.

dixieflatline · 03-07-2006, 02:55 PM

Not trying to defend Cheney et all here but I think it would be pretty bad for the US if Iran had nuclear weapons. I think this is a really bad spot for the US to be placed in and I really am not too fond of any of the options I have seen except for Russia giving Iran non weapons grade uranium which, it appears, they just aren't interested in.

rexallllsc · 03-07-2006, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Sorry there Chief, but Iran not obtaining nukes IS in the best interest of the U.S., if you don't think so, you're nuts.

Bush categorized Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as the "Axis of Evil" - what do you expect them to do? We saw how Iraq was handled. Then in the face of Bush sabre-rattling NK ramped up their program, and whattya know, we backed off.

I'd like to see what happens when we try and stop them and they retaliate.

astrosfan64 · 03-07-2006, 03:16 PM

If we go into IRAN we can't do it the same as Iraq. We must go in annihilate. Make no mistake, this is turning into a holy war. I'm not a christian or muslim and wish you guys would get your crap together and stop screwing with the rest of the world. But, if I have to choose sides, I'll take the christians side.

We can not be worried about collateral damage in the case of Iran. Our military is spread thin and with our reserves crying a river, we do not have the manpower to do this any other way. You must go into Iran and pummel them.

I really hope there is a way out of this, but I just do see anyway of preventing the eventual show down.

rexallllsc · 03-07-2006, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

If we go into IRAN we can't do it the same as Iraq. We must go in annihilate. Make no mistake, this is turning into a holy war. I'm not a christian or muslim and wish you guys would get your crap together and stop screwing with the rest of the world. But, if I have to choose sides, I'll take the christians side.

We can not be worried about collateral damage in the case of Iran. Our military is spread thin and with our reserves crying a river, we do not have the manpower to do this any other way. You must go into Iran and pummel them.

I really hope there is a way out of this, but I just do see anyway of preventing the eventual show down.

Good luck.

hxxp://www.airliners.net/open.file/0593676/L/

I'm guessing they'd put up a bit more of a fight and then let the troops in Iraq have it as well.

Klinglerware · 03-07-2006, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

Our military is spread thin and with our reserves crying a river, we do not have the manpower to do this any other way. You must go into Iran and pummel them.

Uh, how do you reconcile the second sentence with the first sentence?

astrosfan64 · 03-07-2006, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Uh, how do you reconcile the second sentence with the first sentence?

I don't understand what you mean? The reason we required so much manpower in Iraq was the way we fought the war and continue to occupy the area.

If we do not worry about killing civilians, we can employ our full technological advantages.

PSUColonel · 03-07-2006, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

If we go into IRAN we can't do it the same as Iraq. We must go in annihilate. Make no mistake, this is turning into a holy war. I'm not a christian or muslim and wish you guys would get your crap together and stop screwing with the rest of the world. But, if I have to choose sides, I'll take the christians side.

We can not be worried about collateral damage in the case of Iran. Our military is spread thin and with our reserves crying a river, we do not have the manpower to do this any other way. You must go into Iran and pummel them.

I really hope there is a way out of this, but I just do see anyway of preventing the eventual show down.

I agree. In fact I agreed with the reasoning for going into Iraq, however the war strategy was flawed. I'm sorry to say, we need to go back to the way we used to do things...show everyone who's boss. In other words, air superiority and unfortunately that means many casulties.

astrosfan64 · 03-07-2006, 03:39 PM

I'm not saying we should use Nukes.

But, if you look at Japan at the end of WW2 the fact that we simply bombed them into submission, saved 1000's of lives and required much less manpower.

CamEdwards · 03-07-2006, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

I don't understand what you mean? The reason we required so much manpower in Iraq was the way we fought the war and continue to occupy the area.

If we do not worry about killing civilians, we can employ our full technological advantages.

Bomb them into the stone age, then? The most effective way to do that would be to use nuclear weapons, which would be kind of odd, in that we'd be nuking a country to avoid them aquiring nukes. Fitting, in a way, but still odd.

No, Iran is a real mess. I'm not sure how this will be resolved, but I don't think it will be good.

rexallllsc · 03-07-2006, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

If we do not worry about killing civilians, we can employ our full technological advantages.

Hearts and minds!

astrosfan64 · 03-07-2006, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Hearts and minds!

You guys are missing the point here. This is becoming a Holy War. Even if the US does not wish to make it one, Iran does.

To Cam Edwards, I thought there were convential bombs now that were as strong as the ones dropped in Japan. I believe we tested some in the Ocean a few years back didn't we?

SFL Cat · 03-07-2006, 03:59 PM

Iran's Pres wants the nukes so he can force the apocalypse to occur -- his idea of the confrontation between good (Islam) and evil (us = infidels). According to Shia Muslim prophecy, a third of the world's population will be killed. Then, and only then will the mystical 12th imam return to rule and bring peace on earth.

Klinglerware · 03-07-2006, 03:59 PM

Air power usually cannot win wars on their own. A decent book that describes some of the limitations of strategic bombing as a singular strategy is Robert Pape's Bombing To Win.

Nukes are of course an exception, but even then what happens next? The majority of policy makers and academics believe that nuclear weapons are primarily deterrents never to be used, and I agree with that view. I also believe that a unilateral nuclear attack by the United States would be counter-productive due to the pariah rogue-state status we will receive in the aftermath.

However, there is a significant minority who believe that nuclear wars are both fightable and survivable. Let's take this position for a moment: US launches nuclear strikes in Iran. According to the "nuclear wars are fightable" camp, the strikes won't be as bad as the doomsayers are making it out to be. The implication is that enough people and infrastructure will still survive the aftermath, thus the US will still need to occupy Iran, or an exploitable political vaccuum will result. Of course, Iran is 3-4 times the size of Iraq both in terms of land and population--the US does not have the resources to mount a succesful large scale occupation concurrent with the Iraqi occupation.

rexallllsc · 03-07-2006, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

If we do not worry about killing civilians, we can employ our full technological advantages.

BTW, let me know how you think Iran would react to that situation. For some reason, I don't think they would would just sit back and take it.

astrosfan64 · 03-07-2006, 04:05 PM

Well yes and no. If the US goes to war in Iran, I doubt very seriously it will do so alone.

France, yes France will help us this time. In fact I would imagine a large segment of Europe will support the US in this endevour. The recent rioting of Muslims throughout the world aren't making Western Powers more secure. France's rioting months back didn't do anything to help their stance on Muslims.

Europe is getting fed up with the Muslims and eventually this is going to come to a head. Iran may be the battle ground that this takes place.

The amazing thing here is this. Not one nation in the world that has any "Power" is muslim based. The religion along with its different sects prevents cooperation.

rexallllsc · 03-07-2006, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Iran's Pres wants the nukes so he can force the apocalypse to occur -- his idea of the confrontation between good (Islam) and evil (us = infidels). According to Shia Muslim prophecy, a third of the world's population will be killed. Then, and only then will the mystical 12th imam return to rule and bring peace on earth.

Yeah, George Bush doesn't believe in any of that Armageddon stuff!

flere-imsaho · 03-07-2006, 04:10 PM

All you draft age kids better get ready....

SFL Cat · 03-07-2006, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Yeah, George Bush doesn't believe in any of that Armageddon stuff!

Don't know what he believes about that. Not all Christians agree on apocalyptic prophecy. However, regardless of what he believes, I don't see him basing US nuclear strategy on those beliefs. Based on his statements, the Iranian president seems to be willing to do so.

astrosfan64 · 03-07-2006, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

BTW, let me know how you think Iran would react to that situation. For some reason, I don't think they would would just sit back and take it.

It really wouldn't matter. Iran could not stand up to us in a tradditional battle. Our tanks shoot farther, our planes are faster, our weapons are stronger, our troops are better trained etc... etc.. etc...

Iran and Iraq fought for 7 or 8 years? to a stalemate. We destroyed Iraq in a matter of a month both times. The problem comes with occupying the area or fighting urban combat. Which in this case we would simply not do.

The only chance Iran would have it a Nuke, which is why we can not let them have one.

flere-imsaho · 03-07-2006, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

Iran and Iraq fought for 7 or 8 years? to a stalemate. We destroyed Iraq in a matter of a month both times. The problem comes with occupying the area or fighting urban combat. Which in this case we would simply not do.

So presumably there will be no anti-American insurgency in Iran after we conquer them?

Honestly, listen to yourself.

flere-imsaho · 03-07-2006, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Don't know what he believes about that. Not all Christians agree on apocalyptic prophecy. However, regardless of what he believes, I don't see him basing US nuclear strategy on those beliefs.

Oh?

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

Bush believes he was called by God to lead the nation at this time, says Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a close friend who talks with Bush every day.

Greyroofoo · 03-07-2006, 04:31 PM

So what happens after we pummel Iran? Does the world suddenly turn into a magical and happy place?

astrosfan64 · 03-07-2006, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So presumably there will be no anti-American insurgency in Iran after we conquer them?

Honestly, listen to yourself.

No, there will be no Iran left.

astrosfan64 · 03-07-2006, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Oh?

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

Bush believes he was called by God to lead the nation at this time, says Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a close friend who talks with Bush every day.

Like I said, I think both sides are nutz. But at least the christians have learned throughout the years that it isn't a good idea to kill people in the name of god. The muslims still haven't learned that.

Klinglerware · 03-07-2006, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

So what happens after we pummel Iran? Does the world suddenly turn into a magical and happy place?

No, but our economy will collapse under the weight of sanctions...

rexallllsc · 03-07-2006, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

It really wouldn't matter. Iran could not stand up to us in a tradditional battle. Our tanks shoot farther, our planes are faster, our weapons are stronger, our troops are better trained etc... etc.. etc...

You don't think Iran would even get off a shot? Kinda naive, IMO.

rexallllsc · 03-07-2006, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

Like I said, I think both sides are nutz. But at least the christians have learned throughout the years that it isn't a good idea to kill people in the name of god. The muslims still haven't learned that.

Yet we keep picking fights with them...

rexallllsc · 03-07-2006, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

No, there will be no Iran left.

So you think we would nuke Iran out of existence because the want to defend themselves from the US?

Daimyo · 03-07-2006, 04:54 PM

So we're worried that Iran is developing the potential ability to kill mass amounts of civilians and your proposed reponse is to go in and kill mass amounts of civilians to prevent that from happening? Just because we don't use nukes to do it doesn't make it any better.

astrosfan64 · 03-07-2006, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daimyo

So we're worried that Iran is developing the potential ability to kill mass amounts of civilians and your proposed reponse is to go in and kill mass amounts of civilians to prevent that from happening? Just because we don't use nukes to do it doesn't make it any better.

Have a nice discussion guys this is going no where. Their entire existance is to kill the infidels. If you can't "get" that, I'm not going to bother arguing with you.

I think this is all pretty silly. I don't get it at all from a religous stand point.

Iran would get a shot off and some of our people would die? How many, I dont' know maybe 1k or 2k? TOPS!

I mean in the grand scheme of things, that is a very low number. Everyone is bitching about how many people we've lost in Iraq. What is the number at? 2000 ish?

That isn't squat in the grand scheme of things. Look at Vietnam, WW2, WW1 the Cival War. Heck, more people were probably murdered last year in the United States.

If the defense of our nation were left up to people like you rexalllsc and Flere back in WW2 era, we would be speaking German right now.

astrosfan64 · 03-07-2006, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daimyo

So we're worried that Iran is developing the potential ability to kill mass amounts of civilians and your proposed reponse is to go in and kill mass amounts of civilians to prevent that from happening? Just because we don't use nukes to do it doesn't make it any better.

There are no civilians in Iran. Their nation is a nation of Islam. In being such, they are at war with Western society.

rexallllsc · 03-07-2006, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

I mean in the grand scheme of things, that is a very low number. Everyone is bitching about how many people we've lost in Iraq. What is the number at? 2000 ish?

Man. I can't believe you went there.

Quote:

That isn't squat in the grand scheme of things. Look at Vietnam, WW2, WW1 the Cival War. Heck, more people were probably murdered last year in the United States.

Different time, different tech.

Quote:

If the defense of our nation were left up to people like you rexalllsc and Flare back in WW2 era, we would be speaking German right now.

Call me when Iran invades it's neighbors and you might have a point.

dixieflatline · 03-07-2006, 05:43 PM

Just thought I would add this here. From CNN:

Quote:

Rumsfeld claimed Iran was sending "Iranian Quds-force type people," or a division of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, into Iraq.

"They're currently putting people into Iraq to do things that are harmful to the future of Iraq," he said. "And we know it. And it is something that they, I think, will look back on as having been an error in judgment. "

Rumsfeld said he suspected Iran was backing the military forces. Revolutionary Guard-type forces don't "go milling around willy-nilly, one would think," he said.

General Pace added the U.S. military believes some of the homemade bombs used in Iraq "are traceable back to Iran."

I had a clear opinion on what should be done before the Iraq war but to me this issue is 100 times more complex. I just don't see this turning out well for anyone.

st.cronin · 03-07-2006, 05:46 PM

rexall do you think Iran should have nuclear weapons?

clintl · 03-07-2006, 05:50 PM

We do one bit of economic leverage that would hurt us, too, but would hurt Iran more. Iran has lots of oil, but very little oil refiing capacity. It imports most of its gasoline. We can cut off its supply and wreck its economy.

rexallllsc · 03-07-2006, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dixieflatline

I had a clear opinion on what should be done before the Iraq war but to me this issue is 100 times more complex. I just don't see this turning out well for anyone.

If GW hadn't blown all of his "political capital" (his words) he might have some backing around the world re: handling Iran tougher. At this point, no one wants to side with him, and no one wants to back him...and for good reason.

clintl · 03-07-2006, 05:59 PM

His deal with India last week, which threw into the trashcan decades of bipartisan and international and nuclear policy, isn't going to help his credibility and political capital, either.

rexallllsc · 03-07-2006, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by st.cronin

rexall do you think Iran should have nuclear weapons?

It worries me and for my own sake I wish they didn't, but I can see why they're developing them. If another country (the US in this instance) targeted me by name I would do whatever I could to protect myself.

rexallllsc · 03-07-2006, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clintl

His deal with India last week, which threw into the trashcan decades of bipartisan and international and nuclear policy, isn't going to help his credibility and political capital, either.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? What's that?

rexallllsc · 03-07-2006, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clintl

We do one bit of economic leverage that would hurt us, too, but would hurt Iran more. Iran has lots of oil, but very little oil refiing capacity. It imports most of its gasoline. We can cut off its supply and wreck its economy.

I just fear conflict with Iran ending badly. I don't doubt that they would strike us - with Terrorist tactics if necessary. Now THAT would kill our economy.

clintl · 03-07-2006, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

I just fear conflict with Iran ending badly. I don't doubt that they would strike us - with Terrorist tactics if necessary. Now THAT would kill our economy.

The really sad thing is that during the Khatami presidency in Iran, there was a real opportunity to engage Iran and avoid this altogether. There was a definite pro-Western movement developing among younger Iranians that should have been nurtured and encouraged.

st.cronin · 03-07-2006, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

It worries me and for my own sake I wish they didn't, but I can see why they're developing them. If another country (the US in this instance) targeted me by name I would do whatever I could to protect myself.

Re-phrasing: Would you rather the US back off, and let them develop nukes?

rexallllsc · 03-07-2006, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Re-phrasing: Would you rather the US back off, and let them develop nukes?

Yes. If Israel is worried, they can handle it.

However, my thoughts are that we should exit the entire region, though. The place is a Hornet's nest.

st.cronin · 03-07-2006, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Yes. If Israel is worried, they can handle it.

However, my thoughts are that we should exit the entire region, though. The place is a Hornet's nest.

gotcha

you're still Anti-Israel

rexallllsc · 03-07-2006, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by st.cronin

gotcha

you're still Anti-Israel

That looks like something a neo-con talk-radio host would say.

I believe that the interests of the American people an Israel differ a bit. That is not about "anti-Isreal" but "pro-US"!

st.cronin · 03-07-2006, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

That looks like something a neo-con talk-radio host would say.

I believe that the interests of the American people an Israel differ a bit. That is not about "anti-Isreal" but "pro-US"!

See, but you don't think they differ - you already said it's not in the US best interests for Iran to acquire nukes. So Israel's and the US's interests, here, are identical. Yet you think we should leave Israel to fend for itself. The only way that begins to make sense in my mind is if you are, for some reason, anti-Israel.

Also, you do realize that the US is hardly leading the charge on this particular topic?

astrosfan64 · 03-07-2006, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by st.cronin

See, but you don't think they differ - you already said it's not in the US best interests for Iran to acquire nukes. So Israel's and the US's interests, here, are identical. Yet you think we should leave Israel to fend for itself. The only way that begins to make sense in my mind is if you are, for some reason, anti-Israel.

Also, you do realize that the US is hardly leading the charge on this particular topic?

Agreed as I mentioned above. I believe that France of all nations would probably spearhead this charge, along with the majority of Europe. Europe in case you haven't noticed is getting pretty tired of the Muslim "ideals".

Even Russia and China have been banging the gong that Iran with Nukes is a bad idea.

Dutch · 03-07-2006, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Yes. If Israel is worried, they can handle it.

However, my thoughts are that we should exit the entire region, though. The place is a Hornet's nest.

The good news for you is that this will certainly drag out until Hillary is in charge. Then we will leave the poor Iranians alone and no doubt America will have a 1,000 years of peace and security.

03-07-2006, 04:05 PM	#17
astrosfan64 College Prospect Join Date: Oct 2004	Well yes and no. If the US goes to war in Iran, I doubt very seriously it will do so alone. France, yes France will help us this time. In fact I would imagine a large segment of Europe will support the US in this endevour. The recent rioting of Muslims throughout the world aren't making Western Powers more secure. France's rioting months back didn't do anything to help their stance on Muslims. Europe is getting fed up with the Muslims and eventually this is going to come to a head. Iran may be the battle ground that this takes place. The amazing thing here is this. Not one nation in the world that has any "Power" is muslim based. The religion along with its different sects prevents cooperation. Last edited by astrosfan64 : 03-07-2006 at 04:06 PM.

03-07-2006, 05:46 PM	#36
st.cronin General Manager Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: New Mexico	rexall do you think Iran should have nuclear weapons? __________________ co-commish: bb-bbcf.net knives out

03-07-2006, 02:54 PM	#2
PSUColonel Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Wayne, PA	Sorry there Chief, but Iran not obtaining nukes IS in the best interest of the U.S., if you don't think so, you're nuts.

03-07-2006, 02:55 PM	#3
dixieflatline High School Varsity Join Date: Sep 2003	Not trying to defend Cheney et all here but I think it would be pretty bad for the US if Iran had nuclear weapons. I think this is a really bad spot for the US to be placed in and I really am not too fond of any of the options I have seen except for Russia giving Iran non weapons grade uranium which, it appears, they just aren't interested in.

03-07-2006, 03:16 PM	#5
astrosfan64 College Prospect Join Date: Oct 2004	If we go into IRAN we can't do it the same as Iraq. We must go in annihilate. Make no mistake, this is turning into a holy war. I'm not a christian or muslim and wish you guys would get your crap together and stop screwing with the rest of the world. But, if I have to choose sides, I'll take the christians side. We can not be worried about collateral damage in the case of Iran. Our military is spread thin and with our reserves crying a river, we do not have the manpower to do this any other way. You must go into Iran and pummel them. I really hope there is a way out of this, but I just do see anyway of preventing the eventual show down.

03-07-2006, 03:39 PM	#10
astrosfan64 College Prospect Join Date: Oct 2004	I'm not saying we should use Nukes. But, if you look at Japan at the end of WW2 the fact that we simply bombed them into submission, saved 1000's of lives and required much less manpower.

03-07-2006, 03:59 PM	#14
SFL Cat College Starter Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: South Florida	Iran's Pres wants the nukes so he can force the apocalypse to occur -- his idea of the confrontation between good (Islam) and evil (us = infidels). According to Shia Muslim prophecy, a third of the world's population will be killed. Then, and only then will the mystical 12th imam return to rule and bring peace on earth.

03-07-2006, 03:59 PM	#15
Klinglerware College Starter Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: The DMV	Air power usually cannot win wars on their own. A decent book that describes some of the limitations of strategic bombing as a singular strategy is Robert Pape's Bombing To Win. Nukes are of course an exception, but even then what happens next? The majority of policy makers and academics believe that nuclear weapons are primarily deterrents never to be used, and I agree with that view. I also believe that a unilateral nuclear attack by the United States would be counter-productive due to the pariah rogue-state status we will receive in the aftermath. However, there is a significant minority who believe that nuclear wars are both fightable and survivable. Let's take this position for a moment: US launches nuclear strikes in Iran. According to the "nuclear wars are fightable" camp, the strikes won't be as bad as the doomsayers are making it out to be. The implication is that enough people and infrastructure will still survive the aftermath, thus the US will still need to occupy Iran, or an exploitable political vaccuum will result. Of course, Iran is 3-4 times the size of Iraq both in terms of land and population--the US does not have the resources to mount a succesful large scale occupation concurrent with the Iraqi occupation.

03-07-2006, 04:10 PM	#19
flere-imsaho Coordinator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Chicagoland	All you draft age kids better get ready....

03-07-2006, 04:31 PM	#24
Greyroofoo Pro Starter Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Alabama	So what happens after we pummel Iran? Does the world suddenly turn into a magical and happy place?

03-07-2006, 04:54 PM	#31
Daimyo College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Berkeley	So we're worried that Iran is developing the potential ability to kill mass amounts of civilians and your proposed reponse is to go in and kill mass amounts of civilians to prevent that from happening? Just because we don't use nukes to do it doesn't make it any better.

03-07-2006, 05:50 PM	#37
clintl College Starter Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Davis, CA	We do one bit of economic leverage that would hurt us, too, but would hurt Iran more. Iran has lots of oil, but very little oil refiing capacity. It imports most of its gasoline. We can cut off its supply and wreck its economy.

03-07-2006, 05:59 PM	#39
clintl College Starter Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Davis, CA	His deal with India last week, which threw into the trashcan decades of bipartisan and international and nuclear policy, isn't going to help his credibility and political capital, either.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)