Bush could enact Presidential Directive #51 or a slew of others that would give the president the right to declare marshall law in the event of a national emergency or terror attack. However, McCain has said he will "take care of Iran" and has promised more wars. McCain has also linked Al Qaeda and Iran several times, which there is no connection. Let's not forget his "bomb bomb Iran" song he sang to a bunch of supporters. I have no doubt in my mind that McCain will continue us on a path to war with Iran that the Bush/Cheney regime wants.

Wow! I don't know what to say. You have such a clear grasp on, well, nothing political whatsoever....

Worst possible thing we could do right now. Iran has done nothing to warrant us attacking them and they're not a pushover like Iraq. Also, unlike Iraq, they actually have the ability to have terrorists strike us at home. If we attack Iran they will retaliate and I could see the neo-cons in charge canceling elections in the wake of a "national tragedy". Unless they wait until November and a possible (unlikely) McCain victory. He would welcome more war.

 

My father went to Desert Storm back in 90. He told me a few years after he got back that we would go back to Iraq.... to finish the job someday. AKA kill Saddam.

 

Do we leave Iraq in a year or so giving up precision placement of our troops and probably strong intel on Irans positioning, only to let them develop maybe nuclear power, then remobilize and come back in 5 years?

 

Very tough debate and i'm glad i'm not making the decision.

If Iran develops nuclear weapons, they will be used...

 

Against whom? There are now at least a half dozen nuclear armed states and thus far, the only country to have used nuclear weapons in anger is the United States. Why wouldn't the same deterrent forces that have prevented the use of nuclear weapons since 1945 keep a nuclear-armed Iran in check? An even better question is: Why would the Iranians risk a devastating retaliatory strike by using nukes?

 

We were all too easily led (by people who have long since lost all credibility on such subjects) to view the worst-case scenario as a certainty in Iraq, while the most likely unintended consequences were brushed aside. Forgive me if I inherently take a dim view on such imminent threat-based rationales for "action" against Iran.

Against whom? There are now at least a half dozen nuclear armed states and thus far, the only country to have used nuclear weapons in anger is the United States.

Were we wrong to use nuclear weapons or should we have sacrificed tens of thousands of American lives invading mainland Japan using conventional weapons? I believe that Truman made the right decision.

 

Why wouldn't the same deterrent forces that have prevented the use of nuclear weapons since 1945 keep a nuclear-armed Iran in check? An even better question is: Why would the Iranians risk a devastating retaliatory strike by using nukes?

The rulers of Iran believe that the quickest way to Paradise is to die in the cause of jihad. The majority of Iranians are not suicidal fanatics, but many of their religious leaders are. Enough Iranians would be willing to die for the glory of destroying Israel to make this a real threat.

 

We were all too easily led (by people who have long since lost all credibility on such subjects) to view the worst-case scenario as a certainty in Iraq, while the most likely unintended consequences were brushed aside. Forgive me if I inherently take a dim view on such imminent threat-based rationales for "action" against Iran.

Hey, it's a free country. You are free to believe whatever you want to believe.

 

Not all of us believe that we have been misled. I believe that the Iranian threat has been greatly understated myself. The Iranians are already funding and arming terrorist organizations and to believe that given nuclear weapons, the Iranians will suddenly act more civilized is extremely naive, IMO.

Were we wrong to use nuclear weapons or should we have sacrificed tens of thousands of American lives invading mainland Japan using conventional weapons? I believe that Truman made the right decision.

 

The rulers of Iran believe that the quickest way to Paradise is to die in the cause of jihad. The majority of Iranians are not suicidal fanatics, but many of their religious leaders are. Enough Iranians would be willing to die for the glory of destroying Israel to make this a real threat.

 

Hey, it's a free country. You are free to believe whatever you want to believe.

 

Not all of us believe that we have been misled. I believe that the Iranian threat has been greatly understated myself. The Iranians are already funding and arming terrorist organizations and to believe that given nuclear weapons, the Iranians will suddenly act more civilized is extremely naive, IMO.

 

 

You are saying that the LEADERS of Iran are these fanatics.

 

But they haven't died for any cause let alone a Jihad, have they? They have sent others.

 

Is it at all possible to say that they are posturing to keep support among the faithful and have no real intention of throwing themselves or their country under the proverbial bus (with a nuke strapped to them)?

 

We declare that we are dealing with extremists (because of their rhetoric and the actions of the foot soldiers). But there is no real indication that Iran WILL throw their whole country into a nuclear cauldron of which they can can only come out a burned cinder while the "Great Satans" will survive to fight another day. (We will be burned but not destroyed)

You are saying that the LEADERS of Iran are these fanatics.

 

But they haven't died for any cause let alone a Jihad, have they? They have sent others.

Hitler never planned to die in a bunker but die he did. Crazy leaders make miscalculations. Just because you believe that it would be irrational for Iran to attack Israel does not mean that President Ahmadinejad agrees.

 

Is it at all possible to say that they are posturing to keep support among the faithful and have no real intention of throwing themselves or their country under the proverbial bus (with a nuke strapped to them)?

Will the faithful remain faithful knowing that Iran possesses nukes and its leaders are afraid to use them against the evil state of Israel? I don't think so.

 

We declare that we are dealing with extremists (because of their rhetoric and the actions of the foot soldiers). But there is no real indication that Iran WILL throw their whole country into a nuclear cauldron of which they can can only come out a burned cinder while the "Great Satans" will survive to fight another day. (We will be burned but not destroyed)

Let's all just cross our fingers and hope that you are correct and pray that President Ahmadinejad is a sane man.

Were we wrong to use nuclear weapons or should we have sacrificed tens of thousands of American lives invading mainland Japan using conventional weapons? I believe that Truman made the right decision.

I don't really care about this thread, but I do want to say that the nuclear attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima absolutely were war crimes. So was the fire bombing of Dresden. There's no exclusion from prohibitions on the wholesale killing of innocent civilians based on expediency. It doesn't even matter if more people would have died if we'd invaded mainland Japan- purposefully killing civilians and destroying cities with no military target is a war crime.

Were we wrong to use nuclear weapons or should we have sacrificed tens of thousands of American lives invading mainland Japan using conventional weapons? I believe that Truman made the right decision.

 

I believe Truman made the right decision too. I was merely pointing out that since World War II ended, there have been exactly zero nuclear exchanges in spite of numerous countries possessing nuclear weapons.

 

The rulers of Iran believe that the quickest way to Paradise is to die in the cause of jihad. The majority of Iranians are not suicidal fanatics, but many of their religious leaders are. Enough Iranians would be willing to die for the glory of destroying Israel to make this a real threat.

 

Then maybe we should be trying to nudge Iran toward moderation and voting the extremists out of power. Instead, we have been sabre rattling and stupidly making overt threats to the most powerful and arguably the most dangerous country in the middle east for nearly the entire Bush presidency. And we have hardly intimidated them into submission. In fact, we have energized far more support for the extremists inside Iran than they ever could have achieved on their own. If we attack them, the whole bloody country (even the sensible ones) are likely to turn defensive and mistrustful of the west. They will be much more receptive to tough-talking extremist leaders. And then good luck trying to keep the nuclear genie in the bottle.

Wow! I don't know what to say. You have such a clear grasp on, well, nothing political whatsoever....

 

This coming from a guy that believes that Obama can have 3/4 of congress ban guns at a whim. There is a directive that gives the president the power to declare marshall law. This president is an idiot, and has lied us into a war before. His VP acts like 1984 is a playbook for American policy. I wouldn't put it past them to start a war before November. And God forbid we get hit hard again, I wouldn't put it past them to at least discuss trying to enact marshall law to "protect" us. I hope and pray none of this happens. I also believe McCain is a warmonger who would welcome an attack on Iran.

You have just confirmed your spot in my "Far left wacko" category whose posts aren't worthy of consideration.

 

Read the Project for a New American Century (Cheney's playbook) and study up on executive orders and presidential directives. There are ways an administration could attempt a coup in the country. I would not put anything past Cheney & Co. Trust me, I'm far from a "left wing wacko". What I stated was a worst case scenario.

IThen maybe we should be trying to nudge Iran toward moderation and voting the extremists out of power. Instead, we have been sabre rattling and stupidly making overt threats to the most powerful and arguably the most dangerous country in the middle east for nearly the entire Bush presidency. And we have hardly initimidated them into submission. In fact, we have energized far more support for the extremists inside Iran than they ever could have achieved on their own. If we attack them, the whole bloody country (even the sensible ones) are likely to turn defensive and mistrustful of the west. They will be much more receptive to tough-talking extremist leaders. And then good luck trying to keep the nuclear genie in the bottle.

Iran has elections but it is not a democracy. Voters have a choice between extremists and more extremists. So how would you propose nudging Iran toward moderation and voting extremists out of power?

 

I recall more news reports of demonstrations from within Iran during the past few years than at any time since their revolution. How can you be sure that the Bush administration has not been supporting moderates within Iran and encouraging protests through covert operations?

 

The news reports that I have seen from Iran have not shown the increased support of extremists that you claim. On the contrary, Iranian moderates seem to be growing tired of the high unemployment rate, the high cost of gasoline, and being told by the thugs running the country that their haircuts are too "western."

 

However, this country cannot afford to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. The moderate middle class is not in charge of Iran and the party in power when Iran is allowed to begin flexing its nuclear muscles will not be in power again for a very long time.

Why wouldn't the same deterrent forces that have prevented the use of nuclear weapons since 1945 keep a nuclear-armed Iran in check? An even better question is: Why would the Iranians risk a devastating retaliatory strike by using nukes?

 

MAD was the deterrent during the cold war, Mutually Assured Destruction. Which meant you blow us up we will blow you up. That doesn't really work today politically. The entire world and many in our own country would turn against us if we used nuclear warheads to flatten Tehran. Everything today is about surgical strikes. Besides that I don't think Iran would strike directly at either the US or Israel. They would simply pass a nuclear weapon off to someone else who would use it. That way they would always have an out and a way to deny involvement.

Iran has elections but it is not a democracy. Voters have a choice between extremists and more extremists. So how would you propose nudging Iran toward moderation and voting extremists out of power?

 

I recall more news reports of demonstrations from within Iran during the past few years than at any time since their revolution. How can you be sure that the Bush administration has not been supporting moderates within Iran and encouraging protests through covert operations?

 

The news reports that I have seen from Iran have not shown the increased support of extremists that you claim. On the contrary, Iranian moderates seem to be growing tired of the high unemployment rate, the high cost of gasoline, and being told by the thugs running the country that their haircuts are too "western."

 

However, this country cannot afford to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. The moderate middle class is not in charge of Iran and the party in power when Iran is allowed to begin flexing its nuclear muscles will not be in power again for a very long time.

 

And you propose bombs to nudge a middle class to taking over Iran? We had a chance after 9/11 to try and make some headway with Iran as they offered help in Afghanistan. But Bush and his ilk tagged them in the "axis of evil" and their middle east policy does nothing but insight those in power in Iran to take more power. We've done nothing to stop Iran from doing what it wants anyway. We've handed them southern Iraq and given them a new ally in the Iraqi government. A war with Iran would not be a cakewalk. It's a bigger country in terms of population and geography. They actually have a military and could plug up the Persian Gulf like hair in a sink if they wanted to. Bombs aren't going to solve anything. BTW, we have no problem with India and Pakistan having nukes.

But don't listen to me since I'm a "left-wing wacko" with "no grasp of anything political".

And you propose bombs to nudge a middle class to taking over Iran?

If you can point me to where I said this, then I will gladly correct the record. Otherwise, please do not try to put words in my mouth.

 

We had a chance after 9/11 to try and make some headway with Iran as they offered help in Afghanistan. But Bush and his ilk tagged them in the "axis of evil" and their middle east policy does nothing but insight those in power in Iran to take more power. We've done nothing to stop Iran from doing what it wants anyway. We've handed them southern Iraq and given them a new ally in the Iraqi government. A war with Iran would not be a cakewalk. It's a bigger country in terms of population and geography. They actually have a military and could plug up the Persian Gulf like hair in a sink if they wanted to. Bombs aren't going to solve anything. BTW, we have no problem with India and Pakistan having nukes.

But don't listen to me since I'm a "left-wing wacko" with "no grasp of anything political".

Neither India nor Pakistan have threatened to wipe Israel and the "Great Satin" from the map. Iran is our enemy and will remain our enemy until there is a regime change. We should not be negotiating with terrorists or the criminally insane.

How much would a different elected leader matter in Iran? Ayatollah Khamenei calls much of the shots no matter who is in power.