Would you support a bombing of Iran?

[JSojourner]

Considering that I don't support America hypocritically telling other countries that they aren't allowed to develop nuclear weapons, I would say no.

Exactly.  Israel can have them.  Pakistan can have them.  India can have them.  We can have them.  But not Iran.  Critics say, "but we NEED them to check our enemies."  And so do the Iranians.  Of course, I'd prefer total nuclear disarmament of all countries but since that's not going to happen...fair is fair. 

[k-onmmunist]

Not really. I never thought they'd invade Iran, simply because it would be like being kicked in the teeth repeatedly.

Bomb and invade are two totally different things.

An invasion would be necessary once Iran invaded Iraq in retalitation and massacred the US forces.

[Franzl]

Considering that I don't support America hypocritically telling other countries that they aren't allowed to develop nuclear weapons, I would say no.

Exactly.  Israel can have them.  Pakistan can have them.  India can have them.  We can have them.  But not Iran.  Critics say, "but we NEED them to check our enemies."  And so do the Iranians.  Of course, I'd prefer total nuclear disarmament of all countries but since that's not going to happen...fair is fair. 

I would have to respectfully disagree about that. It might be fair to allow every country access to nuclear weapons....but I don't think fairness is what we should be aiming for here. I'd prefer that we unfairly deprive Iran and similar countries of having nuclear bombs.

How we do that is a different question....certainly not with military might.

[JSojourner]

Considering that I don't support America hypocritically telling other countries that they aren't allowed to develop nuclear weapons, I would say no.

Exactly.  Israel can have them.  Pakistan can have them.  India can have them.  We can have them.  But not Iran.  Critics say, "but we NEED them to check our enemies."  And so do the Iranians.  Of course, I'd prefer total nuclear disarmament of all countries but since that's not going to happen...fair is fair. 

I would have to respectfully disagree about that. It might be fair to allow every country access to nuclear weapons....but I don't think fairness is what we should be aiming for here. I'd prefer that we unfairly deprive Iran and similar countries of having nuclear bombs.

How we do that is a different question....certainly not with military might.

I dunno Franz.  I mean, we are the only ones to actually USE the bomb. And I think Israel is far more likely to nuke Iran than vice-versa, assuming Iran had the bomb.

I wish someone could dream up a way to eliminate ALL nations from possessing these weapons.  But sadly, the only way I see that happening is if nukes take a back seat to something far more horrific.  I can't even feature a weapon that would be worse.

[Franzl]

It's interesting really...at least as long as we were living in the old-fashioned bipolar world during the Cold War....I'm actually convinced that the existence of nuclear weapons saved many lives. The prospect of total destruction, I believe, prevented both superpowers from doing anything dumb.

That said....it's becoming a problem these days because so many unstable regimes have access to them....and especially the potential for terrorist groups to potentially use them outside the context of conventional warfare.

So yeah, I would support eliminating all nuclear weapons in theory....but I'm not sure it's possible.

[J. J.]

Only on select installations if there is guaranteed evidence of nuclear weapon building, but otherwise no friggin way.

In certain circumstances, like this one, yes.

[opebo]

No.  The Hamptons or Palm Beach, sure, but why Iran?  It makes no sense.

[Free Palestine]

We have no right to violate Iran's sovereignty.  Anybody here know what blowback is?

[Bo]

We have no right to violate Iran's sovereignty.  Anybody here know what blowback is?

MAD?

[Free Palestine]

We have no right to violate Iran's sovereignty.  Anybody here know what blowback is?

MAD?

Iran is not going to use it's nukes on anybody.  The one with actual power, Khamenei, knows that if he were to nuke any of Iran's neighbors, the sh*t would hit the fan.  And on top of that, Islamic extremists like bin Laden want us to attack Iran, because they know that it will only strengthen them as more people pick up an AK-47 and shout "Death to America!"

[perdedor]

Considering that I don't support America hypocritically telling other countries that they aren't allowed to develop nuclear weapons, I would say no.

Exactly.  Israel can have them.  Pakistan can have them.  India can have them.  We can have them.  But not Iran.  Critics say, "but we NEED them to check our enemies."  And so do the Iranians.  Of course, I'd prefer total nuclear disarmament of all countries but since that's not going to happen...fair is fair. 

Indeed. Imperialists tend to shy away from countries armed with nuclear weapons, which is why North Korea has repeatedly told the U.S. to get bent in terms of its weapons program. 0

[RosettaStoned]

Of course not.

[KeeptheChange]

Only under certain circumstances.

[dead0man]

Not really. I never thought they'd invade Iran, simply because it would be like being kicked in the teeth repeatedly.

Bomb and invade are two totally different things.

An invasion would be necessary once Iran invaded Iraq in retalitation and massacred the US forces.

ahahahahaahah

How?  How is Iran going to do this without the USAF (and friends) bombing the hell out of any military formations they bring together?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     No, not at all.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

     No, not at all.

I'm not challenging you, but curious - not even certain installations given a very credible threat against us?  I don't think anyone wants to attack the Iranian people.

[ARescan]

No unless you want World War III.

World War III? Guerilla Warfare tactics used by one enemy, who happens to have nukes, does not deserve the title of World War.

If the defense system shoots down ANY Iranian missile, then I support a full fledged invasion. If we are not attacked then we are disobeying the Monroe Doctrine and thus I would not support military action.

[Free Palestine]

I'm not challenging you, but curious - not even certain installations given a very credible threat against us?  I don't think anyone wants to attack the Iranian people.

They won't be a threat against us if we don't give them a reason to attack us.  They're not going to nuke us just for the hell of it.  Bombing their installations will only escalate the problem by further radicalizing anti-U.S. sentiment against us, possibly leading to another 9/11.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would probably support war with Iran in such a case, and only in such a case.  The only justification for war is an attack like this.  But only after Congress votes on a declaration of war.

[k-onmmunist]

No unless you want World War III.

World War III? Guerilla Warfare tactics used by one enemy, who happens to have nukes, does not deserve the title of World War.

If the defense system shoots down ANY Iranian missile, then I support a full fledged invasion. If we are not attacked then we are disobeying the Monroe Doctrine and thus I would not support military action.

I think that was more along the lines of "The Americas are ours, European bitches. Come back and we'll kick your asses"

[ARescan]

No unless you want World War III.

World War III? Guerilla Warfare tactics used by one enemy, who happens to have nukes, does not deserve the title of World War.

If the defense system shoots down ANY Iranian missile, then I support a full fledged invasion. If we are not attacked then we are disobeying the Monroe Doctrine and thus I would not support military action.

I think that was more along the lines of "The Americas are ours, European bitches. Come back and we'll kick your asses"

Hellz yea! I loves it!

[Torie]

It depends on the circumstances. I assume we are talking about taking out the nukes. But not now.

[dead0man]

I believe the next turn is for you all to claim "why can't Iran have nukes, everybody else does?".

Considering that I don't support America hypocritically telling other countries that they aren't allowed to develop nuclear weapons, I would say no.

Exactly.  Israel can have them.  Pakistan can have them.  India can have them.  We can have them.  But not Iran.  Critics say, "but we NEED them to check our enemies."  And so do the Iranians.  Of course, I'd prefer total nuclear disarmament of all countries but since that's not going to happen...fair is fair. 

I forgot to thank you guys.  Thank you.

..and for those that think they can't or are not building weapons out of their nuclear program Iran Boasts of Capacity to Make Bomb Fuel

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Scam of God]

Hurf-a-durf, dead0man. Never tire of being a liar, friend, or you'd lose all your charm.

[Katherine Harris is legit]

Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran!

[dead0man]

Hey, a weak insult from Mr. Happy!