Good Idea to Nuke Iran?

Even a survey of this summary reveals that Hezbollah and various other groups... to include the Iraqi intelligence service under Saddam either attempted or committed acts of terrorism against the US.

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/terrorism/101/timeline.html

 

Wow, if plotted on a timeline chart would be pretty much an exponential increase up to 2001.

Interestingly, after the US gets hit hard enough, we retaliate and terrorist attacks have dropped to near zero level.

My question is, did the terrorists quit? ....or is the military doing its job?

 

In spite of the non-sense some spew here, the strategy of the Bush administration is working now.

It bears the marks of an astute military historian/strategist with knowledge of Middle Eastern and Islamic culture/ideals.

Basically, it boils down to the genius of Grant... which was, that he wasn't so smart that he missed the obvious. For nearly four years, Union armies that most often superior in every way to Lee's army chased him around and lost battle after battle. Lee chose the ground and the order of battle.

Then finally, the Union gets a general that recognizes that Lee would be defeated only when denied maneuver. So... this drunk western ruffian... started a deliberate march on Richmond. He forced Lee into a fight Lee didn't want on ground he couldn't defend.

The same strategy probably could have brought Vietnam to a successful end. A pre-announced, deliberate march on Hanoi would have forced them to put their forces in front of ours.

Whoever is behind the Bush strategy... has been smart enough to get Al Qaeda to put its forces and resources "in front" of our forces in Iraq. This is either brilliance or the greatest stroke of luck in history.

 

Excellent analysis Scott.

I honestly expected a terrorist attack conus, but it has not occurred.

I don't think it is all luck either. We were told by Bush, exactly what his intentions were and people are trying to read into what the media is saying and not listening to unbiased reports of what is going on.

Here is an excellent example of WHY we haven't been targeting. When you keep striking at the snake, he keeps wasting his time moving, ducking and reorganizing. Not enough time or capabilities to strike the US.

Will it happen again someday? Probably, but if we work WITH our government instead of against it, we just MIGHT be successful. If we keep making our leaders look like jerks their capabilities to keep the terrorists on the run will be degraded.

Here's the link, tell me if you cannot read it because it is a military website:

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/print.php?story_id_key=8834

 

The timeline of that page ends in 2001.

Why go halfway around the world when you have fine targets in your own back yard? Seems to me we get hit almost daily by terrorists in Iraq & Afghanistan sniping at soldiers, blowing up car bombs and beheading the occasional contractor. We defeated the Iraqi army and overthrew the government years ago ("Mission Accomplished", remember?), but we've been fighting the terrorists & local thugs ever since. </font>[/QUOTE]Daisy, there is a huge difference between getting sniped at and finding some IED's in a country where war has taken place a few hundred miles from the biggest terrorist backing counrtries in the world and a crash into the World Trade Center.

Can you name any Terrorist attacks IN the United States since 2001. We just killed another terrorist leader this week. Is that making a difference?

I say we just do away with homeland security, bring the military back from Afganistan too and remove all of the guards at the airports. According to people here, this is all worthless.

 

And where have I said that any one other than myself has said that? Your saying that I'm putting words in anyone's mouth is simply wrong.

You've accused me of lying, Scott. I have not. You owe me an apology.

No, try reading that again one word at a time.....I greatly fear that your [apparent inability to understand simple words in plain English] here is all too real and not humor-based. Pity.

[edited to remove the word "obtusity" and substitute a more politic phrase] </font>[/QUOTE]This is a serious subject. Too many people are minimizing it. Scott calls them like he sees them and if you make the statement you made was actually out of line. Scott owes you nothing.

Let's get back on the subject of Nuking Iran or close the thread.

 

The way I see it Daisy has not lied...everyone knows Daisy is one of the best in the debates and she has credibilty from those from the left and right.

beside everyone knows, whoever debates, once the debater calls the other a liar it usually means that person is losing...big time.

As for Scott J he enjoys his life on a farm far away from people ..he probably debates with the animals...just don't call a Lama a liar
Scott J. less you Dali.

It is immoral for Christians to be pro bombing that goes from Dresden to the London bombings to current IED's in Iraq. It easy to stand apart since most people have never been bombed here in the United States to carte blanche say..bomb and let God sort it out...and get serious the Iranians will have spread assets around the country ...sad to say even near civilian populations.

Moral question: If one child could be saved from not bombing or the results of bombing and that one child later becomes a Christian would you still bomb Iran.

Hope of salvation for one child ..yes or no.

Tehrans children beggars could Christians feed them???

 

( Buddhist countries are peaceful even though they are wrong) So how about Nepal?

 

No,it is not a good idea to Nuke Iran. or any other country.

 

If this is true, why do our military have to keep cleaning out and securing the same places over and over again, like Fallujah and Tikrit, for instance.

 

Daisy, you do make a good point and maybe I judged your statements too harshly. I was a little emotional about another issue on another thread. Sorry.

IED is Improvised Explosive Device. Sadly, our soldiers are being hurt by way more IEDs than they are bullets these days. Usually IED's are made from unexploded ordinance (whether ours or Iraqs, doesn't matter) and they rewire it to go off when someone drives over a wire or explodes it with a radio trigger. Sadly, the insurrgents don't care whether it is a soldier or Iraqi child that gets blown up.

If you notice, many attacks have lately been aimed at the Iraqi's themselves and not so much our soldiers.

Now, back to nuking Iran. I think it is a bad idea for us to use nukes in any situation where there are other methods. Let's just leave the answer at that.

 

Has Iran ever invaded and overthrown the government of a nation next door to the US? Or did I miss the Iranian invasion of Mexico?

[ETA - Rhetoric is one thing; I'll be the first to say that Mr Madmullah "There-wasn't-any-Holocaust-but-there-will-be" Ahmalooni or whatever his name comes out with some extremely unpleasant verbage, but actions speak far more loudly than words and, right now based on tack records, when the leader of one of these two countries describes the leader of the other as 'a menace', I find it difficult to tell which is which...]

 

Speaking of Mexico, there have been records of Mexican officials encouraging mass illegal immigration (invasion) to the US... but that's okay, because it's against the US right?

A problem often faced in these discussions is a misunderstanding of the true Islamic goal - world domination. Now, your average Muslim next door to you in Hampshire will most likely not voice or even agree with such sentiments.

But the movers and shakers in the Islamic world want nothing less than total domination and death or oppression of every one who objects... even other Muslims.

It is not political, it is not about anything to do with Iraq, it is about Muslims wanting to kill or oppress Christians and Jews and moderate Muslims.

So any Islamic government with nuclear capability will ultimately become a threat. It is a sad fact. And either they deal with us or we have to deal with them. If we strike first we are wrong, if they strike us first then I am sure all the lovey-dovey peace-loving posters will join in with the jeers that drive Bush and Blair out of government. If they strike first, well, potentially the Baptist Board membership would be permanently pruned...

Now here is my rant: What gets me is all the pictures posted of suffering as if it only ever happens when the Americans or British act militarily. Ask the families of the many tens of thousands that Saddam murdered, ask the many thousands who were wrongly imprisoned, ask the girls and the families of young girls who were abused by Saddam's sadistic son. Yes, the US and UK has brought death and suffering, but they did not invent nor master the art of suffering and death.

By the way Matt, I am originally from Newbury, Berkshire (though I no longer live there) and have lots of friends in Hampshire... great part of England. I disagree with you, but you live in a nice and varied county!

 

Daisy asks a good question regarding whether or not we should nuke a country which may, in the future, become a threat to other countries.

Can anybody please tell me where the idea of having to use nukes came from in the first place? Was this from a so-called "expert" on a news network? Or was it an official release from somewhere?

Personally, I do not believe that nuclear bombs are the answer to this situation and I'm certainly not saying there are NOT military alternatives.

Remember that Iran has already stated that their mission for being alive is to see that Israel drowns in the sea.

Israel was very effective in their surgical strike on Iraq with no loss of outside population. If anybody was hurt or killed, they were working at the reactor building itself.

The military continues to work hard to make ammunition which will destroy only the target. Unlike many people think, there is no such thing as acceptable collateral damage. The military does not think in this manner. It will not quit in its improvement of ammunition until it can eliminate all collateral damage that is possible.

Aslanspal, your moral question is interesting, but let me propose another moral question. Do we allow a country to obviously build up enough fire-power to destroy an entire city in Israel without providing assistance to stop it?

How do we answer these situations? Do we wait until they are firing missiles into Israel and then start an all-out war killing thousands? Or do we attack the root of the problem at its source and try our best to destroy only the technology? (notice I said, try our best, I certainly realize that we can never prevent someone from being killed who might be on duty in that reactor complex.)

Not debating here as much as asking what your solution would be to these answers.

By the way, let me again say, that nukes are not an option and for this exercise assume that there are other methods.

 

mnw, yes I pretty much like living here; I'm originally from Aldershot but now live in the south of the county, but I love the whole chalk downland landscape which you had round Newbury.

I disagree with you likewise.Whilst carrying njo torch for Islam, it does seem that we in the West strike a massive double standard: it's OK for us and 'people like us' to have nuclear weapons but not anyone else; it's OK for us to invade other countries but not anyone else etc. Yes, I accept that Saddam was a complete git as we say over here and that Ahmalooni is a nutter but there are lots of 'bad men' around in the world eg: Gaddafi, Mugabe (some of our American friends would include Snr Chavez and that new chap in Bolivia on there hit list too) and we can't go round invading and nuking all of them, can we?