Are we getting ready to take out Iran?

[GroundZero3]

GZ3 is refering to the good movie "The Sum of All Fears."

hrm never saw that movie, i guess i should check it out

[Mike]

We should have done it the week immediately following 9/11 - the whole world would have backed us up, or at least kept their mouths shut!!

Uh, so now the United States is supposed to be the world's bully?

The world is lucky the US isn't an evil power. The US wants to advance the cause of democracy and freedom. When this happens, people start buying and trading with other nations.

Sadly, it would appear that the U.S. wants to "advance the cause of democracy and freedom" for good of the U.S. only.

[ClubMed]

*

[xcheck2430]

there are so many sides to this argument. first, we obviously have had attacks from terrorists how are loyal to the iranian government. so the first argument is whether or not the iranian government is loyal to these terrorists. If they will do what these terrorist want, or even if it is what they want. Next, i truely believe that the US is pushing its power. I am sorta a history buff, and i can only imagine that the US will turn into what the Roman Empire was. We are currently expanding, whether its into Iraq, or any other country. although we are not literally conquering them, were are imposing our government as if it is the only right way of government. The major problem is with iraq, when the US did not listen to the UN and went in on themselves. and now look what has happened. we took on a country with a crap army compared to ours and that of the UN, and we sucked. The US needs to learn to do what is best for this planet rather than themselves. they say they will gain peace for the world, but they should learn that it is impossible to have peace without forcing it on people. and even if they do force it, there will be revolts. since the biginning of mankind, people have had differences. Now why can the US tell them that they cant anymore? SOmeone should tell George Bush to relax, and let it go

[Epidemic]

I agree it would be foolish for iran to directly participate in such a venture. This leaves open the ability to attack covertly through Binladen or such. But even that might be considered foolish from BinLadens perspective as it might get his religion and race.

So why do it if you are rational? There is absolutely no rational justification for it I agree.

I just am not sure that all the players involved are rational. If you believe god will intervene and smite americas missiles and you have faith that your people will not be wiped out even if missiles launched, the faith might supercede reason as is the case with blind faith. Causing an unreasonable risk of irrational behavior.

[xcheck2430]

AND ALSO, i truely believe that George Bush invaded Iraq on a grudge, one that his father shared. he claimed that iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological or nuclear, but ever since they invaded, they have not found anything. a grudge...at the cost of a million (in change) lives

[ClubMed]

*

[BBA]

Then even if they do, you really think a small nation like Iran, which might end up with a couple low tech nukes is going to use them? And not just that, but use them against America, a nation with thousands of high tech nukes and the ability to wipe Iran off the map??

Whether Iran has nukes or not, it is not a threat. Most of the smaller nations who might want nukes want them for defensive and deterrence reasons.

You seem to forget what we are doing.

We are in a war against terrorists and terrorists supporting nations. Iran is on that list. Iran is hellbent on building a nuke for the sole purpose of using it as a deterrant to a US invasion.

In short, I say we use tactical nukes to completely wipe out all of Iran's nuclear capabilities, all at once. I would say use conventional weapons to do it, but the nuke would be soo much more effective it would actually save lives.

[Mike]

Iran is hellbent on building a nuke for the sole purpose of using it as a deterrant to a US invasion.

Hm, do you think you could re-word that sentence a little bit better? Having a nuclear weapon for the "sole purpose" of protection sounds like a pretty good thing, doesn't it?

[xcheck2430]

>In short, I say we use tactical nukes to completely wipe out all of Iran's nuclear capabilities, all at once. I would say use conventional weapons to do it, but the nuke would be soo much more effective it would actually save lives.

who are you to say that. I believe that they are building a nuke just as a threat. they would never use it because they have only 1. now we have what 3 million or something. one nuke on our country and WHAM! iran doesnt exist anymore. The US obviously stop them from building a nuke UNTIL the missle defense system is ready - for those who dont know, the US missle defense system is a satallite type thing that shoots missles down in the air - and also, an iranian nuke would never be able to reach america. Now remember, a b2 bomber (travells at around mach 2) takes 8 or 9 hours to get there from the US. Its plain and simple that a nuke cannot carry that much fuel.

[RADAR1797]

xcheck, the B-2 does not go faster than the speed of sound, much less twice the speed of sound. Further more, the Iranians are advertising they have balistic missiles that can reach Europe now and are contemplating starting a space program. Once a nation has the ability to put something in orbit, ballistic missiles with global reach are just a small tweak. The missile defense shield is largely modeled off the system built on aegis cruisers and will be land based, at least initially.

-RADAR

[Theophylact]

Today's fun fact, courtesy of Seymour Hersh:

Rumsfeld and two of his key deputies, Stephen Cambone, the Under-secretary of Defense for Intelligence, and Army Lieutenant General William G. (Jerry) Boykin, will be part of the chain of command for the new commando operations.

That's this General Boykin.

[micfau1091]

We can't police the world, IMO. Even though we do it now, on one elected the US as the world police. What gives the US the right to tell other countries what to do. If someone told the US what they could and could not do there would be hell to pay.

Hey, that could easily be given to terrorists...which will go after the US...its not more of Policing the World, its protected us...if we have to attack the entire middle east to ensure that we are safe as canbe, they I say do it....im not saying if they pose no threat. Also the reason we police the world is we don't like seeing people hurt (Iraq).... tell me this, if you saw someone being mugged, would you stop it? Its not policing, its more of heroism.

[micfau1091]

who are you to say that. I believe that they are building a nuke just as a threat. they would never use it because they have only 1. now we have what 3 million or something. one nuke on our country and WHAM! iran doesnt exist anymore. The US obviously stop them from building a nuke UNTIL the missle defense system is ready - for those who dont know, the US missle defense system is a satallite type thing that shoots missles down in the air - and also, an iranian nuke would never be able to reach america. Now remember, a b2 bomber (travells at around mach 2) takes 8 or 9 hours to get there from the US. Its plain and simple that a nuke cannot carry that much fuel.

at the end of the cold war, we agreed to limit our ICBMs along with Russia limiting them...its more like in the thousands...which yea..thats a lot, but think about it...one nuke in NewYork city, er something as dense as that...thats a lot lof lives, ne way you look ati t. Why not prevent them from doing that?

And for the nuke that would be able to reach america....they could easily put it on a ship and launch it from there....most likely terrorists will be launching it tho

[micfau1091]

xcheck, the B-2 does not go faster than the speed of sound, much less twice the speed of sound. Further more, the Iranians are advertising they have balistic missiles that can reach Europe now and are contemplating starting a space program. Once a nation has the ability to put something in orbit, ballistic missiles with global reach are just a small tweak. The missile defense shield is largely modeled off the system built on aegis cruisers and will be land based, at least initially.

-RADAR

they already have some of that starting already..except its airplanes....read it in Popular Science....they take a Boeing 747/777 and there is like a frekin "Lazer" at the nose that heats the missile till it explodes.....pretty cool stuff..lol

[Xtreeme]

"Iran is hellbent on building a nuke for the sole purpose of using it as a deterrant to a US invasion. "

Like someone else said. This entire war is based on assumptions. And of which I will say have 99.9% been false so far. Where are the WMD's? haha-oh now its not about that anymore. Now the troops are over there, we can just have some fun in the name of democracy right. And god forbid a country want to deter a invasion. I mean come on. Do you want to be invaded and taken over>? So you said might made right. THey have no rights cause we are stronger millitary. So we are doing all these assumptions. Lets pretend this along with everything else. Pretend China and Russia allie. Then they tell us to disarm-and change our government, we have no rights cause they are stronger now. You say we should? Since they are stronger. And shouldnt try to deter invasions? Just accept it. I mean shoe on the other foot here guys. It doesnt sound so peachy does it. No one wants to be defenseless or vulnerable to invasion. Its that simple. You are running off about detering-a dterent. How redundant. And starting a war-to prevent one-just as redundant and stupid. Not one war has ever stopped or prevented war through out history. Its like saying if I break your nose now-I wont dislocate your jaw later? WTF! Untill they attemp to do anything or violate a policy concerning nukes we should just shut up.

[Xtreeme]

they already have some of that starting already..except its airplanes....read it in Popular Science....they take a Boeing 747/777 and there is like a frekin "Lazer" at the nose that heats the missile till it explodes.....pretty cool stuff..lol

Yep we've had those since before 2000 I think. Fact is fear. All its about. No threat with one nuke-even 3. Get shot down either over seas or over their own country. We need only worry about larger countries with nukes or one entering our borders. Other then that-no threat. Gov. is just useing fear tactics again to get its way.

[RayH]

Chuckie If we could destablize the Iranian government, it would have been done! So far, all I've seen is the brilliant military and political planners in Washington have created a situation in which a three way Islamic military stalemate will not tilt towards Shiites with the Iraqi election.

[MTAtech]

It was good to get Saddam out of Power for the fact of Genocide, and everything of the sort...

Keep in mind that the Iranians are best friends with the religious Shiites who are about to win the Iraqi elections (yes, putting Islamic fundamentalists in charge of the country, to replace the secular Baathists Saddam Hussein led -- obviously way better than if we'd never gotten involved at all, huh?) The Iraqi Shiites have, pending the elections, worked to avoid launching an all-out war against the Americans in their country (they are not the leaders of the current insurgency). But the Iranians have enormous leverage against us in Iraq. And, after the elections, they will likely have even more.

[pickel]

Nuclear, chemical, biological......no more dead soldiers !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We don't have enough people in Iraq now, gonna send the Boy Scouts to Iran ??????????? We're importing bullets now, what's next....ICBM"s from Mexico ?????