Anything Forums

Do you believe that US or West, in general, should engage in a military solution to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue if they continue to defy the UN? Do you believe that limited military strikes would be effective, or would an invasion have to take place? What do you feel the result on Iranian society would be? How do you think the rest of the Mideast would react?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3259, old post ID:59487

I'm going with a small scale strike of some sort (like the Israeli reactor strike maybe?) if the UN were to agree on it. I believe that would be effective in destroying their nuclear capabilities, but there's always the chance they'd do what they said they would: target US interests abroad.
Of course the Iranian society would be pissed at the US, but they already are. The rest of the Mideast? Call for the destruction of the Great Satan as usual? Not that they all are. . .

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3259, old post ID:59499

Why not pull all troops out of the middle east region. Wait for them to develop the nukes they want. Let them drop the big one one someone. You know they will. Then let the rest of the world have them for dinner. Why should we(US) be the police for the world. Everyone hates us anyway. Give them a taste of the world without us keeping watch.
Gas prices, who cares. Stay home more, get reacquainted with family and neighbors.



Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3259, old post ID:59556

Hey OOO, been a while:) I'm currently opposed to any military action against Iran on any scale for several reasons:

- Iranian society is supporting their government less and less as time goes on due to a poorly performing economy and what they view as their President's alienating of Iran from the rest of the world (with the exception of a few states).

- The situation in Iraq over the last decade and a half has demonstrated the ineffectiveness of periodic airstrikes in terms of reining in a "rogue" regime.

- As much as people may want to deny it, Iran is a representative theocracy where the people's votes do matter to an extent. Granted, the religious leaders can temper a President's efforts to reform the country, but as we saw with the reformist President Khatemi, there is hope for change and reform from within the country. Something that would be hurt by outside aggression that would more than likely unite the country in solidarity against the West.

I am so sick of hearing politicians complain every time Pelosi or someone else talks with or supports talking with countries like Syria and Iran. And as I said in a different thread, I can pretty much tell how surely I will NOT support a given Presidential candidate by how hawkishly they talk about Iran.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3259, old post ID:59588

"The situation in Iraq over the last decade and a half has demonstrated the ineffectiveness of periodic airstrikes in terms of reining in a "rogue" regime."

How so?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3259, old post ID:59593

Because in the end, Hussein didn't play ball the way we wanted him to. What if Iran continues doing what we don't want it to despite some kind of surgical airstrike(s)? Are we going to have the balls to force regime change? Would the attempt at forcing regime change ultimately turn out for the better? I think the answer to both questions is "no". The country doesn't want another war. And creating a situation where the Iranian populace may unify under someone even worse than Ahmedenijad doesn't do us any bit of good.

The West has an opportunity to at least soften relations with Iran and should refrain from the typical hawkish rhetoric that essentially amounts to "comply or die". I'm not saying Iran is the innocent victim of evil Western oppression, but I am saying that if only one of us is going to be the "adult" and start making real efforts towards reconciliation, I would hope it would be us. Iran, under the reformist Khatemi, back in 2003 made serious efforts to enter into a dialog with the US, and even offered to help stabilize Iraq, post-war, as well as cease support for terrorists in Lebanon and Palestine. What was the response of the Bush administration? "We don't speak to evil."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5377914.stm

Furthermore, it was well documented that Iran gave the West a great deal of intelligence on the Taliban and al-Qaida as we mobilized for war in Afghanistan, yet Bush listed them amongst the "Axis of Evil".

For shame.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3259, old post ID:59611

Read that article. And I'm very dissappointed with what did and didn't happen. I never knew any of that took place.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3259, old post ID:59621

The middle east. A different culture. Not even close. Baghdad won't be another American town....that is unless you wipe out everyone and import Americans. We must leave them to their own devices. We are fighting an enemy that has no country.
In my opinion, we pull out and let the chips fall were they may. It will take some rouge country like North Korea or Iran to drop a nuke on us or a western ally to do some real progress. When the nuke drops we can ID the enemy and blow the living crap out of them. This crap that's going on now will never stop. Sending our best to get killed buy road side bombs one at a time. Bullshit. I say we pull out, wait for the big obvious one and strike big.....but that's just me.

Or hey...fudge it. China seems to be the big fuckers now...let them police the world!



Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3259, old post ID:60105